Pathfinder/5e

>>54131753
Character options and the like

People will probably say character options, but at the same time 5e is kind of defined by taking broad strokes with a lot of things that were previously technically different or more complex

>>54131781
True you can pull off a lot of things in 5e with one class

For example you can use same warlock class to make a spell sword, a "paladn", a healer or just a master of diguise

Cleric also has a lot of approaches and I could see whole party of clerics actually working as all the types are quite diverse

Also yeah there is no limitations, so you can a monk and fluff it as a feral kobolds that bites everyone.

I wouldn't mind having Path of War/Psionics options, and maybe a few more archetypes, but Mystic seems to be pretty good for that stuff.

>>54131812
Yeah it's less about "This is what you can do", and more along the lines "Choose what you want to do"

>>54131753
Combat, I like the options you get there. I want to homebrew some of them to 5th.

>>54131753
Personally I'd like a decent summoner/wow warlock style "diy pet master" class.

I could also go for a better quality arcane gish class along the lines of pf magus + arcane archer subclass.

>>54131866
I can see that. 5e could definitely use some more varied universal combat actions.

>>54131753
New Weapons! Saps when? How am I supposed to play my sapper rogue when there's not a single bludgeoning finesse weapon?

>>54131805
Sure, refluffing goes a long way. The fluff attached to a class is basically meaningless.

If i find something lacking in 5e, it's about wanting something mechanical that 5e doesn't cover, not about matching some meaningless fluff.

>>54131888
Do you really need an entire new book to swap the dagger from piercing to blunt?

Options, if I want to roll a dude who punches like a truck, I want to have the option to do it and not be relegated as the worst damage dealer who has to settle for being a stun gun

>>54131937
I did that, then the GM kicked me out for changing stuff

>>54131923
I don't know, I like the mechanical options, especially ones from UA

>>54131937
having it be non-homebrew is a good way to avoid autistic screeching

>>54132000
I like a lot of them too. But there are homes where there's either a lack of options or crap options, like artificer.

>>54131962
The DM kicked you out rather that you just stating that you hit them with the pommel instead of the blade?
Seems like you're both at fault there.

>>54132014
>just stating that you hit them with the pommel instead of the blade?
So you want him to carry around a knife but never use the blade for some reason?

>>54131888

A sap is just a form of club. A specific new version isn't needed because in 5e you can declare any melee attack that put the target at 0 HP to be knocked out, instantly placing them unconscious but stable.

>>54131962

Don't play with cunts.

>>54132000
A lot of them are good. There are shitty exceptions, however.

Fighter, barbarian, ranger(PHB), monk(some subclasses), artificer, warlock.

Limited options, limited options, chump, chump, crap design, crap design.

>>54132028
Are you implying an adventurer will never require a knife at some point?
Sure if he wants his entire gimmick to be a non-lethal rogue then he really wants to carry around small batons instead of a knife, but using a knife just you the option to stab if you need to.
It's not that big an issue.

>>54132044
His problem is that the club is not a finesse/ranged weapon, so you can't sneak attack with it.

>>54131962
You ask the dm if you want homebrew, you don't dump it on him, regardless of what it is. He probably dumped you just out of principle.

>>54132057
A dagger is not just a knife. It's a damn big knife.

>>54132057
Carrying a knife as a backup is one thing, but why would you primarily carry a knife without any real intent to use it? Especially if you do plan on being a knockout rogue and need to, y'know, not leave bloodstains everywhere.

>>54132060
I think that's a dumb restriction they've addedin 5e.

I see no reason you shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greataxe if you sneak up behind a guy and he can't see it coming, or if he can't get out of the way because flanking.

>>54131888
Well I have a campaign where we fight skeletons and one player has a low str paladin, so I helped them by making a curse rapier that does blunt damage...And shouts curse words when killing undead

>>54132054
Warlock has most options in the game, I don't see the problem there.

>>54132090
I agree, it seems like a last moment addition. The Rogue even has longsword proficiency (which is useless for him since he can't SA).

The game should pretty much just use Gamma World's weapon table and be done with it, but noooo, we need to stat out weapons where the only difference is a bit of weight and like 5 gold.

>>54132074
>>54132078
As a caster I'll often carry around a sword as well, doesn't mean I intend to charge into the enemy front lines and hack them all to bits.
You're fixating a lot on the knife.
IF your DM insists on not letting you use a small club/baton as a weapon AND they decline the idea of you hitting someone with the pommel of a knife for damage then you likely don't want to be at that table.
Also bear in mind that if you can't get over your character using a knife to do non-lethal damage because it doesn't fit your aesthetic you're probably being a little too stubborn as well.

