Should I switch from Pathfinder to D&D 5.0?

[NascragMan]

I gave up on D&D when they came out with 4.0. It was not what I was looking for.

I've been very happy in Pathfinder for a while and I've got a fair investment in books and such.

Is 5.0 significantly better than Pathfinder? I'm curious, but I'm not interested in switching just for switching.

[DivisibleByZero]

If the character creation minigame is your thing, then 3.5 or PF will be more to your liking.
If actually playing the game at the table is more your thing, then 5e might suit you better.

[Findulidas]

If the character creation minigame is your thing, then 3.5 or PF will be more to your liking.
If actually playing the game at the table is more your thing, then 5e might suit you better.

Have to agree. More options in 3.5/pathfinder. Easier to straight up just play in 5e.

[Sir cryosin]

Well with 5e compaired to Pathfinder 5e is more simple. By simple I mean the rules are not as indeth as Pathfinder. Combats go so much quicker. Classes are more balanced by this I mean you can have a fighter and a wizard both focus on damage. And the fighter won't feel underpower with it come to damage numbers.

The best advice I can give you tho is just find a game and play in it. Also 5e is not a big investment as Pathfinder. With 5e you just need the player hand book. And if your the DM you just need the phb and monster manual. The dungeon master guild is really not needed I only ever use it for magic items.

[JakOfAllTirades]

My group stopped playing PF a couple of years ago because we spent more time looking up rules than playing the game.

With 5E that's not an issue, so we're having a lot more fun with it.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm not interested in switching just for switching.

5e is a very good system, but if you're having fun, why change? I mean, there would be fringe benefits; it'd be easier to bring newbies into the group, for example, but overall you seem to be happy with PF so I'd just stick with that.

[JAL_1138]

There've been a few threads on the differences between 3.X and 5e recently; most of the info in them applies to PF as well, since it's functionally 3.75. Different people will like different things about either game; what one person hates about PF, another will love, and what one person loves about 5e, another will hate.

This thread, "Stepping onto 5e from 3.5," (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525701-Stepping-Onto-5E-from-3-5) is the most recent one on the subject, and has a fair summary of the differences (see Kane0's post in particular). It's up to you whether those differences would make it worthwhile to switch.

[cotofpoffee]

I played Pathfinder for about four years with a dedicated group. I ended up changing to 5e and I'm much happier. We played to 15th level in PF and it was getting frustrating taking ten minutes for each turn because everyone had like ten buffs at once and a dozen numbers to add together.

It was also at this level that PF's casters rule martials drool because painfully apparent. My players were pretty rules savvy and it was disheartening seeing the casters overshadow the martials at their job because they could layer ten buffs at once plus also possessing spells that could cater to every possible situation.

5e still has imbalances, but nothing as huge as PF.

[Waterdeep Merch]

PF to 5e Pros:
*Easier to learn
*Easier to play
*Better class balance
*Fewer trap options
*Easier to homebrew for
*Building new characters is much snappier
*Complex rules are handled simply
*Bounded accuracy solves a ton of balancing issues
*Advantage/Disadvantage is a simple and elegant solution to PF's spreadsheet of +'s and -'s
*High level play is actually playable without either borking the system or spending forever counting out buffs, debuffs, etc.
*Save or Lose spells and abilities are both rarer and easier to avoid

PF to 5e Cons:
*You already know PF
*You're already invested in PF
*Far, far fewer options
*There's a lot less you can do with your characters when you level up
*Some entire character concepts cannot be easily ported over from PF
*Because complex rules are handled simply, corner cases have no easily identifiable method of resolution. Meaning the DM will have to make up random numbers on the fly
*If you don't like homebrewing, you're going to be stuck with Faerun. Though I suppose the same could be said for Pathfinder and Golarion

[Sigreid]

What do you like about Pathfinder? What do you find not so great about it?

[Ralanr]

My college group swapped to 5e from PF (at my suggestion no less). On one hand I kinda regret it because it has lead to me wasting more money (I'm a nerd and will often buy the books first) and getting into debates with my friends despite not being the DM.

On the other? Quicker character gen, the advantage system is simple and fun, and I don't spend hours planning feat chains for this one particular feat I want.

There are things I hate in 5E, mainly how difficult it is to get skills after character gen and the lack of versatility (but more subclasses are on the way) but I overall enjoy it.

