This is a Flame War: Please Delete [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Chaosticket

2017-12-17, 02:00 AM

I have various experience with different sources of Dungeons and Dragons, mostly in video game form. Tabletop Pathfinder is what I play in real life. Im interested in 5th edition as its apparently popular, but I dont know why so Im curious about it.

The #1 confusing factor I see with 5th edition is the reduction of everything about magic. Vancian Magic is one of the largest draws. Without having and using magic it I find other Role Playing Games more interesting. I know many people will say magic ruined earlier editions, but I never got high enough in character level to split the world in half, so I cannot say if that is true one way or another.

EDIT: There are fewer uses per day for everyone(especially Sorcerer), fewer spells known, spells dont scale to Caster level, only Sorcerer can use Metamagic now, etc.

#2 is I read things about 4th edition like how it was made to reduce Adventures into encounters that you recover after, similar to World of Warcraft using Food and Drink to regain Hit Points and Mana Points respectively. 5th edition is mostly based around that using said Rests to regain whatever ability resources your particular class uses, so I dont know the difference. Resting between every encounter makes afterbattles either unnecessarily tedious or house rule it to just skip resting and abilities become all you use.

#3 Ability Scores and Feats. The statistic cap is much lower in soft and hard forms. Its just weird that FEATS require sacrificing higher ability scores meaning you can have a weak character with several Feats. It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.

#4 Customization. There isnt a lot of expanded materials for 5th editon. There is a finite number of combinations compared to the 40-50+ class in Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D each. I dont see any rules for taking bonuses and flaws. With a smaller pool of possibilities character creation feels more cookie cutter and far less powerful.

Falcon X

2017-12-17, 02:40 AM

What can we say? Different people like different things.

Some people don’t like Vancian magic and prefer a streamlined approach. Some people like the level of balance that comes with fewer classes that are play tested for a long period of time before release. Some people like the simplicity of the rest system.

On the other hand, some people prefer tons of options, higher choices on spells every day, and slightly less video gamey health systems.

Most of my players are not geeks over D&D. They play it on the side. If I were to tell them to look at a dozen splatbooks, or sift through even the core 3.5 feats every couple levels, they wouldn’t play. Too much work or too little understanding. They will not play Vancian magic because it is complicated and they aren’t after that level of strategy.

I am the opposite of my players, and that is why I appreciate both systems.

ad_hoc

2017-12-17, 02:48 AM

It plays differently than it reads.

Try it out, worst case scenario you spend an evening doing something you don't particularly enjoy.

If you like it you like it.

Envyus

2017-12-17, 04:25 AM

Also 5e is still Vancian Magic

qube

2017-12-17, 04:54 AM

Also 5e is still Vancian MagicWell ... yes and no. The cantrips aren't Vancian anymore.

A form of magic based on the existence of spells that must be prepared in advance (debatable, as you're stuck with your choices for at least a lvl), for specific purposes (yes, (bar specific ones, like prestidigitation)), and that can be used a finite number of times (no) .

Resting between every encounter makes afterbattles either unnecessarily tedious or just skip resting and abilities become all you use.major difference beting that in 4E a short rest was 5 minuntes; a.k.a. basically after each encounter
in 5E it's a full hour -- it's more intended to do 3ish of them (in a 8 encounter per day system)

It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.Not really, as evidenced by CharOp (even normal multiclassing and class dipping is still a thing).
Heck, I'd even say that multiclassing is much more viable, with good rules for multicalss spellcasters.

#4 Customization. There isnt a lot of expanded materials for 5th editon. There is a finite number of combinations compared to the 40-50+ class in Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D each.Give it time.
With only the first real splatbook for players released (Xanatar), we're already at ... what? 12 classes with each about 6 subpaths? That's 70 already.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 06:56 AM

The #1 confusing factor I see with 5th edition is the reduction of everything about magic. Vancian Magic is one of the largest draws. Without it I find other Role Playing Games more interesting. I know many people will say magic ruined earlier editions, but I never got high enough in character level to split the world in half, so I cannot say if that is true one way or another.

Magic is not as strong as in Pathfinder, but it's still as Vancian as PF. Cantrips and other spells work well within the power level of 5e.

#2 is I read things about 4th edition like how it was made to reduce Adventures into encounters that you recover after, similar to World of Warcraft using Food and Drink to regain Hit Points and Mana Points respectively. 5th edition is mostly based around that using said Rests to regain whatever ability resources your particular class uses, so I dont know the difference. Resting between every encounter makes afterbattles either unnecessarily tedious or just skip resting and abilities become all you use.

5e's Rest has little to do with 4e's Rest in term of implementation. Even a short rest will take an hour and it's more an "after several fights where we got bloodied" measure than anything.

#3 Ability Scores and Feats. The statistic cap is much lower in soft and hard forms. Its just weird that FEATS require sacrificing higher ability scores meaning you can have a weak character with several Feats. It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.

First, something that needs to be noted is that one 5e feat is worth around 3 feats in Pathfinder, in term of what it allows you to do. Second, many feats still give you a stat increase. Third, feats are entirely optional for a character, so for most classes you can get your main abilities to the max and then grab one feat without any problem.

Fourth, because the statistic cap is much lower, it means that even someone with lower-than-maximum stats is not hopelessly weak, they're still relevant and still can do great.

#4 Customization. There isnt a lot of expanded materials for 5th editon. There is a finite number of combinations compared to the 40-50+ class in Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D each. I dont see any rules for taking bonuses and flaws. With a smaller pool of possibilities character creation feels more cookie cutter and far less powerful.

One, characters in 5e are less powerful if you compare them to the powerfest that is a Pathfinder character. It doesn't mean they are less powerful *in 5e*.

But no, there is still a lot of customization, and contrarily to PF there are less than an handful of options that are in the "don't even bother taking it, it's pure trash" category.

Chaosticket

2017-12-17, 10:23 AM

I had to edit my original post to clarify what I meant about differences between magic in the editions.

I dont think you people have the same issues with the changes as I do. I theorize builds with some Min-Maxing, and think up combinations with magic, feats, and statistics to evaluate and alter to make builds better. In 5th edition its so easy to just look up the handful of best builds like the "Sorcelock"

I actually looked up several videos pretty much explaining 5th Edition is designed against rules for heavy character customization and its for people who want as more casual gaming experience.

LtPowers

2017-12-17, 10:44 AM

Yes, if a large portion of the game's fun for you is devising new class/race/feat/feature combinations that produce interesting effects (however you define "interesting"), then you're going to want to stick with 3.5 or Pathfinder. 5e is designed so that there are few blatantly "bad" options (and very few overpowered/broken ones) in character customization, but a side effect is that there's less room for novel combinations.

Part of the appeal of 3.x was seeing just how darn good you could make a single character at doing one specific thing. That's not a thing anymore. If you want that to be a thing, don't play 5e.

Powers &8^]

Rynjin

2017-12-17, 10:48 AM

I low-key hate 5e for two main reasons:

1.) NPCs and monsters function on entirely different rules than PCs. One of the main things I like about Pathfinder is that while monsters sometimes have unique abilities, PCs and NPCs interact with the ruleset in the same way. The best easy example I can think of is how the Grab ability works in Pathfinder vs 5e. In Pathfinder, the monster or PC makes an attack, then can make a free GRapple check. This is subject to all of the other rules for Grapple and how grappling works. In 5e, setting aside that PCs can't even get Grab (which is frustrating in itself), when a PC makes a Grapple check they make an opposed Athletics check, and if they beat their opponent's check they Grapple them, which does...not a lot. It stops them from moving away from you and that's about it. If you take a Feat you can Restrain people with another check later, which is the real status effect that has a real effect on the game. Monsters? **** that noise. They have Grab they can attack you, deal damage, and with no opposed check, no save send you straight to the Restrained condition, do not pass go, but do collect your disadvantage on all attack rolls, inability to move unless you use your whole turn (in which case they'll just do it again), and all enemies on the field attacking you with advantage themselves.

Monsters interact with the ruleset differently from PCs. It gets old real fast.

2.) Lack of customization, not just in build but in what each class is allowed to do. Pathfinder has a bit of an issue with full attacks being king for martials, but there's still some goofy stuff you can do. You can build into being a master of combat maneuvers, or be a debuff martial with stuff like Cornugon Smash, or have some neat trick you pull out on special occasions to save your bacon. And of course, spellcasters have it best. They can build to do pretty much anything with spell lists you couldn't print on my arm in 4 point font. 5e has none of that. If you're a martial, you pretty much have two options: Ranged damage, or melee damage. Combat maneuvers are reserved for certain classes almost since nobody wants to use the trip action when it doesn't have a huge effect to start and the Battlemaster and Open Hand Monk can do it but also deal damage at the same time, and even the spellcasters are pigeonholed into pretty much being damage dealers since most save or sucks were nerfed or are gone and utility spells have been severely pruned. At the same time you have the issue that every class basically has enforced fluff, meaning you can't do reasonable things like being a bow wielding Barbarian without half of your class features being explicitly non-functional.

I won't say it's a bad system, a lot of people play and enjoy it, but it frustrates and leaves a bad taste in my mouth whenever I play it for these and many other reasons.

ad_hoc

2017-12-17, 11:24 AM

I actually looked up several videos pretty much explaining 5th Edition is designed against rules for heavy character customization and its for people who want as more casual gaming experience.

The gaming experience isn't casual.

The actual gameplay is a lot more involved since there are fewer buttons on the character sheet to push.

There is just less metagame.

Monsters interact with the ruleset differently from PCs. It gets old real fast.

This is something I really don't understand.

Monsters are different than PCs. It was always strange to me in 3.x how there were rules for levels and such for some NPCs. I really don't see the point. It is much simpler (and quicker) and gives a more varied gaming experience to have monsters be written up the way the story dictates.

It's impossible to write them up as PCs anyway unless there is a completely separate game where a table plays monsters to level them up first before facing the PCs in a different game.

Sception

2017-12-17, 01:36 PM

EDIT: There are fewer uses per day for everyone(especially Sorcerer), fewer spells known, spells dont scale to Caster level, only Sorcerer can use Metamagic now, etc.

Linear fighter/quadratic wizard is one of the biggest and most fundamental failings of 3.5 and its lesser cousin Pathfinder. Removing spell scaling is absolutely fundamental for fixing that. Making metamagic a sorcerer thing gives them an identity beyond 'spontaneous casting wizard variant'.

#2

having both short and long rests allows mechanics and game play to be more varied. Getting everything back whenever you stop for the night is no more or less realistic than getting some things back when you stop for lunch. This is purely arbitrary.

#3 Ability Scores and Feats.

in 5e feats are actually big deals that matter, though admittedly balance between them isn't all that much better than in previous editions at least there's fewer to bother with, and you're not stuck with feats that exist purely as prerequisites for other feats, while stat caps keep the game math in line.

#4 Customization.

a glance over this forum will reveal that there's plenty of mechanical meat to sink an optimizers teeth into. Interesting gimmick builds & multiclasses are all over the place. ASI's tied to class levels is a tricky thing that needs to be taken into account, but on the other hand combined spell slot progressions make multiclass casters more workable than they ever were in 3.5.

That said, supplemental content is painfully limited in 5e, a result of the corporate bosses putting the screws to 5e's development team after the financial blunder that was 4e. After the considerable financial success of XGE, we may see this open up a bit.

But even if it doesn't, if more and more interesting supplemental content is your concern, I don't know why you're playing Pathfinder over 3.5. Sure, the core rules & classes are ever-so-slightly better handled, but Pathfinder supplemental material, while numerous, is for the most part boring and redundant, a thousand only superficially different takes on what are otherwise exactly the same mechanics over and over again. Summoner was different enough to be interesting, and for that was greatly reviled by the overly conservative Pathfinder player base, but apart from that I never saw anything out of that system half as innovative as the spontaneous theme casters (war mage, beguiler, dread necromancer) or the factotum, let alone any of the really out there stuff from Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, or Tome of Battle.

3e design improved dramatically in quality and creativity over the course of that edition's lifetime, and Pathfinder ditched all of that in favor of a slightly better put together core, and that's not a worth while trade IMO. 5e is also lacking most of late 3.5's creative variety, but trades it for a significantly better put together core rule set, one that tackles not just superficial problems like dead levels the way that Pathfinder did, but also had the guts to go after fundamental problems like the quadratic spellcaster.

And 5e still might build on that significantly tighter core to grow in exciting and new directions, the way 3.5 did. The system's still young enough that I can hold out hope for the possibility, where as my early hopes that Pathfinder would grow rather than merely sprawl died years ago.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 01:59 PM

In 5e, setting aside that PCs can't even get Grab (which is frustrating in itself), when a PC makes a Grapple check they make an opposed Athletics check, and if they beat their opponent's check they Grapple them, which does...not a lot. It stops them from moving away from you and that's about it. If you take a Feat you can Restrain people with another check later, which is the real status effect that has a real effect on the game. Monsters? **** that noise. They have Grab they can attack you, deal damage, and with no opposed check, no save send you straight to the Restrained condition, do not pass go, but do collect your disadvantage on all attack rolls, inability to move unless you use your whole turn (in which case they'll just do it again), and all enemies on the field attacking you with advantage themselves.

Err, dude, sorry to say, but this is just not true.

Most PCs and NPCs have the same Grapple, which work the same. It just happen that some monsters have special abilities that give them better grapple.

Same way that some monsters have innate spellcasting, or immunity to fire, or natural AC.

Waazraath

2017-12-17, 02:30 PM

To the OP: I'd just give it a try myself, if I were you. No, you can't go all crazy on building characters as you could in 3.x / 3.P. I loved that part of the game myself. BUT: you stil can make a ton of fun builds. There's still synergy between feats, spells, class and racial abilities. Some obvious, some less so. I don't have, like in 3.x, written 5 handbooks, and hundres and hundres of builds; but I still have dozens, and new content is still being published.

Ability Scores and Feats. The statistic cap is much lower in soft and hard forms. Its just weird that FEATS require sacrificing higher ability scores meaning you can have a weak character with several Feats. It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.

This, for example, is just an example of being misinformed. No, in no way you need to have at least 4 levels in each class. Maxing out ability scores can be nice, but is in no way needed because of the math behind the game. And a character with a main stat at 14 or 16, is by no means 'weak' (since they are maxed out at 20 anyway, for characters, barring special stuff/items). Try it, and you'll find the same! Part of the challenge in building is the rescource game, where you have to balance the feat to the higher stat.

As for the short rest: no, an hour is way to long to do it after every combat. That only works in a vacuum / white room situation, not in a dungeon in a real game.

2.) Lack of customization, not just in build but in what each class is allowed to do. Pathfinder has a bit of an issue with full attacks being king for martials, but there's still some goofy stuff you can do. You can build into being a master of combat maneuvers, or be a debuff martial with stuff like Cornugon Smash, or have some neat trick you pull out on special occasions to save your bacon. And of course, spellcasters have it best. They can build to do pretty much anything with spell lists you couldn't print on my arm in 4 point font. 5e has none of that. If you're a martial, you pretty much have two options: Ranged damage, or melee damage. Combat maneuvers are reserved for certain classes almost since nobody wants to use the trip action when it doesn't have a huge effect to start and the Battlemaster and Open Hand Monk can do it but also deal damage at the same time, and even the spellcasters are pigeonholed into pretty much being damage dealers since most save or sucks were nerfed or are gone and utility spells have been severely pruned. At the same time you have the issue that every class basically has enforced fluff, meaning you can't do reasonable things like being a bow wielding Barbarian without half of your class features being explicitly non-functional.

I just don't recognize this. Maybe for a part because I was a 3.5 player, but there, martials were mostly 1 trick ponies; either trippers, or chargers, or mounted chargers, or archers with manyshot, or grapplers (though grappling wasn't good back then either)... yeah, you optimize in more directions, but a build could only do 1, or with some effort 2, of those things. Tome of Battle (maneuvers) helpt a bit, but those were only 3 classes. You say 5e only has 'ranged or melee', but you can still go for a mounted build, can go for a 'hit & run' type of build (which wasn't really possible in 3.x because spring attack just sucked), can still go for a semi-effective grappler (read that handbook if you don't think it can be effective. And in 5e, casters can still go for battlefield controll, can still debuff. Hold person might get another save every round, but it hardly matters, given how the rest of the game (damage from SA, smite, in combination with hit point totals) work. And classes having some fluff: not more than was the case in 3.5; barbarians never had rage benefitting their bow, unless you weant for an obscure substitution level (whirling frenzy barbarian, looking at you). After having 10 years of 5e, we might have that subclass as well.

Err, dude, sorry to say, but this is just not true.

Most PCs and NPCs have the same Grapple, which work the same. It just happen that some monsters have special abilities that give them better grapple.

Same way that some monsters have innate spellcasting, or immunity to fire, or natural AC.

This. Also, a player that want's to grab can just do it with the feat Tavern Brawler. That's actually easier than it was in 3.x.

Rynjin

2017-12-17, 02:36 PM

Grab is painfully common, and Grab is auto-reply on every monster I've seen or faced off against that had it.

This is something I really don't understand.

Monsters are different than PCs. It was always strange to me in 3.x how there were rules for levels and such for some NPCs. I really don't see the point. It is much simpler (and quicker) and gives a more varied gaming experience to have monsters be written up the way the story dictates.

Consistency is good. It doesn't add variety to have monsters that play by a different ruleset, it just adds frustration. Unique abilities are great, but abilities like 5e grab are equivalent in type (though lesser in effect) to a Pathfinder monster that casts all it's spells with no saves.

It's impossible to write them up as PCs anyway unless there is a completely separate game where a table plays monsters to level them up first before facing the PCs in a different game.

This statement doesn't make any sense. PCs can start at higher levels than first. Elaborate on what you meant?

Toadkiller

2017-12-17, 03:03 PM

I prefer the easy ability to scale between granular and abstract that 5e gives over Pathfinder. With theater of the mind being well supported and the advantage/disadvantage mechanism replacing fiddly modifiers you can resolve a situation very quickly when you want to do so.

Wizards of the Coast, however, suck. Paizo is a much better company to work with and I prefer to support them. So, I’m buying their modules and stuff and modding them to use the lighter 5e ruleset. It isn’t that hard, though I did have to quietly modify some monsters last night on the fly or I would had a TPK. (I got lazy on my prep work earlier in the day.)

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 03:14 PM

Paizo is a much better company to work with

That's very debatable. Paizo's treatment of its employees isn't great either

ad_hoc

2017-12-17, 03:29 PM

Err, dude, sorry to say, but this is just not true.

Most PCs and NPCs have the same Grapple, which work the same. It just happen that some monsters have special abilities that give them better grapple.

Same way that some monsters have innate spellcasting, or immunity to fire, or natural AC.

Also, all they need to do is shove their enemy prone and they are screwed. Grappling is very powerful in 5e.

Morty

2017-12-17, 03:40 PM

I wouldn't say I like 5E, but it does a good job at cutting away a lot of the cruft that bogs down 3.5/Pathfinder and makes it a chore to play. I can play a ranged rogue without the system tripping me up at every turn, so that's a plus in my book. Granted, said rogue will do the exact same thing on every round of combat. But that's true in PF as well. And at least in 5E, I don't need to bend over backwards to actually sneak attack with a ranged weapon.

That being said, once you remove the cruft and illusion of complexity from 3E, it becomes apparent how little there is to it underneath, unless you use magic. Non-magical characters are more effective in 5E, because the system isn't hell-bent on making them incompetent at their jobs, but their opportunities to diversify and customize are fewer.

Short rests are one of the things from 4E that 5E actually managed to keep, even if it lengthened them to one hour for some reason. It's still a good thing, since it makes the party less reliant on whoever got saddled with the job of a healbot. And the entire party isn't operating around that person's schedule. I do wish they hadn't rolled back to random rolls for healing, though. There's no good reason for that.

Beelzebubba

2017-12-17, 04:45 PM

Rynjin

2017-12-17, 05:49 PM

That's very debatable. Paizo's treatment of its employees isn't great either

Or their customers, unless they're doing some hardcore knob-slobbering.

Envyus

2017-12-17, 08:57 PM

Grab is painfully common, and Grab is auto-reply on every monster I've seen or faced off against that had it.

I think Auto Apply is what you mean.

And no it's not super common. The things that do have it tend to make sense with it however. Stuff like the Giant Crocodile's Bite Grappling and restraining you cause you are stuck in it's jaw. The rest of the monsters have the same limits on Grappling that the players do.

Rynjin

2017-12-17, 09:08 PM

Yeah, new phone I haven't turned auto correct off on yet.

I'm just reporting my experience playing 3 5e campaigns. There were multiple Grab monsters in each, so it seems common to me.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 09:09 PM

I think Auto Apply is what you mean.

And no it's not super common. The things that do have it tend to make sense with it however. Stuff like the Giant Crocodile's Bite Grappling and restraining you cause you are stuck in it's jaw. The rest of the monsters have the same limits on Grappling that the players do.

Worse, actually. No monster (outside of brew) has Extra Attack-they have Multiattack, which CANNOT swap out attacks for a grapple.

Mara

2017-12-17, 09:18 PM

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 09:21 PM

1. 5e is harder to GM. So much was removed that they expect the GM to make up fair and fun rules for.

2. 5e is narrower. You either run 6 encounters per long rest with 2 short rest or the game isn't balanced and will not be mechanically satisfying.

3. You can't build a bad character. From the perspective of PF, nothing is useless in 5e. A sanely built PC is overpowered in 5e. An optimized PC breaks the game.

4. Monsters suck. They lack abilities to handle a smart party. You as a GM have to make things up or the monsters have to use skills in a way you made up to work.

There isn't much of a reason to prefer 5e over PF unless your players need a simpler interface at the cost of more GM work. If you don't care about being fair and consistent and the system is something you see as in the way of story, then 5e has the edge over PF.

I find 5E MUCH easier to DM. There's a lot less you have to memorize, it's a lot more intuitive, it's just simpler and easier on BOTH sides of the DM's screen.

5E does have an optimal range of encounters, but you can pretty easily adjust the game to work outside the assumed bounds. It won't break the game any more than it did in PF to have a fifteen minute adventuring day.

As for number three... Just no. The only game-breaking things I know of are Wish-Simulacrum chaining and Coffeelocks, and arguably Coffeelocks aren't even that bad. (I think they're more powerful than a player should be relative to their level, but opinions vary.) Do you have any 5E examples of truly game breaking characters?

And nah, monsters work fine in my experience.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 09:25 PM

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 09:34 PM

Both are watered-down 3.5, only 5e with significantly more water. It's great if you want to play an adept or warrior on a power trip I guess. Note that the game is designed with the abomination known as Bounded Accuracy as a key design principle. You know how for high-level 3.5 or Pathfinder characters, tasks that were once difficult are now trivial? Yeah, in 5e, tasks that were once difficult are now slightly less difficult (in the standard course of events, from level 1 to level 20 your chance of success can go up by 20 percentage points in 5e, rather than 95 percentage points in 3.5 or Pathfinder. That is, if the task had a 20% chance of success at first level, it will have a 40% chance of success at 20th in 5e as opposed to being unable to fail even with a -7 penalty to the roll in 3.5 or Pathfinder). Obviously, there are ways to buff skills in all three editions, but far less so in 5e.

This means that your character climbs the mighty power ladder from "Godawful" to "Mediocre", which to me doesn't make for very meaningful progression.

Pathfinder is already guilty of nixing a lot of the interesting 3.5 build choices: in return for giving the fighter some bonuses to will saves against fear and all that, they made half the feats worse so you need several of them to do a single job. If you want more interesting content, then 3.5, not 5th, is the edition you want.

At level 1, you can expect +5 to your main skill. (+7 for Rogues.)

At level 20, you can expect +11. That's more significant. (+17 for Rogues and Bards.)

A lot less than 3.5 or PF, agreed on that. But it also stops people from "falling off" the skill system. At level 1, anyone can attempt a skill check. The best a person has, in PF, is maybe +10 (+1 ranks, +3 class skill, +4 stat, +2 miscellaneous) meaning that Joe Schmoe Average in that area can still attempt most things they can do with SOME chance of success. In 5E, it's +5 as compared to -1 at worst.

But, at level, say, 10, in PF you're rocking +25 probably (+10 ranks, +3 class skill, +7 stat, +5 miscellaneous) whereas Joe Schmoe Average in that skill is still at +0. (Let's call it +2, actually, for stat boosting items.) The MINIMUM DC to challenge the Expert is DC 27, which is completely impossible to be achieved by Joe Schmoe. Anything possible to Joe cannot be failed by the expert.

In 5E, at level 20, the difference is -1 compared to +17. DC 19 is achievable AND failable by both. Now, there are PLENTY of tasks (anything DC 20+) that Joe can't hit, and plenty that the Expert can't fail, but that's at the highest level in the system.

It's different, I 100% agree there. And if you don't like, I can't and won't say you're wrong, because that's a matter of opinion. But likewise, you shouldn't say that it's objectively bad.

Mitth'raw'nuruo

2017-12-17, 09:46 PM

I hated 5e. Hated it with a passion that would have made golem look friendly.

