Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1052079What do you mean?

I personally feel that most of the "Sage Advice" is either repeating words in the book or bad houserules.

I also feel like if you really analyze 5e, much of the math is broken, and many of the rules are poorly written. 5e works best when you don't know how it works and DM runs everything the way nostalgia has him remember how it worked in their favorite edition of D&D.

To just make a quick list (not distinguishing between bad SA and bad rules)
-DM picking summons
-Summons in general adding too much HP and attacks to one side.
-Polymorph and wildshape are too strong with the HP bubble they add. HP is very important in this edition (Like it was in BECMI, because HP totals or HD was a way to "balance" encounters if you did that)
-Flamming Sphere is worded poorly
-Paladins save aura
-Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master add way too much damage with advantage (which isn't that hard to get)
-ect but this list is quick.

I admit I'm probably not being fair. Yet After reading p 5-6 if the playtest it just turned me off from reading the rest of it. Those two pages to me came off as trying to guilt trip players/dms into running the game the one true way and only thst way is conductive to myself st least wanting to read more.

I'm a majority rules type of person when it comes to certain decisions. How does one or a few person voices suddenly get to decide how the entire table plays. You show up to a bbq told ahead of time it's going to only be mest or mostly meat then pull a fit it's not vegan friendly yeah no.

Already what I heard about it was a mixed bag. Msybe it's just me but the formula for to find a perception value seems complicated compared to first edition imo.

I don't care your race, gender or sex. I cannot and will not force anypne to play in a game of D@D. It's like the sjws and companies that pander to them refuse to understand.

If the only players in my area that show up are cis white males. Im not going to put my game on hold to be more inclusive and diverse. Not without being paid to do so. I run Drow as is. If everyone or the majority are fine with it st the table joe,jane,z come lately either accepts that or finds another table.

Weird the forum software just changed how I wrote my post.

Perhaps Pathfinder 2E should publish with the slogan "To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052095I personally feel that most of the "Sage Advice" is either repeating words in the book or bad houserules.

I also feel like if you really analyze 5e, much of the math is broken, and many of the rules are poorly written. 5e works best when you don't know how it works and DM runs everything the way nostalgia has him remember how it worked in their favorite edition of D&D.

To just make a quick list (not distinguishing between bad SA and bad rules)
-DM picking summons
-Summons in general adding too much HP and attacks to one side.
-Polymorph and wildshape are too strong with the HP bubble they add. HP is very important in this edition (Like it was in BECMI, because HP totals or HD was a way to "balance" encounters if you did that)
-Flamming Sphere is worded poorly
-Paladins save aura
-Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master add way too much damage with advantage (which isn't that hard to get)
-ect but this list is quick.

Anything which lets you summon and polymorph into arbitrary monsters is unbalanced. For example, a druid may wildshape into a tressym which has spell turning. This reminds me that the monster type system is stupid. Not just from the perspective of brain-dead world building (e.g. why can't an efreet be both a giant and an elemental? why can't plants be wood elementals? what the heck are fey supposed to be and why are they separate from elementals if Paracelsus listed nymphs and gnomes as elementals? why is dragon a type but not sphinx or chimera? what the hell is a monstrosity?), but because summoning and polymorph spells which key off monster type may become wildly unbalanced depending on what monster books are available to the group.

If we expect game balance then we are better off playing 13th Age or Mythras.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1052289Perhaps Pathfinder 2E should publish with the slogan "To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"?

LOL maybe they should. I thin it's also edition fatigue. I am behind 5E because it fixed to me at least many of the legacy problems of the 3.5 rules. Pathfinder seems to be as someone posted making the rules both easier and harder to understand imo.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052095I personally feel that most of the "Sage Advice" is either repeating words in the book or bad houserules.

I also feel like if you really analyze 5e, much of the math is broken, and many of the rules are poorly written. 5e works best when you don't know how it works and DM runs everything the way nostalgia has him remember how it worked in their favorite edition of D&D.

To just make a quick list (not distinguishing between bad SA and bad rules)
-DM picking summons
-Summons in general adding too much HP and attacks to one side.
-Polymorph and wildshape are too strong with the HP bubble they add. HP is very important in this edition (Like it was in BECMI, because HP totals or HD was a way to "balance" encounters if you did that)
-Flamming Sphere is worded poorly
-Paladins save aura
-Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master add way too much damage with advantage (which isn't that hard to get)
-ect but this list is quick.

