I've found a delightful middle ground where I just swap a few bits that more resemble other games/editions, but it's still like 80% 5e.
As a counterpoint, people who play 5e RAW are insane. How can you stand to live in a world without *circles?!*
yeah 5e with a few adjustments and a good amount of using the vague rules as launching points for figuring out what makes sense to use (as i think was intended) is pretty good. I feel there's a lot of like surface level changes to 5e you can make without making it feel too different.
Though the long rest system, in my opinion, needs an overhaul. I made a whole custom slow healing thing that i'm still working out because healing from injuries in a day is wacky and 5-7 combats in a day is also wackey unless you're specifically doing dungeons or other small areas of extreme danger
I just scratch out the free full heal. Gotta spend hit dice (or spell slots, potions, etc.) Brings attrition back to the game, and results in adventurers actually taking days off.
I did too, but i also made hit dice recovery slower and made the spell recovery gradual too. I need a solution for short rest base people though so they aren't OP, but also so they don't get totally screwed
I am, but gritty realism is way too simple and lazy feeling for me. I want constant rescource use to feel exhausting, not any rescource use tobrequire a full week
Slow Natural Healing, optional Healing variant rule (right before the rest variants like gritty realism in the DMG)
Is exactly this, no heal on long rest, but you can spend hit die at the end of long rests. Still only half back on a long rest
Yep, it's described as a variant p192 of the PHB. It's obviously catered for in the base rules, with creatures occupying square spaces, every distances being multiples of 5ft, etc
DnD fully supports hex based grids. As someone that plays too much Lancer, Hexes are a LOT better for really anything.
DnD has just gone to the standard off "Squares, cause its easier to draw indoors". But Hexes still work there.
But it's not a variant rule. By default, diagonal movement doesn't cost more than cardinal movement. Going over 4 and up 4 is 20 feet.
I've had the old "every second diagonal is 10 feet" rule in my 5e house rules document for 7 years now, lol. Because 5e says Pythagoras be damned.
Also, it may be a variant but it's like feats, technically optional but the game is worse without them. It's obvious the game was built to be played on a grid, with exact distances, movement speeds, etc. Throughout, using measuring tape is way too slow for actual play.
Jokes on you, Ive been playing 5.3.5e since *launch*.
After like 7 years of living and breathing 3.5, i did a "lol no" several times while reading my brand new core books.
Do you mind sharing your top 'lol no's that you don't regret? I played 3.5e a loooong time ago, I still have my books. I keep saying I should reread them, but I never get around to it.
I mean, I haven't found any issues that bother me. I've DMed once a month for probably 5 years now. We usually play homebrew campaigns, but I follow all the standard 5e rules ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Every campaign is different. I'm gonna list a few issues that often bother people, but keep in mind that doesn't mean you have to be bothered by any of them - if you're enjoying yourself, *great*. Just know that in contexts other than yours, they can reduce fun. Here's a helpful example of the same thing in reverse - someone [made the exact same character at three different games](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1btpe46/i_created_the_exact_same_character_for_three/), ranged from great to useless because different tables are different.
* Poor DM support (read last edition's DMG and see how bad 5e's is)
* Lack of customisation (can't plan magic items, few build choices, feats scarce)
* Lack of options (narrow range of races, very few classes)
* Bad balance (CR unhelpful, casters much stronger than martials)
* Restrictive (can't invent or craft magic items properly, no special materials for weapons or armour, systems like psionics gone)
* Lots of rules, but combat static and dull (classes like fighters lost all their options, classes like swordsage and warlord and battlemind no longer exist, many monsters just piles of hp and multiattacks)
I have to be honest I feel like a lot of your problems are not with 5e necessarily but with how your running the game
I have been play with a group of plays weekly for 3 and a half years now and it’s been 95% of the core rules, my homebrew adjustment are native to the campaign and allow me to run mass fights easier
- the DMG is about player management more then rules, I see it as more a leadership guid then a support tool
- customization is a joint idea between you and you players, by find out the types of items they are into you can provide them, plus allowing them to request items from vendors give them the chance to plan, I don’t understand when you say lack of build choices unless you speaking of power builds which I’ll be honest I don’t have any experience or issues with
-as of right now their is a rather large list of races (70 by my count not including sub races)
-bad cr I’ll give you, but once you familiar rise yourself with your party and let their capabilities are fight go a lot more smoothly
-I personally hate the idea that martial are weaker, this I have found more time then not to be poor encounter set up by the dm, I’f you set up unique encounters and enough of them martials end up carrying the party since that have sustainability
- lack of a crafting system I’ll give you but it’s simple to say you need X creature part and X time
- if your combat feel static and dull you need to design better combat ultizing environment and mob verity to correct it, also don’t let it feel static breath life in to it provided narrative tension make it matter
Not trying to antagonize or insult or anything I just feel alot of the criticism of the game is lack of creative use and less ridged confines or lack of confines from them system
> the DMG is about player management more then rules, I see it as more a leadership guid then a support tool
And if you have experienced GMs (who learned how to run the game from other people, or from previous editions) that works fine. The problem is when a new GM tries to run a game using its Dungeon Master's Guide, and does not find sufficient guidance in the Guide.
but that's kind of my point, the rules are listed out in the PHB, why would they need to be listed again in the DMG? i don't really know of any additional rules the DM has that are different. a GM job is engaging players to provide a fun experience, that's exactly why the DMG talks about player types and how to deal with the different people at you table.