But it is better. I miss things, like 5 foot steps (which really make no sense) and attacks of opportunity My group has always played 3rd, so we fall into the trap of "knowing" rules that no longer apply, but that has as much to do with the fact that we're all adults now, all but one with a kid, and our ability, and even more so our willingness to read and memorize every page of a rule-book is much less then it was when we were teenagers and young adults.

For what it is, 5e is so much better. Other RPGS might to other things better (I'd love to see a 5E Star wars...it would be a great system for star wars....but it would be filled with disney poo)...vampire of the masquerade is a better horror/political intrigue game for example, but for D&D 5E is best.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 09:46 PM

1. 5e is harder to GM. So much was removed that they expect the GM to make up fair and fun rules for.

5e's far easier to DM for me.

2. 5e is narrower. You either run 6 encounters per long rest with 2 short rest or the game isn't balanced and will not be mechanically satisfying.

Not true. You can have a satisfying game with any number of encounters.

3. You can't build a bad character. From the perspective of PF, nothing is useless in 5e. A sanely built PC is overpowered in 5e. An optimized PC breaks the game.

Not true.

4. Monsters suck. They lack abilities to handle a smart party. You as a GM have to make things up or the monsters have to use skills in a way you made up to work.

Monsters are great. Expecting anything to handle smart PCs without running the game smartly doesn't work.

Both are watered-down 3.5, only 5e with significantly more water.

Note that the game is designed with the abomination known as Bounded Accuracy as a key design principle.

If you don't like bounded accuracy, then sure, avoid 5e at all cost.

I for one prefer when high-level characters still have challenges for things that are not ridiculously difficult.

Also note that a character with level 1 stats can already auto-succeed very easy challenges and by level 17 they can already auto-succeed any easy challenges, if it's in their main stat and they have the skill proficiency

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 09:48 PM

At level 1, you can expect +5 to your main skill. (+7 for Rogues.)

At level 20, you can expect +11. That's more significant. (+17 for Rogues and Bards.)

A lot less than 3.5 or PF, agreed on that. But it also stops people from "falling off" the skill system. At level 1, anyone can attempt a skill check. The best a person has, in PF, is maybe +10 (+1 ranks, +3 class skill, +4 stat, +2 miscellaneous) meaning that Joe Schmoe Average in that area can still attempt most things they can do with SOME chance of success. In 5E, it's +5 as compared to -1 at worst.

But, at level, say, 10, in PF you're rocking +25 probably (+10 ranks, +3 class skill, +7 stat, +5 miscellaneous) whereas Joe Schmoe Average in that skill is still at +0. (Let's call it +2, actually, for stat boosting items.) The MINIMUM DC to challenge the Expert is DC 27, which is completely impossible to be achieved by Joe Schmoe. Anything possible to Joe cannot be failed by the expert.

In 5E, at level 20, the difference is -1 compared to +17. DC 19 is achievable AND failable by both. Now, there are PLENTY of tasks (anything DC 20+) that Joe can't hit, and plenty that the Expert can't fail, but that's at the highest level in the system.

It's different, I 100% agree there. And if you don't like, I can't and won't say you're wrong, because that's a matter of opinion. But likewise, you shouldn't say that it's objectively bad.

Either have progression or don't. Don't half-butt your progression to make things that were once really hard, pretty hard. Yes, things that are difficult the first time you ever try them should be trivial after a while, and yes, 20th level characters should absolutely be able to achieve things (like, say, casting meteor swarm in any of the three editions) without fail that 1st-level characters can't. Whaddaya know, 20th-level characters in all three systems can cast meteor swarm with no chance to fail, and 1st-level characters can't. But in 5e, you will never be able to... - uh, look, I'm going to pretend that 5e skills actually have DCs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs) and say "Climb up a rough wall" - without a chance of failure. And that's not just a consequence of the things I've assigned to the DCs (things which a reasonable DM might assign to the DCs), that's a consequence of the way the system works as well.

Failing skill checks that you're really good at sucks. If you're a great climber, then falling off a wall sucks. Sure, if you're not so good at remembering obscure religious facts, then you kinda shrug your shoulders and go "Eh, fair enough" when you fail a knowledge (religion) check, but if you've put every shred of effort possible into that +17 to climb, it feels a bit awful 10% of the time when you fail to climb a brick wall, at level 20.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 09:51 PM

Why would a rough wall have a DC greater than 18? (27, for Rogues.)

I think DC 15 is pushing it-climbing a wall is something an average person can do, given time.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-17, 09:58 PM

Why would a rough wall have a DC greater than 18? (27, for Rogues.)

I think DC 15 is pushing it-climbing a wall is something an average person can do, given time.

Better question: Why roll?
ps, love the new avatar.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 10:04 PM

But in 5e, you will never be able to... - uh, look, I'm going to pretend that 5e skills actually have DCs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs) and say "Climb up a rough wall" - without a chance of failure.

You might try reading the rules before criticizing them, dude.

You can, in fact, climb a rough wall without a chance of failure in 5e. It's actually very common.

Failing skill checks that you're really good at sucks. If you're a great climber, then falling off a wall sucks. Sure, if you're not so good at remembering obscure religious facts, then you kinda shrug your shoulders and go "Eh, fair enough" when you fail a knowledge (religion) check, but if you've put every shred of effort possible into that +17 to climb, it feels a bit awful 10% of the time when you fail to climb a brick wall, at level 20.

What are you even talking about?

A brick wall isn't going to be DC 20. Climbing a brick wall is relatively easy, which means the DC is going to be in the 10-15 range. Meaning you get auto-success.

Better question: Why roll?

Well, maybe you have to climb very fast because you're pursued by a Beholder or something. But you're not going to roll if your bonus exceed the DC, anyway.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:07 PM

Why would a rough wall have a DC greater than 18? (27, for Rogues.)

I think DC 15 is pushing it-climbing a wall is something an average person can do, given time.

I'm pretty sure that an average person would fail the vast majority of the time, rather than just the majority of the time, to climb a wall. I put a wall "With places to put your hands and feet" at DC 15, so anyone who attempts their best Altaïr impression will have a 30% chance of succeeding untrained, which honestly sounds pretty reasonable. The eagle himself, fortunately, is a rogue and can therefore actually make the DC 15 check every time (ignoring the fact that no way in hell is Altaïr 20th level, nor is his highest ability score likely to be strength).

On the other hand, Nilin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_Me_(video_game)) will have a hard time making the various climbs that, in the game, she makes without fail (except when something breaks, which isn't Nilin's fault) because she isn't a rogue (she's probably some homebrew archetype of monk) with the +11 she would get if she were strength-SAD and if she were 20th-level. Nilin isn't a massively high-power character (a modify memory SLA and some unarmed strikes that can take out a bunch of warriors are nice, but not exactly the stuff that high-level swords and sorcery are made of) and the 5e skill system still doesn't support her being that good at climbing. The 5e skill system doesn't really support anything, though, so no big surprises there.

EDIT: I'm not sure how the hell one would even approach climbing a brick wall, unless they could already reach the top or the wall were incredibly badly-made.

lunaticfringe

2017-12-17, 10:10 PM

Why would a rough wall have a DC greater than 18? (27, for Rogues.)

I think DC 15 is pushing it-climbing a wall is something an average person can do, given time.

Because the DM is used to High Level Must Have High DCs and can't properly handle setting DCs without a preprinted master list. But I agree with @ThePolarBear, if nothing else is going on and they are just climbing a rough wall I probably wouldn't force a roll. Now if it was raining or some mook is firing arrows at them...

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:11 PM

It's almost like other characters don't transfer well to D&D, neh? :P

And I think it's reasonable to say Altair is probably at least level 11, considering all the shenanigans he pulls off, with Expertise in Athletics. Assuming a 16 in Strength (he's a strong man) his minimum achieved DC is 21. Reliable Talent is a wonderful ability.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:14 PM

It's almost like other characters don't transfer well to D&D, neh? :P

Not to 5e, no, but I feel like I should be able to play a character who can climb as well as Nilin without having to slap a bunch of rogue levels on and devote further build resources to it.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 10:15 PM

I'm pretty sure that an average person would fail the vast majority of the time, rather than just the majority of the time, to climb a wall. I put a wall "With places to put your hands and feet" at DC 15, so anyone who attempts their best Altaïr impression will have a 30% chance of succeedong untrained. The eagle himself, fortunately, is a rogue and can therefore actually make the DC 15 check every time (ignoring the fact that no way in hell is Altaïr 20th level, nor is his highest ability score likely to be strength).

No. Just no.

You're saying nonsense in hope that people will believe you.

Read the rules:

While climbing or swimming, each foot of movement costs 1 extra foot (2 extra feet in difficult terrain), unless a creature has a climbing or swimming speed. At the GM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check

A wall "With places to put your hands and feet" is neither slippery not with few handholds. It does not require a STR (Athletics) check.

And even if there was a check, DC 15 would be too high. For info, DC 20 is what you need to break a steel chain with your bare hands.

The 5e skill system doesn't really support anything, though, so no big surprises there.

The only thing it doesn't support is your claims.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:16 PM

Not to 5e, no, but I feel like I should be able to play a character who can climb as well as Nilin without having to slap a bunch of rogue levels on and devote further build resources to it.

Whereas in PF you need a high intelligence score to climb well and do anything else, so you can't play a character who's both not the brightest but possesses a lot of skills, even if the skills are purely physical in nature.

For instance, what if you want a warrior who is good at Swimming, Climbing, and Riding? Those are common enough physical skills. But, unless you want them to be above-average in intellect, they can't possibly be a Fighter and still be good at all them, since they get 2 skill points a level.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-17, 10:17 PM

Well, maybe you have to climb very fast because you're pursued by a Beholder or something. But you're not going to roll if your bonus exceed the DC, anyway.

Yeah, but the question was really just "why roll". A reason should be necessary, as consequences should be required when asking for a roll.
For 3e, the answer "don't care, you still need to check, this are the modifiers, do math, now roll or take option and go for possible autosuccess."

A player sees is "there's no dc". Another "there's no reason for a dc to be there in the first place".

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:17 PM

A wall "With places to put your hands and feet" is neither slippery not with few handholds. It does not require a STR (Athletics) check.

If it doesn't, then that implies that everyone can climb buildings like Altaïr or Nilin does without having to roll, which is even stupider!

Whereas in PF you need a high intelligence score to climb well and do anything else, so you can't play a character who's both not the brightest but possesses a lot of skills, even if the skills are purely physical in nature.

For instance, what if you want a warrior who is good at Swimming, Climbing, and Riding? Those are common enough physical skills. But, unless you want them to be above-average in intellect, they can't possibly be a Fighter and still be good at all them, since they get 2 skill points a level.

Ignoring that fighter isn't a real class in any edition and humans exist, one of the saving graces of Pathfinder compared to 3.5 was that it's very easy to be baseline competent at multiple skills because you get the +3 free when you take any skill ranks at all, so you can have a 2nd-level fighter who's only slightly worse than the best possible at up to 4 skills without having to be clever or human.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:21 PM

Ignoring that fighter isn't a real class in any edition and humans exist, one of the saving graces of Pathfinder compared to 3.5 was that it's very easy to be baseline competent at multiple skills because you get the +3 free when you take any skill ranks at all, so you can have a 2nd-level fighter who's only slightly worse than the best possible at up to 4 skills without having to be clever or human.

So your argument that PF is better includes "One of the main classes of the game, included in the core rulebooks of 3.0, 3.5, and PF, isn't a real class"?

At least in 5E, there's really no trap choices. Some options are worse than others (Savage Attacker ain't that hot, TWF is mathematically inferior to GWF) but hell, I could build a perfectly functional character with using BOTH those.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 10:23 PM

If it doesn't, then that implies that everyone can climb buildings like Altaïr or Nilin does without having to roll, which is even stupider!

Misters and Missses of all ages, come around and see, dragged from the terrifying desert of salt for your pleasure only, the one, the unique Back Pedaller!

Ignoring that fighter isn't a real class in any edition.

Ahahahaha whoa.

I've seen bad trolling in my life, but you take the cake. Man, it makes me want to apologize to a few trolls I've talked with.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:24 PM

So your argument that PF is better includes "One of the main classes of the game, included in the core rulebooks of 3.0, 3.5, and PF, isn't a real class"?

At least in 5E, there's really no trap choices. Some options are worse than others (Savage Attacker ain't that hot, TWF is mathematically inferior to GWF) but hell, I could build a perfectly functional character with using BOTH those.

I mean, actually, I said ignoring that it's not a real class in any edition, because of critical concept failure. But please, feel free to address the specific non-part of the argument.

Misters and Missses of all ages, come around and see, dragged from the terrifying desert of salt for your pleasure only, the one, the unique Back Pedaller!

Oh! I get it!

You don't understand what words mean, do you?

...

What? If you're not going to make real points I don't see why I should have to.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:25 PM

I mean, actually, I said ignoring that it's not a real class in any edition, because of critical concept failure. But please, feel free to address the specific non-part of the argument.

It works in 5E. Arguably could use a different name, but it's on par with Barbarians and Wizards.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:27 PM

It works in 5E. Arguably could use a different name, but it's on par with Barbarians and Wizards.

It's still a critical concept failure. Everyone fights in D&D. It's not a protected niche and it shouldn't be. And that was still never the point.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 10:28 PM

Oh! I get it!

You don't understand what words mean, do you?

Say the man who either didn't read the rules before talking about them, or didn't understand them.

...

What? If you're not going to make real points I don't see why I should have to.

You have made no real point since you've showed up, so I don't see why you would start now.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:31 PM

It's still a critical concept failure. Everyone fights in D&D. It's not a protected niche and it shouldn't be. And that was still never the point.

O-kay? So what would you rename it? Because every subclass (not the main class) gets at least a LITTLE out-of-combat utility, whether via spells, a knowledge buff, or (the weakest out of combat buff, in my opinion) some minor skill boosts.

And you still can't make a Fighter in PF that combines "Average at best intellect" with "has skills". You get, at most, three skills, IF you go human. So, you can grab Ride, Climb, and Swim. But can't Handle Animals, hasn't studied anything to be knowledgeable even though they're not the brightest, doesn't know how to apply first aid, can't talk well, can't lie well, can't notice jack diddly, can't forage for food well...

ThePolarBear

2017-12-17, 10:31 PM

If it doesn't, then that implies that everyone can climb buildings like Altaïr or Nilin does without having to roll, which is even stupider!

Is everyone an adventurer? You are forgetting that it is still true that PCs and NPCs "work" differently...

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:32 PM

Say the man who either didn't read the rules before talking about them, or didn't understand them.

You have made no real point since you've showed up, so I don't see why you would start now.

For a start, I'm not a man. Second, the point, should you choose to accept it, is that either the kind of walls that Altaïr and Nilin climb have "Few handholds and footholds", in which case given that an average person would only have about a 30% chance to climb them, Nilin shouldn't be able to climb them 100% of the time despite the fact that her ability to do so doesn't require players to suspend their belief, because you can't create people who actually climb like that who aren't rogues with a climbing fetish, or they don't have "Few handholds and footholds" in which case you would have us believe that a system where everyone can climb Assassin's Creed/Remember Me style without having to roll is at all reasonable. I certainly wouldn't want to give it a go without a good reason.

Is everyone an adventurer? You are forgetting that it is still true that PCs and NPCs "work" differently...

The bookworm wizard shouldn't be able to climb walls the way Altaïr and Nilin do, I don't think.

JNAProductions

2017-12-17, 10:36 PM

They're not a man or a troll. They have strongly held beliefs about what constitutes good game design, and think 5E doesn't qualify. I don't agree, but that doesn't make Jor a troll.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-17, 10:40 PM

The bookworm wizard shouldn't be able to climb walls the way Altaïr and Nilin do, I don't think.

The bookworm wizard is not going to have neither the strenght, nor the proficiency, that Altair has. Nor the particular desire to climb on every other wall, if it is the case. If there's no hurry, there's no consequence involved for the wizard in failing, the wizard is going to find a way around the obstacle.

5e is not 3e. Context is important, as is the assumption that there's a group to help.

And P.S. your bookish wizard is an adventurer. It is not your 3e librarian.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:42 PM

The bookworm wizard is not going to have neither the strenght, nor the proficiency, that Altair has. Nor the particular desire to climb on every other wall, if it is the case. If there's no hurry, there's no consequence involved for the wizard in failing, the wizard is going to find a way around the obstacle.

5e is not 3e. Context is important, as is the assumption that there's a group to help.

The thing is, though, that given the quoted passage, no-one has to roll to climb that wall, irrespective of the context or whether or not the wizard's being shot. And there should, to be quite frank, be a relatively obvious consequence if you screw up trying to climb up a building.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 10:47 PM

For a start, I'm not a man.

I sincerely apologize.

Second, the point, should you choose to accept it, is that either the kind of walls that Altaïr and Nilin climb have "Few handholds and footholds", in which case given that an average person would only have about a 30% chance to climb them, Nilin shouldn't be able to climb them 100% of the time despite the fact that her ability to do so doesn't require players to suspend their belief, so you can't create people who actually climb like that who aren't rogues with a climbing fetish, or they don't have "Few handholds and footholds" in which case you would have us believe that a system where everyone can climb Assassin's Creed/Remember Me style without having to roll is at all reasonable. I certainly wouldn't want to give it a go without a good reason.

First, wanting D&D to emulate a game where climbing is one of the focus is questionable.

Second, why would someone who has not invested to have the skills to be good at something be good at said thing? Because that's what you want: someone, 5e PCs should have the capacity to climb walls with 100% success when others fail two thirds of the time, despite not taking the skill to do it nor being good at the stat required to do it.

Third, if you had actually read the rules, you'd realize that a wall that a normal person would succeed to climb 30% of the time would be DC 6 or 7. Which means that any character who has proficiency in Athletic and more-than-average strength can climb them with 100% accuracy at level 9 or earlier.

So here you have it: walls that are difficult to climb yet that can still be climbed with 100% accuracy by competent adventurers.

They're not a man or a troll. They have strongly held beliefs about what constitutes good game design, and think 5E doesn't qualify. I don't agree, but that doesn't make Jor a troll.

They're not a troll because they're having strongly held beliefs. They're a troll because they're either deliberately lying about what the rules of the game are or are saying things about said as if it they were facts despite not reading them. Claiming things like "fighter isn't a real class" is also another hint.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 10:53 PM

First, wanting D&D to emulate a game where climbing is one of the focus is questionable.

I don't really want it to emulate the games. I'm just pointing out that Altair (I'm not copying that freaking umlaut again) and Nilin don't break anyone's suspension of disbelief, really, so it's odd that things they do aren't supported by the system.

Second, why would someone who has not invested to have the skills to be good at something be good at said thing? Because that's what you want: someone, 5e PCs should have the capacity to climb walls with 100% success when others fail two thirds of the time, despite not taking the skill to do it nor being good at the stat required to do it.

As I pointed out, making a moderate difficulty check every time (whatever moderate is - something that a normal person would only succeed 30% of the time) is impossible if you are proficient AND have the relevant stat maxed. Nilin would have to sink more resources into a skill check in order to be able to do that 100% of the time.

Third, if you had actually read the rules, you'd realize that a wall that a normal person would fail to climb 30% of the time would be DC 6 or 7. Which means that any character who has proficiency in Athletic and more-than-average strength can climb them with 100% accuracy at level 9 or earlier.

While we're on the topic of basic reading comprehension...

that an average person would only have about a 30% chance to climb them

They're not a troll because they're having strongly held beliefs. They're a troll because they're either deliberately lying about what the rules of the game are or are saying things about said as if it they were facts despite not reading them. Claiming things like "fighter isn't a real class" is also another hint.

More likely, you're deluding yourself through a shoddy understanding of reality that I'm trolling, because you've convinced yourself that your belief is right and treat any attack on it as an attack on you (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect).

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 11:01 PM

I don't really want it to emulate the games. I'm just pointing out that Altair (I'm not copying that freaking umlaut again) and Nilin don't break anyone's suspension of disbelief, really, so it's odd that things they do aren't supported by the system.

Altair, not breaking the suspension of disbelief? He looks cool, but him doing stunt. like "jump from a tower to a pile of straw without any damage" has been made fun off time and time again.

something that a normal person would only succeed 30% of the time)

Just to point out, succeeding 30% of the time means you fail two third of the time.

making a moderate difficulty check every time [...] is impossible if you are proficient AND have the relevant stat maxed. Nilin would have to sink more resources into a skill check in order to be able to do that 100% of the time.

Incorrect. A task that a normal person can succeed 30% of the time is DC 6. Arguably 7. So no, you're wrong.

If you ask "but why does 5e list moderate DC at 15, then?", it's because it's moderate difficulty for adventurers. Who are not normal persons.

While we're on the topic of basic reading comprehension...

That was a typo, I've edited it.

ad_hoc

2017-12-17, 11:05 PM

If it doesn't, then that implies that everyone can climb buildings like Altaïr or Nilin does without having to roll, which is even stupider!

5e cares more about how stories are structured than simulation. Simulation is ultimately an impossible goal anyway because characters leveling up doesn't actually simulate anything. It's an arbitrary thing to make heroic characters. It's not a regular thing that regular people in the world do, and if it was the world would be completely bonkers (and really, it pretty much is in 3.x there shouldn't be any farmers the way it is structured).

Anyway, the way ability checks in 5e work is that you only actually roll if the following 3 things are true:

1) The outcome is in doubt
2) There is a meaningful consequence for failure
3) It is interesting

There is no point in making checks to climb walls when it's not interesting to the game. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world can climb walls. It just means that we're not going to waste game time on something that doesn't matter.

I remember when 3e came out and we had a session where the party needed to climb up a small cliff. We sat there rolling dice for like 10 minutes until all the characters made it up. It was one of the first things I houseruled because it was just boring.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 11:06 PM

Altair, not breaking the suspension of disbelief? He looks cool, but him doing stunt. like "jump from a tower to a pile of straw without any damage" has often been mocked.

His climbing, not him in general.

Wrong. A task that a normal person can succeed 30% of the time is DC 6. Arguably 7. So no, you're wrong.

A person with a +0 bonus (10 strength, no proficiency, therefore "Normal") will succeed on a DC 6 check 75% of the time and a DC 7 check 70% of the time. They will therefore fail a DC 7 check 30% of the time (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6; 6*5% = 30%) and succeed a DC 15 check 30% of the time (15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20; 6*5% = 30%).

There is no point in making checks to climb walls when it's not interesting to the game. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world can climb walls. It just means that we're not going to waste game time on something that doesn't matter.

5e doesn't call for a check to climb a wall even if it is interesting to the game unless the wall is wet or has few handholds, and does call for a check even if it's not interesting for the game if the wall is wet or has few handholds. So I don't see this as relevant.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 11:06 PM

5e cares more about how stories are structured than simulation. Simulation is ultimately an impossible goal anyway because characters leveling up doesn't actually simulate anything. It's an arbitrary thing to make heroic characters. It's not a regular thing that regular people in the world do, and if it was the world would be completely bonkers (and really, it pretty much is in 3.x there shouldn't be any farmers the way it is structured).

Anyway, the way ability checks in 5e work is that you only actually roll if the following 3 things are true:

1) The outcome is in doubt
2) There is a meaningful consequence for failure
3) It is interesting

There is no point in making checks to climb walls when it's not interesting to the game. That doesn't mean that everyone in the world can climb walls. It just means that we're not going to waste game time on something that doesn't matter.

I remember when 3e came out and we had a session where the party needed to climb up a small cliff. We sat there rolling dice for like 10 minutes until all the characters made it up. It was one of the first things I houseruled because it was just boring.

A very good point. Thanks.

ad_hoc

2017-12-17, 11:12 PM

5e doesn't call for a check to climb a wall even if it is interesting to the game unless the wall is wet or has few handholds, and does call for a check even if it's not interesting for the game if the wall is wet or has few handholds. So I don't see this as relevant.

That's simply not true.

5e doesn't call for any checks.

The DM decides if a check is warranted and then sets the DC.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how 5e works. This is likely from viewing it in the framing of 3.x.

It is a different game with different goals.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 11:13 PM

A person with a +0 bonus (10 strength, no proficiency, therefore "Normal") will succeed on a DC 6 check 75% of the time and a DC 7 check 70% of the time. They will therefore fail a DC 7 check 30% of the time (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6; 6*5% = 30%) and succeed a DC 15 check 30% of the time (15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20; 6*5% = 30%).

Uh, you're right, I did misread that part. My bad.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-17, 11:13 PM

The thing is, though, that given the quoted passage, no-one has to roll to climb that wall, irrespective of the context or whether or not the wizard's being shot. And there should, to be quite frank, be a relatively obvious consequence if you screw up trying to climb up a building.

Have you actually gave a good read to the rules? Have you looked at the DMG? Because it seems like you actually skimmed over a lot of what is the core of this edition and what the core concepts are.

You talk about a rough wall, then a wall, then a building. Sorry if i have in mind a "wall" and not "the side of a building".

