Should I make the switch from Pathfinder?

[gr8artist]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).

I played and DM'd Pathfinder for a couple years, did a lot of homebrew and some PbP on the boards here, and learned a lot about balance issues, homebrews, rules oddities, etc. I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and could DM it with minimal effort.

But I've got plenty of spare time to learn and plan, and after a guest appearance at my cousin's 5e game, I saw a lot of things that I liked. I didn't play for very long (3 hours) and my character was a premade BBEG I'd had the sheet and spell list for for about a week or two.

One of the things that really jumped out at me was how many spells had a "Concentration" duration, which could not be shared or overlapped. Limiting castes to one major spell effect at a time seems like it would cut out a lot of the wizard's power, and bring them more in line with other classes.

Another thing was that the rules and spell descriptions and game text seemed very streamlined, very efficient. One of the guys will be a first-time roleplayer, and while I'm sure he could learn a more complicated rules system, I gravitated toward Pathfinder because systems like Shadowrun and Scion taught me the value of simplicity when dealing with newbies.

I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?

[Zilong]

I used to play Pathfinder Society years ago. I didn't get that much time to play, due to scheduling issues, but I did have enough time to get into the theorycrafting. I can only assume that things got even more complicated in the years since I stopped playing Pathfinder.

Since you say you have come to appreciate more streamlined systems, I'd say 5E should be a nice change from Pathfinder/3.x. Honestly, even just a quick scan of the rules when 5E was first released informed me that it was much more intuitive than 3.x. Granted there are some weird cases in the rules for 5E where things can be a bit wonky as well. Overall though, I'm glad that this edition came out around the time I started DMing as I'm 90% sure the players I've found, almost all fairly new to ttrpgs, would never have touched any 3.x version with a 10 foot pole because of the excessive rules.

So yes, I'd recommend at least trying out 5E with the group for a while.

[Unoriginal]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).

I played and DM'd Pathfinder for a couple years, did a lot of homebrew and some PbP on the boards here, and learned a lot about balance issues, homebrews, rules oddities, etc. I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and could DM it with minimal effort.

But I've got plenty of spare time to learn and plan, and after a guest appearance at my cousin's 5e game, I saw a lot of things that I liked. I didn't play for very long (3 hours) and my character was a premade BBEG I'd had the sheet and spell list for for about a week or two.

One of the things that really jumped out at me was how many spells had a "Concentration" duration, which could not be shared or overlapped. Limiting castes to one major spell effect at a time seems like it would cut out a lot of the wizard's power, and bring them more in line with other classes.

Another thing was that the rules and spell descriptions and game text seemed very streamlined, very efficient. One of the guys will be a first-time roleplayer, and while I'm sure he could learn a more complicated rules system, I gravitated toward Pathfinder because systems like Shadowrun and Scion taught me the value of simplicity when dealing with newbies.

I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?

If what you want is the character creation search-all-the-books-for-the-best-combo way, some characters who are vastly superior to others because optimization, and high power level stuff where you have tons of magic items and where the enemies you met at first level are basically ants to step on by level 12, then you won't find that in 5e.

If you want to try out a game where all the classes are pretty well-balanced, the character creation is much less compley, and where low-CR enemies stay relevant at high level, then give 5e a go.

[2D8HP]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder)...

It's Dungeons & Dragons!

How could you not have fun?

As I said a year or three ago:

...if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!


The Starter Set is great, and if you want to try more of the 5e rules for free click:

here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)


and


here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd)


If your looking for a table to join click

here (http://dnd.wizards.com/playevents/organized-play)


Also, if you want free rules very close to "Classic" Dungeons & Dragons click


here (http://goblinoidgames.com/index.php/downloads/)


You really don't need anymore rules for a great game, but if you want more the Players Handbook is the most useful.

The most important part is on page four:
"...To play D&D, and to play it well, you don't need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of thr game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice.
None of those things have any bearing on what's best about the game.
What you need are two things, the first being friends with whom you can share the game...

....The second thing you need is a lively imagination or, more importantly, the willingness to use whatever imagination you have....

...Read the rules of the game and the story of its worlds, but always remember that you are the one who brings them to life. They are nothing without the spark of life that you give them."


And page 312, is AWESOME!
Now please look at this picture.
LOOK AT IT!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpg
A Wizard with a Magic Wand!
:smallsmile:
A warrior in armor with a longbow and sword!
:smallsmile: :smallsmile:
and,
A Dragon on a giant pile of treasure in a dungeon!
:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:
Does it get better?
As a player you: explore a fantastic world that has freakin' dragons inside of dungeons!
NO IT DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER!
Sign me up now and forever!


...Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?.
Well, probably most of the posts you'll get in the 5e Sub-Forum will say yes, and most in the 3.P will say stick with Pathfinder, maybe you should click the little triangle at your original post in the thread and ask for the thread to be moved to the General Role-playing Forum?

FWLIW, generally my impression is that 5e is easier to learn and to DM, but.... you already know Pathfinder.

I recommend reading the A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?358474-A-Grognard-s-Guide-to-5E-D-amp-D-Rules) thread.

[Beelzebubba]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).

--

One of the things that really jumped out at me was how many spells had a "Concentration" duration, which could not be shared or overlapped. Limiting castes to one major spell effect at a time seems like it would cut out a lot of the wizard's power, and bring them more in line with other classes.

Another thing was that the rules and spell descriptions and game text seemed very streamlined, very efficient. One of the guys will be a first-time roleplayer, and while I'm sure he could learn a more complicated rules system, I gravitated toward Pathfinder because systems like Shadowrun and Scion taught me the value of simplicity when dealing with newbies.

I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?

I played 3.5, and 5E is light years simpler and more balanced. The 'Tiers' have been largely erased. There are also far fewer 'trap' options for character gen, so you have many more mechanically sound race/class/character types to choose from.

The rules, once grokked, make a lot of sense, and Advantage/Disadvantage becomes incredibly intuitive to apply. We have a new DM that has experience mostly with Chaosium RP, and she's started making rulings on the fly - and every time we've looked them up later, they've been correct.

The flip side of this is there's much less to fiddle with and tweak, so you'll be dropping a lot of customization. Instead of a feat progression you plan out over time, you choose one or two Feats and they're character defining. Instead of building overlapping spell combos, you have one, with a few extremely rare exceptions.

So, there's a lot less to learn, and we have a few 3E/PF fans that come here to trash 5E for being '2EZ' occasionally. But, I'm an old Grognard that really likes it. I'm tired of the burden of rules mastery. And our table is 50% completely new players to D&D, and there's no way they'd stick around for PF/3.X, so I think it was the right call for the game.

[JakOfAllTirades]

It depends on what you're looking for in a role playing game. I switched a couple of years ago and I'm completely satisfied.

Are you tired of slogging through 3000 pages of character options?

Is filling out a 12 page character sheet becoming a chore?

If so, 5E might be the game you need.

[Phoenix042]

I was a longtime player of 3.5 when I started migrating to pathfinder. I'd also been a dm for about 8 years, and had several long term campaigns running.
When 5e came out, I thought maybe we'd try it once and see how it went, so we threw together some characters and started a silly adventure I made up.

I was shocked at how fun it was. The effort and care put into the design of these rules is obvious.

Everything about the game play was refreshing, everyone's characters felt fun and powerful, and I was able to throw together encounters of wildly varying complexity with very little effort, then watch as it all worked out the way I wanted.

We have never gone back to 3.x, and honestly we probably never will.

We reworked our old characters and campaigns in 5e and still play them.

Finicky math and long lists of poorly thought out brain-spew are no match for thorough playtesting and fundamentally sound rules.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes"

Heh, probably. Though I have seen a few people ask this question when it's obvious from their intro that they'd be happier sticking with 3.PF (and who have been advised as such by the locals). I tend to think they're just doing it to troll us.

In your case, it definitely sounds like 5e would be a good fit. I've not played pathfinder, but 5e is smooth fun that's easy to get into, with good balance in the core rules. It also gives more of the power back to DMs. I think you'll like it.

[Kurald Galain]

If you like bounded accuracy then you should switch. If you don't like bounded accuracy then you should not switch. It's that simple.

Do you want high-level characters to be able to take on an army all by themselves (as in Lord of the Rings) or would you like low-level mooks to remain a viable threat throughout the entire campaign (as in Game of Thrones).

[Jormengand]

It depends. If you want to play a game where you have real advancement and where they didn't forget to put 80% of the skill system in, no. If you want to play a game where things which were once impossible are now practically impossible, things which were once hard were still fairly hard and things which were easy are now easier, but still possible to screw up, and a village is a hard target for an adult dragon if everyone has a bow, go ahead.

[Arkhios]

Honestly, it doesn't have to be so black and white; no need to make a permanent switch. I still continue to play a little bit of each edition (or offshoot, which Pathfinder actually is) I've ever tried and liked. While I might not agree with all design decisions of each game, I've found something to enjoy from all of them.

Try 5th edition. Give it a fair chance and play through some short adventure, such as Lost Mines of Phandelver. One or two sessions is hardly enough to get a good picture, but playing through a whole adventure just might. At least it "did me in" for 5th. I played Pathfinder ever since it was in beta, and Pathfinder Society for about 7 to 8 years ever since it started (all the way from season 0). I'd still like to play PF if I had the chance, but currently the groups I'm in are focused on 5th edition, and one group is currently going through an adventure in 3.5 (our plan is to continue with Pathfinder afterwards, though). And I'm about to start a campaign in 4th edition soon-ish. Yes, I like even 4th edition.

Maybe I'm just odd and you'll disregard my advice because I like even 4th edition! :smalltongue: (I hope not!)

[Socratov]

Well for me it was very simple: I love the bard class and 5e has given the bard an all-day-every-day use cantrip that literally allows you to insult creatures to death (for which roleplaying is recommended). If that doesn't seem like a great idea to you ten 5e might not be for you. If it does, welcome to the fold!

[Kurald Galain]

Well for me it was very simple: I love the bard class and 5e has given the bard an all-day-every-day use cantrip that literally allows you to insult creatures to death (for which roleplaying is recommended).

That one's from 4E actually :smalltongue:

[Garresh]

Pathfinder has far more options both for DMs and players. If you have a particularly niche idea, or just want a lot of granularity with building things down to every specific detail, 5e is going to be disappointing. 5e also has a problem with "DM empowerment" leading to gigantic blind spots in the rules. Stuff like crafting and specific uses for skills are left out almost entirely. This leads to rather insane variation in how skills are used at different tables. Even the adventurers league modules are extremely ambiguous on how to use Thieves Tools or Disguise Kits(or even what benefits they have) , often simply using Deception or Slight of hand instead.

Worse still, examples of HOW a skill should be applied are extremely lacking. This has frustrated me to no end because if you ask 10 different DMs how stealth works, you'll get 10 different answers. And all of them think the other 9 are idiots who can't read.

You'll also find Rangers to be incredibly disappointing in the core rulebook. Beast Masters are a trap option, and the only fix is the Ranger Revisited Unearthed Arcana. This us technically still playtest material, though it is from an official source.

If you tweet the developers of 5e they give different answers on rulings too. The general vibe ia "You're the DM. What do you think?"


So that's all the downsides. Now for the good stuff. Barring like 2 or 3 trap subclasses like 4 Elements Monk, Berserker, and Beastmaster, it's insanely well balanced. In all honesty, it's actually extremely difficult to make a bad build for most classes, unless you actively dump your core attributes. Better still, the bounded accuracy mechanic along with how proficiency works means that almost any multiclass can at least be passable. Like there are definitely good and bad options, but if you just took a dart board and started mashing classes together you'll more often than not find some synergies.

And riding off this is the fact that feats are often all-in-one playstyles in and of themselves. You can of course combine feats, but often you don't need to chain feata together or go for highly specific things to make something work.

The sum of all of these factors means that in same ways 5e offers MORE customization than Pathfinder. Not in terms of exact details or fine tuned specifics, but in terms of broad strokes. And it works well. The simplicity makes it very new player accessible(and easy to DM I might add), but the flexibility offers a surprisingly deep set of options for customization and playstyles. To wrap this up, I'm going to just start listing example builds of what you can do with only the 4 books published that offer character options:


A wizard defender/tank who uses protective wards to absorb damage, granting him 3 different hit point bars. And whenever someone attacks him, they take bashlash damage upwards of like 20 damage. Can get as high as 45 damage at level 20.

A druid who fights exclusively using Wild Shape animal forms, but multiclasses Monk for "Kung Fu Panda" martial arts.

A druid paladin who fights in wild shape and smites using claws and teeth.

A gun-fu martial artist who fights with a hand crossbow and an empty hand. He can fire his crossbow in melee or at range for incredibly high damage. He can disarm enemies by shooting them in the hand or grappling them with his bare hands, then pick up their own weapon and use it against them. He can trip, shove, or even pick pocket enrmy weapons off them mid fight, and is a grappling specialist.

A draconic sorcerer who fights and casts in melee by using his fire magic to enhance his melee weapons as a nearly full caster gish.

A halfling ranger who rides a giant snake or a giant spider, attacking with botb sword and fang, and crawling along ceilings and walls.

A rogue who naturally provides support to allies, giving them advantage or aiding attacks as a vinus action every single turn.

A bard who focuses entirely on countering enemy attacks, via cutting words and counterspell. He turns every enemy attack on a vulnerable target into a miss, and blocks every spell by enemy casters.

A master of buffs and Enchantments, a sorcerer who with one spell turns half the party invisible or hasted for the rest of the fight, all the while modifying enemy luck to give his enemies penalties on attacks and allies bonuses.

An armored juggernaut who fights with a halberd, nearly impossible to hit all the while locking down and hindering enemies. He uses his reach to make thunderous strikes that cause harm if the enemy moves. He blocks enemy attacks easily with a small but substantial pool of low level spells, and if an enemy attempts to move past him he can clothesline them stopping them in place so his allies are safe.

A dominatrix with a whip who easily dances into and out of reach all the while whipping at enemy's legs or arms, knocking weapons out of their hands or putting them on the ground. She can freely move into and out of melee without suffering opportunity attacks.

Anyways. I could go on. Can you do all that in Pathfinder? Beyond a doubt. But in 5e you can do most of that with 2 classes and a single feat. You don't have to hunt through a dozen splatbooks. You just come up with an idea and make it happen. And they all play vastly differently. I was only focusing on things I liked. If you ask someone else they're going to have their own pet builds no doubt.

Edit: And to piggyback off this a bit more. Most of the really insane builds can be done with only a level or 2 dip in other classes. You can usually come up with and build crazy stuff on the fly. In like 10 minutes. You could make a grappler wizard if you wanted. I mean it would be suboptimal as anything. But it could work. Keep Int at like 16 and pump strength with moderate dex. Run a bladesinger. Get expertise from a single level in Rogue. Grab Warcaster feat. Now you have a strength wizard who sings about how you should stop hitting yourself while he gives you noogies. The rest of the time he's casting 9th level spells. Admittedly his AC won't be very good so he'll need to use Shield a lot or buff himself with defensive magic. Is it optimal? Prolly not. Is it Playable? I think it might be.

[Hrugner]

I play both. I prefer to run Pathfinder and it's what I run when I run. 5ed is probably a better choice for beginners, unless your long term players are willing to work with the new player during character creation.