>>54132114
Everything they have is inferior to EB, andtheirspellcasting has a stupid progression that doesn't multiclass right. Also you need a specific patron to not be complete shit as a gish warlock.

>>54132014
Knife pommel isn't fimesse

>>54132124
Different posters. I thought that would be obvious since we're both talking to the same guy and I responded to him.

>>54132060

So do your sneak attack damage with a finesse weapon. The only restriction on knocked out is that it be a melee attack.

>>54132118
I'd like to see a handful of weapon types with modular modifications you can slap on them that change the price, weight, stats, and functionality.

Pick and choose weapon building rules.

>>54131753
Pathfinder only exists because its free online and well organized. Pathfinder has more better choices, but also more moral hazards (opportunities to either make a broken character or an unplayable character)

5e is better balanced but presents far fewer character options. The one thing it does well is scale back the importance of minutia in nearly every respect.

I would say that 5e feels like a better game, but it feels like the skin of a better game wrapped around the skeleton of a bad one. The problems with class-based design are on display for all to see in 5e with nothing to distract from them, and caster supremacy is still as troublesome as ever.

>>54132128

There's no requirement that the pommel be used. Any melee attack can be used to trigger the knocked out rule.

>>54132160
What does any of that have to do with this thread?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's like talking about engines of this model vs another when someone asks what accessory features you want in your new car.

>>54132167
>Ima going to knock you out with a flaming chainsaw

>>54132136
I know but saying "it's a BIG knife" doesn't help compromise at the table.

>>54132160
It has the problems of BAD class based design, complete with level-by-level multiclassing bullshit.

>>54132178
You use the butt of the chainsaw, are you even thinking before you type dude?

>>54132178

If you don't like 5e's rules go back to Pathfinder. You won't be missed.

>>54132197
That's improvised weapon rules so you lose special traits like finesse

>>54132214
... flaming chainsaws are finesse?

>>54132214
He's talking about knocking someone out.
I suggest you read things twice before you respond to them.

>>54132184
Level by level multiclassing is a good concept, but there's issues with the implementations that have been used.

Namely the requirement that you load up on low level features that don't scale properly to your character level.

But if im playing a game with classes, I definitely want per-level multiclassing.

Ideally though, just give me point buy character features to build what i want to play, even if the game still has levels.

>>54132205
I don't play PF either, the closes to it I play nowadays is FC

>>54132225
>FC
I tried it. Maybe I'll try it again if they ever finish the damn game, but for now, nope.

>>54132171
This whole thread is sort of pointless, as 5e isnt really designed to take on new features wholesale. There is nothing 5e needs from pathfinder, however there are several things it needs from other games that it is in no way set up to incorporate. The only advantage Pathfinder has over 5e that could be incorporated into 5e would be a better online catalog, which Im sure exists in some form somewhere.

>>54132184
Thats one way of looking at it. The way I see it, class-based systems CAN have many problems that classless systems cannot, making designing a game on a class-based system more difficult to get right. Older editions (attempted to) fixed these problems by having deeper class-independant pools of options, whereas 5e does nearly nothing.

>>54132219
>>54132222
Why not? think of sun blade.

The thing is that it's ridiculous to "knock out" someone with the cutting edge of your flaming cutting weapon

>>54132214

The rules for knock outs aren't trait-dependent for or against. It can be invoked on any successful melee attack whatsoever.

>>54132242

Again, the 5e ruleset does not give a shit what you think. You very much can knock someone out with the cutting edge of your flaming cutting weapon while sneak attacking, smiting, and casting Grean Flame Blade if you'd like as long as you don't throw it.

>>54131753
Finesse was handled half right. The bane of my experience in 5e is that every single character I've played alongside or run a game for seemed to use a fucking rapier.

>>54132223
Level by level multiclassing assumes that you actually get a steady, consistently increasing drip of value from each class, which is just not the case. Its actually never been the case in any edition that Im aware of (it may have been better in 4e, but I never played it). Thats ultimately the failing of a class-level based system: when you level up you get what the game gives you, not what you're interested in. 5e goes a long way to fix that, but not quire far enough (rolling feats in with ability score increases is legitimately an amazing design decision that Im sure will be retained in any further installments of the game, should there be any).

>>54132233
>5e isn't designed to take on new features
The UA articles and published supplemental products like Volo would seem to indicate otherwise. What are you on about, exactly?