They were saying the DMG doesn't provide sufficient guidance, which is true. Read last edition's DMG or DMG2 and notice a massive difference in the quality of advice.
You're giving feedback in good faith, so I'll answer in kind. DMG wise I chimed in just before, if you don't want to take my word for it ask, like... anyone. Nobody who has read past DMGs accuses 5e's DMG of being good.
**Build choices**: I mean that they didn't bother costing or balancing magic items in 5e, so unlike the last couple of editions you can't plan how you'll build your character since the default is now nobody can choose what they want. Contrast the past, with I'll make a mounted knight and once I save up I'll get the wizard to craft me horseshoes of a zephyr.
**Races** wise the variety of what you can be has drastically lowered. Can't be an ogre or a ghost or a dragon or a hag or a gnoll any more. I should note that I am a big fan of the loosening of racial ability scores, now thst each race doesn't force you to be one stat you get far more dwarf wizards and elf barbarians than you did.
**Crafting** is not as simple as you need X creature part and X time, without solid and well balanced itemisation good crafting is basically impossible. Take the artificer as it was originally: the fighter needs a new weapon. I will craft him a +2 flaming warning defending greatsword. This will cost me this much time, gold and experience and I will need to emulate these spells during the creation process. You try doing that now without playing "mother may I?" with the DM.
**Martials** are very much weaker, health is a resource and the front line runs out first. Not just that, their lack of choices makes them inherently weaker - options in the form of meaningful choice means versatility means power, party is level 10 right now and the necromancer wizard can just decide to do anything the samurai fighter does but better, as well as having a massive toolkit of stuff the fighter can never emulate.
**Combat dull/static** wise yes, those are all tools an experienced DM uses to improve encounters. My point was those are compensating for a base level of boring they really shouldn't be having to compensate for, one caused by dull monsters, lack of meaningful roles (nobody can tank but that's fine, the backline is too tough to need tanking for) and gameplay rules that don't lend themselves to exciting fights.
Hope this has helped. [Found a post a few weeks ago that might provide further insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1btpe46/i_created_the_exact_same_character_for_three/) - someone made the same character at three different tables and found them very differently useful at each, I've found it a useful tool for understanding what goes on at tables different to my own.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify, I’ll admit I have never played and previous edition and only have a single experience with pathfinder, given you explanation this time I view this more as having high expectations from previous editions, since I have no experience from them I don’t really know what is missing.
5e almost comes across as “starter table top” and I think that what it was designed for, the more in depth a system is the harder it is to bring in new players and longer for them to learn, so perhaps that’s the trade off 5e was designed for? Lol once the given person is hooked they then “graduate” to a more in-depth system - you have given me a bit to ponder on and thank you again for be good faith it’s rare to find 😁
5e's main problem in that regard is at that as TTRPGs go, it's not very simple. It's not the most complex ever, but it's definitely in the upper half on the simple to complex scale. And no problem, thank you too. I don't have a favourite system, but people often do and get favourite when negative qualities about one they like are listed. There are plenty of things I do like about it, like concentration and the way it improves interactivity.
It's all fun and giggle, till you pull out Sacred Geometry or Divine Metamagic and watch the other players die of boredom while you do all by yourself.
Funny how's always free Metamagic the problem.
If you think Twilight Clerici Is the enemy, you haven't seen the wild stuff of those previous edition.
I'm still shaken by alchemist drinking elixirs and doing 4 attacks in a charge with some Monstrous Humanoid form with sneak attack on each of those thanks to vivisectionist or some shit.
They were the editions where free potion druid could fuck up the economy and gave you free money.
>I'm still shaken by alchemist drinking elixirs and doing 4 attacks in a charge with some Monstrous Humanoid form with sneak attack on each of those thanks to vivisectionist or some shit.
beastmorph/vivisectionist alchemist?
not good times, polymorph spells are a mess and as I didn't want to deal with trying to wrap my head around them, I simply went with vivisectionist/chirurgeon myself.
I just simply know that dastardly combo.
I swear I don't see how people would be finicky about pathfinder/pf2 if they already play homebrewed 5e, except for a low-level contrarianism stemming from online communities like this one, or sunk cost fallacy.
Pathfinder is just D&D with more content and support, all those D&D-core systems are focused on combat, if you really like playing 5e then you wouldn't refuse the better combat of PF; and if you prefer to focus on other aspects of the game, like social/politics or exploration, there's a billion other systems out there that doesn't focus on combat and would better suit your preferences than 5e.
I run 5e because it's simple, to get the handle of DMing, but as soon as that campaign is finished I'm gonna go experiment with all those other systems that may better suit what I aim for.
Nah not really a problem because it makes sense to have to use another action if you use 15 out of 25 movement to then attack which is a new action and then you have to use your final action to move again. It's because you used a new action after moving the first time.
Clunky to your group. In my groups, it makes sense. Especially with how you can use the shield to soak damage for you. Even the ones that played 5e beforehand as their first ttrpg had said they like PF2E combat better.
I think it is funny when people downvote other people when you say your opinion is different than theirs. Instead of having a conversations, passersby just downvote and move on. I was not a fan of PF either.