[Grod_The_Giant]

While there are certainly differences, the overall experience is much the same in both games. The core mechanisms, the way magic works, the fluff, the flow of battle, and most of the underlying assumptions are the same. When you compare it to non-D&D games, 3.x and 5e are functionally identical experiences.

The main difference is depth. 5e is, basically, 3.x-lite. On the one hand, it's simpler. You don't really have to worry about one character overshadowing another, or blowing past entire adventures with a spell. Character creation is fairly painless, the math is a lot less fiddly, and the rules are overall nicely streamlined. On the other hand, 5e is simpler. You have nowhere near the depth of options that 3.x games boast, nowhere near the same weight of tactical and strategic variety. There are fewer spells and abilities that let players size control of the plot for themselves, fewer charmingly idiosyncratic classes and mechanics, and more reliance on the DM to make up vague or missing rules.

So, should you switch to 5e? Depends-- do you LIKE the crunchiness of 3.x? Then no, 5e will not satisfy that urge. Do you just want to delve into some dungeons and not worry so much about rules? Then yes, 5e is a major improvement.

[Unoriginal]

5e isn't 3.X-lite.


5e is its own game, with its own rythm and its own design intents that you don't find in 3.X (or at least, not in the rulebooks).

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e isn't 3.X-lite.


5e is its own game, with its own rythm and its own design intents that you don't find in 3.X (or at least, not in the rulebooks).
Strongly disagree. While there are some design-philosophy differences (bounded accuracy and "rulings over rules" vis-a-vis most noncombat stuff), IN PRACTICE they play about identically, albeit a bit more smoothly in the case of the lighter game. At best, you're contrasting two different sorts of apples, where games like Shadowrun are oranges and ones like Fate are, I dunno, carrots.

[Kurald Galain]

Strongly disagree. While there are some design-philosophy differences (bounded accuracy and "rulings over rules" vis-a-vis most noncombat stuff), IN PRACTICE they play about identically, albeit a bit more smoothly in the case of the lighter game. At best, you're contrasting two different sorts of apples, where games like Shadowrun are oranges and ones like Fate are, I dunno, carrots.
Yes, it's obvious from the playtests that WOTC's design goal for 5E was to make it resemble your favorite edition of D&D as much as possible (regardless of which edition that is for any one player).

[Garresh]

Strongly disagree. While there are some design-philosophy differences (bounded accuracy and "rulings over rules" vis-a-vis most noncombat stuff), IN PRACTICE they play about identically, albeit a bit more smoothly in the case of the lighter game. At best, you're contrasting two different sorts of apples, where games like Shadowrun are oranges and ones like Fate are, I dunno, carrots.

I disagree on 3.5 lite as well. 5e is simpler but also more robust. A LOT more robust. It's easier to homebrew and far more flexible. Additionally, the proficiency system replacing variable BAB progression makes multiclassing options a lot better overall. To say it's 5e lite implies the inevitable progression to 3.5 or PF as you gain system mastery, when that's simply not the case.

For all its simplicity, it's also much more elegant and way more streamlined for homebrewing. Almost any style I want I can make in 5e. The things I can't can often be homebrewed.

I'm trying to think of a good metaphor, but I honestly can't, so I'll shoot for the simplest explanation possible. Pathfinder has a weaker core chassis, but so many parts, modules, and slots that you can build literally anything. With good crunch you can make builds that bear zero resemblance to the base class. 5e on the other hand has a major shortage of parts modules and attachments, but a much more robust and stronger chassis. So if you want the flexibility of PF you need to do some homebrewing. But the robust core mechanics make this much easier to do.

Perhaps Pathfinder is Lawful Good and 5e is Chaotic Good. Either way, they're both D&D through and through. And I can't think if many who will love one but hate the other. We simply lean one way or the other in preference. I strongly prefer 5e, but if invited to a PF game I'd totally play. Neither of them are the dumpster fire that was 3.0 or 4e lol.

[pdegan2814]

If you liked what you saw from 5e, then yeah give it a try. The other thing to consider of course is who you'll be DMing for. If they're experienced 3.5/PF players, maybe they won't want to switch(but maybe they want to give 5e a try too). If there will be some folks there new to D&D in general, 5e is a great system for RPG newbies. It gives them lots of things they can do without making the math too complicated.

[Unoriginal]

Just one piece of advice: don't go in 5e and expect things to work like in PF/3.X when they have similar names.

[Arkhios]

Just one piece of advice: don't go in 5e and expect things to work like in PF/3.X when they have similar names.

^ Pretty much the best advice in this thread. Also, worth noting that this advice applies to every existing iteration of D&D (and possibly every other offshoots as well).

[ZZTRaider]

I started with Pathfinder, then moved to 5e. I'll agree with those that say the two systems fill a very similar niche; pick your favorite of the two and stick with it. The feel is nearly the same, though I find 5e to be far more robust.

Pathfinder does have a larger quantity of customization options. If you can think of it, you can probably make it. However, it's worth noting that it often takes until level 10 or beyond to actually achieve your concept in Pathfinder. In 5e, you often meet your concept by level 3 to 5. A great example here is an assassin. It takes ages in Pathfinder to be able to reliably take out basic guards before they can call for help. In 5e, by the time you hit level 3 as an Assassination Rogue, you already have everything you need to actually feel like an assassin.

Potentially more importantly, you can focus on something, like grappling, and still be well rounded enough to do well when you're unable to use your focus. In Pathfinder, if you focused on grappling (and the two page flow chart that involves) and came across an enemy you couldn't grapple, most of your feats are suddenly worthless. In 5e, you still have a solid Athletics check that you can make use of, and you're still a perfectly capable fighter.

Have you ever wanted to play a low magic game and ended up frustrated that Pathfinder's CR math assumes you're going to acquire the "Big Six" magic items at certain times? 5e works perfectly fine with magic items, but it also doesn't assume you're going to have them. This is fantastic and lets you shift the world so that even a simple +1 weapon is an exciting find, rather than something you're going to sell hundreds of times by the end of your adventuring career. There's a lot more room to use magic items because they're interesting, rather than providing a necessary flat bonus, too, since you're not losing a ton if you don't have that +1 weapon or armor.

Has it ever bothered you that you eventually must choose between having an ineffectual town guard that the players can stomp all over or else you need an explanation why a city has a bunch of level 15 people just standing on the walls? With bounded accuracy, the low level town guard is still scary at high levels because they outnumber the party. It makes far more sense for a city to have a lot of low level guards that can work together to keep a party in line if necessary, than having a patrol magically be a level-appropriate encounter.

Have you ever gotten frustrated at having your attack and damage modifiers change round to round as the various +1 buffs from your support characters come into effect or wear off? Concentration does a fantastic job of making buffs powerful and useful, but without all of the bookkeeping. Never again do you have to wait for 15 rounds of spellcasting before the party kicks in the door.

On a related note, if martial/caster disparity has ever bothered you, you'll find that it's significantly reduced in 5e. All classes get useful features that grant narrative (rather than combat) power, and backgrounds ensure that every player has a useful narrative ability that ties into their backstory. Of course, concentration also reduces the absolute power of high level casters, but I think the biggest step forward is the removal of spell scaling based on caster level. In 5e, a first level spell is a first level spell, regardless of the level of the caster. No longer do first level spells end up being ridiculously powerful for minimal resource expenditure at high levels.

Of course, there are still benefits to casters. Pathfinder had a number of low level spells that weren't particularly useful when you could first learn them. A spell with a duration of 1 round per caster level was nearly worthless at level 1 due to the opportunity cost, but quite powerful by level 10. In 5e, those spells still have a useful duration for 1st level characters. My personal favorite boon for casters, though, is the change in how spell preparation works. Specifically, Pathfinder Fire domain Clerics were always a little weird; by the powers their god grants them, they can cast fireball -- perhaps the most iconic fire spell -- once per day. In 5e, Light domain Clerics can cast fireball all day long. It actually feels like they've been given power over their domain by their god, and that's fantastic.

So, those are the things that make me hands down prefer 5e to Pathfinder, even though there are some cool things missing, like the Kineticist. I don't know how you'd feel about each of those things, but if you're like me, I think 5e will be a wonderful experience for you once you get your bearings.

[Vaz]

Are you and your other players enjoying pathfinder? No.

Do you have any new guys who may be put off by 3e's ruleset, but want to play dnd? Maybe. Having never played 4e, would that be more akin to that?

5e is DnD for dummies mechanically, to the extent I'm much more comfortable throwing out a lot of 5e's rules, and rulings, and find myself turning to homebrew to cover large gaps within the rules for concepts, or better actualization of concepts than what the 12 base classes mechanically provide.

I categorically hate the skills, bounded accuracy, character building like feats, and the archetype concept as the sole method of character choice, (instead, i prefer prestige classes, or even a classless system), the addition of 3 pointless saves to simply a-ha your characters with, the actual irrellevance of intelligence.

Also, not gonna lie, i don't appreciate that it has been the edition that brought the old guard out of the Thac0 woodwork, and their often antiquated ideas that you can't have good dnd without the DM being a murderous ****wit.

I stomach it only as much as I can, but then again, I get to play dnd with people who otherwise wouldn't be playing it, which makes it more palatable by far. The RP and interaction with those people outweigh the **** mechanics, but if they ever want to jump ship to 3.5, well full steam ahead.

[Kurald Galain]

Pathfinder does have a larger quantity of customization options. If you can think of it, you can probably make it. By comparison, in 5E it often takes until level 10 or beyond to actually achieve your concept. In Pathfinder, you often meet your concept right at level 1 (because of archetypes) or around level 3. A great example here is an assassin. It takes ages in 5E to be able to reliably take out basic guards before they can call for help, because of bounded accuracy; and you need many levels to get enough feats and to bring your proficiency bonus up to something meaningful. In Pathfinder, by the time you hit level 3 as a Ninja or Rogue, you already have everything you need to actually play like an assassin.

It's easy in any RPG to make any character that feels like what you want. Not all RPGs give you the mechanics to actually back this up from a low level. Not all players are happy if their character isn't noticeably better in his area of expertise than every other character, and that's precisely what BA does.

[Unoriginal]

Pathfinder does have a larger quantity of customization options.

True. Many of those options were made bad on purpose, though.



If youIn Pathfinder, you often meet your concept right at level 1 (because of archetypes) or around level 3. A great example here is an assassin. It takes ages in 5E to be able to reliably take out basic guards before they can call for help, because of bounded accuracy; and you need many levels to get enough feats and to bring your proficiency bonus up to something meaningful. In Pathfinder, by the time you hit level 3 as a Ninja or Rogue, you already have everything you need to actually play like an assassin.

What are you even talking about, dude?

A basic guard has 11 hp, in 5e. By level 3 you can reliable one-shot them as a Rogue, with Sneak attack. And you'll have what you need to play as an assassin.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are you and your other players enjoying pathfinder? No.
Possibly good advice. Why change a winning combination?

5e is DnD for dummies mechanically Nope.

.. not gonna lie, i don't appreciate that it has been the edition that brought the old guard out of the Thac0 woodwork, and their often antiquated ideas that you can't have good dnd without the DM being a murderous ****wit.
I began playing before THACO was in a book, and I find your attempted characterization of a DM making rulings to keep the play flowing outrageously wrong, so not only are you not lying you are also not in possession of a clue.

A bad DM can arise in any edition. (Heck, a bad GM blew up our second Traveller campaign. The players just stopped coming). I've played in lethal dungeons that were a blast to play in. Also played in dungeons that we all eventually lost interest in. The distinctions had to do with style in most cases.

Dave Arneson had a theory: rules lawyers are the enemy. Having see all editions but 4, I'll say he was right as rain. (I suspect that this outlook was a root cause of the early disagreements with E.G.G. on how to shape/proceed with the game in its earliest version).

What I see in your absurd remark is a rules lawyer's complaint that you can't beat a DM over the head with a rule book. Perhaps that is not what is behind your complaint, as you do tend to throw crap out there just to get a reaction. OK, so you trolled and I bit. Good for you.

[ZZTRaider]

Pathfinder does have a larger quantity of customization options. If you can think of it, you can probably make it. By comparison, in 5E it often takes until level 10 or beyond to actually achieve your concept. In Pathfinder, you often meet your concept right at level 1 (because of archetypes) or around level 3. A great example here is an assassin. It takes ages in 5E to be able to reliably take out basic guards before they can call for help, because of bounded accuracy; and you need many levels to get enough feats and to bring your proficiency bonus up to something meaningful. In Pathfinder, by the time you hit level 3 as a Ninja or Rogue, you already have everything you need to actually play like an assassin.

It's easy in any RPG to make any character that feels like what you want. Not all RPGs give you the mechanics to actually back this up from a low level. Not all players are happy if their character isn't noticeably better in his area of expertise than every other character, and that's precisely what BA does.

For any combat-oriented concept, "feeling like" and "playing like" a particular concept are largely going to be the same. How does a character feel like an assassin? By going around and taking things out quickly and quietly; i.e., playing like an assassin.

And I'd strongly argue that a low level 5e assassin rogue is far better equipped for that play style than a same level Pathfinder rogue.

At level three, both rogues will have the same attack bonus (+2 proficiency and +3 Dexterity in 5e, +1 BAB and +4 Dexterity in Pathfinder -- though this requires Weapon Finesse as a feat). The 5e rogue will have advantage for being unseen, while the Pathfinder rogue gains an effective +0 to +2 for a typical guard being flat-footed.

Okay, sure, you could use the Unchained Rogue to get Weapon Finesse for free and add Dexterity to damage.

However, this requires enough system knowledge to realize that A) the Core Rulebook essentially lied to you about what concepts are viable up front, and B) you need to purchase a specific splat book to fix it.

There are issues with some subclasses in the PHB, but I don't think any are so bad as the PF CRB rogue compared to most other options.

If the 5e rogue misses, he simply uses his bonus action with his offhand for an additional chance to hit at the same value. This option is available even if the rogue spent their full movement to get to the guard this round. In Pathfinder, the rogue is out of luck unless they started within 5 feet of the guard (allowing a full attack) and took a -2 penalty to their mainhand and a -4 penalty to their offhand (reduced to -2 if they've spent a second feat on Two-Weapon Fighting); in either case, they must make the choice to take the penalty before making any rolls.

For damage, the 5e rogue adds his dexterity modifier once and doubles all dice, including sneak attack, due to his assassination feature to deal a fantastic 4d6+2d4+3 damage (assuming a dagger). If his mainhand misses and his offhand hits instead, this damage is simply reduced by 3. The Pathfinder rogue deals a flat 2d6+1d4 (again, assuming a dagger), and cannot add his Dexterity bonus at all without a magical weapon or very limited feats.

Even with bounded accuracy (and arguable because of it), the 5e rogue has a better chance of landing at least one hit on the guard and almost certainly gets a kill. The Pathfinder rogue needs to hit twice to do nearly the same amount of damage.

In either case, the 5e rogue then has the option to to back off and hide as a bonus action, potentially giving another attack with advantage next round if the first round did not finish off the guard. The Pathfinder rogue has no effective way to hide at this point, leaving him in the open for a second guard to potentially see him or for his initial target to respond. Especially at such a low level, there is no reliable way for the rogue to regain sneak attack by himself, so damage drops to a flat 1d4.