>Advantage
I mean yeah, d20pfsrd is worlds better than a ton of physical books, but that's not even vaguely a mechanical part of the game someone could miss from pf while playing 5e,.

>>54132223
>But if im playing a game with classes, I definitely want per-level multiclassing.

>Ideally though, just give me point buy character features to build what i want to play, even if the game still has levels.

Of course you want level-by-level, since it's basically just a very chunky pointbuy system.

Which is why it squanders the benefits of a class system.

This doesn't mean it's inherently bad, but it does mean it should be designed differently.

> The way I see it, class-based systems CAN have many problems that classless systems cannot, making designing a game on a class-based system more difficult to get right.

It's the other way around. Class systems are easier to get right than pointbuy systems, because you don't have to care about stupid combinations of stuff... assuming you want to play something mechanically diverse anyway. Level-by-level multiclassing removes this benefit. This is why "you don't multiclass UA!" is the golden rule, and why the UA stuff when it comes out will be gutted and have nonsensical (in a vacuum) restrictions.

>>54132261
Im curious what you think of this >>54132254

>>54132254
I agree with your criticism of the class level design.

Ideally if you're reaching level 6, you get level 6 abilities regardless of what class you take, not level 1 abilities that are a waste of space.

Classes as a pool of point-purchaseable abilities and proficiencies would be good, but the fixed progression is not good.

I strongly disagree about ability scores/feats. One of the worst parts of 5e.

>>54132259
Those are expansions of existing features, at least thats the way I see them. Its apples and oranges at that point though.

>>54132274
I think it's correct that 4e fixed this, mostly by removing level-by-level.

>>54132278
I think the score/feat combinations implementation is poor, but it makes sense. Getting an ability score increase is one of the most boring level-up rewards you can get, mostly because there's almost no real thought involved. Most people know from character creation what ability scores they would like to increase. Bolting them into feats was fairly smart IMO.

Classes as a pool of point-purchasable abilities is an interesting idea, however you still need some kind of level-capping system otherwise there is no progression to the class, and at that point you're objectively better off going to a full point-buy system.

>>54132253

It's more popular than it should be. Unless you specifically want Finesse it's strictly inferior to War Pick in all ways and inferior to Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, and War Hammer in one or more.

Unless you like the aesthetics or want to pack a spare to hand the rogue if they lose theirs, its a minor, forgivable, but nonetheless clear waste.

>>54132261
>Of course you prefer level by level, it makes it into a chunky point buy system.

Yeah. If the classes were rigid the whole way up I'd avoid it in favor of other games. 4es multiclassing was one of the big things I hated about it, and it wasn't "classic" class+level either.

>>54132302
At low levels, before you get plate, going DEX is a sound choice, especially for the munchkins that actually roll for stats and can start with 18-20 in a stat.

>>54132280
If those aren't new features in the system, what exactly would be? Switching games to Everyone is John mid way through a session?

I really have no idea what kind of content you would actually consider to be new mechanical content, that couldn't be included a la UA.

>>54132317

Oh yeah, not denying that it absolutely has its niche as the highest-damage 1-hander for DEX builds that can use Martial weapons. Just also pointing out that's literally all it has going for it.

>>54132334
Full disclosure, I havnt read all of UA, Ive used some of its content (mostly its trove of vastly improved feats), but from what I saw it seems like more of a hotfix than an expansion of or departure from the core mechanics of the game.

>>54132311
4e's multiclassing is by far the best in the series, aside from maybe the feat+power cost being a bit too steep. It has the benefits of class-based leveling but also gives you the option to dip your toes into any of the classes for a single feat, or hybrid if you want to go half and half.

The cost was probably a bit too high, and I'm not saying it worked perfectly, but it's basically the best single-class system I saw.

Legend sorta perfected it with the track approach, but I don't remember if it had multiclass feats.

>>54132351
>Legend

The greatest Fantasy Heartbreaker of them all.

>>54132296
Having to choose between a feat and an ASI is dull as fuck. The 'right' answer makes the game less fun, at least until you've maxed out your main attributes.

Next game I'm trying feats-only, 42PB, max of 18s at start, continuing the pattern to price out higher starting abilities.

My group is pretty hyped about not having to waste opportunities to be interesting on keeping up with the math.

As for the pools, I'm thinking something like qinggong monk for Pathfinder, but if abilities are to be gated (a good idea, imo), I'd gate them not by class level, but by character level.