Pathfinder is still fun though.

[Kurald Galain]

This thread, "Stepping onto 5e from 3.5," (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?525701-Stepping-Onto-5E-from-3-5) is the most recent one on the subject,

Yes, that. And also, this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?526566-Is-5e-*too*-good) gives a view of what 5E fans dislike about 5E. And also, try asking the same question in the PF forum :)

There's a few fundamental differences in design philosophy between PF and 5E, which become apparent in e.g. the skill system.

The skill system in PF is specialist. Characters are clearly good at skills they've trained in, and bad at skills they haven't. Trained characters can routinely perform tasks that ordinary characters struggle with. It is good to have a diverse party, since other PCs are trained in different things, and the country needs adventurers because they markedly possess skill levels that the average people don't.

The skill system in 5E is generalist. Characters are more-or-less equally skilled at every skill, and the deciding factor is more the roll of the die than how much training the character had. On the one hand, everybody can contribute more-or-less equally to any skill-based situation. On the other hand, untrained characters frequently beat trained characters at opposed skills, and almost all checks can also be made by a group of commoners. I'm sure someone will now bring up an 20th-level rogue as the counterexample, but during most of your campaign the PCs won't be 20th-ish level rogues.

So the question is simply, do you like bounded accuracy or not. There are good arguments either way, so if you like BA you should try 5E and if you dislike BA you should go with Pathfinder.

[ad_hoc]

If the character creation minigame is your thing, then 3.5 or PF will be more to your liking.
If actually playing the game at the table is more your thing, then 5e might suit you better.

This sums it up.

I would clarify that 3.x has more game with building a character but 5e has more game at the table. Because of this I also find it more immersive. For example, a character doesn't need a feat to do something improvised.

I also find that 5e plays a lot quicker than 3.x.

[Nifft]

You should try 5e.

You might like it (I do).

After you've tried it, then let's talk about whether you should switch or not.

You'll have a more informed opinion, and there may be specific things that you like or dislike (about both 5e and PF).

[Unoriginal]

There are things I hate in 5E, mainly how difficult it is to get skills after character gen

There was a UA about it, in part.

[NascragMan]

Thanks for all the insight. It sounds like the way we play Pathfinder is more in line with 5E. We tend to play a little loosely rules-wise. More fun at the table than with the rule-books. Anyway, Paizo has been very good to our tournament over the years.

[Psyren]

So the question is simply, do you like bounded accuracy or not. There are good arguments either way, so if you like BA you should try 5E and if you dislike BA you should go with Pathfinder.

Yeah, I find that Bounded Accuracy is one of the larger rifts between the two, or more accurately between fans of the two.


If the character creation minigame is your thing, then 3.5 or PF will be more to your liking.
If actually playing the game at the table is more your thing, then 5e might suit you better.

Eh, I play PF and get to do plenty of "playing the game at the table." I agree though that for those who find the character creation minigame frustrating or an impediment to play (which it certainly can be), that 5e is better.

[Sigreid]

There are things I hate in 5E, mainly how difficult it is to get skills after character gen and the lack of versatility (but more subclasses are on the way) but I overall enjoy it.



My group handled this with the simple house rule that skills can be learned using exactly the same rules as tools and languages. We thought it stupid that you could not be taught a new skill.

[Hrugner]

I gave up on D&D when they came out with 4.0. It was not what I was looking for.

I've been very happy in Pathfinder for a while and I've got a fair investment in books and such.

Is 5.0 significantly better than Pathfinder? I'm curious, but I'm not interested in switching just for switching.

It's a different and simpler game. My group is currently testing 5e play but we're sort of lethargic about actually playing the game in a way we weren't when we were playing pathfinder. If your group has a hard time with game balance or have difficulty learning in general, then it's probably a good idea to switch.

[NascragMan]

Yeah, I find that Bounded Accuracy is one of the larger rifts between the two, or more accurately between fans of the two.



Eh, I play PF and get to do plenty of "playing the game at the table." I agree though that for those who find the character creation minigame frustrating or an impediment to play (which it certainly can be), that 5e is better.

What is Bounded Accuracy?

[Ralanr]

What is Bounded Accuracy?

Basically there is a hard cap and a soft cap. Nothing can go past a 30 in 5e.