Remember: this is your starting argument ""Climb up a rough wall" - without a chance of failure."

What you should be asking yourself as a DM is... "how hard is it to do?" considering that most of the thing you usually ask for, as a DM, is in a range of 10 to 20 of DC? With something REALLY hard, that does push common "adventurer" sense, being 25 and REALLY nearly impossible stuff, things that even ultra experts without magical help are going to very probably fail being 30... how would you honestly rank something that in our world many people actually DO, and many more could, while a plethora have the ability to with the right equipment? Honestly, it is not "easy", but it isn't something nearly in the realm of "hard", expecially for adventurers. If you, as a DM, DO rule that handholds are not plentiful, you have all the rights to ask for a check, but such a task would be trivial to an ultra expert like Altair. And it would still be difficult, unassisted, to a bookworm.

But the point still stands: If the obstacle has no consequence, a bookworm would still find a way to get over it. A rough wall in the middle of nowhere is neither meaningful or has consequences if there's failure, most of the time. For a bookworm to want to climb a building there needs to be a good reason and good help, or a good check.

Unoriginal

2017-12-17, 11:15 PM

Have you actually gave a good read to the rules? Have you looked at the DMG? Because it seems like you actually skimmed over a lot of what is the core of this edition and what the core concepts are.

You talk about a rough wall, then a wall, then a building. Sorry if i have in mind a "wall" and not "the side of a building".

Remember: this is your starting argument ""Climb up a rough wall" - without a chance of failure."

What you should be asking yourself as a DM is... "how hard is it to do?" considering that most of the thing you usually ask for, as a DM, is in a range of 10 to 20 of DC? With something REALLY hard, that does push common "adventurer" sense, being 25 and REALLY nearly impossible stuff, things that even ultra experts without magical help are going to very probably fail being 30... how would you honestly rank something that in our world many people actually DO, and many more could, while a plethora have the ability to with the right equipment? Honestly, it is not "easy", but it isn't something nearly in the realm of "hard", expecially for adventurers. If you, as a DM, DO rule that handholds are not plentiful, you have all the rights to ask for a check, but such a task would be trivial to an ultra expert like Altair. And it would still be difficult, unassisted, to a bookworm.

But the point still stands: If the obstacle has no consequence, a bookworm would still find a way to get over it. A rough wall in the middle of nowhere is neither meaningful or has consequences if there's failure, most of the time. For a bookworm to want to climb a building there needs to be a good reason and good help, or a good check.

True.

That's simply not true.

5e doesn't call for any checks.

The DM decides if a check is warranted and then sets the DC.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how 5e works. This is likely from viewing it in the framing of 3.x.

It is a different game with different goals.

Also true.

His climbing, not him in general.

Altair climbs faster and better than any normal human could. It doesn't break the suspension of disbelief because we accept the main character of this game is capable of superhuman feat.

Jormengand

2017-12-17, 11:16 PM

That's simply not true.

5e doesn't call for any checks.

The DM decides if a check is warranted and then sets the DC.

I mean, technically, yes, but the DM doesn't need a rule to tell her to do what she wants. She can already do what she wants.

Kane0

2017-12-17, 11:17 PM

Hrm, where's that old bullet point guide I had with the differences between editions...

- Proficiency bonus is used for skill/ability checks, attacks and saving throws instead of BAB, save progressions and skill points. It's all based off Stat + Proficiency, and the numbers are lower and scale slower. HP and abilities/options are the primary differentiation between low and high levels.
- You have a saving throw type for each attribute.
- You can't have a stat higher than 20 by normal means, nor a stat higher than 30 by any means.
- Movement is not an action, and actions can happen between movement. Bonus actions are like swifts, reactions are like immediates. No action can be traded for another type. You can also make one interaction (grab a weapon, open a door, etc) per turn for free.
- You cannot delay, only ready an action.
- Only one thing provokes an AoO: Moving out of a creatures reach.
- Learn the advantage / disadvantage mechanic, it replaces 90% of fiddly +1s and +2s.
- Concentration is a thing you need to know well. Most buffs, debuffs and control need concentration, and you can concentrate on one thing at a time. You have a chance to lose concentration each time you take damage.
- All casting is 'spontaneous', though the list of spells available for you to choose from may change based on how your class handles it.
- There are two kinds of rest: short and long. There is expected to be two short rests for every long on average, which is important to maintain balance short rest classes (monk, warlock) against long rest classes (paladin, sorcerer).
- Encounter design is also different. A CR 6 enemy is a medium challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not a medium challenge for a single level 6 character. You are expected to deal with half a dozen or so medium encounters on an adventuring day, not one or two hard ones.
- Everybody can heal via hit die, which are spent during short rests.
- Dying works differently. You only die outright when you take damage equal to your max HP in one hit after reaching 0. When reduced to 0 you make saving throws, three successes stabilizes you and 3 failures you die. Taking damage while making death saves counts as one failure.
- Damage resistance, reduction and vulnerability is simplified. It's half damage, doesn't exist (as such) and double damage respectively.
- Don't use any optional rules to start with. This includes multiclassing and feats.
- The core math of the game does not expect you to get magic items by default. You can play through levels 1 to 20 without seeing a magic item at all, anything you get/give is a bonus.
- Levels 1-3 are supposed to go by very quickly, and 4-5 fairly quickly. The majority of PC time is angled to be spent in the level 6-11 range.
- Due to reduced scaling of basic numbers (skills, attacks, damage, AC) it is expected that low CR creatures remain a threat to higher level parties in significant numbers. This is intended.

Golden Rule: Thou shalt not assume to know that which shares a name
Sneak attack works differently. Protection from Evil works differently. Critical hits work differently. Do not skim over things that look familiar because they are almost all different in subtle ways that become very apparent in play.

5e is simplified and streamlined. Many like that, many hate it.
5e focuses on a smaller power curve and narrowing the gap between casters and noncasters. Some think it does a good job, others do not.
5e places more power, and responsibility, back in the hands of the DM. Some have great experiences with this, others not.

There are strengths to each edition, and each has a subtly different feel to it. Neither is a bad game, and there is no reason they cannot coexist not any reason someone must pick one over the other. We're all here because we love our hobby of choice, what good does it serve alienating each other over our preferences?

Eric Diaz

2017-12-17, 11:23 PM

Malifice

2017-12-17, 11:23 PM

1. 5e is harder to GM. So much was removed that they expect the GM to make up fair and fun rules for.

No, it isnt.

Its far easier to run with less crap to look up every 5 seconds, monsters (and enounters) far easier to design thanks to bounded accuracy and not having to advance them with levels/ templates/ skill points/ feats and other crap taking hours per encounter, and without having to know the insides and out of every one of a thousand splatbooks, with a gazillion feats/ traits/ subsystems.

2. 5e is narrower. You either run 6 encounters per long rest with 2 short rest or the game isn't balanced and will not be mechanically satisfying.

Also not true.

While 6/2 is a median you should be aiming for, plently of adventuring days have only a single deadly encounter, some have more short rests, some have fewer, some have more encounters, some less.

3. You can't build a bad character. From the perspective of PF, nothing is useless in 5e. A sanely built PC is overpowered in 5e. An optimized PC breaks the game.

True in that you have to work hard to create a **** PC in 5E. You cant do it by mistake. Unlike in PF where there are hundreds (or more) trap options, and many (many) classes need a staggering amount of system mastery to make them work.

False in that 'optimised PCs break 5E'. Havent seen an example of this happening yet.

4. Monsters suck. They lack abilities to handle a smart party. You as a GM have to make things up or the monsters have to use skills in a way you made up to work.

False. Monsters in 5E are infinitely better in 5E than in PF.

Quicker to run, easier to modify, less fiddly, relevant at all levels of play thanks to bounded accuracy.

Mara

2017-12-17, 11:53 PM

Malifice

2017-12-18, 12:07 AM

5e can't be GM'd well with only good GMing ability.

Yes, it can.

Of course a great DM can make any RPG system good, just like a bad one can ruin a great system.

You must also be a great rules developer.

No, you dont.

You are expected to write the skill rules

No, you're not.

The rules are already there. 'The DM assigns a difficulty...'

This is no different to hundreds of other games like Rolemaster, Shadowrun etc where the DM assigned a difficulty to a task (routine, easy, hard sheer folly etc). Very few games have detailed expansive DC's listed for each application of each skill in the game.

The player declares action, the DM determines if it's possible, and if so what skill is used, and how hard the task is (from auto succeed to DC X).

You act like 5E is some kind of outlier in this regard. It isnt.

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 12:21 AM

strangebloke

2017-12-18, 12:40 AM

5e can't be GM'd well with only good GMing ability. You must also be a great rules developer. You are expected to write the skill rules which make up a large portion of "what things can do" to the point that every table in 5e should have mechanical differences equivalent to a ".5" edition.

See, this just confuses me. I can see arguing that character creation feels more meaningful, or that the higher power level is more fun... But easier to DM?

I've DMed for a shorter time than some here, but nonetheless, 5 years. Half in third and half in fifth.

Fifth is absurdly easier.

In 3e, it was an hour of prep for every hour in game. Each DMPC had to have feats, magic items, and armor before they were 'complete.' and that's ignoring lots of factors like race, LA if they were drow and hit dice if they were a minotaur. Yes, you could grab stuff from the DMG, but making unique and memorable enemies is a big part of the fun. You could just fiddle with their stats, but still, you needed frats and magic to make them a credible threat. And then because 3.5 is such rocket tag you had to be sure that the adversary was planning his base in such a way that he couldn't just get scryed and killed in some trivial fashion. You had to make sure that everything was nice and relatively evenly CRed. You had to talk down the derpy paladin's player when he got pissed with the wizard for trivializing something that the paladin had really wanted to do. You had to hotfix certain abuses and broken game aspects. You had to spend hours teaching the newbie all the idiosyncracies of the game, and they never really properly learned everything... It was a chore.

In 5e, I prepped 15 minutes for each hour of play. Layout the map, pick a base monster, make alternate versions (raging minotaur, druid minotaur etc.) and set them on the map. Everything else goes into making a cool aesthetic to your dungeon, or making a really devious and nasty plot for the villain to unveil. I got my girlfriend to build her first character in something like an hour and a half, without her ever touching a TTRPG before. The rules are robust and if not clear, it's pretty easy to get up to speed if you spend a bit of time. If you mess up the CR, it's no big deal, since tactics have become a lot more important. A high-CR opponent is not a total death sentence.

My time is limited, so less prep = more play = more fun.

Yes, you have to arbitrate some skill checks, but skill checks are far less important overall. How many times in a session do you call for a skill check against a DC anyway? How important is it to your game that the difficulty of a climbing a specific wall is simulated properly? Or that the strength of those ropes is exactly calculated correctly? Even then, there's a ton of guidance in the DMG. I should know, I created a table of every nugget of guidance to streamline my own play.

The power curve is a lot smoother. There's less on the high end, but much more fun on the low end, and the game as a whole has a high degree of versimilitude.

I love 5e.

Sidenote: bounded accuracy works fine in combat, but it is rough on skill checks. I reccomend using 3d6 instead of a d20 for out-of-combat checks.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 12:52 AM

See, this just confuses me.

I've DMed for a shorter time than some here. 5 years. Half in third and half in fifth.

Fifth is absurdly easier.

In 3e, it was an hour of prep for every hour in game. Each DMPC had to have feats, magic items, and armor before they were 'complete.' and that's ignoring lots of factors like race, LA if they were drow, hit dice if they were a minotaur. Yes, you could grab stuff from the DMG, but making unique and memorable enemies is a big part of the fun. And then because 3.5 is such rocket tag you had to be sure that the adversary was planning his base in such a way that he couldn't just get scryed and died in some trivial fashion. You had to make sure that everything was nice and relatively evenly CRed. You had to talk down the derpy paladin's player when he got pissed with the wizard for trivializing something that the paladin had really wanted to do. You had to hotfix certain abuses and broken game aspects. You had to spend hours teaching the newbie all the idiosyncracies of the game, and they never really properly learned everything... It was a chore.

This.

And even after you finished adding [monster HD, templates, ECL, class levels] and finished [assigning skill points, feats, class skills] and doing a ton of math calculating all your final bonuses [AC, touch AC, flatfooted AC, saves, skill bonuses, CMD, CMB etc], you needed to make sure your monsters had an acceptable [bonus to hit/ saves/ AC] that made them a challenge to your party.

All for a creature that was only around for a single 15 minute encounter before being defeated.

As you advanced in level, the problem just got worse.

In 5e, I prepped 15 minutes for each hour. Layout the map, pick a base monster, make alternate versions (raging minotaur, druid minotaur etc.) and set them on the map. Everything else goes into making a cool aesthetic to your dungeon, or making a really devious and nasty plot for the villain to unveil. I got my girlfriend to build her first character in something like an hour and a half, without her ever touching a TTRPG before. The rules are robust and if not clear, it's pretty easy to get up to speed if you spend a bit of time. If you mess up the CR, it's no big deal, since the tactics you're players use has become a lot more important. A high-CR opponent is not a total death sentence.

Again this.

I can grab an Ogre, slap Plate on it, give it multiattack and 50 extra HP, bump its CR up by 2, call it a 'war troll' and I'm done.

What would have taken me 30 minutes of math and screwing around in 3.P [Adding 5 Fighter levels to an Ogre, recalculating Skills, CMB, CMB, AC, Touch, Flatfooted, BAB, Saves, adding Feats, then comparing its BAB/ AC to the AC/BAB of the party to ensure it was an appropriate threat] for a creature that would last all of 5 minutes in game, just took me 1 minute prep, and that was mostly writing it down.

Yes, you have to arbitrate some skill checks. How many times in a session do you call for a skill check against a DC anyway? How important is it to your game that the difficulty of a climbing a specific wall is simulated properly? Even then, there's a ton of guidance in the DMG.

This. Assign a skill and a DC in your head (if one is needed), ask for a roll. If in doubt, go with DC 10 (easy enough that I often dont bother with a roll, but call for one if the PC is rushed) 15 (most tasks) 20 (Hard) 25 (good luck, Rogues and Bards only).

Kane0

2017-12-18, 01:07 AM

I think a lot of people fall into missing that doing it properly is not the same as doing it well.

I mean, sure you can just add some HP, +2 hit/saves +2d6 damage in 3.X as well (and be totally within your rights as DM), but for some reason many don't consider it the done thing because there's the perception that all the mechanics need to have some sort of verifiable source. People new to the game don't seem to display the same expectation nor care as much, so it could be a trained mentality. It's like getting the system mastery demands you to put it to use even when you don't *have* to.

I have a PF DM that has a patented 'Jacob bonus' that gets used a lot on creatures we fight because we are a semi-optimized, larger than average party, and it really gets on the nerves of two players because they account for all the +2s in their heads and figure that they should hit or shouldn't have that high a DC to beat but always miss the 'Jacob bonus'.

However in 5e it seems far less frowned upon, and so much more common. To those types of player this must seem like madness, but to the rest of us this is just part of the game and business as usual. Methinks this is also the thing that trips up a lot of people on the 'rulings, not rules' thing. The DM doesn't need to justify every decision they make that deviates from the rules, just the really bad ones.

Knaight

2017-12-18, 04:33 AM

5e cares more about how stories are structured than simulation. Simulation is ultimately an impossible goal anyway because characters leveling up doesn't actually simulate anything. It's an arbitrary thing to make heroic characters. It's not a regular thing that regular people in the world do, and if it was the world would be completely bonkers (and really, it pretty much is in 3.x there shouldn't be any farmers the way it is structured).
5e has effectively nothing to specifically support narrative structure - it's a very simulationist game, much like 3e.

5e can't be GM'd well with only good GMing ability. You must also be a great rules developer. You are expected to write the skill rules which make up a large portion of "what things can do" to the point that every table in 5e should have mechanical differences equivalent to a ".5" edition.
You aren't expected to write the skill rules. You're expected to assign difficulties to specific tasks as they come up and map them to an existing skill list. This is a ridiculously easy task for just about every GM who has a background in any game less rigidly mechanical than 3.x, plus no small number of 3.x DMs.

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 05:45 AM

I half-read only the first page of posts, but it all boils down to this:

OP and his/her advocates have a negative prejudice regarding anything other that is not pathfinder/3.5/whatever.

Simple solution: Re-attune your mindset for each game you play, and you have a lot less head-aches in regards to their rules-inconsistencies (they have no obligation to have ANY consistencies)

3.5, Pathfinder, 4th edition, and 5th edition:
They're completely different games, they don't need to work the same way as one or the other, and they are not meant to be comparable to each other, rules-wise. No, not even 3.5 and Pathfinder, which initially were intended to have backwards compatibility (paizo went too far for that to work).

That doesn't make one or the other better or worse.
Each game can co-exist. If I can enjoy all of them, separately, I don't see why can't you.
The only issue I can see is, if you DM'd a game using specific rules, and each player used different rules for their characters. Which isn't likely at all.

If something is off, it's your attitudes and mindsets.

Knaight

2017-12-18, 06:34 AM

The only issue I can see is, if you DM'd a game using specific rules, and each player used different rules for their characters. Which isn't likely at all.

With that said, the extent to which this can be done indicates that the games aren't as divergent as you'd stated - particularly in the case of Pathfinder and 3.x, which almost completely work with the occasional hiccup around CMD/CMB.

The differences between D&D editions look a lot smaller once you've played something that genuinely isn't D&D.

Hrugner

2017-12-18, 06:53 AM

I can grab an Ogre, slap Plate on it, give it multiattack and 50 extra HP, bump its CR up by 2, call it a 'war troll' and I'm done.

What would have taken me 30 minutes of math and screwing around in 3.P [Adding 5 Fighter levels to an Ogre, recalculating Skills, CMB, CMB, AC, Touch, Flatfooted, BAB, Saves, adding Feats, then comparing its BAB/ AC to the AC/BAB of the party to ensure it was an appropriate threat] for a creature that would last all of 5 minutes in game, just took me 1 minute prep, and that was mostly writing it down.

In Pathfinder, you could just add the advanced monster template to the Ogre and get the same effect with the same level of difficulty you'd find in modifying your war ogre for 5e. The granularity is there if you need it, but simple templates are also available.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 07:01 AM

Wow I didnt look at this for a while and it grew significantly.

Okay everything Ive heard about Dungeons and Dragons is that magic is most powerful. I say heard because Ive never gotten to level 20. In my experience its definitely the most interesting as there is little reason not to make a Gish that can Haste,, Fly, become Invisible. Its not unlimited, but it has Buffs, crowd control spells, utility, and of course damage. Outside of 5th edition creation you can even create items making the game non-linear but the less linear the game goes the more it "breaks" according to more experience players.

5th edition tries to shake up the Status Quo that has been going on since the 1970s. Things are more even for each of the classes which sounds nice in theory, but it causes another problem, Alt-itis. With things now being more more ambiguous its no longer a question of "Which is the best class/best combo/How do i upgrade?"

Dexterity has shifted to be the new best stat as it can effect damage, hit chance, armor class, initiative and thew new "reflex" save equivalent.

Spells are fewer AND weaker but there are still abilities that can do things like send someone to another Plane to instantly die. If anything weakening spells means the ones that are still useful now become the #1 obvious choices. The pool of choices and uses is shrunk but both the need for spells is still there.

This contradicting changes dont make things better. They make them different and just cause a broken player base of Pro Vs Anti-magic.

a Spinoff of Pathfinder is Starfinder. Ive only played a single game but Ive looked through more material. Its gameplay changes are basically made to be inbetween the power level of Pathfinder and 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. Magic is weaker but you can still have plenty of spells per day. The upside of this is that basically every character can have a certain level of equipment like Rifles and Powered Armor. This changes things so everyone can fight instead of say being a Wizard with no weapons and no armor wondering when you can nuke things.

Morty

2017-12-18, 07:12 AM

5th edition tries to shake up the Status Quo that has been going on since the 1970s.

No, it seriously doesn't. If I were to boil down 5E's design to one statement "keeping the status quo" would be a strong contender. In some ways, it restores the status quo from before 3E.

As far as skills go, I think Jormengand has a point, though I can't say I agree with them. 5E doesn't have a good skill system... but neither do 3E or PF. No edition of D&D has ever had a good skill system, and it never will unless it tries to move beyond the "roll d20 once, add a flat modifier and let the GM figure it out from there" mould. Which it won't, because it's not D&D and doesn't feel right. 5E cuts away 3E's ungodly numbers bloat, but it doesn't replace it with anything.

Non-magical characters are better in 5E by virtue of the basic systems not working against them, but their actual abilities are never really allowed to move past safe, simple mediocrity. From level 1 to level 20, they'll roll the same attack and skill checks, just more of them, adding higher numbers and rerolling. At most, they'll get some reactions and abilities that trigger randomly.

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 07:13 AM

With that said, the extent to which this can be done indicates that the games aren't as divergent as you'd stated - particularly in the case of Pathfinder and 3.x, which almost completely work with the occasional hiccup around CMD/CMB.

The differences between D&D editions look a lot smaller once you've played something that genuinely isn't D&D.

True. It's not a tremendous issue, but an issue nonetheless. The games have their obvious similarities (particularly all of them being based upon the d20 system), but then there are quite a bit of differences as well (admittedly less between 3.x and Pathfinder) that can make the game go haywires.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 07:36 AM

Non-magical characters are better in 5E by virtue of the basic systems not working against them, but their actual abilities are never really allowed to move past safe, simple mediocrity. From level 1 to level 20, they'll roll the same attack and skill checks, just more of them, adding higher numbers and rerolling. At most, they'll get some reactions and abilities that trigger randomly.

Thats what I find more confusing. They try to change things for the better but dont really succeed, so everyone can be unhappy.

Its the flaws with a class based system. Making people fit designated class roles rather than have an open system of choices. They try to make classes at least good at their roles but what people aim for is anything.

Its discouraged by things even more now with proficiencies instead of skills. Its not likely to make a Warrior into a general.

Can your Fighter/Ranger/whatever Fly or how about make Sword Beams or lead an Army?

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 08:27 AM

Thats what I find more confusing. They try to change things for the better but dont really succeed, so everyone can be unhappy.

No. They do succeed.

If you want to claim the contrary, prove it.

Its discouraged by things even more now with proficiencies instead of skills. Its not likely to make a Warrior into a general

Wrong again. Fighters are among the classes who can the most easily be a large-scale military leader without sacrificing powering up their classes. Only one or two Bard or Rogue subclasses can match them in this category.

Can your Fighter/Ranger/whatever Fly or how about make Sword Beams or lead an Army?

Lead an army? Yes, they can. Fly? Rangers and Fighters can't, but they don't need it. Make Sword Beams? Why the hell would they do that, they have better.

Maybe try reading the rules before criticizing them.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 08:46 AM

Wow I think you missed any point I had about non-linear gameplay and character design.

Morty

2017-12-18, 08:48 AM

Thats what I find more confusing. They try to change things for the better but dont really succeed, so everyone can be unhappy.

Its the flaws with a class based system. Making people fit designated class roles rather than have an open system of choices. They try to make classes at least good at their roles but what people aim for is anything.

Its discouraged by things even more now with proficiencies instead of skills. Its not likely to make a Warrior into a general.

Can your Fighter/Ranger/whatever Fly or how about make Sword Beams or lead an Army?

They can't do any of that, but they can't do it in 3E, either. I'm thoroughly unimpressed with 5E non-magical classes, but they are better than the 3E ones, in the end.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 08:55 AM

Wow I think you missed any point I had about non-linear gameplay and character design.

Define what you mean by "non-linear gameplay and character design", exactly.

Also, Morty, yes, they can do that. The leading an army part at least.

d13

2017-12-18, 09:22 AM

The #1 confusing factor I see with 5th edition is the reduction of everything about magic. Vancian Magic is one of the largest draws. Without having and using magic it I find other Role Playing Games more interesting. I know many people will say magic ruined earlier editions, but I never got high enough in character level to split the world in half, so I cannot say if that is true one way or another.

EDIT: There are fewer uses per day for everyone(especially Sorcerer), fewer spells known, spells dont scale to Caster level, only Sorcerer can use Metamagic now, etc.

This isn't exactly true.
First of all, having to prepare several times the same spell (one of the pillars of Vancian magic) to be able to cast it more than one time in a day was utter trash.
Second, while it's true that you have less spell slots, cantrips are unlimited and a consistent source of damage/utility.
Third, spell are a lot stronger (relative to power level)
Fourth, ALL classes now have actual features. Metamagic just happens to be the one given to Sorcerers, but Wizard and Warlocks have their own features.

#2 is I read things about 4th edition like how it was made to reduce Adventures into encounters that you recover after, similar to World of Warcraft using Food and Drink to regain Hit Points and Mana Points respectively. 5th edition is mostly based around that using said Rests to regain whatever ability resources your particular class uses, so I dont know the difference. Resting between every encounter makes afterbattles either unnecessarily tedious or house rule it to just skip resting and abilities become all you use.

I don't know 4e at all, but 5e introduced the concept of a "short rest" as a way to recover some abilities/HP (within limits) without having to spend a week sleeping it off. It allows the game to "feel more epic", I guess?