So if you go from fighter 5 to fighter 5 monk 1, you get to grab monk features that are appropriate for a 6th level character.

>>54132351
That's because 4e has ""PrCs"" and feat requirements depending on classes

>>54132349
What sort of departure from core mechanics do you mean, like alternate magic systems? There's MP magic in the DMG. And I haven't looked at mystic, but if I understand right it has a custom magic system too.

There's also a downtime rules system in UA.

>>54132365
It seemed neat on the player side, then I saw how they expected you to build monsters and said "absolutely not"

>>54132413
I think there's a fan-made monster manual, isn't there?

>>54132351
I'm familiar with it. I found it rigid and irritating, but more tolerable than pre-3e multiclassing.

>>54132424
If there is, this is the first I'm hearing about it.

>>54132054
Have you actually played 5e?

>>54132431
>I found it rigid and irritating

What were you trying to do? If you don't mind me asking

>>54132436

I would wager that if they have it's some houseruled-to-hell pseudo 3.PF version of it. Too many people throw out half the rulebook and then complain that the classes don't work right.

>>54132436
Yes.

I like options. I was hoping 5e would fix how martials in 3.x are bland, and lacking in viable tactical choices. It didn't, really. But at least now they don't have to stand still to get their attacks.

At the end of the day you still tend to need spells if you want many choices on your turn.

How can you argue otherwise?

>>54131753
The skill system.

I like the expanded skill list, intelligence actually mattering thanks to ranks and the clearer DC values in Pathfinder and find 5E really lacking in options.

I've considered home-brewing it so that every level you get +int skill ranks with 4 ranks= to a +1 bonus that you can put in any skill you want to a max of perhaps +3, with proficiency bonus applying as well.

>>54132465
Battlemaster fighter is somewhat entertaining, but the new maneuvers get progressively more underwhelming as you collect all the ones you actually wanted and then have to take the leftover crap in your remaining slots.

Its the most interesting of the bunch

>>54131753
>importing things from a bad game
>into a good game
Wow really makes me think

>>54132480
Absolutely disgusting.

>>54132413

Monster creation was just a symptom of the major design issue that the designers were admitted play-by-post junkies with limited to no OTB experience and proud of it. Between character builds managing 3-4 resource pools and 3 page writeups for mid-level monsters it was a bleeding nightmare to actually DM for at all points.

I don't regret the year we spent trying to play it because I feel a lot of it made me a better DM. But it does bother me how much of that was learning to compensate for system weaknesses.

I do sometimes wonder if it could have held on long enough for a Legend: Revised Edition if the Next playtest didn't happen when it did.

>>54132451
Nothing specific springs to mind. Haven't played it in almost 7 years.

I just recall it being annoying having to forget abilities rather than have them scale up and get new ones, and I remember it being annoying that you couldnt generally make a character that didn't neatly fit into one or two classes.

But as I said at the beginning of the comment chain, I'd rather classless d&d anyways.

Ive been wanting to try everstone , but I've never gotten around to it.

>>54132465
And you think Pathfinder had good martials? PoW notwithstanding because that's third party.

5e gives you a ton of options, it just doesn't go full autistic and place minutae attached to it.

>>54132465
Do you also want a shit ton of shit, underbalanced, terrible, underwhelming and trap options? Because that's how Pathfinder does it.
You have your options, good luck doing anything worthwhile and actually being useful with them.

>>54132372
With all the new UA feats its less of "either or" and more "both" when it comes to ASI/Feats, which I think is a perfect solution.

>>54132484
Both games have issues.

Pf has its trap options and steep class tiers and slow npc creation and bullshit feat trees and prerequisites.

5e has its rigid classes and minimal character customization, and skill math wherein proficiency is basically irrelevant for the first chunk of the game, because bounded accuracy + small base-level bonuses + level based scaling is good for combat but crap for skills.

Neither is a perfect game. 5e comes out ahead imo, but it's still lacking in many areas.

>>54132465

Maybe it's as simple as those of who like the Martials put more emphasis on positioning and target selection than pure attack options? I think my Sentinel build requires more tactical depth than my caster builds do simply because where I have to consider where I'm standing and what everyone is likely to do on the next turn. Really, with a Sentinel build your "turn" is more what you do when it isn't your initiative than when it is.

>>54132480
I don't think I would port pathfinders skill system, but I 100% agree about having actual skill dc guidelines. The "guidelines" in 5e are shit.

>>54132520
No. No I said the opposite.

I had hoped 5e would provide interesting martials because 3.x didnt and in 4e everyone is a half caster with a very limited list.