[mephnick]

What is Bounded Accuracy?

Basically that low CR threats and obstacles will continue to be threats up to high level because the numbers stay pretty similar throughout the leveling process. This is opposed to 3.5 where a few levels and decent armour would make half the monster manual obsolete because they literally couldn't hit an AC or make a save even with rolling a 19 and the damage they did on a 20 would probably be reduced to 0 anyway.

There's varying levels of success depending on who you ask. 40 goblins aren't going to hinder a level 12 party much in 5e either, but it's a little better than 3.5

[Waterdeep Merch]

What is Bounded Accuracy?
You start the game with +2 to anything you're proficient in and end at a +6. This counts for all attack rolls, spells, saving throws, skills, and the like. With some exceptions, this is all you get besides your attribute bonuses.

Attribute bonuses cap at 20, except with specific exceptions (that still generally don't go very high). Even monsters cap at 30.

Combined, this means your math is kept low. This is intentionally done so that even weak monsters like goblins and kobolds remain a viable threat in large enough numbers late game. If you throw enough orcs at an ancient red dragon, it will go down. Though with hitpoint scaling and special abilities, those numbers start ballooning really hard.

Has anyone ever done the math on the average number of goblins it would take to stop the tarrasque?

[Grod_The_Giant]

What is Bounded Accuracy?
Its use in the skill system tends to cause the most contention; as Kurald noted, 5e doesn't really support specialist characters very well-- your proficiency is about equally weighted with your ability score (so, say, the high-Cha Sorcerer who didn't take social skills will probably be about as good as the low-Cha Fighter who did), and even if you have both you're still talking somewhere between a +5 and +7, at most levels of play, so the actual roll of the d20 tends to dominate the events...and given that, unlike combat, skills are usually resolved by a single-- or, god help you, an opposed-- roll, luck winds up playing a huge part in things. Or it means that success and failure are never guaranteed, and anything can happen if you try. Whether or not you like that is up to you.

[mgshamster]

Its use in the skill system tends to cause the most contention; as Kurald noted, 5e doesn't really support specialist characters very well-- your proficiency is about equally weighted with your ability score ...

It does support specialist - you just have to view it differently than how specialists were viewed in 3.X.

In PF or 3.5, a specialist could be identified by a high bonus in a skill. You'd focus on that. A medical doctor in 3.5 could be made by maxing your skills around medicine.

In 5e, a specialist is identified by their features, not their bonuses. A medical doctor in 5e would be its own class, with class features that let the character do things other classes can't, regardless of their bonuses in skill proficiencies.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or it means that success and failure are never guaranteed, and anything can happen if you try. Whether or not you like that is up to you. It also means that you can try anything, you must have to make clear to the DM what it is that you are trying to achieve. Whether or not you succeed will depend on what you are trying, and how hard it is judged to be. This is a lot like OD&D, AD&D, and a lot like (though 5e is more dice based) Dave Arneson's pre-D&D Blackmoor campaign.

[DivisibleByZero]

What is Bounded Accuracy?

There was originally an article on WotC's DnD website, during play test, written by Rodney Thompson, which explained what BA was, how it worked, and the reasoning behind it. In the years since that article was published, it has since been purged (as seems to happen often on their site).

While the article itself is gone, I have managed to find an archive of it elsewhere:


Conventional D&D wisdom tells us that the maxim "the numbers go up" is an inherent part of the class and level progression in D&D. While that might be true, in the next iteration of the game we're experimenting with something we call the bounded accuracy system.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.

We think the bounded accuracy system is good for the game for a number of different reasons, including the following:

Getting better at something means actually getting better at something. Since target numbers (DCs for checks, AC, and so on) and monster accuracy don't scale with level, gaining a +1 bonus means you are actually 5% better at succeeding at that task, not simply hitting some basic competence level. When a fighter gets a +1 increase to his or her attack bonus, it means he or she hits monsters across the board 5% more often. This means that characters, as they gain levels, see a tangible increase in their competence, not just in being able to accomplish more amazing things, but also in how often they succeed at tasks they perform regularly.