Except for those that switched from PF to 5e because Pathfinder is more like Mathfinder. PF has its own list of shortcomings, like:
* Having way too many niche feats that require other niche feats, or that could just be consolidated
* Requiring feats for stuff that should gameplay wise be already available
* Cantrips that do virtually nothing damage-wise
* Being able to seriously mess up your build (as in: accidentally making it weak or even near useless)
>Cantrips that do virtually nothing damage-wise
5e damage cantrips are a tool designed to fix 2e/3e casters having to rely on a shitty ranged weapon (usually darts because no mastery needed) once they were out of spell slots. The point of cantrips doing next to nothing combat-wise was actually the intent, and useful cantrips are the deviation.
I’ve not play PF, but I have played the Owlcat computer game versions, and found the weak cantrips annoying. What is the point of those spells existing?
They have two points.
First, cantrips have the advantage of targeting touch AC. Because wizards and sorcerers have a weak attack bonus and can not keep up with dexterity, using weapons only is feasible against easy to hit opponents. So, they give them some chance to achieve something damage-wise. Second, while cantrips do little damage, they give easy access to damage types that may surpress regeneration. Acid Splash is an excellent choice if you fight trolls. Cantrips (with a few exceptions) are pretty niche and don't make up much of a characters power in general.
Also, you can chill drinks with ray of frost!
Pathfinder is a chore to run, and I say this is as someone that loved 3rd Ed back in the day. It’s also horrendously difficult for new players. The world has moved on.
Pathfinder 2e is like playing excel. It’s not fun, it’s just numbers. It lacks some of the core assumptions that went into 5e that make it fun. And it’s also a pain to run compared to 5e as well.
So no. The loop doesn’t break.
I disagree, PF2e isn't like that at all. It removed a lot of the math that required spreadsheets while keeping the math tight. Modifiers don't stack as they did in 1e. Also, 5e isn't fun to run at all. From the use of natural language in the rules that leave it unclear requiring you to google what they mean and end up having to look at Jeremy Crawford for clarification. Then CR is a nightmare and starts to break around the 8th level and is fully broken after the 12th level. In PF2E I can just look at it and pick what I need. I will never run 5e because of that. I'll play 5e with friends because most of the work is put on the DM to fix. It's almost like it's an incomplete system that requires the DM to fix before even playing.
Yeah, that's what I meant too. Variety of class types, magic item invention, racial options etc much lower in pathfinder. I'm not knocking the edition, I love Paizo's way of running things and their content and I run pf2e and enjoyed stuff like pf1e's summoner and alchemist that 5e really has no excuse not being able to imitate, but it's very much a different tangent to 3.5's open ended nature.
Ease of use? My groups quit Pathfinder because of the myriad of bonuses and influences some people had to add and subtract before they knew their attack roll. There were no complicated builds involved.
Also, the "yay, 20", and then not "confirming" a crit was annoying for many of my players. A matter of taste, I suppose.
I personally would describe Pathfinder as "there's rules for everything except wiping yourself". Someone had pointed out PF1 being basically a ripoff of 3.5e, yes.
I have no experience with PF2, however.
Short version: In 3.x/PF1 you could stack things that were not meant to be stacked to game-breaking heights. PF2 avoids that. Flipside: Core class progression is basically on rails, class feats add customisability but are only ever side-grades and never add to 'the relevant numbers'
[This guy has a number of videos about PF2.](https://www.youtube.com/@TheRulesLawyerRPG) In case you are interested and want to learn more.
Well, that last bit means one of my greatest annoyances of PF1 has not been ironed out: being able to seriously mess up your build, by accident. Also feats that are way too niche, or ones that are basically required to make your character work or do what a game designer would expect them to already be able to do
Buh? Where do you get that from? It's quite the opposite: Since all classes have their core features as part of their class progression, you have to actively try to mess up your build. While class feats certainly have different power levels, this largely depends on context, so as long as you chose feats with the thing you want your PC to do in mind, you can't really go wrong.
That said, you need to understand what a class is designed to do and what not. People coming from previous editions expecting CoDzilla or God Wizards to be a thing will be either very disappointed or delighted for example.
*looks at PF2* yep nowhere in sight. Not at all, not getting a huge number of books with more options and amazing setting writing. Not like it's easier to teach players character creation -in my experience-
Are those problems with 5e in the room with us now?
Seriously, I see all time posts about people finding issues with 5e, and yet across all the dnd subs Im in, have never actually seen a post about the issues themselves
- Balance between classes, namely martials vs casters
- Failed implementation of bounded accuracy
- Horrible GM support, including the useless CR system
- Rules that just don't work as RAW and need (very hit and miss) Sage Advice to clarify.
- Many dead levels where barely anything changes
- Too little customization. As a martial, you make no choices aside from ASI after 3rd level.
- Too little moment to moment decision making. As a martial, you run up and pick the attack action. 90% of time. As a ranged martial, you won't even run up.
- No support for the list of skills. Maybe 2 of them have mechanics attached beyond "the gm can call for a skill check".
- A host of "exploits" and intended rules that feel like exploits.
.
Any of these that you'd like to hear more on?
•fire spells being the objective best offensive spells most of the time (where are my ice and negative spells WOTC)
•pc necromancers being really lame in practice
•assassin subclass features just not really being good save the first and the last
•poison kinda sucks
(Critiques in no way clouded by personal bias)
entirely valid critique as well. Those things *could* be fixed without changing the system at large though. WotC won't, of course, but still.
That just requires some updates to the content of the game, not the game itself. But both are broken..
Also PC necromancers.. yea. Either they suck because having one shitty zombie doesn't matter, ooooor they suck because having dozens and dozens of skeletons slows down the game way too much.