But instead they made one interesting martial, a couple interesting half casters, and more of the same bland crap martials, but with nerfed casters to make it less obvious.

>>54132540
No. I want martials with a variety of viable options. I want substantial improvement, not to trade one set of bullshit annoyances for another set of bullshit annoyances with some shared overlap.

>>54132517
"Level up and forget abilities" is definitely one of the most criticized parts of 4e (and I fullheartedly agree), but doesn't really have anything to do with multiclassing.

I asked specifics, because in my experience people get upset about not being able to do a thing they usually either shouldn't do, or don't need to do in the first place.

>>54131753
I would like to go back to the attacks of opportunity in 3.5pf. It's retarded that an enemy can literally run laps around you and you can't hit their ass.

I'd also like to be able to attempt to disarm or trip enemies without being a battle master, since 5e only gives them the ability to do so.

I'd like a feat for combat reflexes to either give you extra attacks of opportunity or increase the amount of reactions you can make. Some things like defensive duelist only stop 1 attack, and once you reach multiattacker enemies it stops being a useful ability.

>>54132571

A lot of it has to do with the way 5e offloads things that used to be skills-based into pre-calculated things like "you have a long jump of your STR score provided you can take a 10 foot run-and-go, and thus doesn't need detailed guideline.

That just leaves skills with "how often would an untrained person succeed at this?"

Almost every time? Just give it to them.
Most of the time? 5.
Half the time? 10.
Rarely? 15.
Almost never? 20.
Literally never? 25.
The best in the world would still be 50/50? 30.
The best in the world expect to fail? Just say no.

>>54132569
Sure. Those are interesting elements, and I agree they add something of value. But it still mostly comes down to those classes being all "i move here and attack". More variety/utility/buffs/debuffs would be greatly appreciated.

>>54132630
shit, sent too early

Just want to add that I don't want to force my opinion on you, you seem to have a good idea about what you like, so go, shine on, have fun.

>>54132634
I like being able to tell exactly how well I can track someone based on my roll, as an example.

>>54132633

Shove Prone is the designated replacement for Tripping.

>>54131753
I want them to bring back skill ranks. Building a skill monkey character in 5e pretty shit. If you got proficiency, you're only slightly better than everyone else, and expertise isn't as good as it could be.

>>54132571
Im really surprised that 5e doesnt have universal DC guidelines denoting easy, normal, hard, and very hard actions. It really highlights a problem with the flat breadth of DnD roll-ranges. If an Easy roll were a 5 or 7 it would be far too easy, but if it were 10 there would be a fairly good chance that you'd fuck up too often.

>>54132633
>I'd also like to be able to attempt to disarm or trip enemies without being a battle master, since 5e only gives them the ability to do so.

You can try to disarm enemies. Your DM is supposed to come up with something based on how you want to do that; if you want o wrestle it out of their hands, and athletics vs athletics/acrobatics seems appropriate, for example.

>>54132636

I think it's just the chess player in me. I don't mind my whole turn being "I move here" if moving there is more positively impactful to the game state than any other options

>>54132661
I'm gonna try something to address that next campaign:

Proficiency=+5.
Expertise =+10.
+1/4 level to everything, rounded up.

Max bonus only goes up by +3, and proficiency is actually relevant the whole way through.

>>54131962
>Being an idiot
>Playing with idiots
Well, which one are you, anon?

But yeah, I agree. Sneak attacks being restricted to finesse weapons is kinda stupid.

SILENT attacks being finesse only though... now that's interesting. But then again most DMs don't pay much attention to noise.

>>54132676
Yeah, his point is that playing a fighter is playing chess with only one move. Imagine if you only had one piece to move, while the wizard can choose to move any of his 5-10 pieces.

May be going a bit overboardm but I imagine even chess would get boring quick if you only had one piece.

>>54132676
I want the optimal course of action to be hard to determine, with several diverse attractive looking choices.

Dnd martials are still a game of checkers, and I want to play stratego.

>>54132691
Basically SW SAGA scaling? I approve.

>>54132646

It's almost like 5e flips that backwards. What you know is how much better your bonuses make you than the average person.

In that case, though, I'd think I'd use a Contest roll of Wisdom(Survival) vs Wisdom(Survival) instead of a DC.

>>54132735
I'd use the passive value for the one you are tracking.

>>54132317
>>54132343
>>54132302
All of you are very severely underestimating how important Initiative and Dex Save are.
And while AC is especially nice early game, it's still pretty great to have later on.
All other things equal and assuming you've got a finesse weapon, DEX is very plainly the best "weapon user" ability score.