Nonspecialized characters can more easily participate in many scenes. While it's true that increases in accuracy are real and tangible, it also means that characters can achieve a basic level of competence just through how players assign their ability bonuses. Although a character who gains a +6 bonus to checks made to hide might do so with incredible ease, the character with only a naked ability bonus still has a chance to participate. We want to use the system to make it so that specialized characters find tasks increasingly trivial, while other characters can still make attempts without feeling they are wasting their time.

The DM's monster roster expands, never contracts. Although low-level characters probably don't stack up well against higher-level monsters, thanks to the high hit points and high damage numbers of those monsters, as the characters gain levels, the lower-level monsters continue to be useful to the DM, just in greater numbers. While we might fight only four goblins at a time at 1st level, we might take on twelve of them at 5th level without breaking a sweat. Since the monsters don't lose the ability to hit the player characters—instead they take out a smaller percentage chunk of the characters' hit points—the DM can continue to increase the number of monsters instead of needing to design or find whole new monsters. Thus, the repertoire of monsters available for DMs to use in an adventure only increases over time, as new monsters become acceptable challenges and old monsters simply need to have their quantity increased.

Bounded accuracy makes it easier to DM and easier to adjudicate improvised scenes. After a short period of DMing, DMs should gain a clear sense of how to assign DCs to various tasks. If the DM knows that for most characters a DC of 15 is a mildly difficult check, then the DM starts to associate DC values with in-world difficulties. Thus, when it comes time to improvise, a link has been created between the difficulty of the challenge in the world (balancing as you run across this rickety bridge is pretty tough due to the breaking planks, especially if you're not a nimble character) and the target number. Since those target numbers don't change, the longer a DM runs his or her game, the easier it is going to be to set quick target numbers, improvise monster attack bonuses and AC, or determine just what kind of bonus a skilled NPC has to a particular check. The DM's understanding of how difficult tasks are ceases to be a moving target under a bounded accuracy system.

It opens up new possibilities of encounter and adventure design. A 1st-level character might not fight the black dragon plaguing the town in a face-to-face fight and expect to survive. But if they rally the town to their side, outfit the guards with bows and arrows, and whittle the dragon down with dozens of attacks instead of only four or five, the possibilities grow. With the bounded accuracy system, lower-level creatures banding together can erode a higher-level creature's hit points, which cuts both ways; now, fights involving hordes of orcs against the higher-level party can be threatening using only the basic orc stat block, and the city militia can still battle against the fire giants rampaging at the gates without having to inflate the statistics of the city guards to make that possible.

It is easier for players and DMs to understand the relative strength and difficulty of things. Under the bounded accuracy system, a DM can describe a hobgoblin wearing chainmail, and, no matter what the level of the characters, a player can reasonably guess that the hobgoblin's AC is around 15; the description of the world matches up to mechanical expectations, and eventually players will see chainmail, or leather armor, or plate mail in game and have an instinctive response to how tough things are. Likewise, a DM knows that he or she can reasonably expect players to understand the difficulty of things based purely on their in-world description, and so the DM can focus more on the details of the world rather than on setting player expectations.

It's good for verisimilitude. The bounded accuracy system lets us perpetually associate difficulty numbers with certain tasks based on what they are in the world, without the need to constantly escalate the story behind those tasks. For example, we can say that breaking down an iron-banded wooden door is a DC 17 check, and that can live in the game no matter what level the players are. There's no need to constantly escalate the in-world descriptions to match a growing DC; an iron-banded door is just as tough to break down at 20th level as it was at 1st, and it might still be a challenge for a party consisting of heroes without great Strength scores. There's no need to make it a solid adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes just to make it a moderate challenge for the high-level characters. Instead, we let that adamantine door encrusted with ancient runes have its own high DC as a reflection of its difficulty in the world. If players have the means of breaking down the super difficult adamantine door, it's because they pursued player options that make that so, and it is not simply a side effect of continuing to adventure.

This feeds in with the earlier point about DMs and players understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of things, since it not only makes it easier to understand play expectations, but it also ties those expectations very firmly to what those things are in the world. Now, we want to avoid situations where DMs feel bound by the numbers. ("Hey," says the player, "you said it was an iron-bound wooden door and I rolled a 17, what do you mean I didn't break it down?") We hope to do that by making sure we focus more on teaching DMs how to determine DCs and other numbers, and letting them adjust descriptions and difficulties based on their needs.

