Sell me on 5e please. Our group wants to try other d20 systems

They made way too many beans.

>>49238583
Well, the one that would be most relevant to your players is fewer rules. No excess of splat material to wade through, much less adding up modifiers, monsters that can be used against a much wider variety of party levels.

>>49238583
>Our group wants to try other d20 systems
13th Age.

>>49238583
Why does every class have the same proficiency progression?

>>49238583
It's very easy to pick up, and there are less ways for one character to drastically outweigh another in usefulness, or at least in effectiveness in combat.

Compared to Pathfinder, your players will likely find the lack of options very constricting, especially since 5e is targeted towards players new to the genre. It's not a terrible game in and of itself, though.

If you're shooting for a d20 system with a different feel than Pathfinder, have you checked out the newest edition of Mutants and Masterminds? It's got a free online SRD and everything.

How heroic do you feel in the game?

>>49238607
Fewer rules is good.
Will this also mean a lack of options on the flipside?

>>49238609
Nah, no one wants to try 13the Age. We did try FantasyCraft but that campaign didn't last long at all.

>>49238597
Fuck you too many beans, beans are the mortar that holds a good meal together. You put whatever you want on your plate, then any empty space you just stuff full of beans.

>>49238648
The opposite. Every single aspect of the game not being ironclad in its rules means the DM can stretch what they, and by extension the players, can do. Leniency opens up possibilities to the creative.

Rule-intensive systems exist for those who are uncreative or cannot be trusted to keep up a spirit of good fun over their meta bullshit.

>>49238660
Personally, I'm more annoyed that those eggs are just plopped in their. That shit is 80% eggwhite. You can't cook that many eggs at once and not scramble them!

File: GM Kit.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49238623
Here, a quickgen book. Note, that while it's a Superhero system? It converts well, because nothing hard-ties it, you're able to re-flavor things easily.

I'm always remembering the story of the group that converted their high-level D&D campaign into M&M. It was much more elegantly handled, and the fighter actually felt like a god of war for once.


>http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF


I've found this helpful for such things. It gives some good ideas and all, plus it's not hard to fill in the gaps yourself.

While the system isn't perfect for everything, it's good for a LOT of things. If you got a dedicated system for something, use it, but M&M 3e is my go to for most ideas.

Also, this guy does a lot of good builds, so I'd steal from him shamelessly if you want.
>http://www.atomicthinktank.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=37545

>>49238648
Yes, but does anyone really need all the spells, kits, feats, traits, and other fiddly bits that have turned Pathfinder into an overgrown monster? The power tiers meant that there was effectively less than one PHB worth of viable options for any given campaign anyway.

Look at it this way. 5e is new to your players. Every option in 5e is an option they haven't tried yet, and there are more options available than they can try out in a single campaign. That's enough.

>>49238694
>>49238623
M&M is good for doing superheroes in particular, if that's what you want, but it really struggles without an experienced GM. Because it's so open-ended with what a character is allowed to have and how to implement it, the GM needs an intuitive understanding of what will and won't work. It also doesn't do a very good job at preventing Cyclops Syndrome.

File: DM's Screen.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>49238744
M&M Is very heavily reliant on GM and player vetoing powers, because otherwise it becomes immensely easy to break the game.


Very reliant. It's important to note there's actually no Rule Zero in this game.

It's explicitly written into the book as Rule 1. The book notes, several times? You can break the game. That's not hard, at all. It gives you ALL the possible tools to play a superhero, from Ambush Bug, to Batman, to Superman, to Iron Man, to full on anime stuff. I made a pretty decent lower PL Accelerator, for example.

But. But, but but. Because it IS so easy to break the game? It's really no fun to do so. It's a game, and this shit's meant to be fun. So, built to a theme. Just because you can do something in a build doesn't mean you should, if it's out of theme or flavor.

Plus the DM's explicitly allowed to slap your shit down if you're making shit unfun for people anyway.