#3 Ability Scores and Feats. The statistic cap is much lower in soft and hard forms. Its just weird that FEATS require sacrificing higher ability scores meaning you can have a weak character with several Feats. It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.

Feats are much stronger (again, relative to the power level of the game) than in earlier editions, so it becomes a tradeoff. What do you value more, some extra features, or a +1 modifier to an ability?
With the soft cap lowered (I say soft cap because there are ways to get 20+ ability scores), those ASIs/Feats become less "necessary" and more "nice to have", so Muticlassing isn't even close to ruined.

#4 Customization. There isnt a lot of expanded materials for 5th editon. There is a finite number of combinations compared to the 40-50+ class in Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D each. I dont see any rules for taking bonuses and flaws. With a smaller pool of possibilities character creation feels more cookie cutter and far less powerful.

You can't accelerate time, sadly. Expanded materials will come in time.
Flaws and the like are now a roleplaying tool, not a powergaming tool.

There are, as of today, officially:
* 6 Barbarian Primal Paths
* 5 Bard Colleges
* 11 Cleric Domains
* 4 Druid Circles
* 8 Fighter Martial Archetypes
* 7 Monk Ways
* 6 Paladin Oaths
* 5 Ranger Conclaves
* 7 Rogue Roguish Archetypes
* 5 Sorcerer Bloodlines
* 6 Warlock Patrons
* 10 Wizard Traditions

All of them behave differently within themselves, so that's 80 different characters (not counting characters with just pure flavour difference)... I think you're set.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 09:28 AM

Define what you mean by "non-linear gameplay and character design", exactly.

Also, Morty, yes, they can do that. The leading an army part at least.

Just popping in to say this: non-linear gameplay and character design is a style where, instead of gaining experience points to level up and get "stronger," you gain experience points, or something similar, in order that you "spend" directly on stats, skills, abilities, etc, directly. You don't have a "class" per se, just a character who is built up in a more organic way. Games like D&D are linear. You level up and gain the abilities of your next level, going from 1 to 2 to 3, etc. Games like World of Darkness, GURPS, etc, are non-linear. There are no classes.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 09:44 AM

Just popping in to say this: non-linear gameplay and character design is a style where, instead of gaining experience points to level up and get "stronger," you gain experience points, or something similar, in order that you "spend" directly on stats, skills, abilities, etc, directly. You don't have a "class" per se, just a character who is built up in a more organic way. Games like D&D are linear. You level up and gain the abilities of your next level, going from 1 to 2 to 3, etc. Games like World of Darkness, GURPS, etc, are non-linear. There are no classes.

Thanks. I don't see how it's relevant for comparing D&D editions or Pathfinder, though, since they're all linear, so I'm still puzzled by what they meant.

There are, as of today, officially:
* 6 Barbarian Primal Paths
* 5 Bard Colleges
* 11 Cleric Domains
* 4 Druid Circles
* 8 Fighter Martial Archetypes
* 7 Monk Ways
* 6 Paladin Oaths
* 5 Ranger Conclaves
* 7 Rogue Roguish Archetypes
* 5 Sorcerer Bloodlines
* 6 Warlock Patrons
* 10 Wizard Traditions

All of them behave differently within themselves, so that's 80 different characters (not counting characters with just pure flavour difference)... I think you're set.

And that's not counting the backgrounds, which do have mechanical effects.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 10:05 AM

Thanks. I don't see how it's relevant for comparing D&D editions or Pathfinder, though, since they're all linear, so I'm still puzzled by what they meant.

He was putting down linear RPG systems as a whole. So, really it was just a complaint that they system has inherent problems that aren't seen in non-linear systems. Of course, those systems are chock full of their own issues. For instance, in linear systems, you have characters that all start out weak and build their way to a final goal. With a non-linear system, all characters start off at completely different strength levels based on what abilities the players purchased while starting.

Morty

2017-12-18, 10:23 AM

Also, Morty, yes, they can do that. The leading an army part at least.

They can, but no better or worse than any other class. Bards would probably do a better job thanks to their songs.

Just popping in to say this: non-linear gameplay and character design is a style where, instead of gaining experience points to level up and get "stronger," you gain experience points, or something similar, in order that you "spend" directly on stats, skills, abilities, etc, directly. You don't have a "class" per se, just a character who is built up in a more organic way. Games like D&D are linear. You level up and gain the abilities of your next level, going from 1 to 2 to 3, etc. Games like World of Darkness, GURPS, etc, are non-linear. There are no classes.

To be exact, it's not games "like" D&D. D&D is the only RPG that has a class/level progression. Of course, it's still academic, since 5E has the exact same way of advancement as every other D&D edition.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 10:43 AM

The only thing worse than 5th edition for the hobby is derivative 3.5.

So 5e would be my choice in this particular match-up.

Also

#2 is I read things about 4th edition like how it was made to reduce Adventures into encounters that you recover after, similar to World of Warcraft using Food and Drink to regain Hit Points and Mana Points respectively.

What.

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 10:43 AM

To be exact, it's not games "like" D&D. D&D is the only RPG that has a class/level progression. Of course, it's still academic, since 5E has the exact same way of advancement as every other D&D edition.

Technically, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a game "like" D&D, but it isn't D&D per sé. A more appropriate category would be d20-system games. But there are probably more out there than I know, and I can't say if all d20-system games are linear or not. Similarly, to lesser extent, one could argue that Pathfinder isn't D&D either, only a game "like" D&D.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-18, 10:44 AM

I say heard because Ive never gotten to level 20. Most games don't last that long, and the game is (more or less) getting to level 20. Once there it's a bit of a different game, see the boons and CR> 21 challenges.
(Heck, high level play, tier 4, is a bit of a different game. That isn't so different from the original game: at higher levels, the game became something quite different from early to mid level).
5th edition tries to shake up the Status Quo that has been going on since the 1970s.
Nope. I've played all editions besides 4, and this statement simply isn't true.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 10:45 AM

He was putting down linear RPG systems as a whole. So, really it was just a complaint that they system has inherent problems that aren't seen in non-linear systems. Of course, those systems are chock full of their own issues. For instance, in linear systems, you have characters that all start out weak and build their way to a final goal. With a non-linear system, all characters start off at completely different strength levels based on what abilities the players purchased while starting.

Youre probably more experienced than I am so you know how every game is like that. Pick any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and watch a level 1 Fighter one-shot everything and a Wizard cast 2-3 low damage Magic Missiles and then wait for the rest of the day.

One thing I cant really argue with is that 5th edition Following up on Pathfinder(or maybe 4th edition) is that level 0 spells are unlimited casting. With some decent level 0 attack cantrips like Fire bolt, Eldritch Blast, and Shillelagh it means yes spellcasters can be more active right at level 1 instead of waiting until level 5 or so to be active participants. That still doesnt stop even early game unbalances like a Greatsword/Maul one-shotting everything or an Archer/Spellcaster shooting melee enemies before they get into their combat range.
-------------------
I dont know if the physical classes and players that use them have as many issues as I have. Adapting to the System is more a problem as I plan heavily on a single character branching out into multiple tactical options so spellcasters. Trying to plan something like a 19 charisma Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock at level 1 is not even possible under the 5th edition point buy system. That means my Feats go to Ability Score Increases.

I could try a Gish build but then I would need at least 5 levels in whatever class because BAB has been replaced with Extra Attack restricted to certain classes. Thats out at that would prevent any tier 9 spells and ruin my stats through M.A.D.

So you ignore a lot of what I say if you have magical prejudice. Or you could go to the Multiclassing thread I saw in General forum as I think they speak about the character Customization problems I think about there.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 10:51 AM

Technically, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a game "like" D&D, but it isn't D&D per sé. A more appropriate category would be d20-system games. But there are probably more out there than I know, and I can't say if all d20-system games are linear or not. Similarly, to lesser extent, one could argue that Pathfinder isn't D&D either, only a game "like" D&D.

There's also the old school Star Wars games. Prior to the most recent edition, which is sort of a mash-up of free form and linear, there were classes built in, with level ups, in a d20 system format. Prior to that there was another series of Star Wars games that were free form. Then there are the niche gaming systems, like the Wheel of Time series, which had a great magic system that stayed true to the source material. Outside of mainstream gaming, though, D&D is the only major system with class progression, though.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-18, 10:55 AM

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 10:59 AM

Youre probably more experienced than I am so you know how every game is like that. Pick any edition of Dungeons and Dragons and watch a level 1 Fighter one-shot everything and a Wizard cast 2-3 low damage Magic Missiles and then wait for the rest of the day.

No, you can't pick any edition of D&D and have the Fighter one shot everything (even assuming party level challenges) and the Wizard cast a magic missile before being unable to do anything. In early editions, the ability to one shot anything was difficult to do, unless they were mobs. Kobolds with 2 hit points could get dropped in one shot by anything. But, get a few wild dogs in there and you had to be cautious. Also, in 1st and 2nd edition you were dealing with THAC0. A fighter usually only had a 5 - 10% better chance of hitting at level one. The difference was they got their early level ups and were usually a higher level before the Wizard got to level 2. But, that's a whole other story.
What I was trying to refer to was the inherent strength of certain abilities over others. For instance, with Vampires in WoD, there is an ability that keeps anyone from attacking you. Of course, anyone can overcome this ability by simply waiting long enough that it runs out. Or, luring you into attacking them. Against the guy who invested in the ability to deal massive amounts of damage, that's not going to hold out too long. And, in GURPS, there are abilities like "gadgets" where you get to pull "useful" non-combat items out of your pocket. That's all well and good; useful for story. But, if you are in combat and your all pulls out an energy blast that destroys the enemy in front of you, plus all the surrounding enemies and scenery, and a small portion of the landscape, your gadgets isn't going to seem all that great. And, that can all be done at the start of the game. There's a major difference there.

AMFV

2017-12-18, 11:06 AM

They can, but no better or worse than any other class. Bards would probably do a better job thanks to their songs.

To be exact, it's not games "like" D&D. D&D is the only RPG that has a class/level progression. Of course, it's still academic, since 5E has the exact same way of advancement as every other D&D edition.

MERP and Rolemaster would like a word, just off the top of my head. (There are others as well)

Morty

2017-12-18, 11:15 AM

Technically, Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a game "like" D&D, but it isn't D&D per sé. A more appropriate category would be d20-system games. But there are probably more out there than I know, and I can't say if all d20-system games are linear or not. Similarly, to lesser extent, one could argue that Pathfinder isn't D&D either, only a game "like" D&D.

You could argue Pathfinder isn't D&D on a purely semantic basis, but it's D&D in rules, spirit and playerbase. Regardless, games that share D&D's class/level progression are few. And systems that don't follow it are so numerous that lumping them into the same "not D&D" category is pretty useless.

strangebloke

2017-12-18, 11:20 AM

The big thing cutting down on player customization is not a lack of classes, though.

It's a lack of generic personalization options.

In 3x everyone got to pick feats, magic items, prcs, and spells/maneuvers. So even a basic fighter had hundreds of different builds and a straight bard had thousands, and that's only counting builds that sorta kinda worked.

In 5e we have backgrounds, feats, fighting styles, and spells. With each of these (except spells) you only get to pick one or two, and we have way way fewer splat books than 3e did at this point so even then your options are limited.

The caveat here being that 90% of the 3e builds still sucked, but even then they had more options.

Where 5e gets ahead though, is the number of concepts that are actually playable, and the accessibility of the game. Even with thousands of options, they're wasn't a single way to make a powerful, thoroughly mundane martial without making something completely absurd. A martial artist was possible, but not intuitive at all. ('swordless sword sage'? Wtf?) To get a decent concept working you often had to pick an overpowered class and deliberately pick bad options purely for flavor reasons.

Contrariwise, when my new player says ' martial artist' or 'Knight' I can recommend four or five builds that are all intuitive and easy to play and strong.

5e was a big part of why my gf finally agreed to start playing with us, and an even bigger part of why she enjoyed it. More players and DMs is a huge win in my book.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 11:44 AM

In 5e we have backgrounds, feats, fighting styles, and spells. With each of these (except spells) you only get to pick one or two, and we have way way fewer splat books than 3e did at this point so even then your options are limited.

The caveat here being that 90% of the 3e builds still sucked, but even then they had more options.

90% junk? Maybe. Unfortunately for me that is why I enjoy different versions than 5th edition better. Looking through that junk and finding awesome combinations is one of the best feelings.

If you actually did create every class to be equal then you would create Alt-itis problems. I remember years ago when i was still playing MMORPGs a lot Alt-itis was a major problem as no characters could do everything well enough that you never had to create another character. I think theWolrd of Warcraft Druid and Shaman were the closest equivalent as a Jack-of-All-Trades character that could fight in melee, use spells for ranged combat, heal, buff, and so on. They werent as good as a Priest at healing or a Warrior for tanking but still it was versatile.

Versatility, oh boy that is a loaded subject. Ive been looking for a long time for some kind of Archer that could fight as well as a melee character up close and scale in damage, or in other words something that makes melee character obsolete. I actually found that in Pathfinder. Kind of obvious why that is discouraged.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 12:29 PM

90% junk? Maybe. Unfortunately for me that is why I enjoy different versions than 5th edition better.

Then why did you come here? Why did you make this thread if you already know what you like best?

Did you genuinely want to know or was it just to stealth-brag?

That still doesnt stop even early game unbalances like a Greatsword/Maul one-shotting everything or an Archer/Spellcaster shooting melee enemies before they get into their combat range.

How is that unbalanced?

I dont know if the physical classes and players that use them have as many issues as I have. Adapting to the System is more a problem as I plan heavily on a single character branching out into multiple tactical options so spellcasters.

Trying to plan something like a 19 charisma Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock at level 1 is not even possible under the 5th edition point buy system. That means my Feats go to Ability Score Increases.[/QUOTE]

How are ou unable to plan it if you literally says what you're planning to do with your ASI?

Also, you don't need that high a stat at level 1.

I could try a Gish build but then I would need at least 5 levels in whatever class because BAB has been replaced with Extra Attack restricted to certain classes. Thats out at that would prevent any tier 9 spells and ruin my stats through M.A.D.

Valor Bard, Sword Bard, Bladesinger, Hexblade. That's four ways you can get a Gish from the top of my head without multiclassing or ruining your stats, and they're not the only methods.

But again, it requires actually reading the book.

So you ignore a lot of what I say if you have magical prejudice.

"If you don't listen to the inaccurate things I say, you're prejudiced."

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 12:40 PM

Then why did you come here? Why did you make this thread if you already know what you like best?

Did you genuinely want to know or was it just to stealth-brag?

I've been wondering this very same question since I read the original post. Why bother, unless you came here to brag with your already prevalent and prejudiced opinion. You could almost label this thread as an attempt to troll the users who have differing opinions. Which is, FYI, against the rules.

strangebloke

2017-12-18, 12:58 PM

If you actually did create every class to be equal then you would create Alt-itis problems. I remember years ago when i was still playing MMORPGs a lot Alt-itis was a major problem as no characters could do everything well enough that you never had to create another character. I think theWolrd of Warcraft Druid and Shaman were the closest equivalent as a Jack-of-All-Trades character that could fight in melee, use spells for ranged combat, heal, buff, and so on. They werent as good as a Priest at healing or a Warrior for tanking but still it was versatile.

So, your gripe is what, exactly?

You're saying that each build being relatively equal is bad?

In 3e, most classes were either good at everything or nothing. That's kinda crappy design. The better designed classes: bard, warmage, beguiler, crusader, and factotum, were all designed to be good at one role. And yes, 'Jack of all trades, master of none' is still a role.

In 5e, they learned from this lesson. While optimization is alive and well, you only get to be able to dominate within your role.

A conquest paladin/hexblade combo is an incredibly strong control build, but it still needs people with damage and out of combat utility to win encounters. A gwm Battle master will dominate dpr but be limited in other areas. If you did your homework and optimized, you'll feel way cooler than your neighbor, but he won't be just sitting there twiddling his thumbs, either.

This is good design.

Unless you just want to be cooler than your friends. In which case... Bye. I don't need to play with you anyway. Do your own thing.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 01:05 PM

Also, wanting a character who can do everything without needing anyone is missing the point of D&D being a team game.

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 01:13 PM

Versatility, oh boy that is a loaded subject. Ive been looking for a long time for some kind of Archer that could fight as well as a melee character up close and scale in damage, or in other words something that makes melee character obsolete. I actually found that in Pathfinder. Kind of obvious why that is discouraged.

This is really not hard to do at all in 5e and if you ever lose your ranged weapon or run out of ammunition you can grab a finesse weapon and still contribute. Battlemasters or builds that have Battlemaster included are particularly good at this.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 01:29 PM

Oh boy, I had missed that.

Versatility, oh boy that is a loaded subject. Ive been looking for a long time for some kind of Archer that could fight as well as a melee character up close and scale in damage, or in other words something that makes melee character obsolete. I actually found that in Pathfinder. Kind of obvious why that is discouraged.

"The game don't let me make a whole character concept obsolete. It means it's bad."

Also, as lunaticfringe noted, making an archer that's still competent in melee is not hard.

Particularly weird when you referred to 5e's DEX as the new OP stat earlier. Not that you were correct about it, but eh.

Also, what's this talk of making an archer? You just said you only made casters because martials supposedly lacked tactical stuff.

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 01:36 PM

Also, what's this talk of making an archer? You just said you only made casters because martials supposedly lacked tactical stuff.

Noticed how he haven't been responding since you (and I?) caught him from probably trolling us. His case seems to be swinging more than potential damage with a critical divine smite :smallbiggrin:

Mara

2017-12-18, 01:45 PM

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 01:49 PM

If I don't make up difficulty mods, the game is basically rules heavy, in that players know what they can do. If I do apply modifiers, it becomes a rules light "GM makes things up for story" game.

What are you talking about?

Now I find PF/3.5 easy to run. You can just make up monsters on the fly with the monster creation rules pretty easily and I found bbeg Character making fun.

... What about 3.PF's monster creation help you do it so easily?

Mara

2017-12-18, 01:53 PM

What are you talking about?

... What about 3.PF's monster creation help you do it so easily?

There is a table of "stats by CR". Your monsters can just use those if you really want to.

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 01:55 PM

What are you talking about?

... What about 3.PF's monster creation help you do it so easily?

There are actual rules for it I imagine. Which there are in the 5e DMG but I tend to just pay attention to how my players fight & eyeball it. Sometimes I don't even have stats for mooks because the party is waay off mission. It took time to get comfortable with improvising and hacking monsters so I'm not judging anyone who isn't.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 01:57 PM

Do I have to remind anyone Im a Power Gamer?

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 02:01 PM

If you want a light game that is actually fleshed out, try Savage Worlds.

For example, my main compliant with 5e is the skill rules. In Savage Worlds the DC is 4 unless the GM applies a difficulty mod or the skill itself list modifiers. If I don't make up difficulty mods, Savage Worlds is basically rules heavy, in that players know what they can do. If I do apply modifiers, it becomes a rules light "GM makes things up for story" game.

Now I find PF/3.5 easy to run. You can just make up monsters on the fly with the monster creation rules pretty easily and I found bbeg Character making fun.

I can't see myself GMing 5e again. I find it too flawed of a system. I'd sooner go back to 3.5 or give 2e/4e a try.

Honestly, one of the reasons why I enjoy 5e so much is because of how close it is to 2e. Player wants to do something? Figure out which stat it would take, and make a check? Is there a skill they're proficient in to help? Add proficiency bonus?

For instance, a character wants to detach a chair bolted to the ground without any tools? They can use Strength to wrench it off by using leverage? Player wants to jump to a rope, and throw a dagger back to where he was to cut it so he can swing away? Make a Dexterity roll (+prof if using acrobatics) then a ranged attack roll against the rope.

If it's not your cup of tea, though, that's too bad. But, everyone is entitled to their own preferences.

Knaight

2017-12-18, 02:03 PM

Just popping in to say this: non-linear gameplay and character design is a style where, instead of gaining experience points to level up and get "stronger," you gain experience points, or something similar, in order that you "spend" directly on stats, skills, abilities, etc, directly. You don't have a "class" per se, just a character who is built up in a more organic way. Games like D&D are linear. You level up and gain the abilities of your next level, going from 1 to 2 to 3, etc. Games like World of Darkness, GURPS, etc, are non-linear. There are no classes.
That's not strictly true. Class but not level systems generally fit this description, and even a class-level system can do so if the levels are structured more as permissions to access certain abilities with experience buying than as a track of powers you advance along. That's a bit more hypothetical though, and class-level systems generally fall within the linear progression structure.

To be exact, it's not games "like" D&D. D&D is the only RPG that has a class/level progression. Of course, it's still academic, since 5E has the exact same way of advancement as every other D&D edition.

Torchbearer has a class/level progression, and it's much further away from D&D than the likes of ACKS, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, 13th Age, and Low Fantasy Gaming.

Waazraath

2017-12-18, 02:17 PM

Do I have to remind anyone Im a Power Gamer?

You may, but most power gamers I've met have a better grasp of the rules. Even from the book, without playing the game...

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 02:20 PM

There is a table of "stats by CR". Your monsters can just use those if you really want to.

Same in 5e?

Do I have to remind anyone Im a Power Gamer?

How are you a power gamer?

Mara

2017-12-18, 02:29 PM

Same in 5e?
1. Cr doesn't matter in 5e.

2. 5e tells me that I have to write the skill rules or I can just be an inconsistent ass and the players don't know what their skills can do beyond "whatever the GM feels like that day".

3. PF doesn't ask me to develop a third of the game. But I totally can just wing it when I want rather than being forced too like in 5e.

Chaosticket

2017-12-18, 02:33 PM

You may, but most power gamers I've met have a better grasp of the rules. Even from the book, without playing the game...

Please read the Title: Pathfinder.

I can make a Bloodrager with +15 Initiative and combo a 25foot reach by level 7. Edit: Sorry 30 feet.

Morty

2017-12-18, 02:38 PM

Torchbearer has a class/level progression, and it's much further away from D&D than the likes of ACKS, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, 13th Age, and Low Fantasy Gaming.

I stand corrected, I suppose. I should make fewer declarative statements.

As for 5E skills, in my experience I've found them adequate for low-level play... the problem is they don't scale, unless you're a rogue. And they're as swingy as the rest of the system. It's like they made a decent start and then shrugged and said "whatever, let the GMs figure it out". There was an idea for skill rolls to involve rolling extra dice, rather than flat modifiers. An idea that remained in some spells and bard songs... because of course, it's okay if it's magic, but if it applied to regular skills or class features, it wouldn't feel right.

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 02:38 PM

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 02:38 PM

1. Cr doesn't matter in 5e.

Wrong.

2. 5e tells me that I have to write the skill rules or I can just be an inconsistent ass and the players don't know what their skills can do beyond "whatever the GM feels like that day".

Wrong. Deciding if something is very easy, easy or hard isn't being "an inconsistent ass", and your players should be able to know what level of difficulty they can succeed.

And it has nothing with what you said about monster creation.

3. PF doesn't ask me to develop a third of the game.

Neither do 5e.

If there is a door that is hard to open you look at what the guy who opens doors is capable of and set the DC accordingly. I may be oversimplifying it but I think you overcomplicating it.

If there is a door that is hard to open you say "it's DC 20" and move to the next step.

Mara

2017-12-18, 02:48 PM

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 02:51 PM

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 02:53 PM

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 02:56 PM

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 02:58 PM

If I have to make up the DCs, then I am making up the those rules if I want to be fair and consistent.

5e doesn't want the GM to be fair and consistent or they want the GM to write large parts of the rules.

I personally feel that this is horse****. I do not feel that 5e has enough worthwhile content to justify this extra load on the GM. There are better more comprehensive systems with less rules that just outclass 5e in everyway.

To be fair, you don't have to make up the DC's. You just have to determine how difficult the task is, then take the DC that fulfills that difficulty level. There's really easy, easy, moderate difficulty, hard, really hard, extremely hard, and damn near impossible. Just pick one, and go with it. It's easy to climb a rope ladder. It's difficult to climb a non-knotted rope. It's damn near impossible to climb a single strand of rope that is tied to a Roc's foot, while the Roc has just taken flight. But, the job of the DM is to determine the difficulty of any task, regardless of the edition that you're dealing with. So, I don't really understand your complaint.

Mara

2017-12-18, 02:59 PM

I think players looking at "what their skills can do" is backwards thinking. A player describes what they do. The numbers on the character sheet come into play after that happens.

In 5e players describe what they are doing and what they mean to accomplish. The DM adjudicates if they succeed, if they fail, or if the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain The DM will call for a check, determine the type check, set a DC, decide if there is advantage or disadvantage, and then the player rolls.

This is the basic conversation of the game, summarized in a few sentences. Playable in a few seconds.

You may not like this, but many do.

I personally would rather do the above than deal with a larger "Skill system" any day. I think when you get the basic conversation of the game down it is very easy to DM and moves the game forward very quickly.

To summarize, I decide what the players can do, not the rules.