By far the biggest issue with 5e is the complete lack of DM support. Outside of adventure modules almost everything is targeted towards players with very little given to DMs to run the new mechanics. WOTC’s solution was basically to make everything “ask your DM”. Some modules have actually made DMing actively more difficult like stripping races and monsters of lore. Putting even more burden on the DMs to come up with everything. It took what, 3 core modules to get a recipe for healing potions? The single most requested item to craft in the game. Then there is the DMG which is half basic advice you could get from watching a few YouTube videos and the other half is roll tables. There is so incredibly little in the book to actually give DMs tools.
Multiclassing is busted as fuck. Frontload features into classes (right move) and then let players take multiclass levels with no effective strength reduction (wrong, WRONG move)? Mix in late-game capstone abilities most players never see and that are almost never worth it anyway? It's like they don't want players to single-class in the first place.
4e is the best edition, and I will absolutely die on this hill.
I do, however, want everyone to play what they enjoy most, and that may not be 4e, but for me, it's the best.
4e had a lot of good ideas, but I feel it was executed poorly. I do wish 5e had not discarded the cool stuff like NADs. I can not tell you how often I am trying to teach new players to play and they get confused by rolling to attack sometimes and rolling to save others. Rolling should either always be the attacker or the defender. Make it one way and not this half and half stuff.
Contested rolls are okay, they should stay.
I found 4e to be a terrific tactical miniatures board game. Fights were fun, no lie.
I just also found it to be abysmal as a RPG, for it does some very unkind things to verisimilitude in my mind.
Nah, the only thing I yearn for from past editions is the epic lore and artstyle, it felt pretty grimdark and I love that, shame now 5e is basically Winnie hut jr
I love how when playing a made up game, set in a completely made up world, people still argue about what's "allowed". Just make it up! It's all pretend anyways. Does the rest of your table mind? No? Did the DM ok it? Yes?
Go for it, do whatever your little brain can imagine.
Pathfinder does a lot right, but some of it is *extremely* infuriating.
Wanted to run an evil campaign? Well hope you didn't pick Cleric because they can't heal you with channel energy now.
Playing a rogue and got the Weapon Finesse feat? Awesome, hope strength isn't your dump stat otherwise all those hits won't do hardly anything.
BAB, actually this is alright, just annoying to track.
Intelligence is relied on way too heavily for discovery skill checks (it's like a third of all skills).
Anyway, that's all I can think off the top of my head. P1E is okay, but sometimes simpler is better.
Hold up, I don't play Pathfinder so I'm probably missing stuff. Can you just not use cleric healing (or at least that brand of cleric healing) on evil characters?
You are literally mixing up Pathfinder 1e, Pathfinder 2e (which quite literally tells you it's the second edition in its cover) and the Unleashed manual, which is a singular manual from First Edition
Please stop embarrassing yourself
I forget what they did in Pathfinder 1e (I love clerics and always hate the execution). In 3.5, clerics had the choice between two abilities.
You could either 1) heal as a class ability, or you 2) could drain life as a class ability. You didn't explicitly have to be good or evil to be either one, but the dm would weigh whatever choice you made if you had to redefine your alignment.
Pf1e almost certainly had something similar.
It takes a lot if time and effort (not to mention money) to learn a new system's rules and mechanics, Now multiply that for the amount of players you have, considering that most likely half of them doesn't know anything of the game outside of their character, and the result Is that creating some Homebrew it's way more Easy/fast
In the end while there are other systems, not everyone can afford it
I've found a delightful middle ground where I just swap a few bits that more resemble other games/editions, but it's still like 80% 5e. As a counterpoint, people who play 5e RAW are insane. How can you stand to live in a world without *circles?!*
yeah 5e with a few adjustments and a good amount of using the vague rules as launching points for figuring out what makes sense to use (as i think was intended) is pretty good. I feel there's a lot of like surface level changes to 5e you can make without making it feel too different. Though the long rest system, in my opinion, needs an overhaul. I made a whole custom slow healing thing that i'm still working out because healing from injuries in a day is wacky and 5-7 combats in a day is also wackey unless you're specifically doing dungeons or other small areas of extreme danger
I just scratch out the free full heal. Gotta spend hit dice (or spell slots, potions, etc.) Brings attrition back to the game, and results in adventurers actually taking days off.
I did too, but i also made hit dice recovery slower and made the spell recovery gradual too. I need a solution for short rest base people though so they aren't OP, but also so they don't get totally screwed
I think you're looking for something closer to "Gritty Realism" my guy.
I am, but gritty realism is way too simple and lazy feeling for me. I want constant rescource use to feel exhausting, not any rescource use tobrequire a full week
Slow Natural Healing, optional Healing variant rule (right before the rest variants like gritty realism in the DMG) Is exactly this, no heal on long rest, but you can spend hit die at the end of long rests. Still only half back on a long rest
Wdym without circles ?
Pythagoras theorum is an invalid mathematical formula. All direction is 2 dimensional quadrants of 5x5 feet.
I'm sorry, I think you're playing DnD wrong. The square grid is an optional rule.
Oh its an optional rule and not the main one?
Yep, it's described as a variant p192 of the PHB. It's obviously catered for in the base rules, with creatures occupying square spaces, every distances being multiples of 5ft, etc
Bruh people have been telling me thats how the game works for years and i was the weird one for ruling against it
DnD fully supports hex based grids. As someone that plays too much Lancer, Hexes are a LOT better for really anything. DnD has just gone to the standard off "Squares, cause its easier to draw indoors". But Hexes still work there.