But a great benchmark? Ask yourself this question: Is this character one I'd enjoy reading a comicbook/watching a satmorn cartoon/movie about? If not, you dun fucked up.

The same question can VERY easily be adjusted to apply to a fantasy novel or movie, though.

>>49238744
...Cyclops syndrome?

>>49238583
Those travelers are gonna die of heart attack before they reach their destination. What the fuck.

>>49238597
>>49238801
Are you against a completely balanced and nutritious meal?

>>49238780
In superhero RPGs, combat often gets repetitive because players have a strong incentive to repeat the same power over and over again. For example, if you were playing X-Men, the guy playing Cyclops is just going to spam his eye lasers every turn.

Superheroes don't usually have limited-use powers, and M&M abstracts almost every kind of offensive power to the same kind of roll, so that even if you have two different kinds of blasts they're going to be identical or almost identical rules-wise.

>>49238994
So instead of using his spatial awareness to make eye lazer wizardry he'd just engage in lethal staredowns. Yeah, that's kind of a problem.

File: mio-newspaper.jpg (77KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 450x253px

>>49238623
>Compared to Pathfinder, your players will likely find the lack of options very constricting
My group's experience has been the opposite. 5e is an agreeable middle-ground between the monolithic mountain of crunch that is Pathfinder, and the sterile greenscreen experience of a simplified system like DW or FATE. There are enough options to differentially represent that types of characters we each want to play, combat is fun, and the rules that pertain to roleplay are enough to give it structure without being overbearing.

I think a quick way to get an idea of whether your group would transition favorably from PF to 5e is to ask them how they feel about the words "build variety."

>>49238583
Pros
>Generally better mechanics
>A LOT less math
>A bit more balanced in terms of caster/martial power
>Less potential for min-maxing munchkin-y bullshit

Cons
>Not as much extra material, pretty much just the core books and some adventure modules at present

>>49238612
Because why not?

Skills and saves already progress the same for everyone in 3.PF. The only difference would be the BAB, but if you pay attention to that shit, 3/4th classes basically always have something that boosts their BAB to match those with full BAB anyway, and wizards don't make attack rolls, so... yeah. It's superflous.

It's one of the best parts about 5e that they just unified the progression there.

>>49238583
On high levels of 3.5 and PF, you fight gods and immortal supersonic dragoliches.
On high levels of 5e, you can still fight orcs and kobolds, if they have sufficient numbers, and they can still pose a threat to you.

>>49238648
You can get monks with fire/water/earth/airbending and other stuff

>>49239271
>On high levels of 5e, you can still fight orcs and kobolds, if they have sufficient numbers, and they can still pose a threat to you.

This is a lie, unless by sufficient numbers you mean 100-200/character. And even then, it may just mean the wizard has to use meteors a bit early.

>>49239252
Of course, 4e did it first, but it's good that they kept it.

Some things I like about it:

Combat flows quickly. Players and monsters hit hard and have lower hit point pools than they did in 3.5. A typical combat encounter will only last about 2-3 rounds, which ends up being about 20-30 minutes maybe. Also, if you're the DM, reading monster stat blocks is SO much easier than in 3.5. Also, monsters tend to have gimmicks, which I really like. I want monsters to feel different than just "HP + basic attack."

There's fewer highly-specific skills that feel like a waste. All of the skills (except Medicine, which doesn't have much specified mechanical use in the PHB) get used a bunch and feel important. Also the proficiency bonus scaling works better than the static "trained" skill bonus.

The PHB and DMG have great indexes which makes searching for rules way easier.

Non-magic users scale well. You dont feel obligated to multiclass into a caster. Fighters have some of the best and most consistent DPS in the early to mid-game.

I like the "core game + adventures" model they have going now. It doesn't feel like I was given watered down options so I'd feel enticed to buy the splatbooks.