Why did I buy this system if I'm doing most of the work?

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 03:00 PM

To summarize, I decide what the players can do, not the rules.

Why did I buy this system if I'm doing most of the work?

Only you can answer that question.

For myself it's far less work for me. /shrug.

Mara

2017-12-18, 03:01 PM

To be fair, you don't have to make up the DC's. You just have to determine how difficult the task is, then take the DC that fulfills that difficulty level. There's really easy, easy, moderate difficulty, hard, really hard, extremely hard, and damn near impossible. Just pick one, and go with it. It's easy to climb a rope ladder. It's difficult to climb a non-knotted rope. It's damn near impossible to climb a single strand of rope that is tied to a Roc's foot, while the Roc has just taken flight. But, the job of the DM is to determine the difficulty of any task, regardless of the edition that you're dealing with. So, I don't really understand your complaint. That's me setting the DC. Aka writing the rules.

If the player wants to know if they can do something, they have to ask me not the rule book.

Morty

2017-12-18, 03:01 PM

One thing PF still has over 5E is the existence of Path of War, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someday it will be replicated in 5E, though I wouldn't hold my breath.

Knaight

2017-12-18, 03:02 PM

As for 5E skills, in my experience I've found them adequate for low-level play... the problem is they don't scale, unless you're a rogue. And they're as swingy as the rest of the system. It's like they made a decent start and then shrugged and said "whatever, let the GMs figure it out".
I'd identify the fundamental issue here as one where Proficiency works just fine for combat, and gets inherited by a skill system which doesn't have what made it work for combat. There's no skill equivalent of Extra Attack. There's no skill equivalent of increasing damage. There's relatively few skill equivalents of combat style bonuses.

The quick and dirty solution is to add a skill die system where you roll (Proficiency)d(Something)+d20 instead of just Proficiency+d20. This also provides a way to distinguish between a characters better and worse skills, ranging from d2 to d8 or so (producing an average boost that ranges from 1.5 to 27).

Ok that is fine. You are in the 5e Forums, people here like & play 5e. I don't understand why you are here.
People here find 5e interesting enough to discuss, and probably play it. There's still plenty of people here who don't particularly like it.

If I have to make up the DCs, then I am making up the those rules if I want to be fair and consistent.

5e doesn't want the GM to be fair and consistent or they want the GM to write large parts of the rules.
Being unable to make case by case judgement calls and requiring a large rules set to be fair and consistent isn't a universal trait.

Nifft

2017-12-18, 03:04 PM

To summarize, I decide what the players can do, not the rules.

Why did I buy this system if I'm doing most of the work?

Because the rules help set common expectations between the DM and the players.

The 5e rules provide a framework, but not a straight-jacket.

It's my opinion that the 5e framework ought to have more specifics and examples, but what it does have is not useless.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 03:04 PM

That's me setting the DC. Aka writing the rules.

If the player wants to know if they can do something, they have to ask me not the rule book.

Some DMs do this. I personally don't like asking if I can do something. I would rather just describe what my character is doing, and what he is trying to accomplish by that, so the DM can adjudicate.

Doing is better than asking.

If my character wants to know if they can do something, they try it.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 03:08 PM

That's me setting the DC. Aka writing the rules.

If the player wants to know if they can do something, they have to ask me not the rule book.

Setting a DC is not writing the rules. It's running a game. The rules are written. All you have to do is put them into play. Even if WotC wrote up long lists of everything in existence and the DC to break/hit/push/swim through/ identify/etc, there would still be situations where they would be missing something. "Sure, it's a DC 12 to climb a knotted rope over a waterfall. But, what if it's winter, and there's ice formed around it on the rocks?!" You literally have to think to yourself, "how hard is this?" then go with it. There's nothing else to it.

Morty

2017-12-18, 03:29 PM

I'd identify the fundamental issue here as one where Proficiency works just fine for combat, and gets inherited by a skill system which doesn't have what made it work for combat. There's no skill equivalent of Extra Attack. There's no skill equivalent of increasing damage. There's relatively few skill equivalents of combat style bonuses.

The quick and dirty solution is to add a skill die system where you roll (Proficiency)d(Something)+d20 instead of just Proficiency+d20. This also provides a way to distinguish between a characters better and worse skills, ranging from d2 to d8 or so (producing an average boost that ranges from 1.5 to 27).

That's might do it, yes. It's more granular and lets skilled characters be confident in passing easy rolls without letting them ace harder ones too. Like I said, I think I remember this idea coming up in playtests, but all that remains of it are some spells and bard features. Shadow of the Demon Lord adds d6 to d20 rolls and and someone told me that one of the people responsible wanted to implement it in 5E. But that may or may not be true.

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 03:34 PM

Why did I buy this system if I'm doing most of the work?

You're not. You're doing little to no work by making a decision.

That's me setting the DC. Aka writing the rules.

No it's not. It's like saying "Pathfinder tell me to decide which modifiers apply in this situation, so it's making me write the rules!"

If the player wants to know if they can do something, they have to ask me not the rule book.

It's a good thing.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 03:50 PM

ITT: So many people blindly defending bad game design.

strangebloke

2017-12-18, 03:53 PM

1. Cr doesn't matter in 5e.

2. 5e tells me that I have to write the skill rules or I can just be an inconsistent ass and the players don't know what their skills can do beyond "whatever the GM feels like that day".

3. PF doesn't ask me to develop a third of the game. But I totally can just wing it when I want rather than being forced too like in 5e.

1. You can use what I like to call 'meatsack' monsters that are at least theoretically an appropriate CR. These are not hard to make.

But they suck. They're boring, and often trivialized by certain tactics. If you actually want a few monsters to challenge your players, there's lots of abilities that you have to add on. Flight, for instance. And if you give flight, you might need to give them fly-by attack and other goodies. At higher levels, you need spellcasting of some variety. Due to PC/NPC verisimilitude, a player is absolutely right to be annoyed if your npc guardsman didn't get the appropriate feat progression. You're *cheating.*

But just think of it in terms of detail that you have to track. At bare minimum you need 3 saves, AC, touch AC, flat-footed AC, stats, attack routine, attack values, and any spells or supernatural abilities it has. At higher levels you'll need flight speed, supernatural senses, and magic resistance. A reasonable dungeon will have to have scrying protection of an appropriate level, teleportation protection of an appropriate level, and it's a chore.

A 5e statblock is like... 6 lines of text. Completely trivial to create on the fly if you have to. The focus shifts to how you deploy them, which is much more fun in my opinion. CR is not meaningless, but the tolerances for what you can throw at the party are a bit wider. This also makes things easier.

2. If you're classifying skill checks against set DCs as a 'third of the game' then you are clearly thinking of skills with a 3x mindset. In 5e checks are called for only when failure is reasonably possible and has consequences, whereas skill checks in 3e are seen as class features. Note that a lot of skill checks have been moved to class features. For instance, climbing at full speed up a climbable wall. For another, look at using bluff to feint in combat. Or using intimidate to cause a fear effect.

Even then, 90% of the skill checks made at my table are opposed checks, and those are easy to arbitrate. Bluff vs. Perception, Perception vs. Stealth, and athletics vs. athletics/acrobatics, most commonly. If one character has a situational advantage/disadvantage, you apply advantage/disadvantage.

Now, I will state that the guidance they give on set DCs is scattered. For another thing, I really wish they called out that 'the DC is set by the challenge,' since some novice DMs are fond of saying that 'the DC is set by your character's ability.' Nonetheless if you want guidelines, it has those. Read the DMG. This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JcNhtOPAM2aE182b654eQ71DrVgn_OxFI7NB-XQ7UkQ/edit#gid=0)is the list of PHB and DMG skill DC suggestions I compiled for my own campaign.

In any case, skills are intended as a very small part of the game, and it isn't like 3x's skill tables covered everything that players used skills for anyway.

3. You *can* wing it in PF. However, there are so many more variables to keep track of that outside of simple DCs like skill, *winging it* is much much harder, and since the rules bind you as a DM your obnoxious rules lawyer is right to call you out on it when you inevitably get something wrong.

Overall? 3x is much closer to a video game in terms of the mechanics. DMs are not computers, and keeping track of so many details in 3x's simulative fashion dramatically slows the game down, and encourages metagaming. Moreover, the game is just plain broken, unbalanced, and the rules frequently do not function as intended. The guidance given in 3x materials is often outright wrong, and the fluff is stupid and out-of-date. The game doesn't simulate any fantasy setting well except for itself, and the published setting don't make any sense, given how RAW is supposed to work.

I am convinced that the only reason DMs prefer 3x is due to their own crusty inertia.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 03:54 PM

ITT: So many people blindly defending bad game design.

Please explain to me what's so hard about deciding how difficult a task is. And, after that, explain to me why you're DMing a game, if you're unwilling to decide how difficult a task is for a player to accomplish. Because, honestly, 90% of running a game is deciding how difficult the task that the player wants to accomplish is.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 03:57 PM

ITT: So many people blindly defending bad game design.

I've seen many ways that it's different, but no argument has persuaded me that it is bad.

Please, enlighten me.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 03:59 PM

In this case, bad game design is highlighted by "no game design."

Making DCs for things or better yet, designing a smart system where DCs became a thing of the past was too much work. Instead the onus is on the DMs.

Who I guess don't have enough stuff to do already, between making the absence of a real magic item loot system work, making the seemingly-arbitrary CR system work, and making a narrative work despite being given no tools to do so.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 04:00 PM

lunaticfringe

2017-12-18, 04:08 PM

People here find 5e interesting enough to discuss, and probably play it. There's still plenty of people here who don't particularly like it.

Yeah. Have you read Mara's statements? I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as wanting to take part in a discussion. But whatever.

My opinion is that they are uncomfortable making rulings without the cop out of "hey page X of X book says you should be able to do that so it's your fault you failed".

Impossible to run with good GM skills....yeesh.

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 04:09 PM

Honestly the 5e rulebooks should have just been a hardcover and a bunch of blank pages, and come pre-packed with a box of crayons.

Would have saved the devs even more time. They could have even just called it, "Oh please god we're so sorry we tried anything new, please start giving us your money again."

Or even "We spent our entire development budget on diamonds so we could raise dead all those sacred cows we slaughtered."

By all means, let's see you handle it better as you clearly are implying you know how to design a better game.

Go on. If you don't like how the game is designed, make your own game. No one is stopping you.

No? Quit your bickering then.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 04:12 PM

Making DCs for things or better yet, designing a smart system where DCs became a thing of the past was too much work. Instead the onus is on the DMs.

I would hate consulting some huge list (or even small list) of DCs when I want to call for a check, however I could get behind a DC less system for sure. What would you have in mind for something like that?

Hrugner

2017-12-18, 04:17 PM

One difference is PF makes PCs more "epic" for the lack of a better word.

IIRC - although I don't have the numbers - a 10th level fighter will have a hard time in 5e against 20 goblins, but not so much in PF.

Overall I think 5e to be way more simple and more balanced.

The dozens of skills in PF do nothing for me.

About skills: NO, you cannot a meaningful skill progression in 5e under normal circumstances unless you get expertise. If you start with a +5 bonus you'll end with a +11 bonus, meaning your chances of success against DC 20 go from 30% to 60%. You are still failing 40% of the time, AT LEVEL 20, when trying to do something YOUR CHARACTER IS BEST AT.

Fortunately, this is very easy to fix if you want to; just use 2d10 or 3d6, and your chances go from 20 to 72% or 10 to 75% - a very meaningful difference. Lower the DCs by 10-15% while you're at it, and now your 20th level fighter with STR 20 can succeed more than 90% of the time when dealing with Hard tasks - which is a lot more reasonable IMO.

This covers most of the difference between the two for me, difference in scope. The lack of progression in 5e is deliberate, but other than making game balance easier on the authors, I can't really see the purpose of doing this. I'm also not terribly thrilled with game balance as a primary design choice in general. My players regularly choose to create unwinnable odds for themselves, so using rules that focus on balance doesn't do much when I'm running the game. 5e is great for DM's that tend to wing it. It's not that great for players who want to feel heroic or do something unique do to the videogame-esque balance centric design philosophy.

5e is not a bad game. I won't run it for a number of reasons, but I play it if that's what the current DM wants to run.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 04:30 PM

This covers most of the difference between the two for me, difference in scope. The lack of progression in 5e is deliberate, but other than making game balance easier on the authors, I can't really see the purpose of doing this. I'm also not terribly thrilled with game balance as a primary design choice in general. My players regularly choose to create unwinnable odds for themselves, so using rules that focus on balance doesn't do much when I'm running the game. 5e is great for DM's that tend to wing it. It's not that great for players who want to feel heroic or do something unique do to the videogame-esque balance centric design philosophy.

5e is not a bad game. I won't run it for a number of reasons, but I play it if that's what the current DM wants to run.

Honestly, you can have a heroic game with realistic measures. A DC 20 is a very hard thing to do. It's not just Hard. We're talking breaking down a door that's been barred. We're talking unlocking a door with a masterwork padlock on the first try. And, a +11 is heroic, when the average bonus is in the range of +3 to +5. Yes, even a level 20 character can be held back by an iron gate blocking the way. And, if he gets unlucky on his roll, he can fail to break it open on the first try. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. You obviously do think so, though. And, you're entitled to that position. But, there's nothing either of us can really say to the other to change position on it.

Knaight

2017-12-18, 04:33 PM

Who I guess don't have enough stuff to do already, between making the absence of a real magic item loot system work, making the seemingly-arbitrary CR system work, and making a narrative work despite being given no tools to do so.

This is why I like the removal of hard DCs - memorizing them or looking them up from a table represents DM work I don't want to do. Similarly a focus on loot where I have to deal with implementing an existing magic item loot system all the time represents work I don't want to do.

3.x stuck me with a lot of tasks that were, bluntly, a waste of my time. Now, if I found implementation of existing rules less tedious and judgement calls more onerous I'd welcome the extra crunch. I don't, so I don't. The removal of hard DCs early in the playtest was the first sign I saw that I might actually like 5e. Similarly I have very little interest in looting and treasure in general (although it's a core part of what makes D&D D&D), and that being toned down was another major sign that I might actually like 5e.

I don't, but I like it vastly more than every other edition.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 04:33 PM

By all means, let's see you handle it better as you clearly are implying you know how to design a better game.

Go on. If you don't like how the game is designed, make your own game. No one is stopping you.

No? Quit your bickering then.

Sure thing. Just give me Jeremy Crawford's job. He doesn't really seem to be using it.

I would hate consulting some huge list (or even small list) of DCs when I want to call for a check, however I could get behind a DC less system for sure. What would you have in mind for something like that?

The general trend in the industry seems to be having a target number that is irrespective of whatever is being attempted. Something like a flat DC of 15 or 20 for all activities with a chance of failure.

Then, depending on how far away you are from the target number, you either get a failure with consequences, a partial success, or a full success.

Maybe a 10 or less is a failure, an 11-19 is a partial success, and a 20 or more is a full success.

The whole point of a skill system like this would be to drive the action forward. You can't try to lockpick the door again if you totally fail because you've broken the mechanism, you have to find an alternative route now. On a partial success, you opened the door, but the guards on the other side (who maybe weren't even there before the partial failure happened) had enough time to get in position to attack you. On a full success, you open the door and the room on the other side was empty, or maybe you catch the guards by surprise.

In such a system, the activity isn't more difficult because of a higher DC, but rather, because the consequences of failing it are more severe. A 50 foot wall isn't harder to climb than a 10 foot wall because the walls are of different material, but because the risk of falling is so much deadlier.

You could run an alternative system with a number of successes instead but I don't fancy that as much.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 04:44 PM

A 50 foot wall isn't harder to climb than a 10 foot wall because the walls are of different material, but because the risk of falling is so much deadlier.

A 50' wall isn't harder to climb because the risk of falling is deadlier. It's harder to climb because it's tiring to continue climbing past a certain distance. It's also harder to climb based on what material it's made of; whether it has regular handholds; whether or not there is a large amount of wind, or rain; and, all kinds of other factors. That's why a set DC doesn't make sense. If the situation changes, the difficulty could change, too. So, it's easy to climb a wall that you've thrown a rope ladder up. It's moderate difficulty to climb a wall with a rope next to it. It's hard to climb a rock wall. It's very hard to climb a rock wall during a windy day. And, it's damn near impossible to climb a rock wall during a rain storm.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 04:45 PM

Yeah but this is a game.

If said game was "Rock climbing simulator 2018" I'd say sure you have a good point.

But it's not.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 04:48 PM

Yeah but this is a game.

If said game was "Rock climbing simulator 2018" I'd say sure you have a good point.

But it's not.

You brought up the example of climbing a wall. This is a game where people have the possibility of failure. If there's no possibility of failure, you don't need DC's at all. So, what's the problem?

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 04:51 PM

I just explained what failure would mean in such a system. You don't need a changing number that is difficult to remember or worse yet inconsistent between tables to have a meaningful skill system.

Most modern RPGs have long since abandoned shifting skill DCs and for good reason: Any skill system where results are binary pass/fail is a bad skill system.

Binary outcomes do not drive gameplay forward. They are pure risk with no real reward or nuance and most of the time the PC best-equipped to make the check does so anyway. You may as well be flipping a coin much of the time.

The_Jette

2017-12-18, 04:54 PM

I just explained what failure would mean in such a system. You don't need a changing number that is difficult to remember or worse yet inconsistent between tables to have a meaningful skill system.

Most modern RPGs have long since abandoned shifting skill DCs and for good reason: Any skill system where results are binary pass/fail is a bad skill system.

Binary outcomes do not drive gameplay forward.

What you explained was degrees of success, with a critical failure. There's not always a situation where degrees of success comes into play. And, every system, even ones that allow degrees of success, are pass/fail. Either you succeed (regardless of the degree of success), or you fail. Those are your only two possible outcomes.

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 04:58 PM

I didn't describe a critical failure, I described a system where failure was not an end to gameplay. Technically 1-19 are a failure under such a system.

Even failures should drive the system forward.

And yes I assure you there is always a way to incorporate partial successes, no matter what you're attempting. If there isn't you don't need a skill check at all. In fact, under such a system, the job of the rule book would be to teach the DM how to construct such skill checks, which is a better use of text and page count than a list of possible DCs and circumstantial modifiers.

Hrugner

2017-12-18, 05:10 PM

Honestly, you can have a heroic game with realistic measures. A DC 20 is a very hard thing to do. It's not just Hard. We're talking breaking down a door that's been barred. We're talking unlocking a door with a masterwork padlock on the first try. And, a +11 is heroic, when the average bonus is in the range of +3 to +5. Yes, even a level 20 character can be held back by an iron gate blocking the way. And, if he gets unlucky on his roll, he can fail to break it open on the first try. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. You obviously do think so, though. And, you're entitled to that position. But, there's nothing either of us can really say to the other to change position on it.

I'm talking more about wading through an army and focusing on the only true threat, or creating another world and populating it with a handcrafted sentient race. Your power stops at a more manageable level in 5e and you don't outclass encounter types in the same way that you do in 3rd. I don't think it's bad exactly, I've just become fond of running games where runaway power growth drives the narrative somewhat. You could just bump up the narrative level for 5e and solve most of these problems without too much trouble as long as you prepped your players. If you bumped up the duration of downtime spells, retired stat blocks for weaker monsters allowing them to be killed for free in passing, and decreased the time it took to take actions based on your proficiency level, you could end up with a more heroic power arc.

I don't think failure is a bad thing, but a narrow scope for success is really limiting as is unreliable success. But that's why we have more than one game, for different types of game play.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 05:10 PM

The general trend in the industry seems to be having a target number that is irrespective of whatever is being attempted. Something like a flat DC of 15 or 20 for all activities with a chance of failure.

Interestingly I run my 5e game with just DCs between 10 and 15. I find anything I would use a 5 for I just have succeed without a roll, and likewise anything that would be a 20 would fail. Of course it does depend on the approach the player is having their character take.

Then, depending on how far away you are from the target number, you either get a failure with consequences, a partial success, or a full success.

Maybe a 10 or less is a failure, an 11-19 is a partial success, and a 20 or more is a full success.

I also fail forward in my 5e game, and offer success with a condition on near rolls.

The whole point of a skill system like this would be to drive the action forward. You can't try to lockpick the door again if you totally fail because you've broken the mechanism, you have to find an alternative route now. Oh yeah, I do this too, or failing might rattle the door and the noise causes the guards to come running.

On a partial success, you opened the door, but the guards on the other side (who maybe weren't even there before the partial failure happened) had enough time to get in position to attack you. On a full success, you open the door and the room on the other side was empty, or maybe you catch the guards by surprise.

I've done similar things in my game for sure. But what I prefer to do now is describe what will happen on a success and what will happen on a failure before the player rolls. I find that harder to do with a partial success. It is easy to do success with a cost however, like "You can see the way to pick the lock, but doing so will damage you're thieves' tools you'll need to have them repaired before using them again."

In such a system, the activity isn't more difficult because of a higher DC, but rather, because the consequences of failing it are more severe. A 50 foot wall isn't harder to climb than a 10 foot wall because the walls are of different material, but because the risk of falling is so much deadlier.

You could run an alternative system with a number of successes instead but I don't fancy that as much.

I obviously like your ideas since it seems like I'm already doing something similar in a lot of cases, but what would gain out of a new system that I'm already not getting out of this one?

UrielAwakened

2017-12-18, 05:16 PM

Essentially nothing but you sound like a DM that knows what he's doing.

A DM Guide is for DMs that don't.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 05:23 PM

Essentially nothing but you sound like a DM that knows what he's doing.

A DM Guide is for DMs that don't.

I don't consider myself a very good DM, In fact most of those things I do, I picked up from reading other posts here and on ENworld, then tried them and was surprised by how much effect they had on my game.

So I do think your criticism is a fair one. The 5e DMG offers a lot of different variants and options to use in your game, less tips on how to make it run smoothly.

Mara

2017-12-18, 05:37 PM

I wish skills were the only problem I had with 5e. I only hate skills from the GM perspective. As a player, I can roll with rules light "let's just make **** up for story" things.

As a player, I hate how this game can't handle mono-encounter days. Player characters are too strong. Our party is too large to run gauntlets of encounters before the real one and actually accomplish anything from session to session. Mechanically, this game has unsatisfying combat that just isn't particularly interesting. The game needs a story focus. Combat tends to be a chore and that's where most of the rules are...

I can have fun in this game, but boy does this system not help the GM, at all, in keeping me and our group engaged.

GlenSmash!

2017-12-18, 05:41 PM

Arkhios

2017-12-18, 06:56 PM

Sure thing. Just give me Jeremy Crawford's job.

Lol. You don't need his job for it. Just do it! Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson made D&D at home, and sold it out from one's garage. No need for a big corporation to make a game.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 08:49 PM

In Pathfinder, you could just add the advanced monster template to the Ogre and get the same effect with the same level of difficulty you'd find in modifying your war ogre for 5e. The granularity is there if you need it, but simple templates are also available.

Leaving aside even a simple thing like a change in armor worn requires recalculation of Touch, flatfooted, and normal AC (knowing max Dex, ACP etc), even then simply changing gear, and slapping a simple template on = no where near as simple.

I also have to ensure the Ogres [BAB/ AC/ Saves] are relevant to my Party. At a bare minimum his hit bonus needs to be high enough to be a challenge to the PCs (be able to hit them on a 10-15+) and his AC needs to be high enough (but not too high) so they're hitting him on around the same number.

Its pointless including a monster as a challenge if he can only hit on a 20, and is auto hit in return. Im just dice rolling for no return, fishing for 20's (pointless and boring) for a bag of HP that doesnt present any challenge or need to be there.

I may have a Paladin (+15 to hit, AC 25) a Rogue (+10 to hit, AC 22) an optimised Oracle (+8 to hit, AC 30) and a Wizard (+8 to hit, AC 18). I need to make sure my Ogre is sitting on around +13 to hit (hits PCs on 17, 12, 9 and 5 respectively) and has an AC of around 25 (Gets hit on 10, 15, 17 and 17 respectively).

If it's not hitting those numbers (roughly), its time to add HD, increase attack stat, gear it up or whatever.

This is something I can totally avoid in 5E. I know the monster (any monster) is going to be able to hit the PCs and be hit in return (but not auto-hit). I dont have to eyeball the numbers afterwards, and find unique ways to make all monsters relevant.

Plus (thanks to bounded accuracy) monsters are relevant across all levels. Instead of a narrow band of monsters (3.P), I can drop [X] Hobgoblins into a battle vs PCs with [X] increasing as the PCs level up (5e).

In PF I would almost certainly need to level those Hobgoblins up (adding 4-5 levels of fighter) just so they hit on something other than a natural 20, and do something drastic with their AC to make them viable threats.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 08:57 PM

If you want a light game that is actually fleshed out, try Savage Worlds.

For example, my main compliant with 5e is the skill rules. In Savage Worlds the DC is 4 unless the GM applies a difficulty mod or the skill itself list modifiers. I

Hahahahah!