I chose this example for a specific reason -- it's the one that showed me how much 5e could excel. It was a specific concept that, even as a min-maxer with high system mastery, I had difficulty achieving in Pathfinder without a high level and using nearly all character customization resources. In 5e, though, it just fell into place naturally. Perhaps more importantly, I looked at the PHB, saw the class/subclass with a name that sounded like the right choice for my concept, and it was. No pilfering through various splat books necessary, and no chance of stumbling into a trap option.

This sort of dichotomy exists for a number of combat-oriented concepts.

Want to focus on grappling? In Pathfinder, you need Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple simply to avoid taking damage for bothering to try a grapple; if you want to actually be good at it, you're looking at several more feats and having no real fallback if you run into something you can't effectively grapple. In 5e, you take Athletics proficiency and you're pretty much good, though expertise and certain feats can make it even better if you want to do so.

Want to focus on a variety of maneuvers? In Pathfinder, you're going to have to take a feat for every single maneuver you want to be able to reasonably attempt. If you can't use your maneuvers against an opponent, you find yourself with essentially no feats to improve your combat efficacy, and have nothing to really do. In 5e, you take Athletics proficiency and go for a Battlemaster Fighter. Worst case, you use one of several other useful maneuvers, such as Precise Strike.

[Demonslayer666]

As a big fan of Pathfinder, I found the transition into 5th very easy. I like many things about 5th and miss some things from PF.

In 5th, I really like character creation with backgrounds and choosing an archetype at 3rd level. Inspiration is fantastic, and the advantage/disadvantage system is pretty good.

Combat is less tactical since opportunity attacks have mostly gone away. You can cast and run circles around enemies mostly unhindered. I miss more tactical combat where moving and placement were important. I also miss trained only skills and prestige classes. The resting mechanic is ok, but it needs work.

Bottom line is this, it's fun to play with my group of friends, and they prefer it, so it's here to stay. I could play either one and would not be disappointed.

[Rhedyn]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).

I played and DM'd Pathfinder for a couple years, did a lot of homebrew and some PbP on the boards here, and learned a lot about balance issues, homebrews, rules oddities, etc. I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and could DM it with minimal effort.

But I've got plenty of spare time to learn and plan, and after a guest appearance at my cousin's 5e game, I saw a lot of things that I liked. I didn't play for very long (3 hours) and my character was a premade BBEG I'd had the sheet and spell list for for about a week or two.

One of the things that really jumped out at me was how many spells had a "Concentration" duration, which could not be shared or overlapped. Limiting castes to one major spell effect at a time seems like it would cut out a lot of the wizard's power, and bring them more in line with other classes.

Another thing was that the rules and spell descriptions and game text seemed very streamlined, very efficient. One of the guys will be a first-time roleplayer, and while I'm sure he could learn a more complicated rules system, I gravitated toward Pathfinder because systems like Shadowrun and Scion taught me the value of simplicity when dealing with newbies.

I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?
5e is simpler but harder to DM.

Pathfinder treats the rules as a tool for immersion. 5e treats the rules as something that needs to get out of the way while keeping enough rules to maintain all the sacred cows from older editions.

For a rules light game, I find 5e to be an incomplete clunky mess compared to Savage Worlds, while at the same time it lacks much of what makes PF great.

I would strongly recommend against running it for people who experienced optimizers, they will crack open 5e like an egg. For noobs, I've only heard reports that it works great for noobs as a system.

[GlenSmash!]

Bottom line is this, it's fun to play with my group of friends, and they prefer it, so it's here to stay. I could play either one and would not be disappointed.

This sums it up for me too, with the caveat that I would rather DM a 5e game.

[Rhedyn]

A bad DM can arise in any edition.I hear this on 5e forums as much as I hear "There is plenty of non-combat stuff" on 4e forums, or "Building a balanced character isn't that hard" on 3.P forums.

Every edition has it problems. 5e leans heavily on the DM saying "No" to actually limit players and since the DM isn't given clear rules to make that happen, he is now "the bad guy" "just making things up to F-over the party". Rulings/rules can speed up play, but there is also reasons that rules heavy RPGs exist. Making the DM not seem like a **** is one them.

[Arkhios]

I hear this on 5e forums as much as I hear "There is plenty of non-combat stuff" on 4e forums, or "Building a balanced character isn't that hard" on 3.P forums.

Every edition has it problems. 5e leans heavily on the DM saying "No" to actually limit players and since the DM isn't given clear rules to make that happen, he is now "the bad guy" "just making things up to F-over the party". Rulings/rules can speed up play, but there is also reasons that rules heavy RPGs exist. Making the DM not seem like a **** is one them.

While I agree with the primary(?) point of this post (that every edition has their own flaws), to the bolded parts I have this to say: It depends a lot on how mature the players and the DM are. I believe that mature group have much stronger mutual trust between the DM and the players, while more immature players and DM might not trust each other entirely and just assume the worst of each other, leading to these kinds of assumptions that "the DM is just being an ass for the lols".

[Knaight]

The entire model of switching between one game and another is questionable. You can pick a different system for every campaign, and there's not really a lot of commitment to a particular system built in. Try it out, if you like it in goes on the shelf and gets pulled out every so often, if you don't you don't bring it out again.

As for whether you should try it, you liked it when you did and that suggests that it's worth trying again. Personally I dislike the system, but I dislike it a lot less than any prior edition of D&D.

[wthrift]

I played 3.5 for 4yrs not PF so take this with a grain of thought:
5e has some great combat mechanics, namely advantage/disadvantage and concentration.
That said I miss feats and skills from 3.5.
I can’t really recommend one over the other except in two special cases: 1) min/maxers will enjoy 3.5 more 2) noobs will enjoy 5e more. For the average player I don’t think either is necessarily better.

[wthrift]

I would strongly recommend against running it for people who experienced optimizers, they will crack open 5e like an egg. For noobs, I've only heard reports that it works great for noobs as a system.
While I agree that optimizes will enjoy 3.5 more I don’t agree that 5e can be easily cracked. Especially compared to 3.5 which has all of these game breaking combos and quadratic magic linear martial.

[Vaz]

Possibly good advice. Why change a winning combination?
Nope.
I began playing before THACO was in a book, and I find your attempted characterization of a DM making rulings to keep the play flowing outrageously wrong, so not only are you not lying you are also not in possession of a clue.

A bad DM can arise in any edition. (Heck, a bad GM blew up our second Traveller campaign. The players just stopped coming). I've played in lethal dungeons that were a blast to play in. Also played in dungeons that we all eventually lost interest in. The distinctions had to do with style in most cases.

Dave Arneson had a theory: rules lawyers are the enemy. Having see all editions but 4, I'll say he was right as rain. (I suspect that this outlook was a root cause of the early disagreements with E.G.G. on how to shape/proceed with the game in its earliest version).

What I see in your absurd remark is a rules lawyer's complaint that you can't beat a DM over the head with a rule book. Perhaps that is not what is behind your complaint, as you do tend to throw crap out there just to get a reaction. OK, so you trolled and I bit. Good for you.
Did you just make up your own argument in your head, actually write it down, then come to the conclusion that I'm trolling, write that down, then also write down that you fell for non existent trolling, based on my blase comment that 5e is built for people who do not have the time or desire to search through books to find out every available little +2 to a roll, and instead simplified to a binary advantage/disadvantage, because it was simpler and more accessible?

If you're okay with playing more complicated rules, then play the more complicated rules that are more nuanced, at the risk of having some people mechanically fall by the wayside, which the DM can then enhance in their own way.

[Kane0]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).

I played and DM'd Pathfinder for a couple years, did a lot of homebrew and some PbP on the boards here, and learned a lot about balance issues, homebrews, rules oddities, etc. I'm familiar with Pathfinder, and could DM it with minimal effort.

But I've got plenty of spare time to learn and plan, and after a guest appearance at my cousin's 5e game, I saw a lot of things that I liked. I didn't play for very long (3 hours) and my character was a premade BBEG I'd had the sheet and spell list for for about a week or two.

If you can get your head around the intricacies of 3.PF then 5e should be no problem for you. A good first impression always helps too.



One of the things that really jumped out at me was how many spells had a "Concentration" duration, which could not be shared or overlapped. Limiting casters to one major spell effect at a time seems like it would cut out a lot of the wizard's power, and bring them more in line with other classes.

Another thing was that the rules and spell descriptions and game text seemed very streamlined, very efficient. One of the guys will be a first-time roleplayer, and while I'm sure he could learn a more complicated rules system, I gravitated toward Pathfinder because systems like Shadowrun and Scion taught me the value of simplicity when dealing with newbies.

Yes, casting has been notably curbed and everything has been streamlined quite a bit. There are some other changes you should make sure you know, i'll throw them in a spoiler below.



I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?
Well naturally we are biased, but no more so than any other section of these forums. Many people prefer one over the other, many more play both. It's a matter of how much depth and complexity you like as well as who you can find in your area to actually play with.


- 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 an easy (little resource expenditure & low chance of falling) challenge for a level 6 party of 4, not an easy 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.

[Garresh]

I have no idea what this nonsense is about optimizer crushing 5e. Even the most OP builds can be reigned in quite easily. The power disparity between top tier and bottom tier is much lower as well. Probably the most broken in half munchkin build I've seen is the Coffeelock, and that's NOTHING compared to stuff I was running in 3.5. Pathfinder wasn't nearly as bad as 3.5 but still easily broken by a good optimizer. Thing is PF was somewhat designed around being broken. It had a lot of ways for DMs to keep up with the brokenness and ways for almost every class to be broken. 5e swung the opposite way with power caps in many categories so that optimization is rewarded, jt there are diminishing returns or cutoff points. This imho makes combat a lot more tactical, because I've never seen a class singlehandedly win an encounter by itself.

All that being said, this thread is pretty typical of a forum war. Contradictory statements with no rhyme or reason that make it impossible to make an objective assessment. Just give it a try. The people ragging on it as D&D for dummies have no idea what they're talking about. But it's not the ONE TRUE EDITION either. It's robust and elegant. It has good combat balance and customization. More balanced than PF, less customizable.

The point about DMs does stand though. If there were no hard and fast rules that would be fine, but in many areas there aren't even guidelines. It is a sore point with this edition. In my experience 3.PF brings out and highlights bad players since they can be gamewrecking. 5e brings out and highlights bad DMs. Shockingly, PF also brings out some fo the best players, while 5e brings out some ofnl the best DMs.

Play it and make your own call. This thread is probably useless for you.

[Unoriginal]

To me, 5e is far easier to DM than 3.PF.

Sure, maybe you have to make your own judgement more, but compared to searching 3.PF books to find THE "correct" thing...

NPCs are far easier to make and to run in 5e, too. There's no contest about that.

And while it doesn't fit everyone's playstyle, 5e's math keep the PCs from trivializing encounters of appropriate CR, which is better than to have to look at all the sheets to make sure they don't have a power that'll ruin the monsters in a second.

As for being cracked open like an eggby optimizers: yeah, no.

3.PF is the one that require PCs to be optimized to keep up with one optimized character. In 5e, you really have to try to make an irrelevant character.

[Kurald Galain]

So,

"<game that I dislike> will break down when people try to optimize it, whereas this will never happen in <game that I like>."

I think I've heard this argument now for every conceivable D&D-related pair of <game>s. :smallbiggrin:

[FabulousFizban]

ssswitch to fifth

ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!

[Arkhios]

So,

"<game that I dislike> will break down when people try to optimize it, whereas this will never happen in <game that I like>."

I think I've heard this argument now for every conceivable D&D-related pair of <game>s. :smallbiggrin:
So true it made my day. Do you mind if I sig this? :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

So,

"<game that I dislike> will break down when people try to optimize it, whereas this will never happen in <game that I like>."

I think I've heard this argument now for every conceivable D&D-related pair of <game>s. :smallbiggrin:


It's well-known that 3.PF can be broken by optimizers, and that PF in particular requires you to pick up the "good options" if you don't want to be left in the dust by anyone who did it. Hell, the "search books to make your OP character" character creation minigame is often considered a positive point of the game by people who enjoy it.

[Arkhios]

It's well-known that 3.PF can be broken by optimizers, and that PF in particular requires you to pick up the "good options" if you don't want to be left in the dust by anyone who did it. Hell, the "search books to make your OP character" character creation minigame is often considered a positive point of the game by people who enjoy it.

Any game can be broken when the players are committed to it. All games (so far) are designed by humans, and humans make mistakes.

[Kurald Galain]

So true it made my day. Do you mind if I sig this? :smallbiggrin:
By all means :smallsmile:


It's well-known that 3.PF can be broken by optimizers, and that PF in particular requires you to pick up the "good options" if you don't want to be left in the dust by anyone who did it. Hell, the "search books to make your OP character" character creation minigame is often considered a positive point of the game by people who enjoy it.
It's funny that you're posting this right in the middle of a forum for the character creation minigame for <game you like>. :smallbiggrin:

[Unoriginal]

Any game can be broken when the players are committed to it. All games (so far) are designed by humans, and humans make mistakes.

Sure, but as you said, it usually takes commitment.

"I've picked up the Pathfinder's PHB and picked a few spells" isn't commitment. It doesn't even count as a first date.




It's funny that you're posting this right in the middle of a forum for the character creation minigame for <game you like>. :smallbiggrin:

...Err, sorry, but this is not a forum for the character creation minigame of any game.

Unless you want to argue that character creation in 5e is so complexe it's a minigame and that this forum is only about character creation.


Again, I'm saying playing Pathfinder is badwrongfun. But let's not pretend that some criticism can be accurate for one game and not for the other.

[Arkhios]

"I've picked up the Pathfinder's PHB and picked a few spells" isn't commitment. It doesn't even count as a first date.

No. But neither is it exactly broken as soon as you "pick up Core Rulebook and a few spells", as you seem to be implying. Correct me if I'm wrong about the implication.

I agree that some criticisms can be accurate or inaccurate depending on different systems, but since every system is supposed to be played separately, not together, that hardly is an issue.

[Unoriginal]

No. But neither is it exactly broken as soon as you "pick up Core Rulebook and a few spells", as you seem to be implying. Correct me if I'm wrong about the implication.

My statement was a bit hyperbolic, but not far from reality.



I agree that some criticisms can be accurate or inaccurate depending on different systems, but since every system is supposed to be played separately, not together, that hardly is an issue.

True, except if you portray criticizing game A for one thing and criticizing game B for the same thing as equally valid, when in one case it is accurate and in the other it isn't.

[Arkhios]

My statement was a bit hyperbolic, but not far from reality.
Edit: Actually, I would argue that CRB is rather solid. As the later books are added to the fold, Pathfinder starts to break apart.



True, except if you portray criticizing game A for one thing and criticizing game B for the same thing as equally valid, when in one case it is accurate and in the other it isn't.

Then one might want to reconsider what has been said :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

True, except if you portray criticizing game A for one thing and criticizing game B for the same thing as equally valid, when in one case it is accurate and in the other it isn't.
Yes, yes, people who like Game A consider the criticism valid for Game B only, and exactly like that, people who like Game B consider the criticism valid for Game A only. That's what I just said.