There's less of a gear-creep than in other additions. You're supposed to start getting +1 weapons around level five or so. Getting magic items is supposed to be a big deal. Also, attunement slots make it so you're limited on how many powerful magic items you can use. You can't just have ten super powered rings, a ridiculous cloak, and a helmet that does something crazy. You're limited to three things. So often times it's less upgrades and more sidegrades.

The big thing for me, as a DM, is that I'm having a lot of fun and my players are having fun. I think that 5e is, at the moment, one of the most pure D&D experiences out there.

>>49239298
>Players and monsters hit hard and have lower hit point pools than they did in 3.5.
Players might because of the lack of Constitution boosters in the late game, but monsters? Fuck no. Go actually compare HP, and then remember that 5E's damage is *lower* than 3E's.

>>49239053
Why would you try to ricochet your eye lasers off of things, probably causing extra collateral damage (these lasers are made of punches, after all,) when you could just aim them right at the enemy? It's adding risk without adding reward.

>>49238612
Because characters of the same level should be roughly comparable in competence at adventuring. You have other tricks to differentiate the focus of one's abilities. Martials get more attacks, skill-classes get expertise and jack of all trades, and spellcasters have, well, spells.

It's rather elegant. Everyone is awesome, the difference is how.

I could only reccomend 5E to a new group honestly I think it is a waste of time for a bunch of Pathfinder veterans as it really is not that much different just super simplified. Honestly this is a good opportunity for you to try out something wildly different and esoteric a chance I would love with my own group but alas they are newbies I've started on 5E because even Pathfinder would be too complex for them.

Runequest 6 is available online and has a really sweet old scho rules set that's been updated to feel pretty modern still. Likewise Harnmaster and Rolemaster if you want to go full grognard are an entirely unique experience where you stop playing heroic demigods like you do in D&D and start playing real, fallible people.

>>49239345
>>49238612
Yeah, why did it ever make sense for two characters who both specialize in stabbing people to have completely different attack roll progressions just because one stabs you in the back and the other stabs you in the front?

>>49239345
>martials are as good as casters

Ummmmmmmmmm they really aren't.

>>49239423
If that's your complaint about 5e, I have some bad news for you about Pathfinder.

>>49239330
I second this. Let's not give out misinformation.

5E monsters have much higher bloated HP values compared to 3.5 ( but a lot less still than in 4E) Characters also don't tend to hit as hard although some classes such as Rogues do hit harder as they get to sneak attack every round virtually.
This HP bloat is balanced by the fact monsters all have low AC values so players are hitting with their attacks 70%+ of the time whereas in 3.5 values where much higher and sometimes .

A stormgiant for example has an AC of 16, the same as a CR 1/4 Guard in chainmail, but has 230 hp. In 3.5 the stormgiant has 27 ac but 199hp . This also means that enough of those guards with crossbows can take out the stormgiant whereas in 3.5 they wouldn't even be able to hit him. That raises some interesting points about the world , condensed masses of soldiers are able to take out high level threats like even dragons which makes fortified towns and cities actual safe places. In contrast to 3.5 where you'd need a team of adventurers to stop the dragon hitting the town as none of the guard could touch it.

>>49239279
>100
Actually around 60 Orcs will be a medium challenge for 4 level 20 characters. Granted high level spells skew things and can end a fight in one but they can do that at any level and players would still be forced to spend high level slots rather on an encounter in 3.5 that wouldn't even be able to touch them. If the party don't have any spellcasters to aoe in that inatance I'd say they were in trouble.

>>49239423
True, but not as busted as in 3.PF

>rules fatigue

You've already sold yourself.

>>49239505
Depending on variables, a single fireball can kill up to like 20 of them (and that ain't a high level slot at that time). An action surging battlemaster can kill about 10. Worse, the orcs have 0 long range capabilities (they have some freaking javelins) or alternate movement modes, so unless the party is entirely surrounded, they can kite them as long as they want.

This is without considering what utility magic items the party may have on hand.

>>49239331
Because of dudes in cover? Because of being under fire. Because taking prisoners? (haha, jk).