'In Savage worlds the DC is 4, unles the DM assigns a different difficulty.'

Guess what? In 5E, the DC is 0 unless the DM assigns a different difficulty.

They're not different. And I DM Savage Worlds as well.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 09:02 PM

Combat tends to be a chore

Compared to 5E?

You're genuinely saying 5E combat is more of a chore than 3.P?

Clearly you've never played either game beyond 3rd level.

Mara

2017-12-18, 09:35 PM

Hahahahah!

'In Savage worlds the DC is 4, unles the DM assigns a different difficulty.'

Guess what? In 5E, the DC is 0 unless the DM assigns a different difficulty.

They're not different. And I DM Savage Worlds as well.

That's a moronic statement...

The 5e default DC is not specified. Your statement is just stupid.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 09:40 PM

The 5e default DC is not specified. .

Straight from the PHB:

Typical Difficulty Classes
Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

In Savage worlds CRB, the base DC is 4, and the guidelines for trait tests in the core rules recommend +2 for an easy task, -2 for a difficult task, and -4 for a very difficult task and so forth.

So:

Difficulty________5E________SW
Easy___________10_________2
Medium________15_________4
Hard___________20_________6
V Hard_________25_________8
N Impossible____30_________10

Now explain to me how this is different.

Kane0

2017-12-18, 09:54 PM

But you're prompting the DM to make a decision, which isn't in the job description.

If you're having trouble picking DCs, theres plenty (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495062-Spreadsheet-of-published-skill-DCs) of assistance (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536749-5e-Ability-Skill-and-Tool-Use-DCs) available (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?484052-Community-Skill-DC-Tables-for-Gritty-Heroic-and-Mythic-Play).

Mara

2017-12-18, 09:58 PM

Straight from the PHB:

Typical Difficulty Classes
Task Difficulty DC
Very easy 5
Easy 10
Medium 15
Hard 20
Very hard 25
Nearly impossible 30

In Savage worlds CRB, the base DC is 4, and the guidelines for trait tests in the core rules recommend +2 for an easy task, -2 for a difficult task, and -4 for a very difficult task and so forth.

So:

Difficulty________5E________SW
Easy___________10_________2
Medium________15_________4
Hard___________20_________6
V Hard_________25_________8
N Impossible____30_________10

Now explain to me how this is different.Yup, 5e pick a DC, aka make up rules.

Savage Words, just use 4 unless the skill itself list modifiers. I don't have to make up rules. If the skill can do it, 4 is the DC (baring actual rules also applying a mod). You may apply diff modifiers in your games, but I don't have to and the game is working great.

Mara

2017-12-18, 10:00 PM

Malifice

2017-12-18, 10:03 PM

But you're prompting the DM to make a decision, which isn't in the job description.

Heh.

Its the weirdest critique of 5E I've seen.

Virtually every RPG has a general 'assign difficulty to task' rule and very (very) few have a detailed list of specific DCs for every concievable use of each individual skill.

Rolemaster, Shadowrun, 5E, Savage Worlds, 2E, WFRP, Rogue Trader, WEG D6 Star Wars, etc etc etc all use a 'Here is a list of DC's/ difficulty modifiers. When a player wants to do something, assign a difficulty and they then roll the dice vs that number (or with that modifier applied).'

Its never been a complaint raised against any other system. I cant for the life of me get why it's apparently such an issue this time around.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 10:10 PM

Savage Words, just use 4 unless the skill itself list modifiers.

No, thats not the rule at all. Thats your houserule.

I Referee the system (Savage Worlds: Rifts) and I own the books. Individual skills in SW do not contain a list of discrete DCs for multiple tasks (like what you're advocating 5E have) and there is no rule of 'always TN:4 unless something else the skill iteslf says otherwise'.

In both games, the DM applies modifiers to the base DC (actually in SW uit applies as a penalty to the roll, but same thing) depending on difficulty (as adjudicated by the DM).

If you're trying to do a backflip without slipping over in SW, its DC 4 (Acrobatics). If you're trying to do it on an oily floor you get -2 to your check (DC 6). If you're trying to do a double backflip its -4 and so on (DC 8).

Make the roll by 4 or more, and you get a raise (do it really well).

They're the rules. The DM assigns a DC based on the difficulty of the task attempted (with DC 4 as the default/ average difficulty, and you add or subtract +/-2 for each degree of difficulty harder than moderate it is).

In 5E its exactly the same. Default 'medium' difficulty is DC 15. Add or subtract 5 for every step harder or easier the task is.

There is no freaking difference.

Kane0

2017-12-18, 10:15 PM

Or these rules could be in the PH. They aren't, other people had to patch an incomplete system.

Valid point. They are available to people now though, much like DM screens and the like. Is the game enjoyable to you with these in hand?

Malifice

2017-12-18, 10:21 PM

Just looking at the [generic] 'How to adjudicate Trait Tests' section of the SW core rules, and the example given is for using the Tracking skill where...

An easy task such as find tracks in mud would have a +2 modifier
A difficult task such as finding tracks by torchlight would be -2
A very difficult task such as finding tracks in a rainstorm would be -4

It uses this example, and tells you to apply this general rule to all skills/ trait tests. So if the Referee decides a task is difficult, he subtracts 2 from the players roll (same as increasing the DC by 2). If the task is super difficult he subtracts 4 (same as decreasing the DC by 4).

I'm really not seeing how this is different to 5E. Or literally nearly every other RPG for that matter.

Of all the things to be critical of 5E about, this is a weird hill to die on.

Mara

2017-12-18, 10:23 PM

No, thats not the rule at all. Thats your houserule.

I Referee the system (Savage Worlds: Rifts) and I own the books. Individual skills in SW do not contain a list of discrete DCs for multiple tasks (like what you're advocating 5E have) and there is no rule of 'always TN:4 unless something else the skill iteslf says otherwise'.

In both games, the DM applies modifiers to the base DC (actually in SW uit applies as a penalty to the roll, but same thing) depending on difficulty (as adjudicated by the DM).

If you're trying to do a backflip without slipping over in SW, its DC 4 (Acrobatics). If you're trying to do it on an oily floor you get -2 to your check (DC 6). If you're trying to do a double backflip its -4 and so on (DC 8).

Make the roll by 4 or more, and you get a raise (do it really well).

They're the rules. The DM assigns a DC based on the difficulty of the task attempted (with DC 4 as the default/ average difficulty, and you add or subtract +/-2 for each degree of difficulty harder than moderate it is).

In 5E its exactly the same. Default 'medium' difficulty is DC 15. Add or subtract 5 for every step harder or easier the task is.

There is no freaking difference.But I don't have to apply difficulty mods. The system works just fine without it. Some skills list other mods. I use those. Everything else is 4.

It's working great as a rules heavy system.

Sure I can add my own random mods, but then the system is now rules light BY VIRTUE OF ME DOING MORE WORK and making the players not know what they can do. Pfff pass

Unoriginal

2017-12-18, 10:31 PM

First, that's not what the terms "rule light" or "rule heavy" means. A rule light system is a system that has few rules.

Second, there is no difference between "the default is X, adjust according to the difficulty of the task" and "something easy is Y, adjust according to the difficulty of the task"

Malifice

2017-12-18, 10:41 PM

But I don't have to apply difficulty mods.

Leaving all skill DCs at 4 (moderate difficulty) in Savage Worlds, and then never adjusting up or down for task difficulty is exactly the same thing as setting all 5E skill difficultuies at Medium (DC 15) and never adjusting up or down for task difficulty.

Takes as much work to do as well. You seem to be happy doing it in SW, but not 5E.

Its also the exact same thing as setting all difficulties as [Medium/ moderate/ average] in every other damn system where the [DM/ GM/ Referee] sets a task DC, and then the player rolls.

Its just such a weird critique of 5E for someone to have. You're acting like 5E is some kind of outlier in its rule of 'DM asseses task difficulty, assigns DC/ TN, player rolls' and its absence of a detailed list of DCs/ TNs for each application of evey skill in the game.

It's really not an outlier. In fact, that's pretty much how the overwhelming majority of RPGs out there handle task resolution.

Yes, including Savage Worlds.

Kane0

2017-12-18, 10:57 PM

Hmm. Come to think of it, I do pretty much always use DC 15 when i'm DMing. Well unless it's an opposed check.

I think I have used DC 20 a bit, but it would have to be less than half the time.

Mara

2017-12-18, 11:05 PM

Leaving all skill DCs at 4 (moderate difficulty) in Savage Worlds, and then never adjusting up or down for task difficulty is exactly the same thing as setting all 5E skill difficultuies at Medium (DC 15) and never adjusting up or down for task difficulty.

Takes as much work to do as well. You seem to be happy doing it in SW, but not 5E.

Its also the exact same thing as setting all difficulties as [Medium/ moderate/ average] in every other damn system where the [DM/ GM/ Referee] sets a task DC, and then the player rolls.

Its just such a weird critique of 5E for someone to have. You're acting like 5E is some kind of outlier in its rule of 'DM asseses task difficulty, assigns DC/ TN, player rolls' and its absence of a detailed list of DCs/ TNs for each application of evey skill in the game.

It's really not an outlier. In fact, that's pretty much how the overwhelming majority of RPGs out there handle task resolution.

Yes, including Savage Worlds.
1. 5e never tells you to just use 15 and apply mods if you feel like it.

2. a d6 in a skill with a wildcard has a 75% to get 4 in SW. +4 in a skill in 5e has a 50% chance to get a 15. You need a +9 in 5e for 15 to be a 75% success rate. Your example would make more sense if you said a DC of 10 was default. But 5e doesn't give a default value because even these devs know that wouldn't work.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 11:05 PM

I tend to do the same. 10 and 20 also gets used reasonably often.

Party are 18th level now so I'm setting a fair few more 25s as well. More epic tasks for more epic heroes.

I've used DC 30 about twice i can remember over the whole campaign.

Mara

2017-12-18, 11:13 PM

there is no difference between "the default is X, adjust according to the difficulty of the task" and "something easy is Y, adjust according to the difficulty of the taskif you feel like it"
One is a system built around a high variance d20 and NEEDS a DM to set the DC (aka make up all those rules). The other is a system where all the mechanics are designed around 4 being the target number, but it gives the GM a way to influence things if they feel it is needed. I haven't felt it to be needed beyond the mods the game already has written out. The game is running great, the Players know what their characters are likely to be able to do and they didn't have to memorizes a bunch of rules to do it.

You just can't get that with 5e skills. They are a mess.

Malifice

2017-12-18, 11:16 PM

1. 5e never tells you to just use 15 and apply mods if you feel like it.

No, it sets DC 15 as the DC for a 'Medium' difficulty task. Savage Worlds sets a TN of 4 for a 'Medium' difficulty task.

In 5E you increase/ decrease the DC (usually in increments of 5) for harder/ easier tasks. In SW you increase/ decrease the Players roll (usually in increments of 2) for harder/ easier tasks.

What is the material ****ing difference here?

2. a d6 in a skill with a wildcard has a 75% to get 4 in SW. +4 in a skill in 5e has a 50% chance to get a 15. You need a +9 in 5e for 15 to be a 75% success rate. Your example would make more sense if you said a DC of 10 was default. But 5e doesn't give a default value because even these devs know that wouldn't work.

It DOES give default values. The default value for a Medium difficulty task is 15. In SW the default value for a Medium difficulty task is 4.

You then adjust this value up (or down) to reflect difficulty, at the discretion of the DM.

Mara

2017-12-18, 11:20 PM

No, it sets DC 15 as the DC for a 'Medium' difficulty task. Savage Worlds sets a TN of 4 for a 'Medium' difficulty task.

In 5E you increase/ decrease the DC (usually in increments of 5) for harder/ easier tasks. In SW you increase/ decrease the Players roll (usually in increments of 2) for harder/ easier tasks.

What is the material ****ing difference here?

It DOES give default values. The default value for a Medium difficulty task is 15. In SW the default value for a Medium difficulty task is 4.

You then adjust this value up (or down) to reflect difficulty, at the discretion of the DM.
The math is entirely different. You are basically saying SW characters are just more skilled than 5e characters. TN is 4. It's a great skill system. Works great. Well laid out DCs and the individual skills have rules as needed. I as a GM do not have to alter those rules for them to work well.

5e has several difficulties. They demand you pick one. Any DC over 9 makes skills far harder and more random than what Savage Worlds offers. 5e's skills is a garbage system. Basically no modifiers or rules. They just leave it to the GM to write it up. Craptastic.

Kane0

2017-12-18, 11:21 PM

Malifice buddy, I think it's time to throw in the towel. The standpoints are set, there aint no changing either one at this point.

Hrugner

2017-12-18, 11:25 PM

Leaving aside even a simple thing like a change in armor worn requires recalculation of Touch, flatfooted, and normal AC (knowing max Dex, ACP etc), even then simply changing gear, and slapping a simple template on = no where near as simple.

snip

All you've done here is illustrated that you don't know about simple templates in Pathfinder. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but don't go on and on as if you are familiar with the game.

Kane0

2017-12-18, 11:27 PM

He's not wrong, though perhaps exaggerated for effect. Changing from a one handed melee weapon to a two handed one can cause all sorts of headaches for those not in the know in 3.PF. Theres Str bonuses, feats like power attack, and more. 5e is rather simplistic in comparison, which some like and other don't.

Pex

2017-12-18, 11:58 PM

Pathfinder vs 5E

Point Buy - Winner: Pathfinder

Players have more freedom on ability scores. Does not think a 1st level character having an 18 is an abomination. Does not tax players to get rid of penalties. Let's players choose them if they want higher specialty elsewhere.

Warrior classes - Winner: 5E

Pathfinder gave the paladin lots of love, but given the framework of the respective systems 5E warrior classes function better in 5E than Pathfinder warriors function in Pathfinder.

Spellcaster classes - Winner: Pathfinder

Some people loathe the versatility of the Pathfinder spellcaster, but I like it. There are many different ways to have a spellcaster you're engorged in the power.

Feats - Winner: Tie

5E Feats give you a significant boost. Feats aren't requirements for basic actions. However, multiclassing is penalized getting fewer or delayed. The cost of an ability score increase is too high many feats are never taken. Pathfinder gives you lots of choices to specialize or shore up a weakness. It's a separate resource gained so doesn't cost you anything. Unfortunately, not having a needed feat means your character is The Suck for trying to do something. The Feat's purpose is to allow you to do something you should already be allowed to do.

Skills - Winner: Pathfinder

You know how I feel about this.

Magic items - Winner: Pathfinder

5E does not forbid magic items and does not cease to function when they're in the game, but DMs tend to go overboard in denying them. Magic items are part of the fun of the game. In Pathfinder DMs can go the other extreme and provide too many. The tie break is players being allowed to create their own. No magic item exists without the DM's permission in any edition, but I prefer Pathfinder not being terrified of its players creating magic items.

Spells - Winner: Tie

5E's strength is in the Cantrips allowing the spellcaster to contribute meaningfully to conserve power. However, while I don't object to the concentration mechanic, I do think it's too much of a straightjacket. It needed to allow spellcaster to concentrate on more than one spell, accepting at some level > 1. I'm fine with Pathfinder and stacking buffs. I do not view it as a problem to be angry about that a Pathfinder spellcaster at some point does not run out of spell slots. Spellcasters are entitled to cast spells. That's the whole point. Individual spells could be an issue. Deal with them specifically, not the spellcasting class.

Game play - Winner: 5E

Have to admit, having no limit on how far you can move and do what you want to do is total freedom. Warriors don't lose attacks. Warriors don't take a penalty to attack for attacking more than once. Spellcasters can cast whenever and where ever they are. I like the fiddly bits of Pathfinder adding lots of bonus numbers from different sources, but the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic of 5E is easier. It annoys me when others are getting annoyed adding up the bonuses of Pathfinder. Math is not that hard. Even in 5E some players have to take a moment longer than needed to add dice rolls. Maybe that's a individual person thing and not a game thing, but since it is an issue I can appreciate it's less of a problem in 5E. Still, is it that hard to remember you have +4 to hit which we told you a minute ago last round? /rant

Pathfinder edges out as my prefer system, but despite my gripes I like 5E well enough to play it.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 12:05 AM

Malifice buddy, I think it's time to throw in the towel. The standpoints are set, there aint no changing either one at this point.

True dat. Wasting my time.

Obviously base DC 4 for medium tasks (+/-2) for difficulty, is totally different from base DC 15 for medium tasks (+/-5) for difficulty.

I see where I was wrong now.

All you've done here is illustrated that you don't know about simple templates in Pathfinder. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but don't go on and on as if you are familiar with the game.

Way to miss the point.

I do know about simple templates in pathfinder. I quite liked them.

My point was that simple templates alone dont do the job. A DM doesnt just apply a template and that's it. In 3.P I also have to eyeball the Monsters (BAB/ AC/ CMD etc) to ensure they are a valid challenge.

If they're not, I have to add more to them until their bonuses are actually where I need them to be to challenge the party.

In 5E an Ogre (for example) remains a valid threat at all levels. I can add a feature like (say) multiattack, proficiency in save, bump Str to 20, dressing it in plate mail, and doubling its HD (or all five) on the fly. While this makes it more of a challenge, I dont need to assess its numerical statistics (attack bonus, AC, saves, etc) other than note that if its CR increases, its Proff bonus might also increase (usually by 1).

In 5E I know that AC 18 from Plate and (say ) +8 to hit (Str 20, CR 5) is a good AC/ attack bonus from levels 1-20. I could throw this beastie at PCs from levels 4-20. Im done.

I statted it up in 2 minute with almost no math involved, and zero recalibrating and comparing its bonuses vs the PCs in my party.

In 3.P (in addtion to doing a lot more maths) I also have to ensure the thing can hit the PCs, and can be hit by them, without being too easy or too hard.

Bounded accuracy (and less fiddly math) means that I can cut a lot of time out of advancing monsters, and designing encounters. I can drop any monster into an encounter and i dont have to double check the monsters statistics to ensure the thing isnt just table dressing. Its also a lot easier to adjust on the fly without having to make sure you've made the thing too deadly or a total waste of space.

Mara

2017-12-19, 12:33 AM

Obviously base DC 4 for medium tasks (+/-2) for difficulty, is totally different from base DC 15 for medium tasks (+/-5) for difficulty.

1. 5e doesn't state 15 as the default.

2. The math is entirely different.

In SW your ability to get 4 varies between 62.5% to 98.6% in any skill you are trained in. A minimal investment of two points puts you at 75% at the start (level 1). If you get a plus 2 edge (feat), magic item, or cybernetic, your success rate is 97%

Even if 15 was default in 5e (which it isn't), your success rate varies between 25% to 100% in any skill you are proficient in. A minimal investment of a +2 in the link skill stat puts you at 50% at level 1. With max stat and attribute, your success rate is 85%.

Plus or minus two in SW is no where near equivalent to plus or minus 5 in 5e. I would be hesitant to throw out those mods in SW unless the rules ask me to. That "out" basically just gives me as a GM a way to force the event I want to happen. I don't like doing that, so I don't and SW can handle that. Even if I erroneously assumed like you do that 15 is the default 5e DC, then the game would break if I ran it that way. PCs would just fail most activities and could barely function.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 12:46 AM

1. 5e doesn't state 15 as the default.

Yes it ****ing well does. DC 15 is the stated DC for Medium difficulty tasks. You add or subtract 5 for harder or easier tasks. DMs call.

Just like TN 4 is the DC in Savage Worlds for Medium difficuly tasks. You add or subtract 2 for harder or easier tasks. DMs call.

2. The math is entirely different.

Which is a totally different argument to the one you were initially making.

SW uses a skill system that allows for a PC to hit any DC (exploding dice) and provides degrees of success (via scoring a raise) baked into the system.

By default, 5E doesnt.

Its fair game to say you prefer the SW system for those reasons. I wont begrudge you that. But your being totally intellectually dishonest to try and argue that both systems use totally different methods for assigning the base DC to a task.

They both boil down to: DM determines difficulty and assigns DC. In SW this is a base of 4 for a medium difficulty task, and the roll itself is penalised by 2 for harder tasks, and by 4 for super hard tasks, and by 6 for near impossible tasks. Easy tasks get a bonus of +2. In 5E this is a base of 15 for a medium difficulty task, and it goes up or down by 5 for each category harder or lower it is.

Player: I want to pick the fancy looking lock.
DM (Asseses the lock as 'Hard' to pick. Determines DC/ penalty)

SW: Please make me a Agility (Lockpick) trait test vs TN 4 at -2 to your roll (Hard)
5E: Please make me a Dex (Thieves tools) check vs DC 20 (Hard).

Its the exact same process.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 12:53 AM

Also, 5e assumes you auto-succeed a large number of your a tions. Making an ability check is for when there is a risk of failure with consequences.

Mara

2017-12-19, 12:58 AM

Which is a totally different argument to the one you were initially making.

SW uses a skill system that allows for a PC to hit any DC (exploding dice) and provides degrees of success (via scoring a raise) baked into the system.

By default, 5E doesnt.

Its fair game to say you prefer the SW system for those reasons. I wont begrudge you that. But your being totally intellectually dishonest to try and argue that both systems use totally different methods for assigning the base DC to a task.

They both boil down to: DM determines difficulty and assigns DC. In SW this is a base of 4 for a medium difficulty task, and the roll itself is penalised by 2 for harder tasks, and by 4 for super hard tasks, and by 6 for near impossible tasks. Easy tasks get a bonus of +2. In 5E this is a base of 15 for a medium difficulty task, and it goes up or down by 5 for each category harder or lower it is.

Player: I want to pick the fancy looking lock.
DM (Asseses the lock as 'Hard' to pick. Determines DC/ penalty)

SW: Please make me a Agility (Lockpick) trait test vs TN 4 at -2 to your roll (Hard)
5E: Please make me a Dex (Thieves tools) check vs DC 20 (Hard).

Its the exact same process.And I keep telling you that I run SW and I have never determined the difficulty of a task and the system handles that just fine. The few skills that really need those mods (like climb and stealth) have a table (the kind of tables 5e just doesn't have).

So there is a difference. 5e does not play well even if I buy into this idea that 15 is default, 15 is a terrible number to be default in 5e and it's math is terrible for it.

strangebloke

2017-12-19, 01:22 AM

The math isn't hard, in the same sense that keeping track of your finances isn't hard.

It's just adding and subtracting numbers.

Not hard.

Just tedious as hell.

I had a google sheet I used to keep everyone abreast of the numerous persisted auras my cleric had surrounding her in a halo. I would switch them out between combats, sometimes add a non-persisted aura into the mix... Anytime combat comes to a stop because 'the spreadsheet needs updated.' is not a good time.

The party druid summons a wolf storm and combat basically stops as he walks through each wolf's decision tree. (I attack. I hit? I roll for trip? Is he tripped? No? Ok, I attack again. I hit? I roll for trip. He's tripped? Ok. Next wolf. I attack. No, you're right, this one doesn't get flanking. I miss. I attack again. I hit. Do I trip? Yes. Ok. He moves to the next cultist....)

That same druid spent five minutes figuring out his abilities each time he shifted forms.

Somebody gets hit with negative levels, and when you get around to his turn you just have to wait for ten minutes because every modifier on his sheet needed to be recalculated, and he's been changing out numbers for half an hour and it still isn't all right, because he forgot the order that he took his feats in and now he realized that he's missing a feat that was required to use a magic item that was altering his base INT which means that skills need to be altered...

The time between turns is so long that by the time we get to Jerry's turn, it's been so long that he's actually started playing skyrim on his laptop and he needs to look up and remind himself where we are in combat.

And through all this the DM is frantically trying to control this whole rodeo.

5e has its issues. I'd describe it's characters as too well-rounded if anything. There's no bizarre 'Wizards who only Know one Super-Spell' or Barbarians who are absurdly incompetent at anything that isn't combat. 3e was wild and bizarre and kinda freaky and I loved it. In 5e everyone's just kinda good at everything and that's sad. The skills system needs some work. But it is something that 3e is not. It's a game where I can actually get through the combats without hating myself and everyone at the table. I can bring new people into the game and show them the important rules in a couple hours. I can focus on elements other than the mechanics themselves and enjoy the roleplay.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 02:41 AM

And I keep telling you that I run SW and I have never determined the difficulty of a task and the system handles that just fine.

So youre arguing the rule [DM assigns task difficulty and DC/ TN] is different between the systems... on account of you ignoring the rule of [DM assigns task difficulty and DC/ TN] in Savage Worlds?

You agree both have the same general rule, but it doesnt count in SW because you choose to ignore it?

Intresting argument.

Mara

2017-12-19, 11:04 AM

So youre arguing the rule [DM assigns task difficulty and DC/ TN] is different between the systems... on account of you ignoring the rule of [DM assigns task difficulty and DC/ TN] in Savage Worlds?

You agree both have the same general rule, but it doesnt count in SW because you choose to ignore it?

Intresting argument.
I'm arguing that it isn't needed for SW but it is needed in 5e. I don't personally consider "the GM can make stuff up" a rule. That's just the system reminding me of rule. So I won't consider either system having the "rule" of "DM sets DC" for 5e or "GM can apply difficulty mods" for SW. Those aren't rules, they're reminders of rule 0.