Quite a lot of criticism that "in Game A you can do X but in Game B you cannot" or "Game A has problem Y and Game B doesn't" turns out to be not based on fact, and if you go do a different forum you'll hear the exact same opinion but with the two games reversed.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, yes, people who like Game A consider the criticism valid for Game B only, and exactly like that, people who like Game B consider the criticism valid for Game A only. That's what I just said.

Quite a lot of criticism that "in Game A you can do X but in Game B you cannot" or "Game A has problem Y and Game B doesn't" turns out to be not based on fact, and if you go do a different forum you'll hear the exact same opinion but with the two games reversed.

So according to you most of the time it's just people disliking a game and such not giving it fair criticism, and so it makes any particular criticism not valid by default?

[Kurald Galain]

So according to you most of the time it's just people disliking a game and such not giving it fair criticism, and so it makes any particular criticism not valid by default?

Hahaha.

That's a nice straw man. Try again.

[Unoriginal]

Hahaha.

That's a nice straw man. Try again.

It's not a strawman, it's a question.

Do you think that because people who like either of the games are saying "[game I don't like] can't do X", saying "this game can't do X" is never valid?

[KorvinStarmast]

As a big fan of Pathfinder, I found the transition into 5th very easy. I like many things about 5th and miss some things from PF.

Bottom line is this, it's fun to play with my group of friends, and they prefer it, so it's here to stay. I could play either one and would not be disappointed. A better post than most.

[Willie the Duck]

I know I want to DM a campaign soon, but I'm on the fence about switching to 5th edition (from Pathfinder).
...
I imagine since I'm asking in the 5e section that the answer will be a majority "Yes" but I'd especially like to hear from anyone who's played the two systems and could list the pros and cons of each.

Lastly, would it make more sense to post this in the 3.5 / Pathfinder forum?

Well, as you can see, posting it here didn't stop people (and I'll tell you that these aren't just people from the 3e/PF subforum who were clued in to this thread and came over here to throw rocks) from having some negative opinions on 5e :smallbiggrin:. I imagine you would find the same situation over on the 3.5/PF forum, but with the ratio reversed.

Aside from the 'which of your friends would/wouldn't be interested in playing if you were to choose _____' issues (the biggest actual consideration, but the one we can't know), there are game considerations. Most have already been discussed here, some more arcanely than others. Simply put, ask yourself these simple questions?

Among which of two (from most perspective) bad options do you like more, something loosey-goosy and requiring lots of DM adjudication, or something which is very precise (note precise not accurate), well-defined, but potentially bad? That's the difference between skills in 3e/PF and 5e. Skills are an add-on feature to D&D (unlike a skill-based game like GURPS) and they've never really sat down and thought it through. Skills where you really don't try unless you have a 95+% chance of success (picking pockets, I suppose) are lumped in with things you try regardless because if you don't you'll die (jumping a chasm), and skills where you really are trying to gauge a measure of success (a musical performance). There simply isn't going to be a system that is universally satisfactory. 3e/PF uses a system with lots of charts and DC lists and modifiers that tells you exactly what number to use in a given situation, and that number is... well, the exact opposite of arbitrary, it is well-planned, but not necessarily well thought out (I think a lot of the 3e/PF boosters are forgetting how much they complained about the 3e/PF skill system before they had a competitor to line up against). It doesn't necessarily serve the game-as-challenge nor game-as-story goals most people have, but instead is kind of an end in-and-of-itself. 5e takes a different tack and just gives a very loose, open skill system which is pretty close to "well, you're the DM, what do you think?" Outside of whether the actual percentages are good or not (and a lot of people dislike the swinginess of the DC-to-modifier ratio), it becomes a question of whether that's the designer thoughtfully leaving it open to interpretation/DM need, or abrogating their responsibilities.
Among which of two (from most perspective) bad options do you like more, something with few options, most of them roughly equal, or all sorts of options, many-to-most of which are subpar, the ones that aren't are not necessarily the ones you want, and the whole thing incentivizes some unappreciated behavior? That's the difference between character creation methods in 3e/PF and 5e. With 3e/PF, you can customize and specialize and file things off and glue things on and replace the original paint job with a flake metal finish and add spinning hubcaps and a spoiler (and I think this metaphor got away from me because the differences aren't just in appearance, they are very functional). The problem is that if anyone in the party does so (and the DM adjusts the difficulty to match), then you kind of have to as well. And not every class/role/archetype (lower case general term on the last, not 5e game term) ends up as good. There are Tiers of play, which is maddening to beginners and incentivizes non-beginners to adopt rules exploits that others might label as cheese (no formal definition, just a level of optimizing 'too far'). Slight changes in things like ability to obtain certain magic items can have significant downstream effects. 5e, on the other hand, stops that from happening by, well, stopping it from happening (as much). There aren't PrCs, feats are limited, multiclassing will get you a specialized character, but rarely an overpowered one. Specialization in general is quite limited (farthest one can go IFAICT is a martial type who should never fight with anything other than a polearm, or the like). Which one prefers is mostly based on how important having lots of character creation dials to tune is to you.

I know some people will take umbrage that I pointed out bad things about their favorite version, but I tried to be equal and fair. My general point is that, with a given level of competence*, you can only get a certain total value, and must weigh various competing factors. Options and uniformly playable roles are competing interests. Accuracy and precision are competing interests. The two games made different decisions on where to split the differences, and they each therefore to appeal to people with different priorities.
*and in the case of D&D, competence always has the additional burden of 'I know this is a problem, but it is also a sacred cow.'

That's really it. What are your priorities?

And beyond that, it isn't really a one-or-the-other decision. You can play both, or neither.

[johnbragg]

I've been running a 5E campaign with my two 9-year olds, my 12 year old and my wife for about a year, with very infrequent sessions because we're really busy. (Party went gone from level 1 to level 4 from a few days after Christmas 2016 to July 1, then a long break as we moved, school started, busy busy busy.)

I have a lot of 3X habits that are negatives in 5E. I'm not saying these are bad things about 5E, I'm just telling you my learning curve.

Bounded accuracy makes stats MUCH more important. Giving my players an 18-16-14-12-10-8 array has meant they're pretty overpowered--we're running the Lost Mines of Phandelver, and they're steamrollering encounters.

Rest is even more critical than in 3X. If you got used to balancing out the 5-minute workday by amping up the monsters, I'm hearing that you basically can't do that in 5E without significant TPK risk.

Monsters and PCs are not built from the same tools. This means, for me, that the system mastery I'm getting from playing in grownup campaigns doesn't help me too much on the DM side of the table.

On the other hand, a lot frustrations I had homebrewed away for young, inexperienced players are just not there in 5E. The spells-known mechanic is pretty close to what I had given the kids anyway. Unarmed combat is almost viable--WWE-style shenanigans are just an Athletics check away, if you have some way to exploit the Grappled or Prone conditions. (So my freakishly strong halfling rogue's backstory is that he used to be an enforcer--he'd take you down with an Athletics check, then Advantage meant his unarmed strikes did Sneak Attack damage).

Advantage is simpler than tracking and stacking modifiers in 3X.

[Knaight]

Any game can be broken when the players are committed to it. All games (so far) are designed by humans, and humans make mistakes.
Some games are much more fragile than others, both in terms of accidental and deliberate breaking. There are also patterns to this fragility, in terms of specific types of designs being much more prone to it than others. Crunchier games (a category that includes every edition of D&D) tend to be particularly prone to it. Games focused on powers and talents* tend to be prone to breaking in a way that pure stat-skill systems aren't. Games that operate across wide power scales tend to be prone to breaking (this is part of why vehicle systems have a tendency to be really janky, and to get especially janky when interacting with people outside of vehicles). Tightly interrelated systems where the pieces are explicitly attached in a lot of ways tend to be broken easily.

This isn't just a D&D thing. Look at Shadowrun, or Mutants and Masterminds, or anything Palladium has ever made.

*The definitions here are a bit fuzzy and can vary; I've used them elsewhere.

[quark12000]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

Fortunately all you need is the PHB. Yes Xanthar's guide is nice, but the gap between the heavy optimizers and the regular players is pretty small 99% of the time, and mostly doesn't depend on splat diving.

[Daphne]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

There are only three splats: Xanathar's Guide (25 new subclasses), Sword Coast Guide (mostly weaker options than the PHB) and Volo's Guide (only races).

And you can keep up with just the PHB just fine.

[Knaight]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

One of the changes is that they've deliberately slowed the book release schedule pretty dramatically. It looks like the core three plus roughly one per eight months, and there's no need to buy all of them - particularly as AL has a PHB + 1 Other restriction on characters, and home games generally have some degree of shared resources.

I'd still consider this a lot of books, but I consider the idea of a three book set to just play the game as completely ridiculous.

[Unoriginal]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

It's really not an issue, as others have said.

Less books, and no need to go all Wacky Races to keep up with optimizers.

[ZZTRaider]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

Then 5e is probably fantastic for you. There's really not that many books to even consider buying to begin with.


You need the Player's Handbook (PHB) no matter what.
Whoever DMs will want access to the Monster Manual (MM), but it's completely unnecessary for players.
The Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) is a nice to have, but not necessary, and only for DMs.
The Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide (SCAG) is a setting-specific book. Several of the player options here have been reprinted into the setting-agnostic Xanathar's Guide to Everything. Everything else would be up to DM discretion if you're not actually playing in that setting.
Volo's Guide to Monsters (VGtM) is another nice to have for the DM, and has fairly minimal player options that a DM could easily choose to not make available.
Xanathar's Guide to Everything (XGtE) has a lot of new player options, but is overall fairly well balanced with the PHB.


So, if you're not planning to DM, you only really need the PHB, though you may want to consider picking up XGtE as well. The other books are rather unnecessary from a player's perspective.

Also, if you're playing in the organized Adventurer's League, you're only allowed to draw from the PHB and one other book for a particular character, anyway, so you're not even allowed to benefit from more than two books.

[quark12000]

There are only three splats: Xanathar's Guide (25 new subclasses), Sword Coast Guide (mostly weaker options than the PHB) and Volo's Guide (only races).

And you can keep up with just the PHB just fine.

I've been doing some preliminary research online, and it seems there is an Unearthed Arcana book, too?

[Vaz]

No. There is no Unearthed Arcana book currently.

[gloryblaze]

I've been doing some preliminary research online, and it seems there is an Unearthed Arcana book, too?

"Unearthed arcana" is a series of free PDF articles on the wizards of the coast website. It's made by WoTC but it's still just playtest material, so it's not official (yet). A lot of UA material was officially published in Xanathar's.

[ZZTRaider]

I've been doing some preliminary research online, and it seems there is an Unearthed Arcana book, too?

Unearthed Arcana is a line of freely available playtest material, available here:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles-tags/unearthed-arcana

Much of the UA material that's been released is now available in Xanathar's Guide to Everything in a revised, final form.

As far as I'm aware, none of it is available for use in the official organized play, and it should typically be considered "at DM's discretion" for home games, too.

[Kane0]

Less books, and no need to go all Wacky Races to keep up with optimizers.

Cookie for the reference, made me smile. Is there a way to adapt the Chase rules to do a wacky race?

As others have said, you don't need a lot. The core three are recommended, DMs might want Volo's Guide and players might want Xanathar's Guide.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cookie for the reference, made me smile. Is there a way to adapt the Chase rules to do a wacky race?

As others have said, you don't need a lot. The core three are recommended, DMs might want Volo's Guide and players might want Xanathar's Guide.

And you only need the MM and DMG if you're going to be the DM. Otherwise, just the PHB is enough (or even borrowing one for character-specific pieces and using the Basic Rules/System Reference document for rule lookup).

[Unoriginal]

Cookie for the reference, made me smile. Is there a way to adapt the Chase rules to do a wacky race?

Sure. Wouldn't be complicated, just make the reference point be a fixed point at the end of the track, rather than the guy who's being pursued. Or make so that whoever take the leads become the reference point.

Or you could adapt the rules for Dinosaur Racing from Tomb of Annihilation.


Also, two words: Hag Vehicles.

I immediately thought about making a race events with them as soon as I've read that entry in the Volo's.

[quark12000]

Sure. Wouldn't be complicated, just make the reference point be a fixed point at the end of the track, rather than the guy who's being pursued. Or make so that whoever take the leads become the reference point.

Or you could adapt the rules for Dinosaur Racing from Tomb of Annihilation.


Also, two words: Hag Vehicles.

I immediately thought about making a race events with them as soon as I've read that entry in the Volo's.

Does that make **** Dastardly a druid or sorcerer? (is Muttley an animal companion or a familiar?) ;)

[ProseBeforeHos]

Pathfinder pros: Incredible options for making very varied and interesting characters. The best published adventures of any edition of D&D via the adventure paths. 3.5/PF combat system does some things better than 5e e.g. solo monsters.

Pathfinder cons: Casters are broken, the system is very number-crunchy, some of the design decision holdovers from 3.5 continue to way down the system (e.g. rogues randomly getting the shaft vs constructs or the undead).


5e pros: Very streamlined system w. advantage/disadvantage replace most of PF number crunching. Concentration is an elegant fix for making casters reasonable. Classes overall more balanced. Much easier for new players to get a handle on. A lot of the design changes will feel incredibly intuitive and you'll struggle to go back to PF/3.5 after playing 5e (unarmored defense for barbarians, or all characters having 'innate' weapon finesse).

5e cons: 5e doesn't allows for a lot of flexibility in builds (e.g. a barbarian can basically only be built as a melee str based brute). 5e monsters often feel like interchangeable sacks of hp. Published adventures are not as good as the PF adventure paths (though they are getting better).


I was one of the purist GM's who hated 4th ed and stuck with 3.5 (and later PF). I switched to 5e as soon as I had a chance to experience it and I havn't regretted the decision. It is in my opinion the best version of D&D every made, better even than the (still very playable and fun) PF.

[ad_hoc]

Strongly disagree. While there are some design-philosophy differences (bounded accuracy and "rulings over rules" vis-a-vis most noncombat stuff), IN PRACTICE they play about identically, albeit a bit more smoothly in the case of the lighter game. At best, you're contrasting two different sorts of apples, where games like Shadowrun are oranges and ones like Fate are, I dunno, carrots.

If 5e plays like any edition, it is 2e.

There is very little of 3.x in 5e apart from the D&Disms of classes, ability scores, etc.

[Unoriginal]

Does that make **** Dastardly a druid or sorcerer? (is Muttley an animal companion or a familiar?) ;)

Nah, Dastardly's a Rogue, Muttley is the Druid.

[JAL_1138]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

As others have said, you really don't need to get multiple books to do so (and there aren't many books with player options to start with--just the PHB, SCAG, Volo's, XgE. There's a free download called the Elemental Evil player's companion as well, but most of it has since been reprinted elsewhere. But PHB-only characters can keep up just fine. In fact, a character built with just the free Basic Rules PDF or the free SRD PDF can keep up just fine.)

Thing is, you don't even really need to "keep up with optimizers" in 5e. A suboptimal character can function pretty darn well in a group of optimized ones. You don't even need to max out your primary "combat stat" (e.g. Str or Dex for Fighters, Int for wizards, etc) to 20 in order to keep up--an 18 is completely adequate, even at high levels, and will function effectively in the same party.