In all seriousness though, during Desert Storm in 1990 the Saudi used a hellfire missile to knock the ladder off a water tower, trapping Iraqi soldiers atop it and sparing the water tower.

>>49240305
Yeah , it's a medium encounter, it's meant to slow down the party and expend some resources not kill them.

125 or so Orcs would be a deadly encounter. Which makes sense as against a sample level 20 fighter with 21 AC and 262 HP if the 125 Orcs focus fire him with Javelins they deal 186 damage per round using the mob attack rules which kills him in two rounds barring outside help. Even if the Orcs engaged in close combat, surrounding him 8 at a time, they would deal 18 damage per round so kill him in 30 rounds.

That however is against a fighter, against something squishy like a Rogue with AC 17, 125 Hit points those same Orcs kill him in about 3-4 combat rounds in close combat.

Now imagine a large group of Cr 1/2 'Scouts' with Longbows. They will be able to pick a party off at range with relative ease.


Of course this is in abstract but the point is you can still throw basic enemies at players at higher levels and they do have to be taken seriously to a degree , whereas in older editions they literally couldn't scratch the party.

>>49240682
Point being? You could still fiddle with the environment if you were playing a better genre of game that gives the players more to do.

>>49241771
M&M gives people pleaannty to do. The fact that you want to be lazy and spam eyeblasts is no one's creativity failure but your own.

Make a less shit character next time.

>>49238612
It, among other things, makes multi-classing so simple.

>>49239298
I have to agree. I upgraded from patherfinder and my players especially love 5e's combat, as everyone is pretty balanced in what they can provide.

More classes are always nice for variety but archetypes help clear that up. Wish there were more sorcerer archetypes and good monk one's though.

>>49240846
That's against 1 character. 1 character, who is, by the way, really shit against mobs on account of not having any AoE options, flight, etc.

Also, 21 AC is quite laughable for a level 20 fighter. That means all he has is a single +1 armor or shield or ring, and nothing else defensive on his person. No buffs, nothing. Especially if it's an eldritch knight who has quite a few castings of shield.

Rogue is even more fucked, but rogues are shit anyway (except I guess they could do the whole "bonus action hide" bullshit to kite), so w/e.

Scouts have a huge advantage over Orcs because of the two things you mention; actually having bows and two attacks. Still, only a melee fighter is fucked, a snipe focused ranged fighter, or any kind of caster can handle it, to say nothing about an entire party.

Also worth noting that you'll never fucking encounter 120 orcs (which, as said above, aren't even that big of a deal for a full party of level 20s), so it's a moot point.

Then again, you'll also not play on level 20 unless you are one of the 10% of players who do so w/e.

>>49238583
Pros: It's not 3.5PF
Cons: It's a d20 game

>>49238648
>Will this also mean a lack of options on the flipside?
It's more like 2e, in that there's not really the 3e/4e focus on mechanical character building.

That said, there are still more variables to play with than 2e.

>>49238583
Rule fatigue is something they will definitely not suffer under 5e. Is quick, and unlike 3.PF, not bloated at all.

If the lack of options is an issue, then I second M&M. It's a great system, regardless if you want capes or not, it needs a tweak here and there that you should speak with your players though.

>>49239461
>so players are hitting with their attacks 70%+ of the time whereas in 3.5 values where much higher and sometimes .
If you want to talk about misinformation, try not to spread it. In 3.5 and especially 3.PF, it's really easy for anyone with an interest in fighting to jack up their attack bonus to the point where they'll hit on a 2 for half the game, barring non-AC defenses. That doesn't happen in 5E against any enemy that doesn't have the absolute bottom tier of AC.

Fantasy Craft! It's pathfinder but good.

>>49238583
>rules fatigue

5e is perfect for you OP. I say this even as someone who doesn't like it.

>>49238583
Where the fuck are the breakfast sausages?

>>49238612
Because The Edition That Shall Not Be Named had a damn good idea unifying all numerical progression, but both wanted to make it "flatter" and stick it on a chart instead a formula to hide the origin of it.