Ah yes. I noticed all of those things too. But I think it's a testament to 5e's design that everything is so modular and easy to homebrew or edit out. So you don't really notice these as much as a system problem so much as a specific rule to fix.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1052306Ah yes. I noticed all of those things too. But I think it's a testament to 5e's design that everything is so modular and easy to homebrew or edit out. So you don't really notice these as much as a system problem so much as a specific rule to fix.

I think it's totally possible to fix everything I dislike with 5e and the resultant play, just by rewriting specific rules.

A theoretical "5.5e" would be entirely compatible with 5e content without any conversion needed, unless you were really concerned about balance. (My issue with balance problems is when they make things boring, which I feel that many of 5e's balance problems are when a strong but boring combo becomes essential to the party after the DM adjust for it)

I think where we disagree is the extent of specific rules that need touched up. Because for me, every category and maybe 40% of the total rules need a rework for 5e to stand on its on merits, rather than the merits of the DM making it work like his favorite edition

I'm already invested in the current edition with my kids. I don't see the need for a 2E other than lightening my wallet.

Reigning in the RNG is a positive change. I'll wait until the final product but experience tells me the game will not be as good as it could have been.

I just downloaded the Playtest rules for Pathfinder 2.0 and.........um..........ok.

So a couple of things that sort of jump out at me:

- Are they trying to mesh the d20/3.5 system and 4th Edition into some Frankenstein? I mean the entire concept of Class "feats" that you get to pick at the supposed levels simply feels like 4e Powers on a lesser scale without pretty colored boxes. And once chosen, you can't undo them. For example the Paladin can grab a magical mount, but once it's chosen you can't swap that out later. To me that feels highly restrictive for no real bonus or effect.

- Feats that are restrictive to class seem to mirror 4e's earlier issues of not letting people play the way they want within the framework of the class. For example my current Pathfinder Rogue is an expert at Two-Weapon Fighting. Can the PF 2.0 Rogue fight with two weapons? Um.....not really. I mean he *can* in a sense that he can wield a weapon in each hand but that provides zero benefit since he has no "Strikes" that utilize both weapons simultaneously (an oft heavily criticized rule of 4th Edition). And yeah, I can do what I did in 4E and just role-play the multi-attack rules as swinging with both weapons or what-not but it seems as though Paizo didn't fully understand the level of complaints because of the restrictiveness.

- Levels of expertise. I feel that Pathfinder really captures the essence of customization when it retained aspects  of 3.5 like Skill Points. Personally I despised the concept because of how much damn time it took and the little rules that followed it: what adds synergy, what cross-class skills apply to which level, what's the maximum/minimum ranks per level, etc. But for many who kept playing Pathfinder, these traits were pretty endearing. They allowed for you to customize the type of character you envisioned even more so with that level of granularity. From what I've read, it seems that proficiency in a skills is simply measured by level (or in terms of Untrained, level -2). While I personally applaud the easy of use and simplistic design, I think it might really lose some of the hard-core players who entrenched themselves with the level of minutia.

I haven't gotten into the spellcasting parts of the classes yet. Some other things that made me do some eye-rolling are the break-up of actions, including Raise Shield, something you have to declare to get the bonus for that round. seems tedious. I think if I were to play a shield-base or bashing character I'd be frank with the DM and say "look, if I don't do anything with said action just assume I'm using my shield" for brevity.

Quote from: Batman;1053242I just downloaded the Playtest rules for Pathfinder 2.0 and.........um..........ok.

So a couple of things that sort of jump out at me:

- Are they trying to mesh the d20/3.5 system and 4th Edition into some Frankenstein? I mean the entire concept of Class "feats" that you get to pick at the supposed levels simply feels like 4e Powers on a lesser scale without pretty colored boxes. And once chosen, you can't undo them. For example the Paladin can grab a magical mount, but once it's chosen you can't swap that out later. To me that feels highly restrictive for no real bonus or effect.