-Rodney Thompson, D&D designer

[T.G. Oskar]

Coming from a 3.5 player (only played PF once, never truly got through, but PF is an adaptation of 3.5's rules in order to sustain them), I can say that they're pretty different to say one is better than the other. One thing is true, though - 3.5/PF is complex but rewarding, 5e is simple and fun.

I've DM'ed 5e more than I have played it (mostly because I got the books, and only one other person could DM, but he has his hands on Dragon Age), and I find it much easier to DM than 3.5. Though I haven't played it at higher levels (mostly stayed at 5th level or lower), prep is much easier, love the idea of random dungeons, and most importantly, rules are so simple to learn and execute even people who don't like rules that much can understand them (a big achievement for the roleplayer in my group, who hates reading the rules, was that he could recall pretty much everything about his character, whereas in 3.5 the one that remembered his character was one of my other players). It's a great game to introduce people to roleplaying (much like Dragon Age, IMO), and it can be satisfying to tweak with builds, but unless you add Unearthed Arcana playtest content, it's not as robust.

In 3.5 (and in a way, PF; in fact, I believe PF is at the point where it has as much, if not more, content than 3.5), system mastery is part of the fun, but it requires more leeway. I remember my players had more fun when they had stuff other than "kick in the door" or "intrigue" missions; cart chases, heists, etc. I managed to get a group of two to 15th level, and trying to challenge them could be difficult; either I had to tweak every NPC and monster I threw at them, or they'd either crush them or be crushed by them. I believe the best battles where those that had a fair, straight from the book monster that had unusual tactics (Razor Boars against 9th - 10th level characters are FUN!) that challenged their huge damage or huge AC notions. If the players have system mastery but the DM hasn't, the game can be unfun; if the DM has system mastery but the players don't, then the game can be fun if the DM also has lots of experience and knows what it does. If both have strong system mastery, then the game can be fun, but it's more taxing for the DM. And finally, if the DM has strong system mastery, some of the players have strong system mastery, but the others haven't, then it's all around the place and it can be painful. For new players, 3.x/PF rules can be a bit overwhelming, though passing them through a Beginner Box/Basic Set is recommended. Let them digest the basic rules, have them gain some system mastery, then unleash them with those that do have system mastery, or else they'll be overwhelmed: that thing happened when I used d20 Modern, which doesn't have the wealth of stuff that 3.5 or PF has, but it still can be complicated.

From another point of view: 3.5/PF players can feel that, sometimes, they can't do something. When that happens, you start losing them. As a DM, you need to learn how to cater to their strengths, without that getting monotonous; that means at times some players get to shine, at others that means everyone gets to shine, but you should rarely make it so that no one gets to shine. However, tweaking with the rules is a bit more difficult, because you have to check first if the rules already have a solution for it, and then improvise based on it (granting circumstance bonuses for good ideas is a start, but a +2 bonus can only take you so far). In 5e, improvisation is a bit more welcome, so you'll end up doing something nonetheless, but the problem then becomes the opposite: as with skills, BA is so swingy that you can end up optimizing for the highest amount of bonuses and still fail, while a friend succeeds. Not so much with Advantage: rolling twice and taking the best result often helps, though it plateaus if you're under or over optimized, and it can be tricky to reach the peak.

But, in short - switch ONLY if you find everyone likes the system more than PF. Ideally, the best is to have both systems running, to allow the DM to have a rest and have someone else take the reins at once, with a different system to boot. Eventually, the group will incline to one over the other, but if the group is fine with both systems, that's a win.

[Knaight]

It does support specialist - you just have to view it differently than how specialists were viewed in 3.X.

In PF or 3.5, a specialist could be identified by a high bonus in a skill. You'd focus on that. A medical doctor in 3.5 could be made by maxing your skills around medicine.

In 5e, a specialist is identified by their features, not their bonuses. A medical doctor in 5e would be its own class, with class features that let the character do things other classes can't, regardless of their bonuses in skill proficiencies.

It hypothetically supports specialists, in that the core mechanic can technically handle it via application of a bunch of features. Said features and classes don't actually exist.

[djreynolds]

I gave up on D&D when they came out with 4.0. It was not what I was looking for.

I've been very happy in Pathfinder for a while and I've got a fair investment in books and such.

Is 5.0 significantly better than Pathfinder? I'm curious, but I'm not interested in switching just for switching.