Can't go around openly admitting that 4e was a better game now can we.

>>49238583
OP, I know your question is a serious one but I gotta say that is one tasty-looking breakfast.

>>49242942
Of course we can't, 3.5'ers will flip their shit

>>49238583
>other d20 systems
>only 5e
I suppose older editions of D&D are off the table?

>>49242942
I hated the presentation of of many powers and classes. Most of it was so generic and indecisive, with a too-slim amount of narrative definition. As much as it precluded a lot of issues of 3.PF's, it's less fun for me.

I feel that 4e's Gamma World spinoff fixed that, on top of generally streamlining it and putting a new spin on it with its mutation/tech stuff. Though of course, it being tied to those cards is a pain in the ass in itself.

The Good
>Simple
>Better balance (at least being a fighter doesn't feel completely worthless)
>Easy rules
>Classes feel unique
>A good mix of AD&D 3.5 and 4's rules and concepts
>Bounded accuracy is cool

The Bad
>Skill ranks added character depth
>Lack of character options all around
>Fighter's still aren't that great
>Already starting to get power creep and it's pretty clearly a lot of the ideas they had are getting replaced

It's really rules light, which is something you sound like you want, the math is simplified, and you don't need a fucking chart for feats.

>>49243173
The Bard
>Actually playable

>>49243173
>Fighter's still aren't that great
I've had the opposite experience as a player; Across three campaigns so far (not counting the one where literally everybody is a wizard), typically the purely non-magical characters are more consistently impactful than casters and Fighter's Action Surge can be a game changer.

>>49243518
There's a couple major issues with them though

>Have to go full fighter for full damage, while you only need two levels for the best cantrip
>A sword/shield fighter at max level can do 38 average, a cleric can do 30 and have 6 spare levels
>The cleric will for a time actually be slightly better
>Action surge is super front loaded so anyone can easily get it with muticlassing, and it doesn't get better until late game
>A wizard can become a pit fiend and just out damage a fighter in pure melee

>>49243638
You can become a pit fiend, yes.

And then one slap and you're knocked out of the form 'cause that shit's concentration.

>>49244001
If you concentrate on it for an hour it's permanent until you're knocked down to 0 HP

>>49244027
Annnd you lose all your class features because you BECOME the pit fiend.

Enjoy that, if you like, I guess.

>>49242942
>a damn good idea unifying all numerical progression
Um... no? Adding half of every character's level to everything was an insanely bad idea that led to nothing but pointless inflation and making the vast majority of monsters unusable in any given situation. In other editions at least numbers go up at different rates.

>>49244001
That plus you have to be level 20 to do it; the threat of polymorph mischief is pretty low in actual play, especially because until late game the options for that have less dramatic strengths and are more vulnerable to reprisal for when you're inevitably focus-fired because big spoopy magics (and even then, it's probably a better idea to throw those at other characters if you're a max-level wizard).

>>49244037
But then all you have to do is go down to 0 HP, than you're a wizard again.

>>49241816
See, blaming the users for suffering the natural consequences of a bad design is a hallmark of bad design. This isn't just a single case history (and even if it were, that would still be one point of evidence against M&M) but a problem inherent in the system as an inevitable consequence of the game's design. It's more boring to play than any of the other options out there, including games that are even more generic in their scope.

>>49244095
And dead. Because you're at 0 HP, so they just stab you once more.

>>49244027
>If you concentrate on it for an hour it's permanent until you're knocked down to 0 HP
You mean True Polymorph? No. Permanent is PERMANENT. 0 HP at that point and you're making death saves. The knocked-out-of-form stuff is before that point.

Someone has to successfully use Dispel on it at that point.

>>49244122
...

That's not how it works.

>>49244083
Yeah, it would make more sense to change a fighter, seeing as how then that fighter get's a pretty good boost to all their skills without losing much

>>49244122
Well one stab wouldn't do that, and also you're wrong because when you depolymorph you go back to the amount of HP you had before changing.