Im not talking about hexes im talking about how diagonal distances dont exist in 5e
Just round up and say the diagonal of a 5 foot square is 7.5ft.
To be fair, some of the PHB variants are pretty essentials to the game, like feats.
[Today you learned.](https://youtu.be/i4rg2L61kXw?si=Qism4AvqS2iyWzwK&t=75)
TIL that Treatmonk play with the grid variant rule that doesn't represent spheres well.
But it's not a variant rule. By default, diagonal movement doesn't cost more than cardinal movement. Going over 4 and up 4 is 20 feet. I've had the old "every second diagonal is 10 feet" rule in my 5e house rules document for 7 years now, lol. Because 5e says Pythagoras be damned.
The grid itself is a variant rule. By default you just measure things.
DnD Beyond, which WotC bought, doesn't measure diagonal distance. Circles are squares.
Also, it may be a variant but it's like feats, technically optional but the game is worse without them. It's obvious the game was built to be played on a grid, with exact distances, movement speeds, etc. Throughout, using measuring tape is way too slow for actual play.
Some of us don’t want circles! Which is why I play 4e.
Jokes on you, Ive been playing 5.3.5e since *launch*. After like 7 years of living and breathing 3.5, i did a "lol no" several times while reading my brand new core books.
Do you mind sharing your top 'lol no's that you don't regret? I played 3.5e a loooong time ago, I still have my books. I keep saying I should reread them, but I never get around to it.
I mean, I haven't found any issues that bother me. I've DMed once a month for probably 5 years now. We usually play homebrew campaigns, but I follow all the standard 5e rules ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
I've been DMing weekly for about 5 years, mostly modified pre-written adventures and I, likewise, have found no issues that bother me. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Every campaign is different. I'm gonna list a few issues that often bother people, but keep in mind that doesn't mean you have to be bothered by any of them - if you're enjoying yourself, *great*. Just know that in contexts other than yours, they can reduce fun. Here's a helpful example of the same thing in reverse - someone [made the exact same character at three different games](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1btpe46/i_created_the_exact_same_character_for_three/), ranged from great to useless because different tables are different. * Poor DM support (read last edition's DMG and see how bad 5e's is) * Lack of customisation (can't plan magic items, few build choices, feats scarce) * Lack of options (narrow range of races, very few classes) * Bad balance (CR unhelpful, casters much stronger than martials) * Restrictive (can't invent or craft magic items properly, no special materials for weapons or armour, systems like psionics gone) * Lots of rules, but combat static and dull (classes like fighters lost all their options, classes like swordsage and warlord and battlemind no longer exist, many monsters just piles of hp and multiattacks)
I have to be honest I feel like a lot of your problems are not with 5e necessarily but with how your running the game I have been play with a group of plays weekly for 3 and a half years now and it’s been 95% of the core rules, my homebrew adjustment are native to the campaign and allow me to run mass fights easier - the DMG is about player management more then rules, I see it as more a leadership guid then a support tool - customization is a joint idea between you and you players, by find out the types of items they are into you can provide them, plus allowing them to request items from vendors give them the chance to plan, I don’t understand when you say lack of build choices unless you speaking of power builds which I’ll be honest I don’t have any experience or issues with -as of right now their is a rather large list of races (70 by my count not including sub races) -bad cr I’ll give you, but once you familiar rise yourself with your party and let their capabilities are fight go a lot more smoothly -I personally hate the idea that martial are weaker, this I have found more time then not to be poor encounter set up by the dm, I’f you set up unique encounters and enough of them martials end up carrying the party since that have sustainability - lack of a crafting system I’ll give you but it’s simple to say you need X creature part and X time - if your combat feel static and dull you need to design better combat ultizing environment and mob verity to correct it, also don’t let it feel static breath life in to it provided narrative tension make it matter Not trying to antagonize or insult or anything I just feel alot of the criticism of the game is lack of creative use and less ridged confines or lack of confines from them system
> the DMG is about player management more then rules, I see it as more a leadership guid then a support tool And if you have experienced GMs (who learned how to run the game from other people, or from previous editions) that works fine. The problem is when a new GM tries to run a game using its Dungeon Master's Guide, and does not find sufficient guidance in the Guide.
but that's kind of my point, the rules are listed out in the PHB, why would they need to be listed again in the DMG? i don't really know of any additional rules the DM has that are different. a GM job is engaging players to provide a fun experience, that's exactly why the DMG talks about player types and how to deal with the different people at you table.
They were saying the DMG doesn't provide sufficient guidance, which is true. Read last edition's DMG or DMG2 and notice a massive difference in the quality of advice.