It's kinda difficult to build a character in 5e so bad that they can't keep up to a reasonable degree. Even if you're playing a less-optimal version of the same class as someone else in the party—I've seen that plenty of times in League (and have done it, too, and have sometimes been lower-level than the more-optimized character as well), and the lower-op characters still held their own.

The optimization ceiling in 5e is much lower than in 3.PF, and the floor is much higher. You only need a basic knowledge of the rules to build a workable character, and you almost have to deliberately try to build a truly bad one.


If 5e plays like any edition, it is 2e.

There is very little of 3.x in 5e apart from the D&Disms of classes, ability scores, etc.

It's funny—mechanically it bears very little resemblance to 2e whatsoever; basically everything works and plays completely differently than 2e...but it feels like it. I started with 2e and still slightly favor it over 5e, but it's close. I don't feel like I'm playing a totally different game with some of the same names tacked on, which is how I felt about 3rd and 4th editions...yet almost all of 5e's mechanics derive from those editions, with practically nothing of TSR-era AD&D in it. But somehow it works.

[Garresh]

One small critique of other posters. 5e has a lot of flexibility. Just not as much as PF. You can make a working dex barbarian. There's even a guide on it. It loses a decent chunk of damage but is arguable the most durable build in the game. It can get 22 AC before any magic bonuses, has excellent saves in 2 categories, and can also get damage reduction from rages. And with paths like Zealot you still do really good damage.

That's the thing about 5e. You think a build is bad. Then you look at it. And you realize that almost any build has something going for it.

Edit: Hell you can play a WISDOM BASED FIGHTER who DUMPS DEX AND STRENGTH. It's not just Playable. It's actually pretty good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One small critique of other posters. 5e has a lot of flexibility. Just not as much as PF. You can make a working dex barbarian. There's even a guide on it. It loses a decent chunk of damage but is arguable the most durable build in the game. It can get 22 AC before any magic bonuses, has excellent saves in 2 categories, and can also get damage reduction from rages. And with paths like Zealot you still do really good damage.

That's the thing about 5e. You think a build is bad. Then you look at it. And you realize that almost any build has something going for it.

Edit: Hell you can play a WISDOM BASED FIGHTER who DUMPS DEX AND STRENGTH. It's not just Playable. It's actually pretty good.

And that's something I love about 5e. Gone are the true trap options--even the less-optimized options still work. You have to work (intentionally anti-optimize) to make something actually bad. Unlike earlier editions, you basically can't accidentally create an broken character in either direction. You have to actually try to do it.

[Rhedyn]

And that's something I love about 5e. Gone are the true trap options--even the less-optimized options still work. You have to work (intentionally anti-optimize) to make something actually bad. Unlike earlier editions, you basically can't accidentally create an broken character in either direction. You have to actually try to do it. True you can't be worthless but an optimized character is probably doing 4x more contribution than a normal character and about 8x a bad one.

That's not the 20x and 100x of 3e, but you'll feel the difference between a wizard spamming damage spells vs one who brings things like Polymorph, or the difference between a feat less S&B champion vs a Vhuman GWM GWF Battlemaster

[PhoenixPhyre]

True you can't be worthless but an optimized character is probably doing 4x more contribution than a normal character and about 8x a bad one.

That's not the 20x and 100x of 3e, but you'll feel the difference between a wizard spamming damage spells vs one who brings things like Polymorph, or the difference between a feat less S&B champion vs a Vhuman GWM GWF Battlemaster

That strongly depends on the group, the situation, and the DM. Basically, if you only compare raw combat potential (and assume good conditions) there is a large difference. But in real play the differences are quite muted. I've happily played alongside optimized and unoptimized characters and even the wizard who preferred poking things with a pike (without proficiency) was useful. So was the blaster-focused sorcerer (without much care other than "burn it with fire").

Differences in skill and the situations encountered basically wash out the differences in optimization except at the very extremes. Especially for newer players. No need to research guides or dig through splats. Just take what looks right and it will be in the middle of the curve. Even an evoker wizard who focuses on blowing stuff up is going to be useful.

[Beelzebubba]

I'd like to get into 5E, but I'm wary of having to buy a ton of books to be able to keep up with optimizers.

The people talking about optimizers breaking the game, in the same breath as Pathfinder, are honestly deluded. 5E is the 'flattest', and least broken D&D other than 4E (which wasn't to the taste of a substantial number of people.)

As much as Pathfinder build a steadily escalating math with lots of moving parts that work together that can be exploited to create something exponential. 5E has an explicit design that addresses that, in it's math and how the mechanics interact and overlap. 'Bounded Accuracy', spell concentration, collapsing so many bonuses and penalties into Advantage and Disadvantage instead of stacking, etcetera. That's not even mentioning the elimination of so many 'trap' options.

I've been playing since Blue Box Basic and played with people that pulled off stuff like Pun-Pun in other systems. D&D has flaws, and it's broken compared to some other game systems out there, but for D&D? This one is really robust and hard to break.

[Garresh]

To offer another bit of cents, pathfinder is the pinnacle of a certain design philosophy. Lots of crunch and options. The things about 3.5 we all loved, taken to the max while the downsides are minimized. But they're still there. 5e is a departure towards a different philosophy with minimal bonus or penalty stacking, which allows optimization and niche builds to occur while still playing alongside unoptimized builds.

I believe firmly that the 5e school of design is better. But if you prefer the other school of design, Pathfinder is the best. It did a hell of a lot of things right. I still have a soft spot for it and if a good group invites me I'll play it. But I think 5e is the better of the two schools of thought.

[JAL_1138]

True you can't be worthless but an optimized character is probably doing 4x more contribution than a normal character and about 8x a bad one.

That's not the 20x and 100x of 3e, but you'll feel the difference between a wizard spamming damage spells vs one who brings things like Polymorph, or the difference between a feat less S&B champion vs a Vhuman GWM GWF Battlemaster

I've played a level 7 Ancients Paladin with 18 Str, 14 Cha, Shield Master, and a +1 longsword in the same group as a level 10 PAM+Sentinel Vengeance Pally with 18 Str, 16 Cha, +1 armor, and a Flametongue Glaive. This guy was a combat behemoth. Yet I still didn't feel completely outclassed, even a few levels behind, with worse stats, feats, and gear. I still contributed in combat to a reasonable degree.

I see mismatched optimization degrees quite often in League and the disparity's just not that bad.

[Rhedyn]

I've played a level 7 Ancients Paladin with 18 Str, 14 Cha, Shield Master, and a +1 longsword in the same group as a level 10 PAM+Sentinel Vengeance Pally with 18 Str, 16 Cha, +1 armor, and a Flametongue Glaive. This guy was a combat behemoth. Yet I still didn't feel completely outclassed, even a few levels behind, with worse stats, feats, and gear. I still contributed in combat to a reasonable degree.

I see mismatched optimization degrees quite often in League and the disparity's just not that bad.
Cause you were a paladin. Also you either have Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter and a way to get easy advantage/to-hit boost or you aren't optimised for martial damage.

[ad_hoc]

It's funny—mechanically it bears very little resemblance to 2e whatsoever; basically everything works and plays completely differently than 2e...but it feels like it. I started with 2e and still slightly favor it over 5e, but it's close. I don't feel like I'm playing a totally different game with some of the same names tacked on, which is how I felt about 3rd and 4th editions...yet almost all of 5e's mechanics derive from those editions, with practically nothing of TSR-era AD&D in it. But somehow it works.

Yeah. I surmise that a lot of the disconnect people from 3.x or 4e have with 5e is that it has a lot of terms from those editions without actually playing anything like it.

I also started with 2e and quickly picked up the playstyle and flow of 5e. It's intuitive to me.

5e feels like a streamlined 2e to me which is what I think the intent of 3e was but it completely missed the mark.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cause you were a paladin. Also you either have Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter and a way to get easy advantage/to-hit boost or you aren't optimised for martial damage.

Dur...he specifically said he was

a) 3 levels behind
b) sword and board
c) with crappier gear

AND STILL WAS RELEVANT in combat. That means that even worse case, differences in optimization mean very little in this edition. Even in combat, which is only one part of the game. Repeat after me--optimization matters very little beyond a certain minimal threshold. If you don't understand that, it's no wonder you struggle with 5e. You're trying to spend all this energy working on something that makes very little difference to 90% of the players.

Many (if not most) players are not optimizers. I have yet to see someone take any of those "combat-essential" feats. They strangely prefer things like lucky, actor, mobile, and other such things. Because it's not all about piling up big numbers in some self-congratulatory spreadsheet. It's about interacting with a game world and having fun. Not beating other people, not "winning" some imaginary competition.

Compared to 3e or PF where it's easy to build a useless character (and that's by design) and also relatively easy to build a character that forces the DM to warp the entire game around that one PC, 5e is a paragon of balance. Then again, most things are paragons of balance on that scale...

[quark12000]

If 5e plays like any edition, it is 2e.


Now you're scaring me. I still have nightmares about THACO. ;)

[ad_hoc]

Now you're scaring me. I still have nightmares about THACO. ;)

THAC0 :p

...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now you're scaring me. I still have nightmares about THACO. ;)

Thankfully that's dead and buried. Hopefully no one decides to true resurrection it. <shudder>

[Arkhios]

Thankfully that's dead and buried. Hopefully no one decides to true resurrection it. <shudder>

A friend of mine keeps whining about that I don't want to try and play a game - even a one-shot - using 2e. I admit that all I know about THAC0 comes from Baldur's Gates and Icewind Dale, but it was still horrible.

[Gardakan]

I'd say definitely. 5e is great, the rules are pretty balanced and WoTC came up with a good product that fits the modern era.

[JAL_1138]

A friend of mine keeps whining about that I don't want to try and play a game - even a one-shot - using 2e. I admit that all I know about THAC0 comes from Baldur's Gates and Icewind Dale, but it was still horrible.

If you can BAB, you can THAC0.

The problem was that the book gave the worst possible way to use THAC0—the book had you try to figure out the minimum d20 roll you needed for a given AC, instead of figuring out the best AC you could hit.

THAC0 is basically just BAB for descending AC (where lower AC is better). It just uses subtraction instead of being purely addition. You find your THAC0 for your class and level from a table in the book, then use it like BAB:

THAC0 minus (roll plus bonuses) = best AC you can hit

or, to avoid parentheses,

THAC0 minus bonus minus roll = best AC you can hit

Or you could factor your bonuses from stats, weapons, etc. into your THAC0 beforehand, by subtracting them from your base THAC0 to get an adjusted THAC0:

THAC0 minus bonuses = Adjusted THAC0
Adjusted THAC0 minus roll = best AC you can hit.

If mental subtraction gives you trouble, you can get around it—your base THAC0 only changes on level-up, so it's easy to make a small cheat-sheet table of d20 roll outcomes for your level, so that all you have to do is look at the number you rolled and compare it to the table instead of doing any mental math.

An example table for a level 5 Fighter with +1 to hit from Strength would look like this:


Level 5 Fighter,
base THAC0 15,
+1 bonus from Str,
Adjusted THAC0 = 15

D20 = Armor Class I Hit
1 = auto miss
2 = 13
3 = 12
4 = 11
5 = 10
6 = 9
7 = 8
8 = 7
9 = 6
10 = 5
11 = 4
12 = 3
13 = 2
14 = 1
15 = 0
16 = -1
17 = -2
18 = -3
19 = -4
20 = auto hit


It's not horrible or particularly difficult, just clunky because there's no real reason for using descending AC (apparently a holdover from earlier wargames?) instead of ascending AC. But don't let the myths around its difficulty throw you off. People talk about it like you had to solve complex calculus problems to see if you hit, or some such nonsense. It's no more mathematically complex than BAB. Some people find mental subtraction more difficult than mental addition, but otherwise it's no different.

[Arkhios]

snip

Truth be told, I don't care. It's the thought of having to look at it differently while it might be essentially same. BAB feels just so much more simple, but I could be biased having learned BAB first. Either way, It's my choice to not to go near 2e. If 5e plays similarly to 2e otherwise, all the better as I like 5e a lot.

[Rhedyn]

Dur...he specifically said he was

a) 3 levels behind
b) sword and board
c) with crappier gear

AND STILL WAS RELEVANT in combat. That means that even worse case, differences in optimization mean very little in this edition. Even in combat, which is only one part of the game. Repeat after me--optimization matters very little beyond a certain minimal threshold. If you don't understand that, it's no wonder you struggle with 5e. You're trying to spend all this energy working on something that makes very little difference to 90% of the players.

Many (if not most) players are not optimizers. I have yet to see someone take any of those "combat-essential" feats. They strangely prefer things like lucky, actor, mobile, and other such things. Because it's not all about piling up big numbers in some self-congratulatory spreadsheet. It's about interacting with a game world and having fun. Not beating other people, not "winning" some imaginary competition.

Compared to 3e or PF where it's easy to build a useless character (and that's by design) and also relatively easy to build a character that forces the DM to warp the entire game around that one PC, 5e is a paragon of balance. Then again, most things are paragons of balance on that scale...

Yeah but he had paladin abilities. Levels matter very less this edition.

[2D8HP]

If you can BAB, you can THAC0.

The problem was that the book gave the worst possible way to use THAC0—the book had you try to figure out the minimum d20 roll you needed for a given AC, instead of figuring out the best AC you could hit.

THAC0 is basically just BAB for descending AC (where lower AC is better). It just uses subtraction instead of being purely addition. You find your THAC0 for your class and level from a table in the book, then use it like BAB:

THAC0 minus (roll plus bonuses) = best AC you can hit

or, to avoid parentheses,

THAC0 minus bonus minus roll = best AC you can hit

Or you could factor your bonuses from stats, weapons, etc. into your THAC0 beforehand, by subtracting them from your base THAC0 to get an adjusted THAC0:

THAC0 minus bonuses = Adjusted THAC0
Adjusted THAC0 minus roll = best AC you can hit.

If mental subtraction gives you trouble, you can get around it—your base THAC0 only changes on level-up, so it's easy to make a small cheat-sheet table of d20 roll outcomes for your level, so that all you have to do is look at the number you rolled and compare it to the table instead of doing any mental math.

An example table for a level 5 Fighter with +1 to hit from Strength would look like this:


Level 5 Fighter,
base THAC0 15,
+1 bonus from Str,
Adjusted THAC0 = 15

D20 = Armor Class I Hit
1 = auto miss
2 = 13
3 = 12
4 = 11
5 = 10
6 = 9
7 = 8
8 = 7
9 = 6
10 = 5
11 = 4
12 = 3
13 = 2
14 = 1
15 = 0
16 = -1
17 = -2
18 = -3
19 = -4
20 = auto hit


It's not horrible or particularly difficult, just clunky because there's no real reason for using descending AC (apparently a holdover from earlier wargames?) instead of ascending AC. But don't let the myths around its difficulty throw you off. People talk about it like you had to solve complex calculus problems to see if you hit, or some such nonsense. It's no more mathematically complex than BAB. Some people find mental subtraction more difficult than mental addition, but otherwise it's no different.