>>49244129
That makes more sense then, though dispel magic isn't hard to come by, so I wouldn't be worried about being permanently a fiend ever

>>49244116
It's more boring for YOU because you build like a boring piece of shit. Again, not my problem.

You build yourself with one big damage power, and spam it. I build with a vairity of different damage, afflictions, and other powers.

THIS IS A PROBLEM YOU DO PURELY TO YOURSELF. The game encourages and supports creativity. That YOU build a character no one gives a shit about that spams a single ability? Still on you for doing EXACTLY what the game fucking warns you not to do. Just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD, you dribbling retard. Make a fucking character, not a character sheet.

>>49244116
The player has intentionally made a decision to have one ability and no skills or abilities past that, or otherwise ignore everything else they can do.

I don't even care about Mutants and Masterminds, I've never played it, and I haven't even grabbed PDFs of it (matter of time, really), but it really does look like the player's fault in this scenario.
Well, I guess also the GMs for not pointing this out before it's become an issue.

Now I'm hungry

>>49238583
It's basicly idiot proof, quick to pick up and use.
however has less options,

>>49244083
>Not polymorphing your simulacrum

>>49244292
Or the warlock's familiar.

>>49244259
>It's basicly idiot proof
Especially if you disallow multiclassing. A friend-of-a-friend keeps making awful characters by trying to be clever and mash classes together, but it's always just greatly weakened them.

Another forewarning: if you try to only grab feats and never just take the ability score increase you'll hurt yourself more than help yourself.
Unless you're a Fighter or Rogue (or your group rolled scores), you can't really afford to take more than 1 feat.

>>49244318
Doesn't work though, it can only be within CR/Level. So familiar with CR 1/2 can only be turned into a creature of CR 1/2 or less, but your simulacrum has all your statistics aside from health

>>49244333
I know the feeling. A couple of my players base every single character concept on some kind of weird contortion of the rules that never works well (Str-based rogue, arcane archer, warlock/tempest cleric that exploits Polearm Master, assuming enemies act like they do in MMOs and just run right for you.) They can't just start with a background and roll up something normal. I think they maybe base their characters on builds they found on the internet, written by people who never played them and never intended to.

>>49238607
it's basically the millenials edition

>>49238691
if you had any GM experience, you would know that having an abundance of nice mechanics at hand is incredibly useful.

for there is a workload asymmetry between ignoring existing stuff and adding (high quality) new stuff: the former is MUCH less work than the latter.

>>49238694
jesus, it's just charts.

>>49238694
I've actually played in a medieval campaign, ton of fun, but I still felt like my character belonged in a comic book and not a fantasy novel. Hard to break that stigma. Still one of my favorite systems.

>>49238770
I have been playing M&M since 2009 I believe, using both 2nd Ed and now 3rd Ed, and I have not once seen the game broken. Possibly because the GM can do the exact same things a player can do, and therefore counter what the players do. If you've got a character that the GM can't best the GM needs to try harder.

>>49238583
It's very fluid, very easy to play by ear. The advantage/disadvantage system is a great way to augment success or failure, nearly doubling or halfing the player's chances, which you can feel at any skill level. Think about all the times a +2 modifier hasn't made a lick of difference. Chances are you failed or succeeded by a large margin. Plus advantage makes for some great moments of tension/drama if you have the players roll them in succession instad of simultaneously Rolling a 1 with advantage and turning it around with a 20 on the second roll. First roll succesfully hitting the boss on his last legs with disadvantage and praying to whatever dice gods you believe in the second roll connects as well.

>>49244563
It's not a matter of workload (except the workload inherent in reviewing every single splatbook and deciding what you want to allow, which is considerable.) If you're the DM and you want to ban some or all published splat material, your players will often get butthurt about it. Sometimes players are cool with it, but Pathfinder players are especially entitled about this kind of thing. (Pathfinder players are more-or-less unique among roleplayers in their feeling of entitlement to *third-party* splat material and not just official releases. Seriously, go to /pfg/ or the wiki and look at how they treat the acceptance of all third-party material as the default.) The easiest way to make everyone happy is to play a game with little or no splat material, since players won't piss and moan over the lack of options that were never there to begin with.