Depending on your weapon proficiencies, DEX also happens to be how you get access to the longbow, and I don't know if you've read the range on that sucker yet but let's just say it's a factor. It's awesome that STR guys get to throw javelins and such, but Javelins are not longbows. Only longbows are longbows.

As it is, having high Strength is a sacrifice you make in the name of pursuing some particular kind of flavor, unless your class has some extra Strength based class feature. A big one.

If you can enjoy playing either a DEX or a STR based weapon user roughly equally, the choice has been made for you.

I love 5e, but we're gonna see a lot of rapiers unless they change something about Strength, or add more finesse weapons.

>>54132665
It has numbers with keywords. Its lacking in benchmarks/examples.

>>54132725
Somewhat.

I looked at what the bonuses were near end game, and decided to reduce the scaling so they stayed near that for 20 levels.

>>54132735
That doesn't factor in how cold the trail might be, or weather, or terrain type, etc.

I like the comprehension of knowing what I can accomplish, with what degree of reliability, as a player. As a dm, I like being able to pass that off to my players to handle for me. As in "make me a tracking roll, and tell me what the best quality of tracking you can meet is". And they give me the number *and the effectiveness*, and I just decide if it's effective enough based on the descriptors.

>>54131876
Unearthed arcana has a magic archer for fighter.... I think

>>54132773
what are the values for the keywords?

>>54132673
I've played with several different DMs and every one of them forbid anyone trying to trip or disarm anyone unless they were a battle master. they mainly used the excuse that it makes the battle master irrelevant or steps on it's toes.

I need something officially ruled to be able to do that or play a battle master.

>>54132654
It's a much slower option. You need to have two attacks to pin someone in a turn. The first to grapple in the first place and the second to pin. if you try it at low level or with a class that only gets one attack it can take two turns to pin someone.

>>54132713

Chess is a bit backwards like that in that the fewer pieces on the board, the more tense and strategically deep the position becomes. By the time you're down to 1 major piece a single bad move will collapse either side.

I think a more fair comparison would be the Martial side getting to play standard chess while the Caster side has to pay action points depending on what piece they want to move, how far they want to move it, if they want to capture a piece they land on for sure or roll probability to determine if its capture and what constitutes success, and whether they'd rather pay for the privilege of staying put or losing the piece on a failed capture. And action points only replenish every third turn.

Even if the two sides are perfectly balanced against each other, some people are just going to prefer one or the other. I'd much rather have the standard chess army making standard chess rules.

>>54132794
https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/ability_checks/
different anon here, but in my experience the 5e table and scaling work vastly better suited for actual practical play than the PF/3.5e ones.

>>54132714

In my opinion, deciding how close you can afford to get to the front without inviting a rush on your back line is pure poker, ramped up even further by the fact that it might be "your" back line but to your friends those are "their" characters.

>>54132750

That's a good one, too. Actually, I think I like yours better.

>>54132794
Depends on the task. That's the point.

The player who is a tracker will have the modifiers/formula that says how things stack up over time, and for how rushed they are, etc.

Then when they roll they tell me, with a roll of x, I can track someone over y terrain, after rainfall, and such and such time delay, as appropriate to the terrain they're in.

*I don't need to set a dc*, and it gives me consistent/fair results.

>>54132813
The presumes that playing the "fighter" is as good as playing chess, when as >>54132714 says it's basically checkers.

Heck, it's less than checkers, it's Tic Tac Toe, except you also roll dice. Your "best" move is obvious the majority of times, and making any other move is an obvious misplay.

>>54132809
>
I've played with several different DMs and every one of them forbid anyone trying to trip or disarm anyone unless they were a battle master. they mainly used the excuse that it makes the battle master irrelevant or steps on it's toes.

Well, this is bullshit of the highest order.

>I need something officially ruled to be able to do that or play a battle master.

You can still trip with shove.

>It's a much slower option.

Yes, but it is an option you have. And you absolutely don't need to also pin when you trip, not sure why you bring that up?

>>54132818
I find it the opposite.

But the 5e one is certainly more streamlined, you don't benefit from a cheat sheets of skill dc benchmarks with your character in 5e.

Id rather have the benchmarks, I think the increased consistency with the same and different dms and the ability to offload dcs to the players is far worth requiring said cheatsheets.

>>54132766

I think they deliberately made STR and INT things that only about 1 person per party wants and made CON and DEX things that every party member wants. And if they didn't do it deliberately they sure as hell did it on accident.