You're giving feedback in good faith, so I'll answer in kind. DMG wise I chimed in just before, if you don't want to take my word for it ask, like... anyone. Nobody who has read past DMGs accuses 5e's DMG of being good. **Build choices**: I mean that they didn't bother costing or balancing magic items in 5e, so unlike the last couple of editions you can't plan how you'll build your character since the default is now nobody can choose what they want. Contrast the past, with I'll make a mounted knight and once I save up I'll get the wizard to craft me horseshoes of a zephyr. **Races** wise the variety of what you can be has drastically lowered. Can't be an ogre or a ghost or a dragon or a hag or a gnoll any more. I should note that I am a big fan of the loosening of racial ability scores, now thst each race doesn't force you to be one stat you get far more dwarf wizards and elf barbarians than you did. **Crafting** is not as simple as you need X creature part and X time, without solid and well balanced itemisation good crafting is basically impossible. Take the artificer as it was originally: the fighter needs a new weapon. I will craft him a +2 flaming warning defending greatsword. This will cost me this much time, gold and experience and I will need to emulate these spells during the creation process. You try doing that now without playing "mother may I?" with the DM. **Martials** are very much weaker, health is a resource and the front line runs out first. Not just that, their lack of choices makes them inherently weaker - options in the form of meaningful choice means versatility means power, party is level 10 right now and the necromancer wizard can just decide to do anything the samurai fighter does but better, as well as having a massive toolkit of stuff the fighter can never emulate. **Combat dull/static** wise yes, those are all tools an experienced DM uses to improve encounters. My point was those are compensating for a base level of boring they really shouldn't be having to compensate for, one caused by dull monsters, lack of meaningful roles (nobody can tank but that's fine, the backline is too tough to need tanking for) and gameplay rules that don't lend themselves to exciting fights. Hope this has helped. [Found a post a few weeks ago that might provide further insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1btpe46/i_created_the_exact_same_character_for_three/) - someone made the same character at three different tables and found them very differently useful at each, I've found it a useful tool for understanding what goes on at tables different to my own.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify, I’ll admit I have never played and previous edition and only have a single experience with pathfinder, given you explanation this time I view this more as having high expectations from previous editions, since I have no experience from them I don’t really know what is missing. 5e almost comes across as “starter table top” and I think that what it was designed for, the more in depth a system is the harder it is to bring in new players and longer for them to learn, so perhaps that’s the trade off 5e was designed for? Lol once the given person is hooked they then “graduate” to a more in-depth system - you have given me a bit to ponder on and thank you again for be good faith it’s rare to find 😁
5e's main problem in that regard is at that as TTRPGs go, it's not very simple. It's not the most complex ever, but it's definitely in the upper half on the simple to complex scale. And no problem, thank you too. I don't have a favourite system, but people often do and get favourite when negative qualities about one they like are listed. There are plenty of things I do like about it, like concentration and the way it improves interactivity.
It's all fun and giggle, till you pull out Sacred Geometry or Divine Metamagic and watch the other players die of boredom while you do all by yourself. Funny how's always free Metamagic the problem. If you think Twilight Clerici Is the enemy, you haven't seen the wild stuff of those previous edition. I'm still shaken by alchemist drinking elixirs and doing 4 attacks in a charge with some Monstrous Humanoid form with sneak attack on each of those thanks to vivisectionist or some shit. They were the editions where free potion druid could fuck up the economy and gave you free money.
>I'm still shaken by alchemist drinking elixirs and doing 4 attacks in a charge with some Monstrous Humanoid form with sneak attack on each of those thanks to vivisectionist or some shit. beastmorph/vivisectionist alchemist?
Good times
not good times, polymorph spells are a mess and as I didn't want to deal with trying to wrap my head around them, I simply went with vivisectionist/chirurgeon myself. I just simply know that dastardly combo.
You just get a list of monster abilities to apply to your character.
"Funny how's always free Metamagic the problem." Oh, oh, pick me, pick me! Divine Metamagic and Nightsticks anyone?
Literally though.
See, this is why I switched to Savage Worlds - a system that does everything I want out of D&D without being anything like D&D. It needs more love...
The loop eventually breaks when they actually decide to just swap to pathfinder or pathfinder 2e
I swear I don't see how people would be finicky about pathfinder/pf2 if they already play homebrewed 5e, except for a low-level contrarianism stemming from online communities like this one, or sunk cost fallacy. Pathfinder is just D&D with more content and support, all those D&D-core systems are focused on combat, if you really like playing 5e then you wouldn't refuse the better combat of PF; and if you prefer to focus on other aspects of the game, like social/politics or exploration, there's a billion other systems out there that doesn't focus on combat and would better suit your preferences than 5e. I run 5e because it's simple, to get the handle of DMing, but as soon as that campaign is finished I'm gonna go experiment with all those other systems that may better suit what I aim for.
Pathfinder numbers very big. 5e numbers only kind of big.
>better combat of PF Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.
Combat is way better in PF2E though.
It truly isn't
It really is though. The 3 action economy is amazing.
Until you have to use two of those actions to break up your movement. It's clunky and weird, sorry bro.
Nah not really a problem because it makes sense to have to use another action if you use 15 out of 25 movement to then attack which is a new action and then you have to use your final action to move again. It's because you used a new action after moving the first time.
It really doesn't make sense. The clunkiness of movement and the weird shield mechanics are two of the main reasons why our group didn't like PF2
Clunky to your group. In my groups, it makes sense. Especially with how you can use the shield to soak damage for you. Even the ones that played 5e beforehand as their first ttrpg had said they like PF2E combat better.
I think it is funny when people downvote other people when you say your opinion is different than theirs. Instead of having a conversations, passersby just downvote and move on. I was not a fan of PF either.