A DM never needs to add MORE splat material. It just never comes up. It's only the players who clamor for more splat material, and they usually only clamor for it when it already exists.

File: 1409143666512.gif (212KB, 525x525px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 525x525px

>>49244802
>People thinking 3rd party is the default


>A DM never needs to add MORE splat material
But they said rules, not splat. Rules can be a number of things.

>>49244802
>(Pathfinder players are more-or-less unique among roleplayers in their feeling of entitlement to *third-party* splat material and not just official releases. Seriously, go to /pfg/ or the wiki and look at how they treat the acceptance of all third-party material as the default.

to be honest, that's because in 90% of the cases third-party classes are better balanced than official ones and third-party rules weren't metaphorically dropped on their metaphorical head as a metaphorical baby.

>>49238583
I find that 5e is simpler, it Replaces the overcomplicated Skill System with a "Proficiency" System (Simple addition of a set number based on level to a skill), and The classes are more balanced (pathfinder Monks are a bit Broken, while 5e prevents them from Insta-killing your BBEG).

>>49242335
Well a band of Orcs includes 30-100 orcs with multiple higher level Orcs within that and 150% non-combatants so its not unfeasible.

>>49244585
Yesss? It's a quick-gen book. There so you very rapidly can slap together a character. It's not the actual rules at all.

>>49244802
we were talking about every single aspect no being ironclad in the rules, not about character options. also, fucking man up as a GM. a GM's talk is to keep an iron grip on character options to maintain inner party balance. if some people can't play concepts that threaten inner party balance and abandon the game, so fucking be it.

>>49244932
and by simpler this anon means characters are mor euniform except for fucking special class abilities.

>>49245177
>and by simpler this anon means characters are mor euniform

This, I don't how anyone could think 3.p's skill system was complicated. It's the same thing only without fixed progression.

I had someone tell me 5e is simpler because all the modifiers are +2/+5/Advantage, because I guess the idea of +3 is too confusing.

>>49244932
>pathfinder Monks are a bit Broken

ahahahaha

>>49244462
>it's a "you can't make a cool character with lots of options in combat without severely gimping yourself" system

>>49246046
>it's a greentext strawman post

>>49245215
>I don't how anyone could think 3.p's skill system was complicated.
Let's pretend, for a moment, that we've never seen a D&D character sheet before and want to make a character who's good at climbing.

So we need a high Climbing Mod, which is a number we get from two other numbers: The first number is your Str Mod, which you determine based on a different number, your Str, based on how far above or beneath 10 it is. The second number is based on how many ranks you've put into Climbing, which is limited by your level, which is determined by your XP. You get ranks to put into skills based on a combination of your class and your Int Mod, which is determined by your Int's relation to 10. The first rank gets you +3 if it's a class skill (check your class page again), and every rank after that gives you +1, because Heaven forbid you just count how many ranks you have and call it a day. You take those two numbers (Str Mod and Skill Mod), add them together, then add any other situational modifiers (you have equipment, it's a slippery surface, the DM doesn't want you to climb the wall fuck off -30 Climb), then add that to another value determined by rolling a 1d20, which is then compared to DC number which the GM pulls out of his butt.

That's 14+ numbers involved, directly or indirectly, in climbing a wall, plus two different references to the character class. Compare to Shadowrun, a game which simulates the reverberation of a grenade in a small room, which requires 6+ numbers, directly or indirectly, which are not nearly as interconnected as D&D stats are (which raise such questions as "is it better to be a class with more skill ranks or a class which has the skill?" and "would I rather have a higher value for the stat associated with the skill or a higher value for Int so I have more skill ranks to put into the skill?") or to 5e, which requires 5+ numbers and one reference to the class and/or background page.