SW pretends it's rule light, but I've found I can run the rules as written and don't have to fill in the blanks myself. I running it as though there is suppose to be a rule for everything and so far the only stuff I needed to fill in was crafting rules. Though SW at least has prices for magic items...

5e just requires too much work on the GMs part. Especially for skills.

Willie the Duck

2017-12-19, 11:33 AM

This isn't a real discussion. There aren't positions arguing in good faith (which is not surprising, given that this is in the 5e section). The two people who have come to argue for PF being better both have at least one good point apiece, but are also making arguments that amount to '5e is less fun if you try as hard as you can not to have any fun while playing it.' That's all well and good, but what greater value does it serve?

To summarize, I decide what the players can do, not the rules.
Why did I buy this system if I'm doing most of the work?

This is the part that confuses me. I feel like it requires completely ignoring the massive amounts of DM fiat and DM work that goes into making a 3e/PF game work. Setting an allowed tier and level of optimization. Dictating interactions of buggy rules. Building monsters. Yes, the 3.5 books have a chart laying out the exact difficulty level of a given diplomacy skill check. And then they have diplomancer builds. yaaaaayy? I concede that 5e has its' own problems, and it is entirely possible to care about the issues that 5e has and not care about the ones that 3e has. But not acknowledging them is disingenuous.

As a player, I hate how this game can't handle mono-encounter days. Player characters are too strong. Our party is too large to run gauntlets of encounters before the real one and actually accomplish anything from session to session. Mechanically, this game has unsatisfying combat that just isn't particularly interesting. The game needs a story focus. Combat tends to be a chore and that's where most of the rules are...

I can have fun in this game, but boy does this system not help the GM, at all, in keeping me and our group engaged.

Again, how does 3e/PF do this well? isn't the 15-minute workday and what it did to balance one of the primary complaints that lead to the development of what became 4e D&D, specifically because of how poorly 3e handles this?

Do I have to remind anyone Im a Power Gamer?

Please read the Title: Pathfinder.
I can make a Bloodrager with +15 Initiative and combo a 25foot reach by level 7. Edit: Sorry 30 feet.

So in effect, you enjoy the things most people consider flaws in 3e/PF and miss their presence in 5e (which you acknowledge you won't put the effort into learning well)?
That's fine. Good for you for understanding you. But that's not an argument for the merits of one over the other.

Sure thing. Just give me Jeremy Crawford's job. He doesn't really seem to be using it.

You come around to this basic premise about once every third thread. We get it. You think you could do a better job at running D&D than the people who have been put in charge.

You have some cogent arguments, but for the most part what we're here doing doesn't really lend itself to the rest of us having any real way of knowing if you would be any good at his job (which is to say we have no real evidence for or against). However, I hope you know that this comes off at least partially like the guy in the bar on the day after the game talking about how great the <favorite sports team> would do if they were the coach.

But I tend to agree with everyone else--if you could do better, do better. It has never been easier to be an independent contributor--either for 3PP 5e material or for your own OSR game. There's literally nothing stopping you but the hard work and perseverance which anyone who thinks they could/should/would do JC's job better than he does had better know is part and parcel of the gig.

The whole point of a skill system like this would be to drive the action forward. You can't try to lockpick the door again if you totally fail because you've broken the mechanism, you have to find an alternative route now. On a partial success, you opened the door, but the guards on the other side (who maybe weren't even there before the partial failure happened) had enough time to get in position to attack you. On a full success, you open the door and the room on the other side was empty, or maybe you catch the guards by surprise.

Yes. Me and my co-creator found this out when we tried to design a Mad Max style game (thus very interaction-with-environment-centric gameplay). Having a Boolean success/failure system does not work for things like jumping or climbing, although I think it could be fine for lockpicking. I've never really been satisfied with any one system for all circumstances for that exact reason.

Mara

2017-12-19, 11:57 AM

Pelle

2017-12-19, 12:03 PM

Haven't played SW so I'm wondering, how do you decide when to call for a check?

Even if you are always using medium difficulty, I guess you still have to decide what is necessary to call for a check for, for example if trying to jump 1, 10 or 100 m respectively. If so, it seems to be the same thought process as for deciding the DC (or to call for a check at all) in 5e...

mephnick

2017-12-19, 12:07 PM

My level 8 party once killed a cr 20 Pitfiend. It wasn't even hard. Our group is just 7 people large and knows what they are doing.

I mean, 7 players vs 1 creature is a pretty lame encounter in any edition of D&D. 3.5 was no different.

But yeah, 5e definitely neutered some of the big bads. They aren't nearly as scary.

ThePolarBear

2017-12-19, 12:36 PM

3e is an interesting game. Combat is deep and full of strategy and all a DM has to do is throw out CR appropriate foes and it just works most of the time.

5e's combat is just kind of boring. Oh boy I can either spam attacks or spam cantrips! This isn't a waste of time as we just roll over the combat. My level 8 party once killed a cr 20 Pitfiend. It wasn't even hard. Our group is just 7 people large and knows what they are doing.

I mean, 7 players vs 1 creature is a pretty lame encounter in any edition of D&D. 3.5 was no different.

But yeah, 5e definitely neutered some of the big bads. They aren't nearly as scary.

By encounters guildelines, this would be a "hard" encounter (by description... i will not comment on what your/DMG definition difference is)... Did you manage to fight 6-8 encounters like that before a long rest? Also, had it Legendary actions/resistances, if it was meant to be a sort of "big bad encounter"? Why not devise a "lair" for it, too?

The system is different. Solo monsters are meant to have something to put them on par with action economy levels with 4-5 heroes, and some also have "lairs" to make things even more interesting and dynamic.

Willie the Duck

2017-12-19, 12:38 PM

So now we're up to not even addressing the counterpoints? Nice. Should be drop the pretense of actually having a discussion then? Because I think the rest of us have too much self respect to bother with this for much more.

You don't have to like 5e, but many of the things mentioned are very deliberate actions because of the frustration people had with 3e/PF.

Is combat more straightforward? Yes! Deliberately so! Because lots of people who had started before 3e were frustrated with how much combat dominated the game. 5e, much like oD&D, classic/basic, Advanced, and 2e, combat individual combats are quick, minor things which are mostly determined by who enters the combat with the upper hand.

This is where it always seems to come down with threads like these. Those people who expected 5e to be another attempt at the 3.0, 3.5, PF genre are surprised that it isn't D&D 3.51 or 3.76 (using the PF=3.75 terminology). But why would it be? It is a different game, just like 3e is from 2e and 4e is from either of those. But so are GURPS, or Hero System (both of which scoff at 3e/PF in terms of character building, or combat options, and do so with much more balance). So why is 5e under the microscope at failing to live up to the expectations that it should be better at being 3e/PF than 3e or Pathfinder are, when that isn't its' design intention?

strangebloke

2017-12-19, 12:41 PM

I'm arguing that it isn't needed for SW but it is needed in 5e.

SW pretends it's rule light, but I've found I can run the rules as written and don't have to fill in the blanks myself. I running it as though there is suppose to be a rule for everything and so far the only stuff I needed to fill in was crafting rules. Though SW at least has prices for magic items...

5e just requires too much work on the GMs part. Especially for skills.

Skills honestly just aren't that big a deal in 5e. They were a larger deal in pathfinder/3e, but they weren't a 'third of the game.' In reality, most skills, excepting a few like use magic device, had only niche uses until they were granted a bigger role by a class feature, spell, or feat. Diplomacy, bluff, move silently... they were are all useful, but optimization wrt to skills usually took the form of covering as many useful skills maxed as possible, or getting early access a PRC by cheesing the skill rank requirements. The returns for pumping a single skill to ungodly levels were in my experience either very small or very stupid. (the 'diplomancer')

In 5e, you don't get class features that bring new relevance to skills. You get class features that just... let you do things. You don't get a feat that lets you force a 'save or be frightened' effect with a DC based off of an intimidate check. You get to force a 'save or be frightened effect' that has the same DC as the rest of your spells. Skill checks are only intended for things with a high degree of randomness and risk. IE, the guidance on climbing. You are supposed to say one of the following:

'yes you can climb the thing, use your climb speed,'
'no you cannot climb the thing you're too heavy/you're not strong enough/there are no handholds'
'the wall is slippery and/or the handholds are unstable, make a skill check.'

This is why bounded accuracy makes it hard for you to consistently achieve results. If its believable that you can climb a wall or the consequences for failing are uninteresting, you just climb the wall. Skills have a very narrow application within 5e. You are only supposed to use them for things with a large degree of randomness. Now I will grant that for some things this ends up being sort of stupid, like with knowledge skills. If I'm a smart novice wizard, I should know more than Joe Schmoe about a magical topic 100% of the time, not 75% of the time.

But if you really feel that your character needs to dominate a certain skill, well, you can still optimize. Guidance and expertise are each half a feat away. If magic items are available, advantage on an application of a skill typically costs 1000 gp, although depending on the skill check it could be less or more. If you stack those bonuses you net a +10 skill mod at level 1 and you have a ~96% chance of beating Joe Schmoe at the skill. You have a 50% chance of hitting a 25 (impossible) with such a build, from level one.

Really, 5e doesn't so much lack guidance, as it's guidance is subjective enough that DMs often mess it up. I still agree that skills are a weak subsystem in the game, and the skills section is full of bad advice and unclear references.

You know.

Like everything published for 3rd edition. (can't speak to pathfinder.)

JNAProductions

2017-12-19, 12:44 PM

Rynjin

2017-12-19, 01:05 PM

In addition to what was pointed out about you ignoring the earlier post, what exactly can a Fighter do in PF besides spam attack? They could dedicate their entire build to, say, tripping, which means they can attack or trip. Two options!

Not much, which is why Fighters are a joke. Though you can build a solid multi-maneuver Fighter if you use the pre-nerf stomped version of Lore Warden, easily.

It's other classes that do have more options that make PF fun. An easy low-key example is the Barbarian.

A 5e Barbarian can: Attack and Grapple good (or another maneuver that uses Athletics).

A Pathfinder Barbarian can: Attack, Grapple (or another maneuver of their choice), debuff enemies and cure status effects on allies (Spell Sunder), fly (Elemental Blood Air or Dragon Totem), force enemies to attack them (Boasting Taunt), force enemies to flee and become helpless (Intimidating Glare + Terrifying Howl + Cornugon Smash), gain True Seeing in combat to pinpoint a slippery enemy (Ultimate Clarity), etc., etc.

Mara

2017-12-19, 01:25 PM

My PF fighter has skills that let her do things unless the GM heavily houserules.

I won't say the PF fighter is a good class but

Dwarf(Mountaineer, Sky Sentinel, Craftsman) Fighter || 16 14 16 12 10 8 || Traits: Glory of Old, Seeker|| Perception, Climb, Craft(Clothing)
1. Steel Soul, Combat Reflexes
2. Step-up
3. Master Armorer, Armor Training
4. Power Attack
5. Master Craftsman (Clothing), Weapon Training(Heavy Blades)
6. Disruptive
7. Craft Wondrous Item, Armored Juggernaut
8. Cut From the Air
9. Smash from the Air, Versatile Training(Intimidate, Ride)
10. Spellbreaker
11. Shatterspell, Armor Specialization
12. Combat Stamina
13. Pindown, Defensive Weapon Training
14. Warrior Spirit
15. Armed Bravery, Critical Deflection
16. Fighter’s Reflexes
17. Sprightly Armor, Trained Initiative
18. Improved Initiative
19. Armored Sacrifice
20. Weapon Sacrifice
This fighter starts off with a +5 to all saves against spells and spell-like abilities and multiple AOOs.

She can deflect 3 arrows or touch spells by level 9 and can make magic armor and wondrous clothing items. Which includes cheap flying items and bonuses to hit (gloves of dueling) and ways to give haste to yourself.

By level 12 she can sunder spell effects with stamina which recharges after minutes of resting and she can do this multiple times before resting.

At higher levels she gains even more damage mitigation and a way to will magic into her weapon and she has effectively all good saves on top of +5 vs magic. Oh and her iniative is +20.

I consider fighter one of the worst classes in PF but it's still more interesting than most of what 5e has to offer.

strangebloke

2017-12-19, 01:36 PM

I mean, 7 players vs 1 creature is a pretty lame encounter in any edition of D&D. 3.5 was no different.

But yeah, 5e definitely neutered some of the big bads. They aren't nearly as scary.

It's not that they aren't scary, it's that the power curve is a lot flatter. Action economy is king in 5e and you don't just get to wade through people who are even 10 levels below you.

It's telling that in the 3.5 DMG they tell you that when calculating the CR for a large number of targets, the effective CR is supposed to be lower than that sum of the individual CRs, whereas in 5e the effective CR is higher than the sum of the individual CRs. I would argue that the multiplier they apply in either situation is not high enough.

That Pit fiend encounter is only 'hard' for that party, and if you hadn't had a bunch of other encounters that day, a hard encounter is a breeze. If you'd had five encounters in that day like you're supposed to, yeah, it'd be 'hard' alright.

So, uh, yeah. People need to stop complaining about the rules without understanding them. My 5e players got wrecked in combat semi-frequently, and they're pretty smart guys. I had four characters outright die over the course of my campaign and a lot of 'use my last scroll of revivify' type situations.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 01:36 PM

My PF fighter has skills that let her do things unless the GM heavily houserules.

5e does not demand the GM to heavily houserules.

I won't say the PF fighter is a good class but

Dwarf(Mountaineer, Sky Sentinel, Craftsman) Fighter || 16 14 16 12 10 8 || Traits: Glory of Old, Seeker|| Perception, Climb, Craft(Clothing)
1. Steel Soul, Combat Reflexes
2. Step-up
3. Master Armorer, Armor Training
4. Power Attack
5. Master Craftsman (Clothing), Weapon Training(Heavy Blades)
6. Disruptive
7. Craft Wondrous Item, Armored Juggernaut
8. Cut From the Air
9. Smash from the Air, Versatile Training(Intimidate, Ride)
10. Spellbreaker
11. Shatterspell, Armor Specialization
12. Combat Stamina
13. Pindown, Defensive Weapon Training
14. Warrior Spirit
15. Armed Bravery, Critical Deflection
16. Fighter’s Reflexes
17. Sprightly Armor, Trained Initiative
18. Improved Initiative
19. Armored Sacrifice
20. Weapon Sacrifice
This fighter starts off with a +5 to all saves against spells and spell-like abilities and multiple AOOs.

She can deflect 3 arrows or touch spells by level 9 and can make magic armor and wondrous clothing items. Which includes cheap flying items and bonuses to hit (gloves of dueling) and ways to give haste to yourself.

By level 12 she can sunder spell effects with stamina which recharges after minutes of resting and she can do this multiple times before resting.

At higher levels she gains even more damage mitigation and a way to will magic into her weapon and she has effectively all good saves on top of +5 vs magic. Oh and her iniative is +20.

I consider fighter one of the worst classes in PF but it's still more interesting than most of what 5e has to offer.

How is more interesting that a Lvl 20 Eldritch Knight Fighter?

mephnick

2017-12-19, 01:38 PM

Also, had it Legendary actions/resistances, if it was meant to be a sort of "big bad encounter"? Why not devise a "lair" for it, too?

The system is different. Solo monsters are meant to have something to put them on par with action economy levels with 4-5 heroes, and some also have "lairs" to make things even more interesting and dynamic.

We all know the encounter difficulty system falls apart at the extremes, especially for single monsters, but fair point.

The Pit Fiend doesn't have any Legendary Actions. You can give it that stuff, but it's not really an argument for it being interesting because you can do anything as a DM. There's no rule in the DMG that automatically gives every solo monster Legendary or Lair Actions.

I love 5e, but the 5e Pit Fiend is very limited and boring compared to the 3.5 version. And that's fine! But it's a valid point from someone I don't agree with often, so I was supporting it.

Morty

2017-12-19, 01:48 PM

How is more interesting that a Lvl 20 Eldritch Knight Fighter?

An Eldritch Knight cast spells, which is the right and proper way to actually doing interesting things in any edition of D&D save 4E. A non-spellcasting PF fighter should be compared to a Champion or Battlemaster.

I've said before that 5E non-magical characters are better because the system doesn't actively get in their way... but they lose what little interesting content they had in 3E.

strangebloke

2017-12-19, 02:08 PM

An Eldritch Knight cast spells, which is the right and proper way to actually doing interesting things in any edition of D&D save 4E. A non-spellcasting PF fighter should be compared to a Champion or Battlemaster.
Champion is noninteractive by design. Battlemaster is about as interactive as the build she posted in terms of what you can do. Trip attacks, goading attacks, imposing disadvantage, buckets of ASI's to pick up things like Shield Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Brawny, Magic Initiate etc.

And Battlemaster is one of the worst designed subclasses for one of the worst designed classes in the game. It's a fair point of comparison. Champion while non-interactive is actually a little better designed IMO, and leads to some pretty curious builds.

Conversely, monks, paladins, and rogues are very strong until the late game and make for very tactical, interactive play.

The big thing with 5e vs. 3x combat, though?

Your in-combat decisions matter, and you have to play as a team. If you get out of position, you get wrecked but if you play well, you can get through many long combats with scarcely a scratch. I have seen a fighter with 150 hp and 21 AC go down in two rounds against a large group of thugs because he got separated from the group. in that same combat we had a bard, paladin, and a sorcerer teaming together in a nearly untouchable death ball, using reactions and spells to keep each other out of harms way.

Mara

2017-12-19, 02:14 PM

How is more interesting that a Lvl 20 Eldritch Knight Fighter?

Focused Study Human Fighter || 18 14 14 10 10 10 ||Climb, Perception, Use Magic Device ||Dangerously Curious, Seeker
1. Fast Learner(Intimidate), Skill Focus(Perception), Combat Reflexes
2. Power Attack
3. Improvisation, Armor Training 1
4. Intimidating Prowess
5. Improved Improvisation, Weapon Training (Heavy Blades)
6. Blind-fight
7. Defiant Luck, Armor Training 2
8. Skill Focus(UMD), Improved Critical(Falchion)
9.Inexplicable Luck , Weapon Training (Bows)
10. Critical focus
11. Iron Will, Armored Juggernaut
12. Critical Versatility
13. Familiar Bond, Armed Bravery
14. Martial Versatility(Improved Critical)
15. Improved Familiar, Armor Specialization
16. Skill Focus(Intimidate), Martial Mastery
17. Weapon Focus, Warrior Spirit
18. Greater Weapon Focus
19. Weapon Specialization
20. Greater Weapon Specialization
Here is a much less optimised fighter that has full access to UMD and can have far more options open to him than an EK. This fighter can use 9th level spell scrolls reliably and can be expected to actually get consumable magic items.

I find the other build more versatile, but this one compares better to "I want spells".

Also for the PF EK. I go straight wizard with VMC battle Oracle and prestidigous spellcaster feat to end up with 15 BAB and not a single lost caster level. I'll take that over the 5e ek anytime.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 02:20 PM

An Eldritch Knight cast spells, which is the right and proper way to actually doing interesting things in any edition of D&D save 4E. A non-spellcasting PF fighter should be compared to a Champion or Battlemaster.

What?

...

Nevermind, I've misread something in the build that was posted.

I agree a non-spellcasting PF fighter should be compared to a Champion, Battlemaster or Cavalier, but the thing is: this build is entirely spell-dependent.

All that stuff for magic item crafting still requires you to have the spells during the crafting. So that Fighter-Item Crafter build NEEDS a wizard or sorcerer or what have you to even function as a crafter.

And no, this Dwarf couldn't use spell scrolls to compensate.

but they lose what little interesting content they had in 3E.

I disagree.

Also, no, casting spells is not the "right and proper way to actually doing [sic] interesting things in any edition of D&D save 4e."

Also for the PF EK. I go straight wizard with VMC battle Oracle and prestidigous spellcaster feat to end up with 15 BAB and not a single lost caster level. I'll take that over the 5e ek anytime.

We get it, you loath 5e.

You still haven't said why your builds were interesting, but eh, I suppose if what is interesting to you is the powerfest abilities of PF it makes sense.

Knaight

2017-12-19, 02:22 PM

Virtually every RPG has a general 'assign difficulty to task' rule and very (very) few have a detailed list of specific DCs for every concievable use of each individual skill.

Rolemaster, Shadowrun, 5E, Savage Worlds, 2E, WFRP, Rogue Trader, WEG D6 Star Wars, etc etc etc all use a 'Here is a list of DC's/ difficulty modifiers. When a player wants to do something, assign a difficulty and they then roll the dice vs that number (or with that modifier applied).'

Its never been a complaint raised against any other system. I cant for the life of me get why it's apparently such an issue this time around.
3.x is why. Those other games don't have a previous edition with a table per skill, and so the encouraged GM skill is the ability and willingness to make judgement calls and assess the in game fiction. Meanwhile the skills encouraged in 3.x is memorizing tons of tables or quickly looking them up, and the culture around 3.x is actively hostile to the GM getting to make judgement calls or the in game fiction affecting the mechanics in any way (the mechanics affecting the in game fiction is totally fine).

I'm arguing that it isn't needed for SW but it is needed in 5e. I don't personally consider "the GM can make stuff up" a rule. That's just the system reminding me of rule. So I won't consider either system having the "rule" of "DM sets DC" for 5e or "GM can apply difficulty mods" for SW. Those aren't rules, they're reminders of rule 0.
The rule is that there's a specific set of skills which players have varying modifiers for, which plug into a known equation. You assign one variable within an explained range and pick one skill off a short list that explains what they're for, which then plugs right in to the rules.

That's not remotely the same thing as rule 0. It's not like there's just nothing listed for anything but combat, where people might end up doing roll under attribute or assuming that there's no roll just an attribute check, or importing a skill system from another game to cover the gap.

Mara

2017-12-19, 02:23 PM

I agree a non-spellcasting PF fighter should be compared to a Champion, Battlemaster or Cavalier, but the thing is: this build is entirely spell-dependent.

All that stuff for magic item crafting still requires you to have the spells during the crafting. So that Fighter-Item Crafter build NEEDS a wizard or sorcerer or what have you to even function as a crafter.
That's not how crafting works in PF. The craft DC goes up by 5 for each spell you don't have. It's a trivial check that you can take 10 on.

I didn't say the dwarf used scrolls. The human does that and can but those in any city with his wbl.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 02:27 PM

Great. So you have a pile of magic items you easily got. Or bought at your local Wall Mart.

How is that interesting?

Mara

2017-12-19, 02:29 PM

You assign one variable within an explained range

I could already add random mods to rolls with rule 0. This isn't a rule, it's a reminder of what I always could do. In SW I don't have to do that. They tell me I can, but it's pointless, I'm not running the game so I have to bull**** basic mechanics.

In 5e, I have to assign a DC. Pretending 15 if the default (which it isn't. That's not what the rules say at all) ends up being a ****show where the heroes can't do basic things.

One game works, the other requires rule 0 to handle something a basic as a climb check.

Mara

2017-12-19, 02:32 PM

Great. So you have a pile of magic items you easily got. Or bought at your local Wall Mart.

How is that interesting?
Magic items were a minor part of the dwarf build and a big part of the human build. (Minor for PF that is which expects big 6 via wbl, one of PFs actual weaknesses)

The human is a better caster than your EK and still kills things very well.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 02:32 PM

In 5e, I have to assign a DC. Pretending 15 if the default (which it isn't. That's not what the rules say at all) ends up being a ****show where the heroes can't do basic things.

You do not need a check to do basic things. A check is when there is a chance at failure and consequences for failure. In which case, something that is of medium difficulty for adventurers is DC 15.

Repeating the same incorrect things about 5e's skills won't make them true.

One game works, the other requires rule 0 to handle something a basic as a climb check.

Both games work. Nothing happen without rule 0.

Magic items were a minor part of the dwarf build and a big part of the human build. (Minor for PF that is which expects big 6 via wbl, one of PFs actual weaknesses)

Great. How is that interesting?

The human is a better caster than your EK and still kills things very well.

What a complete non-sequitur. The PF human can't be a better caster than a 5e's EK, they are not part of the same game.

Morty

2017-12-19, 02:32 PM

Champion is noninteractive by design. Battlemaster is about as interactive as the build she posted in terms of what you can do. Trip attacks, goading attacks, imposing disadvantage, buckets of ASI's to pick up things like Shield Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Brawny, Magic Initiate etc.

And Battlemaster is one of the worst designed subclasses for one of the worst designed classes in the game. It's a fair point of comparison. Champion while non-interactive is actually a little better designed IMO, and leads to some pretty curious builds.

Conversely, monks, paladins, and rogues are very strong until the late game and make for very tactical, interactive play.

The big thing with 5e vs. 3x combat, though?

Your in-combat decisions matter, and you have to play as a team. If you get out of position, you get wrecked but if you play well, you can get through many long combats with scarcely a scratch. I have seen a fighter with 150 hp and 21 AC go down in two rounds against a large group of thugs because he got separated from the group. in that same combat we had a bard, paladin, and a sorcerer teaming together in a nearly untouchable death ball, using reactions and spells to keep each other out of harms way.