- Feats that are restrictive to class seem to mirror 4e's earlier issues of not letting people play the way they want within the framework of the class. For example my current Pathfinder Rogue is an expert at Two-Weapon Fighting. Can the PF 2.0 Rogue fight with two weapons? Um.....not really. I mean he *can* in a sense that he can wield a weapon in each hand but that provides zero benefit since he has no "Strikes" that utilize both weapons simultaneously (an oft heavily criticized rule of 4th Edition). And yeah, I can do what I did in 4E and just role-play the multi-attack rules as swinging with both weapons or what-not but it seems as though Paizo didn't fully understand the level of complaints because of the restrictiveness.

- Levels of expertise. I feel that Pathfinder really captures the essence of customization when it retained aspects  of 3.5 like Skill Points. Personally I despised the concept because of how much damn time it took and the little rules that followed it: what adds synergy, what cross-class skills apply to which level, what's the maximum/minimum ranks per level, etc. But for many who kept playing Pathfinder, these traits were pretty endearing. They allowed for you to customize the type of character you envisioned even more so with that level of granularity. From what I've read, it seems that proficiency in a skills is simply measured by level (or in terms of Untrained, level -2). While I personally applaud the easy of use and simplistic design, I think it might really lose some of the hard-core players who entrenched themselves with the level of minutia.

I haven't gotten into the spellcasting parts of the classes yet. Some other things that made me do some eye-rolling are the break-up of actions, including Raise Shield, something you have to declare to get the bonus for that round. seems tedious. I think if I were to play a shield-base or bashing character I'd be frank with the DM and say "look, if I don't do anything with said action just assume I'm using my shield" for brevity.

3pp has been exploring the idea of custom built classes for years, to the point of using GURPS-style point buy systems. Right now there are loads and loads of extra class and archetypes that would not be necessary if every class could be custom built. I remember reading one of the customizable pathfinder class books, IIRC "The Talented Cleric", and it pretty much took the class features from every cleric-flavored archetype or extra class and offered them as feats so that the PC could be custom designed at every level.

I don't like Pathfinder because the rules are unnecessarily complicated, poorly organized at the best of times, too restrictive (there are no guidelines for building new classes according to what sounds cool to you, like a divine caster who casts from a prayer book or an arcane caster who casts from wisdom), too bogged down in simulating an arbitrarily detailed reality, and generally too big a headache to work with as a designer much less a player (I tried to make my own monsters and classes and it was a huge nightmare).

The 3.x era and reading fairy tales again as an adult has ruined my tastes in RPGs. I read an Armenian fairy tale where what I can only assume was a first-level ranger killed a giant many times his size with a single arrow, threw household objects that turned into entire landscapes, and tons of other insanely awesome stuff. I cannot pull anything even remotely as cool as that fairy tale in any fantasy role playing game I have ever heard of.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1052313I think it's totally possible to fix everything I dislike with 5e and the resultant play, just by rewriting specific rules.

A theoretical "5.5e" would be entirely compatible with 5e content without any conversion needed, unless you were really concerned about balance. (My issue with balance problems is when they make things boring, which I feel that many of 5e's balance problems are when a strong but boring combo becomes essential to the party after the DM adjust for it)

I think where we disagree is the extent of specific rules that need touched up. Because for me, every category and maybe 40% of the total rules need a rework for 5e to stand on its on merits, rather than the merits of the DM making it work like his favorite edition

Think they best thing for 5ed would be to just let the edition treadmill rest for a while, if you count essentials there have been 5 editions of WotC-D&D in under two decades. Give 5ed 10-12 years to get some stability back.

Quote from: Daztur;1053272Think they best thing for 5ed would be to just let the edition treadmill rest for a while, if you count essentials there have been 5 editions of WotC-D&D in under two decades. Give 5ed 10-12 years to get some stability back.

That's the thinking of the last decade (or the one before that), but it's not really how things work today. If it gets 'stability' it also gets stagnant.

Quote from: Daztur;1053272Think they best thing for 5ed would be to just let the edition treadmill rest for a while, if you count essentials there have been 5 editions of WotC-D&D in under two decades. Give 5ed 10-12 years to get some stability back.

The Older editions get to be stable.

I know I can't root against something like an edition change because I won't play the current version.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1051999Ultimately if they support it with Adventure Paths, people will play it because APs work.

Does anyone know why there haven't been any good copycats of this model? Even with lesser production values, the model should work.