"Armor Class" and "Hit Points" were previously used in Dave Arneson's Civil War Naval Combat game Ironclads


http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540395p3.html


https://archive.org/stream/gamespy-dave_arneson_interview/gamespy-dave_arneson_interview_djvu.txt


https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114105/Dungeons__Dragons_Arneson_The_Lost_Interview.php


and the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Naval combat game

Don't Give Up The Ship (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7791/dont-give-ship)


Before THAC0 ("to hit armor class 0") there were "Attack Matrices"

Check out the 1974 D&D Attack Matrix:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lC3ZGo6MEq4/Vjf5l0Upd0I/AAAAAAAAE7I/vnwO8h_6EJY/s280/20151102_185929.jpg


And here's the AD&D one only a few years later:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TQnzgXCADuc/TTcWINbQIxI/AAAAAAAAAXs/ZVHu7yKeQvg/s280/Attack+Matrix+fighters.jpg

You may infer that in oD&D for a 1st level "to hit" one must have a roll that equals 19 or greater after adding the targets AC, and that it must be 20 after adding in the targets AC in AD&D, so the lower the AC the better.

[CantigThimble]

So,

"<game that I dislike> will break down when people try to optimize it, whereas this will never happen in <game that I like>."

I think I've heard this argument now for every conceivable D&D-related pair of <game>s. :smallbiggrin:

Wait, there are people who argue that 5e is more likely to break from optimization than 3.x is? I would like to see these arguments.

[JAL_1138]

snip

Nifty! Thanks for the info.

[Rhedyn]

Wait, there are people who argue that 5e is more likely to break from optimization than 3.x is? I would like to see these arguments.
Yep.

I define breaking the game as turning a large portion of it boring. In 5e, this means becoming so strong that combat becomes boring, which is easier given how little abilities 5e monsters have.

When all the DM can do is increase the number of things you are facing, combat becomes a slog.

[Saltmarsh]

My short answer is yes
I've played pathfinder since it first come out and have become steadily more dissatisfied with it as the years have gone bye.
But in the last few months have been playing 5th ed and find it a much easier and more streamlined game to play , it has a much more old school feel to it that I love .
So just go for it

[Vaz]

My short answer is yes
I've played pathfinder since it first come out and have become steadily more dissatisfied with it as the years have gone bye.
But in the last few months have been playing 5th ed and find it a much easier and more streamlined game to play , it has a much more old school feel to it that I love .
So just go for it

Play 5e for long enough, you'll be in the same boat. Except much quicker, as there are often much less options.

[GreyBlack]

To be honest? I don't know and it depends on your group.

5e is very much "Baby's First RPG", design-wise. This isn't a knock against it; the streamlined nature and "pick-up-and-go" nature of the design are fabulous and allow for a much less steep learning curve. That said, it does come at the cost of depth of mechanics; 5e doesn't allow for the system mastery shenanigans that other editions have.

If you want a streamlined system that keeps gameplay fast and accessible, then you should make the switch to 5e. If you want a deeper and more complex system that allows for more subtle nuance.... try GURPS.

[CantigThimble]

Yep.

I define breaking the game as turning a large portion of it boring. In 5e, this means becoming so strong that combat becomes boring, which is easier given how little abilities 5e monsters have.

When all the DM can do is increase the number of things you are facing, combat becomes a slog.

It sounds like your issue is more with monster design than player optimization. Unless you're saying you don't mind the lack of monster abilities when PCs aren't optimized?

[Rhedyn]

It sounds like your issue is more with monster design than player optimization. Unless you're saying you don't mind the lack of monster abilities when PCs aren't optimized?
There is some interwoven issues, but the order of magnitude difference between optimized builds and unoptimized builds using purely PH material is an issues in if itself. It's only a problem though because of other game mechanics highlight the disparity.

[CantigThimble]

There is some interwoven issues, but the order of magnitude difference between optimized builds and unoptimized builds using purely PH material is an issues in if itself. It's only a problem though because of other game mechanics highlight the disparity.

Sure, but I mean, we're comparing it to 3.x here. Isn't a power level difference between optomized and unoptomized of only one order of magnitude LOW for that system?

[PhoenixPhyre]

There is some interwoven issues, but the order of magnitude difference between optimized builds and unoptimized builds using purely PH material is an issues in if itself. It's only a problem though because of other game mechanics highlight the disparity.

I've never seen order-of-magnitude differences. And I've seen both sides of the optimization spectrum. The variance because of DMs and situations by far outweighs any power disparities based on class and optimization, unless you're doing combat-only campaigns set in the proverbial featureless white room.

[Rhedyn]

Sure, but I mean, we're comparing it to 3.x here. Isn't a power level difference between optomized and unoptomized of only one order of magnitude LOW for that system?
True, but I found it took far more effort to actually make the game boring with optimization in 3e.

It's far easier in 5e to know that you are going to win a fight early into the combat without having to make unique decisions.

5e is better at curbing narrative power than 3e, but a 3e God Wizard circumventing adventures can make the campaign shorter, but it's harder to make the session boring.

Also it takes work to break 3e. You can bumble into busted combos in 5e, but the devs say it's fine because, "if you don't like something, YOU CAN CHANGE IT!" -- like that doesn't apply to every system ever. Excuse me as I turn Monopoly into a dungeon crawler.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also it takes work to break 3e. You can bumble into busted combos in 5e, but the devs say it's fine because, "if you don't like something, YOU CAN CHANGE IT!" -- like that doesn't apply to every system ever. Excuse me as I turn Monopoly into a dungeon crawler.
3.5: "I think Monk looks fun. Hmm, grappling!" "Druid sounds good to me. Ooh, look, I can have a wolf friend!" Boom--your game is broken.
5e: Uhhh... I got nothing. Name me one combo in 5e that's an "order of magnitude" better than a standard build. One that you can "bumble into."

[CantigThimble]

True, but I found it took far more effort to actually make the game boring with optimization in 3e.

It's far easier in 5e to know that you are going to win a fight early into the combat without having to make unique decisions.

5e is better at curbing narrative power than 3e, but a 3e God Wizard circumventing adventures can make the campaign shorter, but it's harder to make the session boring.

Also it takes work to break 3e. You can bumble into busted combos in 5e, but the devs say it's fine because, "if you don't like something, YOU CAN CHANGE IT!" -- like that doesn't apply to every system ever. Excuse me as I turn Monopoly into a dungeon crawler.

It sounds to me like your problem is much more with the challenges your DM is throwing at you in each edition rather than with the optimization of the players. And while I won't argue that isn't an issue with 5e, it's entirely possible that it is, the solution would be in changing the monster manual and the DMG, not the PHB. So I think it's fair to say that isn't a point specifically against optimization in 5e.

[Rhedyn]

It sounds to me like your problem is much more with the challenges your DM is throwing at you in each edition rather than with the optimization of the players. And while I won't argue that isn't an issue with 5e, it's entirely possible that it is, the solution would be in changing the monster manual and the DMG, not the PHB. So I think it's fair to say that isn't a point specifically against optimization in 5e.

No, I've found a big part of this problem is in the PH. Broken spells, skill rules, math breaking abilities, ect.

"Optional"/don't allow this and the game is even more shallow things like: Feats and magic items combo to amazing effect.

I will say though, Multiclassing does not seem to be a problem at all. I think the problem is overhyped.

I will agree that sufficient changes in the MM could Spackle over these problems. But I disagree that the MM is solely to blame.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, I've found a big part of this problem is in the PH. Broken spells, skill rules, math breaking abilities, ect.

"Optional"/don't allow this and the game is even more shallow things like: Feats and magic items combo to amazing effect.

I will say though, Multiclassing does not seem to be a problem at all. I think the problem is overhyped.

I will agree that sufficient changes in the MM could Spackle over these problems. But I disagree that the MM is solely to blame.
I say again-- please give me examples of these "broken combos," because I can't think of any.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I say again-- please give me examples of these "broken combos," because I can't think of any.

Agreed. There's widespread consensus that (comparing to 3e) all 5e classes are within the very-low T2 to very high T4 range, with most securely T3 (and thus the tier system is useless for this edition). There just isn't that much that can really be broken unless you totally twist the text (and find a DM that will let you do so).

[Vaz]

Whereas DM's in 3.5 let everyone wrack up with Omniscifiers, Pun-Pun, Cancer Mage Hulking Hurlers, Save Point Trick, Psionic Sandwiches etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Whereas DM's in 3.5 let everyone wrack up with Omniscifiers, Pun-Pun, Cancer Mage Hulking Hurlers, Save Point Trick, Psionic Sandwiches etc.

But in 3.5 you don't even need to go that far. You don't even need PO levels of optimization. One person choosing a druid and being Sir Bearington (a bear that rides a bear and throws bears) will dominate at all levels over a party of similarly-optimized fighters, rogues, and monks and even over poorly played (no cheese) T3 classes. In fact, it takes significant system mastery to even make a monk playable with a group of T3 builds. Fighters can only work in a few, very specific builds that are useless outside of their niche. If one person reads a guide and follows it (or everyone but that one person does), you'll end up with massive imbalance that forces the campaign to warp around the optimizers or disintegrate.

In 5e, only things like simulacrum loops and the worst of coffeelock abuse can come even close to that, and those are trivial to shut down as a DM. They can't be accidentally stumbled upon, and usually require particular campaigns that start at or near level 20 (as those builds tend to be less-playable at lower levels).

[Rhedyn]

I say again-- please give me examples of these "broken combos," because I can't think of any.
Twin polymorph Giant Apes. None of the standard "lol its not really broken" apply to a 7 int monster with a built in range attack and mobility/damage that approaches high level featless champion fighters.
Paladin Save aura. A bonus to saves can't be that bad right? Well combo with above and last weakness of twin polymorph is covered up.

Flaming sphere written such that things can't walk through it. In a hallway, it's minor force wall that moves and damages enemies.

Bigby's hand or "what if the wizard took athletics and a rogue dip" to have a near insurmountable grapple check that trivializes any foe without a range option or a bonus action teleport (how may monsters have misty step?).

Great Weapon Master/sharpshooter plus a way to get advantage or a to-hit boost = tons of damage. See anyone's DPR math. It's an absurd difference in damage. You now have one character doing the work of multiple characters. Hey look at the DMG and how more people affect difficulty rating. That's basically what you get with optimized martials. Is 5e working for you with a normal four man group? Ok what if two of them are doing the work of 3 people (generous underestimate). Now you have basically an 8 man group. What if you have a 6-man group and 3 of them are doing the work of 3 people, now you are trying to balance encounters around an 11 man effective group. (There not as strong as 11 moon druids, but you get the point)

Moon druids. Being able to throw RAW HP at an encounter is a great way to switch a fight from "impossible/do-able-with-good-tactic" to "cakewalk we aren't even taking real damage".

Summons: These were so strong that the devs had to kill off the character concept of competent summoner with Sage Advice making it all up to the DM.

ect... We run into new problems every session someone dares to run this system.

[ZZTRaider]

Twin polymorph Giant Apes. None of the standard "lol its not really broken" apply to a 7 int monster with a built in range attack and mobility/damage that approaches high level featless champion fighters.
Paladin Save aura. A bonus to saves can't be that bad right? Well combo with above and last weakness of twin polymorph is covered up.
I think you're missing the biggest downside to Polymorph. The target takes on the mental stats of the creature. An Intelligence of 7 is... not good. As a DM, I would absolutely enforce that they're not really capable of any real tactics while in that form. In a lot of fights, that's a big deal.


Flaming sphere written such that things can't walk through it. In a hallway, it's minor force wall that moves and damages enemies.
Is there some Sage Advice or something ruling that? It's not a creature, so I can't think of any rules that would prevent moving through its space. Worst case, I might treat it as rough terrain and ask for a save to avoid damage while trying to move by it.


Bigby's hand or "what if the wizard took athletics and a rogue dip" to have a near insurmountable grapple check that trivializes any foe without a range option or a bonus action teleport (how may monsters have misty step?).
A +8 with advantage based on creature size isn't a small thing, but it's also something that any Barbarian trivially gets by level 8, as long as they took Athletics proficiency. For a 5th level spell slot and concentration? Yeah, the opportunity cost seems plenty high enough for this not to be ridiculous. Either the hand isn't doing anything, or the wizard isn't casting spells. It's great control for a single creature, but it's not exactly free.


Great Weapon Master/sharpshooter plus a way to get advantage or a to-hit boost = tons of damage. See anyone's DPR math. It's an absurd difference in damage. You now have one character doing the work of multiple characters. Hey look at the DMG and how more people affect difficulty rating. That's basically what you get with optimized martials. Is 5e working for you with a normal four man group? Ok what if two of them are doing the work of 3 people (generous underestimate). Now you have basically an 8 man group. What if you have a 6-man group and 3 of them are doing the work of 3 people, now you are trying to balance encounters around an 11 man effective group. (There not as strong as 11 moon druids, but you get the point)
GWM and SS are definitely the strongest feats in the book. I wouldn't call them "broken", though. This is going to be fairly reliant on encounter design, I suppose. I can imagine scenarios that, if you hit them majority of the time in your games, would greatly improve the effectiveness of these feats.


Moon druids. Being able to throw RAW HP at an encounter is a great way to switch a fight from "impossible/do-able-with-good-tactic" to "cakewalk we aren't even taking real damage".
Huh. I think you're the first person I've seen say that moon druids are too good. Most people I've seen (and in my admittedly limited experience) tend to say they're good at certain breakpoint levels where they gain powerful new forms, but quickly trail off since their only form of scaling is gaining new forms.


Summons: These were so strong that the devs had to kill off the character concept of competent summoner with Sage Advice making it all up to the DM.
I haven't seen anyone attempt to use summons, so I can't really comment too much on this.


ect... We run into new problems every session someone dares to run this system.
If nothing else, I think it's safe to say that our play experiences have been vastly different.

[Vaz]

But in 3.5 you don't even need to go that far. You don't even need PO levels of optimization. One person choosing a druid and being Sir Bearington (a bear that rides a bear and throws bears) will dominate at all levels over a party of similarly-optimized fighters, rogues, and monks and even over poorly played (no cheese) T3 classes. In fact, it takes significant system mastery to even make a monk playable with a group of T3 builds. Fighters can only work in a few, very specific builds that are useless outside of their niche. If one person reads a guide and follows it (or everyone but that one person does), you'll end up with massive imbalance that forces the campaign to warp around the optimizers or disintegrate.
Sweet. Which is where the DM comes into play to empower the other party members. And online communities exist to provide concepts such as tiering. I've had a conversation with someone wjo thought that in their 8 years of playing 3.5, the Monk was pretty powerful, and they had plenty of fun playing one. From our perspective, it sucks, but if someone is happy, who am I to judge.

A good DM can make any class work well and improve them. If Sir bearington suddenly started seeing the Monk grappling, and then started shifitng into Giant Crocodile or Octopus forms, i'd have a word with the player about trying to keep more in line with their character, rather than stepping on the toes of another players concept just because they can.


In 5e, only things like simulacrum loops and the worst of coffeelock abuse can come even close to that, and those are trivial to shut down as a DM. They can't be accidentally stumbled upon, and usually require particular campaigns that start at or near level 20 (as those builds tend to be less-playable at lower levels).
'hey man, please stop ruining the game for other people by stepping on their toes' was all it took for many problems to stop happening. If the monk started to lag behind, guess what came their way? Magic items. Vow of Poverty? Sweet, it is enhanced by certain boons.