I imagine for most DEX players, though, getting away from the front is more important, Rogues and AC tanks excluded. Being the #1 weapon for 2 archetypes and the backup piece for quite a few others isn't a bad place to be considering it's almost certainly still not as popular as longbows

>>54132809

That's not how grappling works now. Only people with the Grappler feat can pin, and it fully restrains both people. That's usually bad.

You can combo grapple with a subsequent shove prone which prevents them from rising to their feet until they break the grapple, which is by the way great, but it doesn't require a usually doesn't benefit from a pin.

Most importantly, though, trip doesn't pin anyone either. If all you want to do is knock someone off their feet you can just shove them prone without grappling them. You don't even need a free hand.

>>54132854
It is bullshit, but they do have some point. What's the point of battle master if you can use his tricks? I'd go around fixing that in a different way: battle master shouldn't exist and most of his features should be actions to every character with certain classes or attributes. For example, anyone with some charisma can use rally, or make that an action available to fighters, paladins or warlocks. Something like that, maybe rebalancing the types of actions and how frequently you can use them, but it would surely be better than what we have now.

>>54133529
>What's the point of battle master if you can use his tricks?

That he does it a lot better. He does it alongside an attack with extra damage. Hell, he can do it at range.

>>54131888
Yes please.
More weapons and make it so the existing ones are not litteral reskins of one another.

Options and better grapple/shove/trip and jump rules

Former PF player who got on the 5e hypetrain only to realize how shallow of a game it was and switched back to PF after numerous 5e campaigns just fizzled out for being not much more than a collaborative storytelling exercise with vague rulings for near everything that turns the system into a GM handwaving simulator rather than a game.

Even the mechanical stuff that Pathfinder handles horribly is miles ahead of anything in 5e simply because it exists. When a ruling for something doesn't exist in 5e and it's up to the GM, more often than not I've found it results in a player's expectations being crushed and autistic screeching occurring, or the GM not really knowing how to handle it and letting some horrendously overpowered bullshit fly that sets a bad precedent for the rest of the campaign.

>>54131937
And have 80% of DMs disallow it?
Official leads to less squabbling.

>>54133545
That really depends. On your example it'd be athletics vs acrobatics/athletics or a str saving throw.
Assuming the non battle master character has proficiency with athletics, he only needs a 9 or higher to have a harder DC, so for over half of the rolls he has a harder disarm than the battle master. Really depends on what sort of bonus the enemy has to saves or skills though.

>>54132090
Sneak attack isn't about sneaking, it's about attacking quickly and precisely enough to slip past an opponent's defenses. Most of the time you're not even hidden from the enemy.

>>54133954
Why do you need 80% of GM's to approve it? You a steward/ess playing wherever you land?

>>54132124
Using a knife's pommel to attack with would be an improvised weapon as per the rules, thus denying you proficiency and dealing 1 +str damage, no finesse

>>54133990
In reality it should be called Opportune attack, Vital strike or something.

>>54132126
It multi classes great, assuming all you want is a quickly renewing batch of low level slots. Paladins sorcs and gishes love that shit

>>54132044
The non-lethal rules are nice. I hate how pathfinder forces you to take a -4 to deal non lethal damage

You end up in a scenario where you mob one guy and dance around him like the Jukebox scene from Sean of the Dead.

>>54132254
4e's multiclassing was a feat that gave you a minor class ability and access to the class's feats and other options
It's hybrid system, which looks more like multi classing as people recognize it, is a level one choice that has you choose features from each class at the relevant levels as you level

>>54134065
Take a feat if that's your thing then

File: mug6.jpg (28KB, 475x356px)

28KB, 475x356px

i'm (somehow) the forever dm of a long running 5e game and not only am i ok with throwing in stuff from older editions (or pf) i encourage it. not hard to work stuff over.

i'd rather give players (and their foes) the ability to do something cool or access to some new race/spell/feature as a request than dish out some op magic item/s for flavor.

kindof a shit dm. but we all have fun and everyone keeps coming back for more so... we got somethin right goin.

>>54134179
tl:dr if there's crap from pf you'd like to see in 5e ask whoever's running it for you.

>>54134179
>kindof a shit dm. but we all have fun and everyone keeps coming back for more so... we got somethin right goin.
When everyone is shit its harder to smell your own

>>54133993
Because having only 20% of DMs to select from makes it hard to find games

File: dracula n grim.gif (225KB, 283x198px)

225KB, 283x198px

>>54134208
I'd be hurt if you were someone who'd played with us. I'll still ask: why you gotta be like that 'mon?