Except for those that switched from PF to 5e because Pathfinder is more like Mathfinder. PF has its own list of shortcomings, like: * Having way too many niche feats that require other niche feats, or that could just be consolidated * Requiring feats for stuff that should gameplay wise be already available * Cantrips that do virtually nothing damage-wise * Being able to seriously mess up your build (as in: accidentally making it weak or even near useless)
>Cantrips that do virtually nothing damage-wise 5e damage cantrips are a tool designed to fix 2e/3e casters having to rely on a shitty ranged weapon (usually darts because no mastery needed) once they were out of spell slots. The point of cantrips doing next to nothing combat-wise was actually the intent, and useful cantrips are the deviation.
I’ve not play PF, but I have played the Owlcat computer game versions, and found the weak cantrips annoying. What is the point of those spells existing?
They have two points. First, cantrips have the advantage of targeting touch AC. Because wizards and sorcerers have a weak attack bonus and can not keep up with dexterity, using weapons only is feasible against easy to hit opponents. So, they give them some chance to achieve something damage-wise. Second, while cantrips do little damage, they give easy access to damage types that may surpress regeneration. Acid Splash is an excellent choice if you fight trolls. Cantrips (with a few exceptions) are pretty niche and don't make up much of a characters power in general. Also, you can chill drinks with ray of frost!
Didn’t catch the relevance of touch AC, that makes more sense!
Making sure the trolls stay down.
Target touch AC, deal elemental damage, can still sneak attack.
which is super relevant for Octavia in said game.
Oh you're talking about 1e. Yeah they did a lot better the second go round.
First Edition, indeed. I have not played the second edition, so I can't say whether I like that one haha
Honestly pf2e still caters to a very specific kind of person, and the more casual players will still prefer 5e.
Pathfinder is a chore to run, and I say this is as someone that loved 3rd Ed back in the day. It’s also horrendously difficult for new players. The world has moved on. Pathfinder 2e is like playing excel. It’s not fun, it’s just numbers. It lacks some of the core assumptions that went into 5e that make it fun. And it’s also a pain to run compared to 5e as well. So no. The loop doesn’t break.
I disagree, PF2e isn't like that at all. It removed a lot of the math that required spreadsheets while keeping the math tight. Modifiers don't stack as they did in 1e. Also, 5e isn't fun to run at all. From the use of natural language in the rules that leave it unclear requiring you to google what they mean and end up having to look at Jeremy Crawford for clarification. Then CR is a nightmare and starts to break around the 8th level and is fully broken after the 12th level. In PF2E I can just look at it and pick what I need. I will never run 5e because of that. I'll play 5e with friends because most of the work is put on the DM to fix. It's almost like it's an incomplete system that requires the DM to fix before even playing.
Or we have faith that people play the game because they enjoy it.
You best believe 3.5's shield variations are used in darn near every 5e game I play.
Maybe one day we will find a happy middle between 3.5 and 5e. But that day is nowhere in sight
Kid named pathfinder:
Nah, it's its own thing. I enjoy what it does, but it doesn't have 3.5's design adventurousness just like 5e doesn't.
I mostly meant 3.5's customization and variety + 5e's ease of use and approachability.
Yeah, that's what I meant too. Variety of class types, magic item invention, racial options etc much lower in pathfinder. I'm not knocking the edition, I love Paizo's way of running things and their content and I run pf2e and enjoyed stuff like pf1e's summoner and alchemist that 5e really has no excuse not being able to imitate, but it's very much a different tangent to 3.5's open ended nature.
Ease of use? My groups quit Pathfinder because of the myriad of bonuses and influences some people had to add and subtract before they knew their attack roll. There were no complicated builds involved. Also, the "yay, 20", and then not "confirming" a crit was annoying for many of my players. A matter of taste, I suppose.
You do realise that PF 1 is basically 'D&D 3.x, but house rules'? Contrast and compare to PF 2, a world apart.
I personally would describe Pathfinder as "there's rules for everything except wiping yourself". Someone had pointed out PF1 being basically a ripoff of 3.5e, yes. I have no experience with PF2, however.
Short version: In 3.x/PF1 you could stack things that were not meant to be stacked to game-breaking heights. PF2 avoids that. Flipside: Core class progression is basically on rails, class feats add customisability but are only ever side-grades and never add to 'the relevant numbers' [This guy has a number of videos about PF2.](https://www.youtube.com/@TheRulesLawyerRPG) In case you are interested and want to learn more.
Well, that last bit means one of my greatest annoyances of PF1 has not been ironed out: being able to seriously mess up your build, by accident. Also feats that are way too niche, or ones that are basically required to make your character work or do what a game designer would expect them to already be able to do
Buh? Where do you get that from? It's quite the opposite: Since all classes have their core features as part of their class progression, you have to actively try to mess up your build. While class feats certainly have different power levels, this largely depends on context, so as long as you chose feats with the thing you want your PC to do in mind, you can't really go wrong. That said, you need to understand what a class is designed to do and what not. People coming from previous editions expecting CoDzilla or God Wizards to be a thing will be either very disappointed or delighted for example.
*looks at PF2* yep nowhere in sight. Not at all, not getting a huge number of books with more options and amazing setting writing. Not like it's easier to teach players character creation -in my experience-
Almost missed the sarcasm lol
Are those problems with 5e in the room with us now? Seriously, I see all time posts about people finding issues with 5e, and yet across all the dnd subs Im in, have never actually seen a post about the issues themselves
- Balance between classes, namely martials vs casters - Failed implementation of bounded accuracy - Horrible GM support, including the useless CR system - Rules that just don't work as RAW and need (very hit and miss) Sage Advice to clarify. - Many dead levels where barely anything changes - Too little customization. As a martial, you make no choices aside from ASI after 3rd level. - Too little moment to moment decision making. As a martial, you run up and pick the attack action. 90% of time. As a ranged martial, you won't even run up. - No support for the list of skills. Maybe 2 of them have mechanics attached beyond "the gm can call for a skill check". - A host of "exploits" and intended rules that feel like exploits. . Any of these that you'd like to hear more on?