In 5E you can get an A, in Pathfinder you can get a 92, 95 or 100.

5E is a bit more lax, but just as fun. But Pathfinder is more specific.

5E is easier to play.

[mgshamster]

It hypothetically supports specialists, in that the core mechanic can technically handle it via application of a bunch of features. Said features and classes don't actually exist.

There's two reasons for that.

1) 5e is an adventure game, not a game for running a business or playing a non-adventuring profession. Most of the current published features are based around people who go adventuring; background features are typically for the non-adventuring aspects of a PCs life. Each of the published classes represent a specialist in an adventuring field; wizards are arcane specialists, fighters are specialists in fighting styles and weapons, etc.. They're specialists not due to their skill proficiencies, but rather due to their class features.

2) 5e highly encourages Homebrew and changing things to suit your table. So if you really wanted that npc class, make it up. For the most part, npc's aren't designed like PCs, so if a DM were to run a medical specialist, they'd just have them able to do things, rather than trying to roll to see if they succeed (and if a DM were to codify this with a stat block, they'd be features in the stat block, not skills). If a Player *really* wanted it, then we have background features they could use, maybe even a feat, and if it comes to it, class design. And hey, it may even be on the DMs Guild.

If you're relying on WotC to do it for you, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

Edit: And here is our doctor specialist, the Physician Class (http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/192457), courtesy of the DMs Guild.

[Knaight]

There's two reasons for that.

1) 5e is an adventure game, not a game for running a business or playing a non-adventuring profession. Most of the current published features are based around people who go adventuring; background features are typically for the non-adventuring aspects of a PCs life. Each of the published classes represent a specialist in an adventuring field; wizards are arcane specialists, fighters are specialists in fighting styles and weapons, etc.. They're specialists not due to their skill proficiencies, but rather due to their class features.

2) 5e highly encourages Homebrew and changing things to suit your table. So if you really wanted that npc class, make it up. For the most part, npc's aren't designed like PCs, so if a DM were to run a medical specialist, they'd just have them able to do things, rather than trying to roll to see if they succeed (and if a DM were to codify this with a stat block, they'd be features in the stat block, not skills). If a Player *really* wanted it, then we have background features they could use, maybe even a feat, and if it comes to it, class design. And hey, it may even be on the DMs Guild.

If you're relying on WotC to do it for you, you're going to be waiting for a long time.

Edit: And here is our doctor specialist, the Physician Class (http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/192457), courtesy of the DMs Guild.

I'd agree that there are reasons, but I'd disagree on the specifics here. On yours:

1) There are plenty of skills that map just fine to an adventuring profession. Athletics, Survival, Medicine, and the social skills as a bundle come to mind. There are plenty of other games that are focused around adventuring which handle adventurers that aren't specialized as combatants just fine, so this is more a matter of D&D history than fitting an adventure game in general.

2) By D&D standards, sure. 1e and earlier seem to encourage it more, and outside D&D there are games that encourage it way more (Fudge and Fate come to mind). This also isn't really an excuse, given that there's next to nothing in terms of features to build off of that are tied to skills in the first place.

[mgshamster]

I'd agree that there are reasons, but I'd disagree on the specifics here. On yours:

1) There are plenty of skills that map just fine to an adventuring profession. Athletics, Survival, Medicine, and the social skills as a bundle come to mind. There are plenty of other games that are focused around adventuring which handle adventurers that aren't specialized as combatants just fine, so this is more a matter of D&D history than fitting an adventure game in general.

2) By D&D standards, sure. 1e and earlier seem to encourage it more, and outside D&D there are games that encourage it way more (Fudge and Fate come to mind). This also isn't really an excuse, given that there's next to nothing in terms of features to build off of that are tied to skills in the first place.

As plenty of people note, you can't be an expert in any of those skills. Unless you have expertise, the best you're going to get is 30% better than an untrained with the same ability score. Even with expertise, the best you can get is 60% better.

In this edition of this game, specialization is no longer determined by skill proficiency. Regardless of how other games do it, regardless of how previous editions did it, this edition does not.

This edition shows specialization via features (race, class, and Background).