>>49239202

>Mfw I graduated from 3.5 and pathfinder to shadowrun and I hear complaining about the crunch in those two systems

>>49238612
I actually like 5e's skill progression. It was certainly better than 3.PF's, which tries its hardest to ensure martials classes are garbage inside and outside of combat.

13th Age is the only good d20 game

>>49247420
Why? I've heard a lot of people shill 13th Age but no one ever says why it's so good. At least the people who shill FantasyCraft will give examples.

>>49247377
I feel like that was more of an issue on how many points they got. Fighters should have been given more skills honestly, even in fluff, seeing as compared to a lot of other classes they don't require years of training.

>>49247495
Basically. My biggest complaint is how skill points were based heavily on your Intelligence score, and guess which class was always going to have the highest Intelligence? The fucking Wizard, so of course Wizards would always have the most skill points to toss into whatever they wanted.

>>49247495
>seeing as compared to a lot of other classes they don't require years of training
What? Of course they do! Think about how much training it takes to be *at least* proficient in using virtually every weapon in concert with every armor.

That said, I definitely agree that they need more skillpoints per level. It's absolutely nonsensical that it's as low as it is.

>>49244462

STR Rogue actually isn't that bad in certain circumstances, namely that they make excellent grapplers and are thus capable of setting themselves up for sneak attack damage unaided. They also combo ludicrously well with Battlemaster Fighters thanks to Trip Attack and Commander's Strike .

Like most non-standard builds, though, it requires either a very specific need or a very specific team composition to work. With most standard comps it's just a waste.

Bump for an amazing thread.

>>49248166
I wouldn't imagine they're too awful if you somehow can get heavy armor.
Sure it won't be doing you much good aside from knocking people down as you said, but you won't be too terribly screwed over.

>>49247488
It really isn't, or at least it's heavily up to taste.

Then again, the same could be said about most d20 systems.

It's got some standout parts: the Icons are a great way to tie the characters to the story, the abstracted combat distances stuff is pretty okay, if a bit shallow when compared to 4e, which it takes some (imo, good) format and design ques from.

>>49246046
I mean, I agree with you but the ones in the post you reply to sound like retarded one trick ponies.

>>49245215
>This, I don't how anyone could think 3.p's skill system was complicated.
3.5e: You get some skill points, based on your class, but also based on your Intelligence, and retroactively (or maybe not?) increased if your Int increases. And you can spend them one a 1:1 basis on skills, but you can only spend up to your level + 3 on a single skill. AND if it's not a class skill, it's "cross-class," so spending a point on it only increases it by 0.5 ranks! And there are are at least 35 skills, for which you have to track the ranks individually, and might have bonuses from your class, race, or feats outside that. And some of these skills have really specific uses, so better not invest in the ones that won't be used all the time because you're going to have way fewer skill points than is needed for any of that shit to be useful. Oh, and skill synergy! If you have some points in certain skills, you sometimes get more bonuses to OTHER skills.

And this is just one subsystem in a system that *loves* this kind of rules bloating.

>>49238801
Eggs, bacon, what looks like sauteed mushrooms, baked bean and cherry tomatoes?

Thats the kind of breakfast one eats when you want kick all kinds of ass on a mountain trail.

>>49238583
Fever and more significant modifiers, quicker system mechanics, feats and abilities that actually do something and don't require very specific situations, system more open to outside influence and on the fly inspiration, smoother running game play thanks to it.

It's still a shitty class level progression system though, but right now it looks like the closest it'll ever get to a class level progression system I would like to play.

>>49238583
So far biggest downside is lack of content and multiclass options compared to earlier editions. However you need to do a lot less administrative shit atm and several systems can't be built into the sky like previously.

>>49238583
>Our group wants to try other d20 systems
I'm sorry to hear that, maybe someday you group will mature enough to move beyond d20 based systems.

>>49256851
Why is this a thing?

>>49256851
Stop being a shit please.