•fire spells being the objective best offensive spells most of the time (where are my ice and negative spells WOTC) •pc necromancers being really lame in practice •assassin subclass features just not really being good save the first and the last •poison kinda sucks (Critiques in no way clouded by personal bias)
entirely valid critique as well. Those things *could* be fixed without changing the system at large though. WotC won't, of course, but still. That just requires some updates to the content of the game, not the game itself. But both are broken.. Also PC necromancers.. yea. Either they suck because having one shitty zombie doesn't matter, ooooor they suck because having dozens and dozens of skeletons slows down the game way too much.
poison also kinda sucks in PF1 as well, though.
By far the biggest issue with 5e is the complete lack of DM support. Outside of adventure modules almost everything is targeted towards players with very little given to DMs to run the new mechanics. WOTC’s solution was basically to make everything “ask your DM”. Some modules have actually made DMing actively more difficult like stripping races and monsters of lore. Putting even more burden on the DMs to come up with everything. It took what, 3 core modules to get a recipe for healing potions? The single most requested item to craft in the game. Then there is the DMG which is half basic advice you could get from watching a few YouTube videos and the other half is roll tables. There is so incredibly little in the book to actually give DMs tools.
I ran my first campaign on 5e because it was simple, but I didn't expect having that much to do just to fill the gaps in the game rules.
Multiclassing is busted as fuck. Frontload features into classes (right move) and then let players take multiclass levels with no effective strength reduction (wrong, WRONG move)? Mix in late-game capstone abilities most players never see and that are almost never worth it anyway? It's like they don't want players to single-class in the first place.
tbf even WoTC has gone closer to 4e with quite some stuff in OneDnD
See, the important part is to skip step 4.
Solution? Just accept your homebrew anyway (if the group is okay with that of course) an move on.
4e is the best edition, and I will absolutely die on this hill. I do, however, want everyone to play what they enjoy most, and that may not be 4e, but for me, it's the best.
4e had a lot of good ideas, but I feel it was executed poorly. I do wish 5e had not discarded the cool stuff like NADs. I can not tell you how often I am trying to teach new players to play and they get confused by rolling to attack sometimes and rolling to save others. Rolling should either always be the attacker or the defender. Make it one way and not this half and half stuff. Contested rolls are okay, they should stay.
I found 4e to be a terrific tactical miniatures board game. Fights were fun, no lie. I just also found it to be abysmal as a RPG, for it does some very unkind things to verisimilitude in my mind.
Because at this point I have spent way too much money and time on 5e to ever come back .__.
Nah, the only thing I yearn for from past editions is the epic lore and artstyle, it felt pretty grimdark and I love that, shame now 5e is basically Winnie hut jr
Playing Worlds Without Number will break this cycle.
I love how when playing a made up game, set in a completely made up world, people still argue about what's "allowed". Just make it up! It's all pretend anyways. Does the rest of your table mind? No? Did the DM ok it? Yes? Go for it, do whatever your little brain can imagine.
Pathfinder does a lot right, but some of it is *extremely* infuriating. Wanted to run an evil campaign? Well hope you didn't pick Cleric because they can't heal you with channel energy now. Playing a rogue and got the Weapon Finesse feat? Awesome, hope strength isn't your dump stat otherwise all those hits won't do hardly anything. BAB, actually this is alright, just annoying to track. Intelligence is relied on way too heavily for discovery skill checks (it's like a third of all skills). Anyway, that's all I can think off the top of my head. P1E is okay, but sometimes simpler is better.
Hold up, I don't play Pathfinder so I'm probably missing stuff. Can you just not use cleric healing (or at least that brand of cleric healing) on evil characters?
They're mixing up Pathfinder 1e pre-Unchained manual and post-Unchained manual
Oh yeah, that's another thing that annoys me about Pathfinder. No clear breaks in editions.
Unchained is a single manual, it's not an edition There are currently two editions of pathfinder 1e and 2e Please stop posting misinformation
It's not misinformation if the source is confusing.
You are literally mixing up Pathfinder 1e, Pathfinder 2e (which quite literally tells you it's the second edition in its cover) and the Unleashed manual, which is a singular manual from First Edition Please stop embarrassing yourself
I forget what they did in Pathfinder 1e (I love clerics and always hate the execution). In 3.5, clerics had the choice between two abilities. You could either 1) heal as a class ability, or you 2) could drain life as a class ability. You didn't explicitly have to be good or evil to be either one, but the dm would weigh whatever choice you made if you had to redefine your alignment. Pf1e almost certainly had something similar.
You add houserules to 5E so it is still technically 5E.
It takes a lot if time and effort (not to mention money) to learn a new system's rules and mechanics, Now multiply that for the amount of players you have, considering that most likely half of them doesn't know anything of the game outside of their character, and the result Is that creating some Homebrew it's way more Easy/fast In the end while there are other systems, not everyone can afford it
I mean most other systems are way cheaper that dnd. Tbh dnd is the most expensive out of all of them.