[Kurald Galain]

It does support specialist - you just have to view it differently than how specialists were viewed in 3.X.
It supports specialist if you redefine the term "specialist" to the opposite of what the word normally means :smallbiggrin:


It hypothetically supports specialists, in that the core mechanic can technically handle it via application of a bunch of features. Said features and classes don't actually exist.
Yep.

[mgshamster]

It supports specialist if you redefine the term "specialist" to the opposite of what the word normally means :smallbiggrin:

Specialist. A person who concentrates on a particular field.

Nope, no change in definition.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to understand how it works in 5e doesn't mean that one cannot specialize in 5e.

[Kurald Galain]

The difference is that in most RPGs, a specialist is the equivalent of a masters degree or similar training; whereas 5E's "specialist" is the equivalent of somebody who fell for those "buy your degree for $100" e-mail schemes. So yeah, that's an obvious redefinition you're making there; you're mistaking the in-name-only version for the substantial one.

[T.G. Oskar]

Specialist. A person who concentrates on a particular field.

Nope, no change in definition.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to understand how it works in 5e doesn't mean that one cannot specialize in 5e.


The difference is that in most RPGs, a specialist is the equivalent of a masters degree or similar training; whereas 5E's "specialist" is the equivalent of somebody who fell for those "buy your degree for $100" e-mail schemes. So yeah, that's an obvious redefinition you're making there; you're mistaking the in-name-only version for the substantial one.

I'd say that, yes, it's a redefinition, but it's not wrong. Rogues and Bards ARE expected to be skill specialists, if only because of Expertise. It's just that the definition of "specialist" doesn't meet the expectations of specialist as based on other games. As you mentioned, Kurald, you expect the specialist to have a certain degree of success with a specific skill; it's just that the degree of success expected is "near-automatic success, barring certain circumstances". 5e's specialists don't reach that; couple with advantage being far more important in terms of success than raw numbers, and you can see why specialists aren't as important. A specialist with Advantage HAS a near-automatic chance of success, but one that doesn't still has a considerable chance of failure. That said, reaching specialization isn't that hard either (Rogue or Bard, skill proficiency, Expertise on the skill, 20 on the ability score), so it's not the grueling effort that merits a reward of that kind; you can go the extra mile, but you need magic items for that (particularly those that boost your maximum ability score threshold, like a Manual of Dexterity), so it's basically a thing of luck (or a generous DM).

In short: it's still a specialization (you're dedicating class features and Ability Score Increases and skill proficiency slots, after all), but it's not the expected reward, therefore it doesn't feel like one. At least it's not Dragon Age RPG levels of specialization (well, it actually does, but Focus bonuses are smaller and you don't get the equivalent of Advantage; that said, DA RPG really doesn't have specialization).

[Knaight]

As plenty of people note, you can't be an expert in any of those skills. Unless you have expertise, the best you're going to get is 30% better than an untrained with the same ability score. Even with expertise, the best you can get is 60% better.

That's my point. The support isn't there, and yet the concept of "adventuring game" has plenty of room for that support. Therefore, the reason the support isn't there isn't that 5e is an "adventuring game".

[Kurald Galain]

That said, reaching specialization isn't that hard either (Rogue or Bard, skill proficiency, Expertise on the skill, 20 on the ability score), so it's not the grueling effort that merits a reward of that kind
Yes, and it's worth mentioning that this also requires a fairly high level (to get that 20, and to get enough proficiency bonus for expertise to actually matter). Also, since you mention a 20 ability score, this rules out all non-dex skills for the rogue, and all non-cha skills for the bard.

This means that if a player wants to play class X with a specialty in Y, for almost all combinations of X and Y, the rules say "nope". And there's really no need for this limitation to be there.

[Hrugner]

Specialist. A person who concentrates on a particular field.

Nope, no change in definition.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to understand how it works in 5e doesn't mean that one cannot specialize in 5e.

I see the problem here. A specialist is typically someone who concentrates on a particular field and that field concentration has yielded some benefits. Concentrating on one field and being about as good as a generalist in that field isn't something worth a title. Not a flattering one.

[ZorroGames]

I gave up on D&D when they came out with 4.0. It was not what I was looking for.

I've been very happy in Pathfinder for a while and I've got a fair investment in books and such.

Is 5.0 significantly better than Pathfinder? I'm curious, but I'm not interested in switching just for switching.

Do not switch if you are happy with PF. Try 5th Edition D&D and you may decide to play both.