Quote from: Rhedyn;10609525e breaks down sooner than other editions

Weird.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060955Obviously, not enough people agree with you to keep Pathfinder from dying.

Hey Paizo killed Pathfinder by focusing on 2e rather than Pathfinder support.

"Why are most of our players playing 5e after we spent 2 years focusing on a new edition and producing crap like the Shifter?"

They also thought going full SJW thought police on their forums was a good idea and still use their forums as their main source of feedback, or you know being stupid. WotC had the good sense to just kill their forums so they have to get feedback elsewhere. Sadly Mearls seems to only browse TBP.

Now 2e looks like a hot mess of a not-D&D rpg and the SJWs still hate them.

And to be fair, low level Pathfinder sucks (which further boggles my mind as to why Paizo focused on PFS and makes both 2e and SF just low levels stretched out to 20). Of course, I generally dislike low levels, but in 5e low levels are better. And since most people play there, 5e was poised to already be a threat without Paizo blasting off their own feat.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060961Hey Paizo killed Pathfinder by focusing on 2e rather than Pathfinder support.

"Why are most of our players playing 5e after we spent 2 years focusing on a new edition and producing crap like the Shifter?"

They also thought going full SJW thought police on their forums was a good idea and still use their forums as their main source of feedback, or you know being stupid. WotC had the good sense to just kill their forums so they have to get feedback elsewhere. Sadly Mearls seems to only browse TBP.

Now 2e looks like a hot mess of a not-D&D rpg and the SJWs still hate them.

And to be fair, low level Pathfinder sucks (which further boggles my mind as to why Paizo focused on PFS and makes both 2e and SF just low levels stretched out to 20). Of course, I generally dislike low levels, but in 5e low levels are better. And since most people play there, 5e was poised to already be a threat without Paizo blasting off their own feat.

Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060965Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

No Not At All

Quite the opposite. Paizo didn't buff martials in 2e or Starfinder, they just nerfed casters, so high level fighters still aren't any good and casters are less good.

5e managed to make Fighters sort of decent at high levels, but they don't do anything that a sufficiently optimized Pathfinder fighter couldn't do. They just produce so much raw damage that you want to have them. You know, unless the casters can actually use summoning, animate undead, planar binding, henchmen, etc. Because enough guys with pointy sticks replace anything the fighter is bringing to the table.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the [6e] Books?

Almost no chance. I haven't bought the books for a new edition since 3e. I didn't buy 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I took a look at all of them. Played them/tried them out with people who'd bought them. But I didn't see any reason to buy any of them, or continue to play them. I like my preferred editions better (original D&D or 1e AD&D). I suppose 6e could surprise me and deliver something I like better than what I already play, but I think that's unlikely.

High level play has always been its own kind of game, and it's been pretty poor in every edition. IMHO, one of the mistakes WotC made with 5E was to keep the level 1-20 thing. I doubt it would make a dent in the game's popularity if the level cap was 14. Pretending level 15-20 is even a viable game is kinda dishonest.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060968No Not At All

Quite the opposite. Paizo didn't buff martials in 2e or Starfinder, they just nerfed casters, so high level fighters still aren't any good and casters are less good.

5e managed to make Fighters sort of decent at high levels, but they don't do anything that a sufficiently optimized Pathfinder fighter couldn't do. They just produce so much raw damage that you want to have them. You know, unless the casters can actually use summoning, animate undead, planar binding, henchmen, etc. Because enough guys with pointy sticks replace anything the fighter is bringing to the table.

I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

I'm going to have to agree with Rhedyn on high-level 5e, it has some pretty awful mechanical holes that mostly go unnoticed because few games that start at levels 1-3 actually reach the level 15+ where those really start to show up. Throw in the nearly useless monster CR guidelines and my experience is that 5e is held together more by the duct tape of DM rulings and goodwill than it's actual mechanical robustness.

The thing is; goodwill and DM rulings can make ANY game system passable. Other than the name D&D, a general feel from very familiar takes on races/classes/monsters and excellent production values, 5e doesn't really have that much to recommend it over any other fantasy RPG on the market. Other than the name, it's a pretty mediocre RPG.

All that said, I still stand by my original assessment that 6e is a long ways off because 5e isn't being marketed on its mechanical robustness; it's being marketed on "This is a D&D that feels like D&D."