If you're incapable of doing that as a DM, you're rather poor as one.

Which is yet another reason why 5e is baby's first DnD. It is more forgiving than any other edition. But other editions with practise become so much easier to work with. The difference between working with lego before moving on to helicopter engines.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Vaz, note that "just because something can be fixed, that doesn't mean it's not broken."

Let's take an aircraft analogy.

Most fighter planes are unstable--without continuous computer support they go out of control and crash. This is like 3.5e. It requires constant adjustment by the DM to maintain a stable, playable game. What has to be adjusted and how changes from level to level and situation to situation. This adjustment is above and beyond the normal "deciding what scenarios to present and adjudicating the game" role of the DM--the DM has to play game developer and actively balance options against each other, with exponential interaction complexity. In return, you have a slightly larger range of possibilities (most of them useless or actively counter-productive). Is it worth the effort? Everyone has to decide for themselves.

5e is more like an airliner. It's stable enough that you can "set and forget" the balance. The really conceptually broken things (wish loops) only can start to occur at levels very few ever get to, and are a single session 0 fix that stays fixed. In return, you can't pull off some of the acrobatics that a fighter can. Is it worth it? Everyone has to decide for themselves.

But you shouldn't use a fighter to do an airliner's job (or design an airliner as a fighter) or vice versa. One is not "better" or "less childish" than the other--an airliner isn't "baby's first airplane" (note--neither is a Cessna trainer). It's just a different choice of design. Same goes for game systems.

To me, personally, 5e is much better both as a DM and as a player. It gets out of my way and lets me portray the characters, situations, and events that I am interested in, rather than making me fight the system to do anything. That alone is a huge plus. It means I don't have to carefully monitor everyone's sheets and jerry-rig things around them, because the region of stability is large. I can have a party with a monk who sometimes forgets her ki points, a warlock whose favorite thing is telekinesis, a rogue with some cool weapons, and a druid who prefers the life of a healer and everything just works.

If you want to play the rules (you get pleasure from complex rules interactions), then 3.5 or PF might be for you. So go play that and stop whining on the 5e forums please.

Complex =/= good.
Complex =/= bad.

[Rhedyn]

I think you're missing the biggest downside to Polymorph. The target takes on the mental stats of the creature. An Intelligence of 7 is... not good. As a DM, I would absolutely enforce that they're not really capable of any real tactics while in that form. In a lot of fights, that's a big deal.
everyone starts with int 8 and buys up. If you roll stats, 7 or lower is likely your int score.

Are you saying 1 point of int is the difference between a mighty and renowned warrior and a non sapient animal?

You're patching broken mechanics and lazily at that. But it's a perfect example of 5e"s brokenness. Even the 3e version of Polymorph didn't require this much DM houserules not to disrupt games.

[Unoriginal]

5e's Giant Apes are pretty smart, relatively speaking. Though it's still a downgrade in INT for most characters, it's not going to be something major like, say, being turned into a T. Rex.

Polymorph's weakness is that all it takes is a hit and the caster not being lucky to make it stop.


There's nothing broken about it. It's just a good investment for your spell slots.

[Rhedyn]

and everything just works.
It's like you assume that interparty balance is all that matters.

Is 5e simple? Sure. Is there long combats where everyone spams the same action? Also yes.

"Well then maybe your 5e game shouldn't focus on combat" sounds great! Oh wait there is no skill rules whatsoever (and whoever thinks they exist are lying to themselves). So non-combat is what ever the DM feels like and player interaction is nill outside of spell and Boom! Now even your interparty balance is gone and I'm even more confused as to why people like this edition over any other.

"Baby's first DnD" is an overly inflammatory term. I would call it a "gateway game". There is just no way 5e satisfies a group indefinitely.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's like you assume that interparty balance is all that matters.

Is 5e simple? Sure. Is there long combats where everyone spams the same action? Also yes.

"Well then maybe your 5e game shouldn't focus on combat" sounds great! Oh wait there is no skill rules whatsoever (and whoever thinks they exist are lying to themselves). So non-combat is what ever the DM feels like and player interaction is nill outside of spell and Boom! Now even your interparty balance is gone and I'm even more confused as to why people like this edition over any other.

"Baby's first DnD" is an overly inflammatory term. I would call it a "gateway game". There is just no way 5e satisfies a group indefinitely.

No. Not at all. If you demand a mechanical coupon (ability/spell) to interact with the game, 5e is not for you. I had a game where the (deadly by the books) encounter was made much simpler by using telekinesis to throw a baddie over a bridge. Was he dead? Probably not. Was he out of the fight? Sure. 5e allows players to interact without needing specific permissions (unlike 3e). Anyone can do anything--no more "must be trained" or "must have max ranks in this skill" or "must have the right spells".

That's what I mean--5e gets out of my way and provides methods for me to resolve the things I can't do on my own. You find complexity to be an inherent good. I don't. Complexity is a necessary evil at times, but not something that should be sought out.



Things should be as simple as possible, and no simpler.

5e is right in the right range. Things that are complicated by nature are complex (but not very). Most things are simple.

[Unoriginal]

What a great world we live in, where calling something "baby's first RPG" is inflammatory, but stating that people are deluded if they don't agree with you is not.

[Willie the Duck]

What a great world we live in, where calling something "baby's first RPG" is inflammatory, but stating that people are deluded if they don't agree with you is not.

To be fair, this was said in the same post as "There is just no way 5e satisfies a group indefinitely" (which, really? Because it has many more options than most of TSR-era D&D, which kept many of us going for ~1/4 century), so I think we can call the whole thing an overly emotional statement.

Honestly, I've always thought that if various editions of D&D had actual different names people would stop comparing them exclusively against each other and realize that they really aren't that different from each other in the total spectrum of potential TTRPGs and maybe their respective fan bases shouldn't be so eager to neg on each other. Well, D&D 3e changed it's name to Pathfinder and did that mean that people stopped trying to tear each other down for liking X and not Y? Clearly not, and clearly I was foolish to think it would happen.

[Scripten]

I wonder if the 3.5 sub-forum has a selection of 5E proponents who periodically raid topics to crap on 3.5 and its fanbase, though. Most of what I've seen on this and other similar topics are a few replies from the people who like 5E and hate other versions, more replies from people who give a rundown of what they like from both, and then pages upon pages of one or two people with a vendetta against 5E. (Almost always the same people, too.)

[Rhedyn]

I wonder if the 3.5 sub-forum has a selection of 5E proponents who periodically raid topics to crap on 3.5 and its fanbase, though. Most of what I've seen on this and other similar topics are a few replies from the people who like 5E and hate other versions, more replies from people who give a rundown of what they like from both, and then pages upon pages of one or two people with a vendetta against 5E. (Almost always the same people, too.)
Head over to the Paizo forums where the living version of 3e is discussed and you totally get the same thing.

Dead editions are static and recent dev decisions or new material isn't likely to piss people off/generate discussion from now disgruntled fans of your game.

The 3e forum here seems to hold 3rd party to the same level as Paizo, therefore more of them are using Dreamscarred Press other great material that has done more to address 3e's issues than anything Paizo has done recently.

Edit: but I would say that if you are a fan of 5e and don't like 3e, then you should give Savage Worlds a look. That's a streamlined system with over 14 years of development. I've found it both easier to play/run and deeper mechanically than 5e all in far less pages of rules.

[JAL_1138]

Savage Worlds is a fantastic system, although I've noticed a few issues that lead me back to 5e, at least with SW's Deadlands and Rifts incarnations.
My experience is pretty limited, so take this with a grain of salt. In my (again very limited) experience skills are really hard to pass the check for, and if your attack die isn't above d6 you might as well not try with automatic weapons. Enemies that are Wild Cards instead of Extras can get absurdly hard to kill due to toughness and soak if the DM isn't careful, with combat potentially becoming a slog of "Okay, all four of us shot and hit, but none of us have high enough Shooting to beat the enemy's toughness without our dice exploding for additional rolls, so it's unharmed." Savage Worlds Rifts kinda has that same issue with armor in some cases, including for the DM trying to hit the PC *cough* Glitterboys *cough*.

To me 5e is a little easier to construct a balanced encounter for, and a fair bit easier to figure out what your stats ought to be. Trying to construct a jack-of-all-trades in SW is a bit difficult at lower "levels" (it doesn't have levels the way D&D does), because it's way too easy to end up with your investments in skills too spread out and thus too low to reliably hit a 4. (I imagine that goes away fairly quickly as characters advance, though.) It's also a little irksome in general the way the supplements are written—you end up cinstantly flipping back and forth between the genre supplement and the core book for stuff that really should have been reprinted in the supplement.

But those are ultimately quite minor nitpicks; I do enjoy the system quite a bit and would definitely recommend people give it a try. (Especially if you've wanted to give Rifts a try and find Palladium's own system problematic.) It's amazingly versatile, reasonably workable, fairly simple, and there are supplements for a huge slew of genres and specific settings. A given system might do a particular genre or playstyle better, but if you don't want to learn two dozen systems for a multitude of genres and don't much like how crunchy GURPS can get, SW has you covered. It's the Bard of RPG systems—it can do nearly anything decently, and several things really well. You'd be basically fine if it was the only system in your game library, and even if you have a system that does a particular game/playstyle better, it could be worth using Savage Worlds for it anyway for simplicity's and consistency's sake.

I wouldn't call it better or worse than 5e, just different, maybe a bit trickier to get the hang of for people really used to D&D, and I don't think it could quite replace D&D outright for me or a lot of players (although to be fair I can't directly compare since I haven't played the Fantasy supplement), but it definitely deserves a look, for sheer versatility and ease of customization if nothing else. It kinda bears some similarity to WEG D6, except that it uses different die sizes.

[Rhedyn]

Savage Worlds is a fantastic system, although I've noticed a few issues that lead me back to 5e, at least with SW's Deadlands and Rifts incarnations.
My experience is pretty limited, so take this with a grain of salt. In my (again very limited) experience skills are really hard to pass the check for, and if your attack die isn't above d6 you might as well not try with automatic weapons. Enemies that are Wild Cards instead of Extras can get absurdly hard to kill due to toughness and soak if the DM isn't careful, with combat potentially becoming a slog of "Okay, all four of us shot and hit, but none of us have high enough Shooting to beat the enemy's toughness without our dice exploding for additional rolls, so it's unharmed." Savage Worlds Rifts kinda has that same issue with armor in some cases, including for the DM trying to hit the PC *cough* Glitterboys *cough*.

To me 5e is a little easier to construct a balanced encounter for, and a fair bit easier to figure out what your stats ought to be. Trying to construct a jack-of-all-trades in SW is a bit difficult at lower "levels" (it doesn't have levels the way D&D does), because it's way too easy to end up with your investments in skills too spread out and thus too low to reliably hit a 4. (I imagine that goes away fairly quickly as characters advance, though.) It's also a little irksome in general the way the supplements are written—you end up cinstantly flipping back and forth between the genre supplement and the core book for stuff that really should have been reprinted in the supplement.

But those are ultimately quite minor nitpicks; I do enjoy the system quite a bit and would definitely recommend people give it a try. (Especially if you've wanted to give Rifts a try and find Palladium's own system problematic.) It's amazingly versatile, reasonably workable, fairly simple, and there are supplements for a huge slew of genres and specific settings. A given system might do a particular genre or playstyle better, but if you don't want to learn two dozen systems for a multitude of genres and don't much like how crunchy GURPS can get, SW has you covered. It's the Bard of RPG systems—it can do nearly anything decently, and several things really well. You'd be basically fine if it was the only system in your game library, and even if you have a system that does a particular game/playstyle better, it could be worth using Savage Worlds for it anyway for simplicity's and consistency's sake.

I wouldn't call it better or worse than 5e, just different, maybe a bit trickier to get the hang of for people really used to D&D, and I don't think it could quite replace D&D outright for me or a lot of players (although to be fair I can't directly compare since I haven't played the Fantasy supplement), but it definitely deserves a look, for sheer versatility and ease of customization if nothing else. It kinda bears some similarity to WEG D6, except that it uses different die sizes. Savage Rifts is kind of it's own beast in how different the rules are from base SW. I personally haven't played that setting though so I can't say how different.

One thing I noticed you said is that your shooting was opposed to toughness when it is normally damage vs toughness and shooting vs 4 + situational modifiers.
Skill are normally against a 4 unless the rules or the GM apply a modifier. So a d4 with the wild die should pass 62.5% of the time and a d6 rank should pass 75% of the time. I've noticed that my players tend to forget their wild die on trait rolls which would make everything harder for a PC to do since the wild die helps make PCs more consistent.

We've been running my Starfinder setting campaign with Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror companions plus my custom crafting rules to mimic Starfinder crafting.
The other campaign we're gearing up for is a time traveling Super heroes campaign with all of the expressions. So we haven't really dug into setting specific books yet.

I've got another group (who is actually the anti party of my other campaign) that are stuck in a fantasy VR world, so I'm trying out some generic fantasy challenges to see how they go in the system. Overall players seem more initially excited about playing other genres after years of DnD fantasy, but I'm experimenting with this with my more laid-back group.

Personally, 5e isn't my cup of tea, but I also see "not seeing" SW replacing my preferred edition of DnD and its clones. Though with our group size and how long even 5e combat takes for us (let alone PF), we may be drifting more and more SW all the time.

I was quite amused when players started buying the physical book after we ran some one shots. $10 new for the paperback or $5 used is low enough that they are just buying copies for themselves.

[ZZTRaider]

everyone starts with int 8 and buys up. If you roll stats, 7 or lower is likely your int score.

Are you saying 1 point of int is the difference between a mighty and renowned warrior and a non sapient animal?

You're patching broken mechanics and lazily at that. But it's a perfect example of 5e"s brokenness. Even the 3e version of Polymorph didn't require this much DM houserules not to disrupt games.

I rather like the Intelligence breakdown from The Monsters Know What They're Doing (http://themonstersknow.com/why-these-tactics/#more-7). To summarize:
7 and under: The creature operates on instinct and can't really adjust when its strategy doesn't work.
8 to 11: The creature isn't exactly sophisticated, but they can adjust their approach as needed.
12 or higher: The creature likely has several plans it can choose between as appropriate and communicates well with other creatures.
14 or higher: In addition to the above, the creature can accurately assess its opponents' strengths and weaknesses.

A mighty warrior who is renowned for his tactics? Probably has at least a 12 Intelligence. So, no, non-sapient to renowned warrior isn't a difference of 1.

Also note that these are also in respect to combat approach; even with rolled stats, there's a significant difference between a beast and a humanoid that both have 5 Intelligence. But with Polymorph, you literally become the beast for a period of time.

[JAL_1138]

Savage Rifts is kind of it's own beast in how different the rules are from base SW. I personally haven't played that setting though so I can't say how different.

One thing I noticed you said is that your shooting was opposed to toughness when it is normally damage vs toughness and shooting vs 4 + situational modifiers.
Skill are normally against a 4 unless the rules or the GM apply a modifier. So a d4 with the wild die should pass 62.5% of the time and a d6 rank should pass 75% of the time. I've noticed that my players tend to forget their wild die on trait rolls which would make everything harder for a PC to do since the wild die helps make PCs more consistent.