I won't argue about 5E combat being better, certainly. That's what I meant by the basic systems being better and not getting in the way quite so often. But that is a very low bar to clear, as 3E combat is exceptionally bad. I can't say I've seen a lot of tactical play from my crossbow-using rogue after 5 levels, either. I will say the basic 5E class and combat mechanics would serve as a better template for something better.

I disagree.

Also, no, casting spells is not the "right and proper way to actually doing [sic] interesting things in any edition of D&D save 4e."

Shame the designers don't think that way, then.

Mara

2017-12-19, 02:40 PM

What a complete non-sequitur. The PF human can't be a better caster than a 5e's EK, they are not part of the same game.
That's a stupid thing to say. How did you say that a 5e EK was more interesting if by virtue of being in different games they are incomparable?

You didn't seriously ask that question. It was a statement you put a "?" behind because you think 5e is obviously more interesting and you won't bother trying to comprehend the complexities of another game and how that leads to more in game choices and player engagement.

Unoriginal indeed.

Waazraath

2017-12-19, 02:42 PM

Please read the Title: Pathfinder.

I can make a Bloodrager with +15 Initiative and combo a 25foot reach by level 7. Edit: Sorry 30 feet.

Splendid. Since I'm a 3.5 player, I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but I'm sure it's nice. But the title (which does include '5e'), als wel as your OP, do suggest that you also at least looked at 5e. At least, I hope this entire thread isn't based on hearsay?

Imo, if you just go through the books, even without playing, you can find nice combo's in racical abilities, class abilities, feats, spells, and other optional menu class abilities like fighting styles, invocations, animal totems. No, it's not 3.X, but the optmizing character building mini game is, quite obviously, still there. Even more interesting imo, because nice combinations are less obvious, and there is a much better overall balance in the edition.

Not much, which is why Fighters are a joke. Though you can build a solid multi-maneuver Fighter if you use the pre-nerf stomped version of Lore Warden, easily.

It's other classes that do have more options that make PF fun. An easy low-key example is the Barbarian.

A 5e Barbarian can: Attack and Grapple good (or another maneuver that uses Athletics).

A Pathfinder Barbarian can: Attack, Grapple (or another maneuver of their choice), debuff enemies and cure status effects on allies (Spell Sunder), fly (Elemental Blood Air or Dragon Totem), force enemies to attack them (Boasting Taunt), force enemies to flee and become helpless (Intimidating Glare + Terrifying Howl + Cornugon Smash), gain True Seeing in combat to pinpoint a slippery enemy (Ultimate Clarity), etc., etc.

Bollocks. A 5e bbn can:
- Attack and tank in melee (default)
- Make skirmish hit & run attacks and have great mobility (elk or eagle totem spirit, mobile feat)
- Magnificently buff allies in melee (wolf totem spirit)
- Debuff enemies (wolf or bear totemic attunement)
- fly around (eagle totemic attunement)

And that's in combat. Out of combat, he also can:
- gain diviniation abilities in natural surroundings
- be a decent skill monkey (+2 skills aspect of the beast 'tiger', advantage on str checks, easily combined with a race that gives 1 or 2 extra skills, 1 level of rogue, and / or relevant feats)

And that's not even counting racial abilities that give fly, healing, or spells. With those, and much more use of feats and multi-class, a barbarian can specialize much more in roles like buffing and debufffing.

Reading posts like this, I always wonder if somebody is just not willing to learn (or play, or read) the 5e system because he has already decided it stinks, or that said somebody doesn't understand it.

Scripten

2017-12-19, 02:52 PM

Reading posts like this, I always wonder if somebody is just not willing to learn (or play, or read) the 5e system because he has already decided it stinks, or that said somebody doesn't understand it.

You've summed up the point and content of this thread to a tee. It's just picking fights over edition wars.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 03:00 PM

That's a stupid thing to say. How did you say that a 5e EK was more interesting if by virtue of being in different have they are incomparable?

They are comparable as characters you use to have fun. Not as "who would win in a fight" power level shenanigans.

It's like saying "My Mutants & Mastermind Cosmic Sorcerer character is a better magic user than you L5R Shugenja." The two characters don't operate on the same rules, nor do they don't operate in the same context.

You didn't seriously ask that question.

Yes I did. I still have not gotten any answer.

you won't bother trying to comprehend the complexities of another game

Yes, because obviously I haven't played and DM Pathfinder for years. Silly me, having imagined all those sessions and charsheets.

and how that leads to more in game choices and player engagement.

See, now you're giving a reason. I don't see how it's leading to more in-game choices, though, but what make players engage is indeed subjective, so I can't debate that.

Unoriginal indeed.

Whoa. Making fun of my name. How unexpected.

Can I do it, too?

Mara (Sanskrit: मार, Māra; Chinese: 天魔; pinyin: Tiānmó; Tibetan Wylie: bdud; Khmer: មារ; Burmese: မာရ်နတ်; Thai: มาร; Sinhalese: මාරයා), in Buddhism, is the demon that tempted Prince Siddhartha (Gautama Buddha) by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be Mara's daughters.In Buddhist cosmology, Mara is associated with death, rebirth and desire. Nyanaponika Thera has described Mara as "the personification of the forces antagonistic to enlightenment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Mara

2017-12-19, 03:06 PM

I said he was a better caster and could fight. The implied meaning was in his game compared to the EK in the EK's game.

Why would you assume I meant PvP?

lunaticfringe

2017-12-19, 03:17 PM

Ah yes the Pathfinder Crafting MiniGame. I'm fine with Pathfinder but after having dealt with 5e and going back and playing it everyone breaking off to go craft scrolls every other downtime seems absurd.

Yeah yeah an exaggeration but...
"Dangerous Thing is about to go Down".
"Hey can we wait a day so I can make this".
Happens. Queue twiddling thumbs while people sit there rolling checks.

Magic Mart is possible but it takes some work to set prices. Well not really work, just looking up **** on the web. For me anyway I'm lazy. I'd rather find something reasonable and tweak as needed.

But whatever gets you off.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 03:19 PM

I said he was a better caster and could fight. The implied meaning was in his game compared to the EK in the EK's game.

So, just to be sure we are clear, you're claiming that a PF Fighter who can use spell scrolls is a better caster than an Eldritch Knight in a different game?

Why would you assume I meant PvP?

I didn't assume that. You are, however, trying to make the two builds compete in a strictly power level vs power level manner, without taking into account the difference in context and rules between the two games they're from.

Arkhios

2017-12-19, 03:47 PM

Whoa. Making fun of my name. How unexpected.

Can I do it, too?

Nyanaponika Thera has described Mara as "the personification of the forces antagonistic to enlightenment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_(demon)

Haha! Burn!

Kane0

2017-12-19, 03:53 PM

Guys, guys, I think we can sort this out. We need a 3.PF/5e FLAILSNAIL game set up!

Knaight

2017-12-19, 04:00 PM

I could already add random mods to rolls with rule 0. This isn't a rule, it's a reminder of what I always could do. In SW I don't have to do that. They tell me I can, but it's pointless, I'm not running the game so I have to bull**** basic mechanics.
Bolding mine.

If you're capable of adding random mods to rolls then it's clear that the system has already provided the rolls to which you're adding said mods. That's the rules set, and that's what makes making one decision interacting with the rules and not designing them.

Also I'm not running the game so that I get to replace all decision making with looking stuff up on a table and running with it even when the results of that table are completely stupid.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 04:00 PM

Guys, guys, I think we can sort this out. We need a 3.PF/5e FLAILSNAIL game set up!

Flail Snails are great. Explain further.

Scripten

2017-12-19, 04:04 PM

Flail Snails are great. Explain further.

I propose that this thread be re-purposed to show deference to the almighty Flail Snail to increase its overall utility to furthering productive discussion on these boards.

Kane0

2017-12-19, 04:05 PM

The original flailsnails thing was ceonceptially you could bring any AD&D or retroclone character to the game and either convert or fit it in as is. Like a mashup or crossover.

So we just set up a game, invite both 3.PF and 5e chaacters/content to join and see what happens. The only goal is fun magic elf games.

Unoriginal

2017-12-19, 04:13 PM

Eh. It seems less awesome than an actual Flail Snail.

Can you Awaken a Flail Snail? I think it's possible

GlenSmash!

2017-12-19, 04:26 PM

Not much, which is why Fighters are a joke. Though you can build a solid multi-maneuver Fighter if you use the pre-nerf stomped version of Lore Warden, easily.

It's other classes that do have more options that make PF fun. An easy low-key example is the Barbarian.

A 5e Barbarian can: Attack and Grapple good (or another maneuver that uses Athletics).

A Pathfinder Barbarian can: Attack, Grapple (or another maneuver of their choice), debuff enemies and cure status effects on allies (Spell Sunder), fly (Elemental Blood Air or Dragon Totem), force enemies to attack them (Boasting Taunt), force enemies to flee and become helpless (Intimidating Glare + Terrifying Howl + Cornugon Smash), gain True Seeing in combat to pinpoint a slippery enemy (Ultimate Clarity), etc., etc.

A 5e Barbarian can: Attack and Grapple good (or another maneuver that uses Athletics). Or make allies better at attacking (Wolf Totem or Zealot) Speak with Animals, Use an animals sight as it's own, get 3 bits of knowledge from the DM through a spiritual medium (Totem Warrior) Fly (Eagle Totem), incentivize enemies to attack them (Reckless Attack), force an enemy to not get closer to itself, and anything behind itself, while also making it less effective at combat while in sight of itself (Berserker), try again on a failed save (Zealot), ignore Fear and charms (Berserker), Ignore Death! (Zealot), shield an ally (Ancestral Guardian), debuff foes attacks against others (Bear Totem or Ancestral Guardian) see into the future (Ancestral Guardian), Reflect Damage back at an attacker (Ancestral Guardian), Grant Allies Temp HP, turn water into ice, or stop an enemies movement (Storm herald).

Look I'm not saying a 5e Barb has as many optional features as a PF Barb, just that you oversimplified the 5e Barb which is something I've seen others do more than once.

It's a frickin awesome class.

obryn

2017-12-19, 04:45 PM

The #1 confusing factor I see with 5th edition is the reduction of everything about magic. Vancian Magic is one of the largest draws. Without having and using magic it I find other Role Playing Games more interesting. I know many people will say magic ruined earlier editions, but I never got high enough in character level to split the world in half, so I cannot say if that is true one way or another.
Early D&D problem-solving (if it can be called that) often reduces down to "I have a spell for that!". It's some peoples' bag, sure, but I really can't stand it. It makes it so spellcasters are only characters capable of meaningfully solving problems.

5e doesn't move away from this entirely, but kind of nudging away from it is better than nothing.

#2 is I read things about 4th edition like how it was made to reduce Adventures into encounters that you recover after, similar to World of Warcraft using Food and Drink to regain Hit Points and Mana Points respectively.
Uhhhh... lol, don't believe everything you read or hear.

#3 Ability Scores and Feats. The statistic cap is much lower in soft and hard forms. Its just weird that FEATS require sacrificing higher ability scores meaning you can have a weak character with several Feats. It also ruins Multiclassing as you have to have at least 4 levels in each class to earn an Ability Score increase/Feat.
Ruining multiclassing is a good thing, when you have D&D-style classes. I was really disappointed that 5e reverted to the awful pseudo-point-buy version of multiclassing that 3.x introduced.

#4 Customization. There isnt a lot of expanded materials for 5th editon. There is a finite number of combinations compared to the 40-50+ class in Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D each. I dont see any rules for taking bonuses and flaws. With a smaller pool of possibilities character creation feels more cookie cutter and far less powerful.
In a d20-style system like both 5e and PF, every added bit or bob increases complexity exponentially. Pathfinder is downright unwieldy at this point (has been for years, and has only gotten worse). And a lot of times, characters slot into certain 'solved' builds - making much of that variety illusory (so it's just more bloat).

As for me, I don't particularly like 5e, but I would play or run it if my players asked for it. PF (and 3.x, before it) is just execrable; it is firmly in the 'never again' category for me, and has been for well over a decade.

(And for the record, I'd gladly play or run BECMI/RC, D&D 4e, AD&D 1e or even AD&D 2e with some arm-twisting. The first two are well-designed games that function admirably at what they were written for. And the second two can be beaten into shape with some effort and house-ruling.)

3.x is why. Those other games don't have a previous edition with a table per skill, and so the encouraged GM skill is the ability and willingness to make judgement calls and assess the in game fiction. Meanwhile the skills encouraged in 3.x is memorizing tons of tables or quickly looking them up, and the culture around 3.x is actively hostile to the GM getting to make judgement calls or the in game fiction affecting the mechanics in any way (the mechanics affecting the in game fiction is totally fine).
Yyyyyup. There's a lot of bad stuff to be said about the 5e skill system, but holy cow, the fact that the DM has to make judgment calls for task difficulty isn't part of it. In fact, IMO it's an admirably successful way to reduce rules bloat. It's just weird that players who are familiar with ... well, any other RPG ... are up in arms about it, unless their minds got stuck on how 3.x did it, and never got un-stuck. And it's specifically 3.x here; non-weapon proficiencies weren't a core part of the AD&D system until 2e. (And yes, to whichever pedantic person is quoting this to correct me, I know they were actually introduced in Oriental Adventures and the two Survival Guides, so they go back to the mid-80's if you count AD&D supplements. And that they were still technically 'optional' in 2e, even though everything released past the core assumed you were using them. And that AD&D 1e had a weird secondary skills system. My point stands ;))

Mara

2017-12-19, 05:23 PM

So, just to be sure we are clear, you're claiming that a PF Fighter who can use spell scrolls is a better caster than an Eldritch Knight in a different game?
Most assuredly so. The human fighter can turn expected wealth by level into a whole bag of wands that does everything your EK can do and more. Then on top of that, you get scrolls of divination, resurrection, Polymorph equivalents (of higher level than the 5e EK gets), ect depending on what holes the party needs.

IMHO, still a bad PF character. But at least I have options in combat. Do I:
1. Run up and smack a thing.
2. Buff myself
3. Attack with my bow
4. Cast blade barrier via scroll.
5. Cast wind wall via wand.
6. Use a skill
7. Use a combat maneuver.
8. Use a wand of true strike so my combat maneuver on my next turn actually works.
9. Use dispel magic via wand
10. Cast greater dispel magic via scroll
11. Cast anti-magic field via scroll (8th level)
12. Ect. Other wands and scrolls

In 5e I can:
1. Run up and attack something
2. Shoot my bow.
3. Cantrips
4. Cast Some 13 spells of up to 4th level
5. Grapple something
6. Shove something down
7. Shove something away
8. "Mother may I" with the skill "system"

strangebloke

2017-12-19, 05:53 PM

snip

Nobody said that Pathfinder doesn't give you more buttons.

We're just questioning what those buttons are actually worth.

The 5e fighter can do several things very well. He's designed to be as simple and as accessible as possible. Right out of the box, a simple, brainless, effective build. I'll note that despite the simplicity, you missed two of the highlights of the Eldritch Knight. The EK can impose disadvantage on saves and work ranged spell attacks into their attack cycle. The EK has phenomenal DPR backing up an impressive list of defenses that make him one of the best pvp classes in the game. He's very good at his given role.

Your fighter?

Can do tons of things to an unimpressive degree of competency when compared with other path finder characters. He is a build that you as somebody with a high degree of knowledge and experience put together, and he has almost nothing that he's good at when compared to most PF characters. It's telling that you say 'cast true strike so that the maneuver actually works.' the 5e fighter doesn't need to cast true strike to assure that his class features work. They just do. Once again, I'm assuming you're good at character creation; the average fighter build is straight garbage.

And you're always playing mother may I with the DM. If you think otherwise, your head is in the clouds. If the DM doesn't want you climbing that wall, you aren't.

Almost no system gives explicit rules about what skills can and can't do. Why is DND 3.5 the only edition that got it right?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-19, 06:23 PM

Honestly, I prefer having options that work over a bunch of options that don't (unless cobbled together with questionable readings and splat diving).

In fact, the presence of trap options, for me, is a strong negative influence. I'd rather have 8 options that work than 100 options, of which 90 are either brokenly bad or brokenly good, and 10 that actually function as claimed.

Additionally--when I hear of 3.PF rounds taking as long as most of my entire combats (30+ minutes per round? 10+ minutes for a single turn? I'd rather watch paint dry), I'm really glad for the simplicity of 5e. I DM for a group that includes a couple with a 3-month-old (whose house we play at). The mother takes a minute for her turn...while feeding the baby from across the room (someone else rolls the dice).

I played with a group where the DM was heavily influenced by earlier editions--there was a table for everything. And it sucked, waiting for him to look up the right table, decide which of several modifiers might apply, roll, and then translate that result into table behavior. As a DM, table flow is one of the major things that keeps people engaged. Stopping to look things up is lethal to engagement and fun.

Hrugner

2017-12-19, 08:33 PM

In addition to what was pointed out about you ignoring the earlier post, what exactly can a Fighter do in PF besides spam attack? They could dedicate their entire build to, say, tripping, which means they can attack or trip. Two options!

Not to mention, CR might not be perfect in 5E, but it's far, FAR worse in PF and 3.5. That Damn Crab, anyone?

Wide ranging crowd control through reach and incapacitating attacks of various forms. Being able to pile on the AoOs, combined with how movement works in pathfinder versus 5e, gives them more opportunities to create choke points, and the difference in how threatened areas work allows them to expand the area of the choke point they create. They have a large number of feats and by no means need to restrict themselves to a single trick like tripping. The martial debuffs do more in pathfinder than their 5e counter parts as well, so even if their actions were identical in name, the meaning of those actions would still lean in favor of the pathfinder fighter. Disarming someone forces them to recover the weapon provoking an attack, and knocking someone prone provokes an attack when they attempt to stand, grappling restrains their combat options as well as movement, and so on.

There's advantages to playing 5e over pathfinder, but more gameplay options is not one of those advantages; neither is more significant gameplay options.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 09:12 PM

3e is an interesting game. Combat is deep and full of strategy and all a DM has to do is throw out CR appropriate foes and it just works most of the time.

You've clearly never played the game.

Its broken beyond fixing.

Rynjin

2017-12-19, 09:27 PM

Bollocks. A 5e bbn can:
- Attack and tank in melee (default)
- Make skirmish hit & run attacks and have great mobility (elk or eagle totem spirit, mobile feat)
- Magnificently buff allies in melee (wolf totem spirit)
- Debuff enemies (wolf or bear totemic attunement)
- fly around (eagle totemic attunement)

And that's in combat. Out of combat, he also can:
- gain diviniation abilities in natural surroundings
- be a decent skill monkey (+2 skills aspect of the beast 'tiger', advantage on str checks, easily combined with a race that gives 1 or 2 extra skills, 1 level of rogue, and / or relevant feats)

No 5e Barbarian can do all of those in-class at the same time.

A PF Barb can.

Regardless, 1 and 2 are the same thing (attack and get hit), and Eagle is not true flight (PF Barb can get ghetto flight like that too, but you can also get a 60 ft. raw fly speed).

And that's not even counting racial abilities that give fly, healing, or spells. With those, and much more use of feats and multi-class, a barbarian can specialize much more in roles like buffing and debufffing.

You do realize that I was only talking about class features right? All the stuff I mentioned for PF Barb (save Cornugon Smash, which is helpful but not necessary for the Panic condition) is class features; Rage Powers specifically. And then you can layer Feats, skills, and racial abilities on top.

When you have to bring in entire system synergy (multiclassing, Feats, racials, skills, alternate "build" types) to match what a single PF Barbarian can achieve with only class features and no mutually exclusive powers you make my point for me.

Reading posts like this, I always wonder if somebody is just not willing to learn (or play, or read) the 5e system because he has already decided it stinks, or that said somebody doesn't understand it.

I could more easily say the same for you and Pathfinder.

A 5e Barbarian can: Attack and Grapple good (or another maneuver that uses Athletics). Or make allies better at attacking (Wolf Totem or Zealot) Speak with Animals, Use an animals sight as it's own, get 3 bits of knowledge from the DM through a spiritual medium (Totem Warrior) Fly (Eagle Totem), incentivize enemies to attack them (Reckless Attack), force an enemy to not get closer to itself, and anything behind itself, while also making it less effective at combat while in sight of itself (Berserker), try again on a failed save (Zealot), ignore Fear and charms (Berserker), Ignore Death! (Zealot), shield an ally (Ancestral Guardian), debuff foes attacks against others (Bear Totem or Ancestral Guardian) see into the future (Ancestral Guardian), Reflect Damage back at an attacker (Ancestral Guardian), Grant Allies Temp HP, turn water into ice, or stop an enemies movement (Storm herald).

Look I'm not saying a 5e Barb has as many optional features as a PF Barb, just that you oversimplified the 5e Barb which is something I've seen others do more than once.

It's a frickin awesome class.

To reiterate, the issue is that you can't do most of that on the same character. Just like you don't talk about how great a Fighter would be if they had every Feat in the game simultaneously, listing out what the class can do if you assume it takes multiple mutually exclusive abilities and specializations is silly.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 09:38 PM

No 5e Barbarian can do all of those in-class at the same time.

A PF Barb can.

The 5E Barbarian (proficient in Atheltics) comes with Pounce ability, plus Spring attack, and every single Combat Manouver (improved grapple, trip, sunder, disarm etc) feat in PF.

From memory it takes a while in PF to obtain Pounce, and 20 feats.

Rynjin

2017-12-19, 09:51 PM

The 5E Barbarian (proficient in Atheltics) comes with Pounce ability, plus Spring attack, and every single Combat Manouver (improved grapple, trip, sunder, disarm etc) feat in PF.

From memory it takes a while in PF to obtain Pounce, and 20 feats.

Pounce + Spring Attack, yes. That's one of the main upsides to 5e; removal of the asinine full attack restrictions. You average out to about the same rounds to kill or more as a non-pouncing PF Barb though since damage output is so severely curtailed in 5e. You'll generally need 3-4 rounds to kill anything worthwhile in 5e due to your damage output being about 2d6+14 x2 while Raging vs health pools that still reach into the hundreds. Meanwhile the PF Barb is dealing 3-4 times that when they full attack, so losing that first round of hits still puts them ahead in their respective systems, especially if they optimize for attack rolls (easy to do without even factoring in PF's equivalent to Reckless Attack, Reckless Abandon) which 5e Barbarians can't really do.

Grapple/Trip/Bull Rush also yes. Though both are SEVERELY diminished in usefulness over PF since Grapple does not apply a debuff, you don't provoke AoOs and lose a full attack from standing up, and the shove goes less far on average (for a Barbarian anyway, I actually like how the distance shoved is standardized for other classes in a way) respectively. It balances out the need for Feat tax since Grapple/Trip are very good, and for Grapple roughly the same Feat tax is needed in 5e since Pin comes naturally in PF but need Grappler in 5e.

Sunder/Dirty trick and Disarm near as I can tell are nonexistent or Battlemaster-only respectively in 5e.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-12-19, 10:01 PM

Sunder/Dirty trick and Disarm near as I can tell are nonexistent or Battlemaster-only respectively in 5e.

But does anyone really sunder in real play?

And anyone can disarm (I'm AFB but I believe there's an optional rule), but only battlemasters can do it as part of another attack and do damage at the same time.

Malifice

2017-12-19, 10:04 PM

Pounce + Spring Attack, yes. That's one of the main upsides to 5e; removal of the asinine full attack restrictions. You average out to about the same rounds to kill or more as a non-pouncing PF Barb though since damage output is so severely curtailed in 5e. You'll generally need 3-4 rounds to kill anything worthwhile in 5e due to your damage output being about 2d6+14 x2 while Raging vs health pools that still reach into the hundreds.

You're not doing it right. Much of the raging barbarians potency comes from [reckless attack] + . 1/10 swings is a critical. Most 5th+ level Barbarians are swinging 3 times per round (either thanks to a reaction attack, or bonus action from Frenzy/ PAM or GWM).

Meanwhile the PF Barb is dealing 3-4 times that when they full attack, so losing that first round of hits still puts them ahead in their respective systems, especially if they optimize for attack rolls (easy to do without even factoring in PF's equivalent to Reckless Attack, Reckless Abandon) which 5e Barbarians can't really do.

5E Barbarians can optimise for attack rolls. The have a clas feature at 2nd level that does just that (Reckless attack).

Grapple/Trip/Bull Rush also yes. Though both are SEVERELY diminished in usefulness over PF since [B]Grapple does not apply a debuff,

Yes it does.

you don't provoke AoOs and lose a full attack from standing up,

Prone is still a debuff.

Sunder/Dirty trick and Disarm near as I can tell are nonexistent or Battlemaster-only respectively in 5e.

5E has a rule of 'anything goes' expressly mentioned in the Combat section. If you want to throw sand in your opoponents eyes, attack your targets weapon, disarm them etc go for it.

You dont need feats for it.