If I were running WotC, I'd put out a new game entirely--with just enough overlap with D&D to piggyback off of the brand recognition. In all their monkeying around with the last three editions, they must have the germs of some ideas that were good but not a fit for the main game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060972I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

I think you are having an overly emotional response to me not liking the things you like.

We all recognize that the 3.5 Fighter had problems compared to the 3.5 wizard. Pathfinder did more to address that than 3.5, but the problem was still a problem. My favorite build for a PF Fighter includes the abilities to craft magic armor to fly, high saves to magic, the ability to not touch spells out of the air, and the ability to sunder spells. It's only viable because of anti-magic and the ability to craft most of his own magic items.

For raw Fightering, I think the Cavalier does a better job because you can get a cool flying mount and certain other features that just have more utility without having to be effectively magic.

Now why do I value things like flying and anti-magic so much for 3.X? Well because high level combat require these things for a melee character. Your job is to get in close and kill, but much of the game at that point is devoted to preventing that from happening. It's a complicated magical dual and you showed up with a knife.
Should we perhaps add equally complex amazing martial abilities and tighten up the rules at higher levels so turns don't take forever?

Both WotC and Paizo said, "Nahh". Paizo decided to nerf casters and just make their games more boring. WotC pretended to nerf casters but instead just nerfed monsters a lot and heavily nerfed the Fighters ability to get the magic items to compete. WotC then made higher levels "simpler" with the concentration mechanic, which only makes the game tactically simpler but still allowed for Caster strategic prowess and vast arrays of Caster-unique tools. I will give WotC props that a high level Fighter is part of most meta-comps unless massive armies are an option. For most campaigns, your fighter with one of THE FEATS and magic weapons/advantage is going to evaporate a lot of HP fast.

If Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Quote from: Haffrung;1060971High level play has always been its own kind of game, and it's been pretty poor in every edition. IMHO, one of the mistakes WotC made with 5E was to keep the level 1-20 thing. I doubt it would make a dent in the game's popularity if the level cap was 14. Pretending level 15-20 is even a viable game is kinda dishonest.

I think I said in another thread that the flattened progression curve was the one thing that I changed right out of the box when 3e first came out. I haven't played outside of my own long running group for a while. Has this made for a generation gap? I could see pretty different expectations from folks who started gaming in the TSR era and rarely played at high levels and considered high level play its own distinct type of game vs people who started in the WotC era and always considered 1-20 in a 6-12 month campaign to be the norm.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

The last three editions have largely ruined the brand for me. Not to mention I have no intention of supporting WotC.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

Probably true. I'm more likely to go OSR/Fantasy Heartbreaker than to continue with the D&D's brand's slow cruise over the edge.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060965Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060972I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

Quote from: Chris24601;1060977I'm going to have to agree with Rhedyn on high-level 5e, it has some pretty awful mechanical holes that mostly go unnoticed because few games that start at levels 1-3 actually reach the level 15+ where those really start to show up. Throw in the nearly useless monster CR guidelines and my experience is that 5e is held together more by the duct tape of DM rulings and goodwill than it's actual mechanical robustness.

Rhedyn's issues with 5e are generally legit, and he's gotten much better at expressing them. I think they a bit of selective focus (Pathfinder having huge issues, and BECMI, which he also talks well of, having redonkulous imbalances at high level), so it feels like he is cherry picking-attacking a specific edition when they all have problems. That does not mean he's one of those guys who think fighters should just make way for spellcasters after level 11 or the like.

I have played 5e to high level (18-20) a few times and while some spells had issues it still worked ok.

Pathfinder at double digit by contrast is a steaming pile of shit, far worse than 3.5e. I ran it to 14th and the Summoned so totally dominated that he STOPPED BOTHERING TO LEVEL UP.  He also stopped BOTHERING with his eidolon even though it is insanely powerful. He could just summon enough octopi to lock down the battlefield.

Quote from: S'mon;1061011I have played 5e to high level (18-20) a few times and while some spells had issues it still worked ok.

Did you/your GM make custom monsters?

Quote from: S'mon;1061011Pathfinder at double digit by contrast is a steaming pile of shit, far worse than 3.5e. I ran it to 14th and the Summoned so totally dominated that he STOPPED BOTHERING TO LEVEL UP.  He also stopped BOTHERING with his eidolon even though it is insanely powerful. He could just summon enough octopi to lock down the battlefield.

The summoner is so badly designed that the Unchained version was just nerfs. The Unchained summoner is a decent class.

Giant Octopi: +13 to-hit and +21 grapple broke your game? How? At level 14?