We've been running my Starfinder setting campaign with Sci-fi, fantasy, and horror companions plus my custom crafting rules to mimic Starfinder crafting.
The other campaign we're gearing up for is a time traveling Super heroes campaign with all of the expressions. So we haven't really dug into setting specific books yet.

I've got another group (who is actually the anti party of my other campaign) that are stuck in a fantasy VR world, so I'm trying out some generic fantasy challenges to see how they go in the system. Overall players seem more initially excited about playing other genres after years of DnD fantasy, but I'm experimenting with this with my more laid-back group.

Personally, 5e isn't my cup of tea, but I also see "not seeing" SW replacing my preferred edition of DnD and its clones. Though with our group size and how long even 5e combat takes for us (let alone PF), we may be drifting more and more SW all the time.

I was quite amused when players started buying the physical book after we ran some one shots. $10 new for the paperback or $5 used is low enough that they are just buying copies for themselves.

You're right, I was misremembering/misspoke. It is damage vs toughness that gave us trouble. We would hit (except with gatling weapons because of the penalty for full auto), but it didn't damage the enemy unless our dice exploded. And even with the Wild Die that d4-2 base for untrained skills means the Wild Die is about your only chance. I can't remember—do you apply the -2 to Wild Die rolls for untrained? I don't think so, but even still, it's a bit tough to pass with effectively 1d6 to roll unless your d4 explodes. Still, quite minor complaints, and the Toughness thing is just something the DM just has to watch out for, not something that makes the system unworkable. Reminded me of the infamous "blaster-proof Wookiee" thing in WEG D6 Star Wars :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

To summarize:
7 and under: The creature operates on instinct and can't really adjust when its strategy doesn't work.
8 to 11: The creature isn't exactly sophisticated, but they can adjust their approach as needed.
12 or higher: The creature likely has several plans it can choose between as appropriate and communicates well with other creatures.
14 or higher: In addition to the above, the creature can accurately assess its opponents' strengths and weaknesses.


Err, sorry to say, but this is pretty nonsensical in 5e's context.

7 is how smart your average Lizardfolk is. They're not smart, sure, but they are pretty good at using strategy and tactics, especially in taking advantages or terrains and ambushes.

Even a 5 Int Ogre or Hill Giant would know how to use some tactics and adapt, if not much.

You have to go for Zombies (Int 3) for the "operates on instinct and can't really adjust strategy doesn't work". And Zombies are sapient, if very limited.

[GlenSmash!]

Err, sorry to say, but this is pretty nonsensical in 5e's context.

7 is how smart your average Lizardfolk is. They're not smart, sure, but they are pretty good at using strategy and tactics, especially in taking advantages or terrains and ambushes.

Even a 5 Int Ogre or Hill Giant would know how to use some tactics and adapt, if not much.

You have to go for Zombies (Int 3) for the "operates on instinct and can't really adjust strategy doesn't work". And Zombies are sapient, if very limited.

Even a Brilliant Cloistered Scholar might know nothing about strategy and tactics.

For me, when determining what tactics NPCs will take culture matter's more than Int score. Hobgoblins will have much more effective tactics than a group of Sages not because they are smarter, but because they come from a culture where military tactics are drilled into the whole society.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Err, sorry to say, but this is pretty nonsensical in 5e's context.

7 is how smart your average Lizardfolk is. They're not smart, sure, but they are pretty good at using strategy and tactics, especially in taking advantages or terrains and ambushes.

Even a 5 Int Ogre or Hill Giant would know how to use some tactics and adapt, if not much.

You have to go for Zombies (Int 3) for the "operates on instinct and can't really adjust strategy doesn't work". And Zombies are sapient, if very limited.


Even a Brilliant Cloistered Scholar might know nothing about strategy and tactics.

For me, when determining what tactics NPCs will take culture matter's more than Int score. Hobgoblins will have much more effective tactics than a group of Sages not because they are smarter, but because they come from a culture where military tactics are drilled into the whole society.

I agree with both of these. Even many animals (big cats especially) have a sense of tactics. The big loss is the ability to communicate and improvise. And the fact that you probably won't fit unless it's a white room fight.

The "OMG Pixie Power" strategy relies on a non-RAW reading of the spell (allowing you to pick the summoned creatures and give specific instructions to each one) as well as keeping those alive. One good aoe and those pixies will at best lose concentration, more likely die.

[Rhedyn]

You're right, I was misremembering/misspoke. It is damage vs toughness that gave us trouble. We would hit (except with gatling weapons because of the penalty for full auto), but it didn't damage the enemy unless our dice exploded. And even with the Wild Die that d4-2 base for untrained skills means the Wild Die is about your only chance. I can't remember—do you apply the -2 to Wild Die rolls for untrained? I don't think so, but even still, it's a bit tough to pass with effectively 1d6 to roll unless your d4 explodes. Still, quite minor complaints, and the Toughness thing is just something the DM just has to watch out for, not something that makes the system unworkable. Reminded me of the infamous "blaster-proof Wookiee" thing in WEG D6 Star Wars :smalltongue:
Yes the -2 applies to the wild die.

I've found skills specific enough or have enough other rules that add mods (like stealth) that untrained successes being rare do not bug me.

I actually prefer that over 5e's "everyone can do everything" approach. I like it when weak peasants can't realistically wrestle a bear with any effectiveness. To me such a system is more immersive. I think you can argue that 5e's system is fine for adventurers, but it feels weird to me that everything has general competence in very niche abilities. Like does every assassin NPC need to be scary good with fiddles?

[Rhedyn]

I agree with both of these. Even many animals (big cats especially) have a sense of tactics. The big loss is the ability to communicate and improvise. And the fact that you probably won't fit unless it's a white room fight.

The "OMG Pixie Power" strategy relies on a non-RAW reading of the spell (allowing you to pick the summoned creatures and give specific instructions to each one) as well as keeping those alive. One good aoe and those pixies will at best lose concentration, more likely die.
You may also need to look beyond the white room.

Both the pixies and the druid who cast the spell shouldn't be anywhere near the party of Giant Apes fighting. There is no attacking the pixies or breaking concentration. They aren't there. It's an hour long spell effect. The only real limitations come from Sage Advice "can't pick summons" house rules and Giant Apes being too large to fit in the dungeon.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Twin polymorph Giant Apes. None of the standard "lol its not really broken" apply to a 7 int monster with a built in range attack and mobility/damage that approaches high level featless champion fighters.
Paladin Save aura. A bonus to saves can't be that bad right? Well combo with above and last weakness of twin polymorph is covered up.
You're giving up all your class features and tanking your AC. It's a strong play, to be sure, but it's not "an order of magnitude," and it's certainly not 3.5 levels of broken.


Flaming sphere written such that things can't walk through it. In a hallway, it's minor force wall that moves and damages enemies.
There are a hundred ways to block a 5ft wide hallway; they're called choke points for a reason. Also, I don't see what's stopping you from moving through the sphere-- it's not a creature, and there's no rules one way or another except that you can't move it after it hits a creature. Worst case, you block the hall for a minute while the two sides exchange arrows or one side retreats around the corner.


Bigby's hand or "what if the wizard took athletics and a rogue dip" to have a near insurmountable grapple check that trivializes any foe without a range option or a bonus action teleport (how may monsters have misty step?).
I don't see how Expertise matters, since as far as I can tell the hand doesn't apply a Proficiency bonus to anything.


Great Weapon Master/sharpshooter plus a way to get advantage or a to-hit boost = tons of damage. See anyone's DPR math. It's an absurd difference in damage. You now have one character doing the work of multiple characters. Hey look at the DMG and how more people affect difficulty rating. That's basically what you get with optimized martials. Is 5e working for you with a normal four man group? Ok what if two of them are doing the work of 3 people (generous underestimate). Now you have basically an 8 man group. What if you have a 6-man group and 3 of them are doing the work of 3 people, now you are trying to balance encounters around an 11 man effective group. (There not as strong as 11 moon druids, but you get the point)
HAH. The damage boost is laughably small compared to what you could do with charger feats in 3.5. I've seen the DPR math; it's "this guy does like 20% more damage," not "this guy does like 1000% more damage and on-shots encounters." Doing a little more damage is by far the least disruptive thing a PC can do.


Moon druids. Being able to throw RAW HP at an encounter is a great way to switch a fight from "impossible/do-able-with-good-tactic" to "cakewalk we aren't even taking real damage".
Short of 20th level, which doesn't matter, they get two Wild Shapes per short rest. You're not throwing endless amounts of raw hit points at every encounter. You've also got a crappy AC, so you'll chew through the hit points fast. Moon Druids spike in effectiveness at 2, then drop off with time.


Summons: These were so strong that the devs had to kill off the character concept of competent summoner with Sage Advice making it all up to the DM.
There's one or two exploits. 3.5's Summon Monster/SNA spells were filled with these things, and that's not even touching Planar Binding/Ally.


ect... We run into new problems every session someone dares to run this system.
Every single thing you listed is a pale shadow of comparable problems in 3.5.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You may also need to look beyond the white room.

Both the pixies and the druid who cast the spell shouldn't be anywhere near the party of Giant Apes fighting. There is no attacking the pixies or breaking concentration. They aren't there. It's an hour long spell effect. The only real limitations come from Sage Advice "can't pick summons" house rules and Giant Apes being too large to fit in the dungeon.

So you've transformed a party into Giant Apes (meaning no gear, skills, communications, or advanced tactics) well in advance, and left the druid behind? That's moronic. You're losing all the parts that make you a character, in exchange for a marginal combat effectiveness boost against certain types of targets (those run moronically). As well as splitting the party in hostile territory. So no.

Plus that "Sage Advice" thing is the actual RAW of the spell.

[Rhedyn]

So you've transformed a party into Giant Apes (meaning no gear, skills, communications, or advanced tactics) well in advance, and left the druid behind? That's moronic. You're losing all the parts that make you a character, in exchange for a marginal combat effectiveness boost against certain types of targets (those run moronically). As well as splitting the party in hostile territory. So no.

Plus that "Sage Advice" thing is the actual RAW of the spell.
You don't lose anything, the actual characters are behind a glorious HP shield. It's boring to be the druid/twin Polymorph Sorcerer though. Hence not even fun broken like 3e stuff.

Oh no the spell is pretty clear that player picks, but the maintenance on this game has been terrible. I wouldn't have bought the books if the game started out as "DM picks" that's just crap design and the 5e team should feel bad about it.

[JNAProductions]

Voicing my opinion, you should DEFINITELY try 5E.

I don't think you should switch full-time, because PF has a lot of fun shenanigans you can't do in 5E, since it's a much tighter, better balanced system. But go to the SRD (http://5e.d20srd.org), check out the free content, run (or have run for you) an adventure or two, and see what you think.

If you're anything like me, you'll probably start to play 5E more, since it's simpler, easier to run, and doesn't break without players really, REALLY trying to break it. But if you find that you prefer PF, then whatever. Enjoy your gaming.

[Ratter]

4e

do not speak its name

[Doug Lampert]

Even a Brilliant Cloistered Scholar might know nothing about strategy and tactics.

For me, when determining what tactics NPCs will take culture matter's more than Int score. Hobgoblins will have much more effective tactics than a group of Sages not because they are smarter, but because they come from a culture where military tactics are drilled into the whole society.

Wolves are my go-to on this. Wolves are clearly animals. But they'll set ambushes, have one group chase the prey into the ambush or draw an enemy into ambush, communicate with each other effectively, use some as distractions while others go for the kill, trip, and adjust tactics on the fly.

They'll even try to surrender if clearly outmatched and unable to run, or sacrifice themselves for the group if that's what's called for.

In fact they are far better at small unit skirmishing tactics than most RPG players. Tactics on the level that shows up on the D&D battle-map are clearly possible for animals. Great Apes should be fine. The lack of a spoken language would be their biggest handicap as they can't coordinate a group as well as either wolves (who have audible signals and years of practice together) or a group with a language.

[Zilong]

do not speak its name

Yo be fair, 4e in and of itself is not a bad system. From what I've read, never actually played it but I do have access to some books, it does a bunch of things pretty well. It's just unfortunate that it basically spawned the big granddaddy of rpg edition wars.

[GlenSmash!]

Yo be fair, 4e in and of itself is not a bad system. From what I've read, never actually played it but I do have access to some books, it does a bunch of things pretty well. It's just unfortunate that it basically spawned the big granddaddy of rpg edition wars.

My understanding is the same. It's a fine system, but it's not "D&D".

[Psyren]

I enjoy both. For me the breadth of options in PF take precedence, and I am definitely NOT a fan of bounded accuracy, but the ease of play (combat over in minutes instead of hours, shallow learning curve for newcomers with acceptable depth for veterans) are definite selling points in 5e's favor.

For the current state of tabletop play, I'd say 5th is ideal. In the future when we're all rocking smart tables loaded with roll20-style APIs, dynamic environmental effects and self-auditing sheets with buff-tracking, rules-heavy will be the way to go even for newcomers.

[Knaight]

Savage Rifts is kind of it's own beast in how different the rules are from base SW. I personally haven't played that setting though so I can't say how different.
I'm willing to cut Savage Rifts some slack - I wouldn't say I'm familiar with the original RIFTS, but I'm not totally unfamiliar with it either, and getting that feel across at all without the system splintering is somewhat impressive.


My understanding is the same. It's a fine system, but it's not "D&D".
In terms of mapping the similarities between games in the immediate D&D family of games, 4e is an outlier. In terms of RPG systems as a whole though all of them are a dense cluster with some real space around them (retroclones, Pathfinder, etc. are counted as games in the immediate D&D family).

[Beelzebubba]

My understanding is the same. It's a fine system, but it's not "D&D".

Yeah, this. It's an excellent game, but changed too many things in too many ways for the expectations of many long-term players.

That said, a heck of a lot of it's best ideas made their way into 5E, albeit with different names to make them 'feel' more like D&D of old. (Spending short rest hit dice? Yeah, guess where that came from.) It's one of the reasons I like this edition so much - there's a lot more influence from post-3E games than you'd think, but they were careful to build those features in a way that matched the flavor and feel of D&D so they come across as the sensible evolutions that they really are.

I mean, Advantage/Disadvantage, IMO the single best feature of the new system, was in 4E. (I don't know if it was in other gaming systems before that, though.) That single mechanic eliminated the worst of the bookkeeping chores of mid-to-high level 3E. Hell, back in 3.5E our DM built an Excel spreadsheet calculator to run combat because it was so much. Now, Adv/Disadv accomplishes the same things, but does so in a way that's faster and simpler while being 'swingier' so it forces prompt tactical decisions.

[Knaight]

YI mean, Advantage/Disadvantage, IMO the single best feature of the new system, was in 4E. (I don't know if it was in other gaming systems before that, though.)

Advantage/Disadvantage mechanics are a primitive form of roll and keep. Legend of the Five Rings, an early roll and keep game, was released in 1995. It's generally a safe assumption that when D&D introduces a "new" mechanic it's at least twenty years old, and has been a standard design option that most everyone is aware of in the rest of the RPG world.