>>54134166
>take a feat for a minor thing everybody should be able to do without much problems gimping you forever
3.PF in a nut

>>54134464
To be fair, using a lethal weapon to not kill someone is harder than it looks, so that -4 penalty is apt.

And you don't suffer a -4 penalty if you use a weapon that was designed to be used as a nonlethal weapon ie saps, whips.

>>54132605
>4e everyone is a half caster

Wait, are we still talking about D&D here?

>>54133529
Really, they should have just kept the playtest Martial Dice Fighter. It did a good job of being flexible and having lots of options, while still being simple enough for people who just want to play the "I hit them" Fighter.

>>54133798
This, monks (supposedly martial artists) got the shortest end of the stick with martial arts and jumps.

>>54134179
>but we all have fun and everyone keeps coming back for more

Well then you can ignore all the autistic screeching going on in /tg/ and keep playing

>>54133962
Yes, but he STILL doesn't do it along extra damage. The action economy boost is huuuge.

Also, friendly Warlock can debuff the save with Hex, while for grapple the target can choose so he will just take the non-debuffed one (if it is intelligent enough).

>>54134179
As long a system and your home rules work for you. Though that doesn't work for everyone, I've been in a group playing PF with synth summoners, druids, clerics, etc but monk and barb weren't allowed because OP (don't ask me I didn't understand their explanation either) that worked for them, not for me so I left without causing problems

>>54131753
Actual rules for most combat maneuvers and more detailed rules for hirelings/cities/businesses.

File: hong-soonsang-the-seaking-contest-runa.jpg (364KB, 1920x1099px)

364KB, 1920x1099px

More weapons. I realize a lot of these can just be refluffed from what's available, but that's up to DM ruling and I'm sure there's some

I want sabres, cutlasses, katanas, o-dachi. I want 2e's 10 thousand various polearms, more finesse weapons so every single rogue on the planet wouldn't be wielding rapiers, and so on

I want more shields than just the single +2 to AC shield that exists, a buckler should be different to a tower shield but for some reason the only shield in the system is just "shield" +2 to AC

>>54135213
>I'm sure there's some
I'm sure there's some shit DM's who would do stuff like "Sorry but you're wielding a rapier, not a sabre" or "you can't refluff your shortsword to be a cutlass" because I've played with some really shit DM's who have no imagination

>>54135245
the opposite is as bad
>I know he's a paladin with a full plate and a greatsword on sheet, but you see an unarmed and unarmored monk

Improvised Weapons use a 1d4 you fuck.

Not only that, by RAW improvised weapons are attacking with something that is not a weapon, and also does not resemble a weapon. If I hit you with a chair, that's improvised. I hit you with a chair leg? That's a club. If I throw a greatsword for example, it will deal 1d4 damage and have a range of 30, but its still a greatsword that I have proficiency in. Hitting with a dagger pommel doesn't make it magically lose features. You can for example use Great Weapon Master with a Heavy Crossbow if you whack them with the crossbow.

Also damage types in 5e are for the most part absolutely meaningless, in particular the 3 physical ones. There is little to no significant differences, and very few enemies have a specific weakness or resistance to just one of those damage types.

>>54135708
>and have a range of 30
Ackchually 20, and from that with disadvantage till 60 tops.

>>54135013
No kidding. I know they took out a lot of the micromanagement, but the DMG and PHB doesn't even include potion costs, let alone crafting.

What's the purpose of gold if the DM has to build the economy from scratch or homebrew?

>>54136082
I just use it for XP.

>>54132691
>>54132661

I've just house ruled a penalty for non-proficiency. It gives an unskilled person a shot at the easy checks but makes the higher ones dicey. I got death stares for the 'nerf' at first, but in play it really lets people play at their skill strengths, provided you set easy tasks at actual easy DCs, and do group checks properly.

A DC5 sounds humorous until you have the party mage rolling d20-3 (or whatever) to try a clutch acrobatics check, something the team rogue will dance through without a roll, which is sort of the point of being skilled to begin with.

>>54135708
>Damage types in 5e are for the most part absolutely meaningless
As a Barbarian, damage types are something I pay attention to constantly. Tieflings care a lot. Dragonborn care a lot. Wizards care a whole lot. Our party fought a Dracolich last night; our Paladin cared a whole lot about Radiant damage. Our Lore Master Wizard cared a whole fuckton about changing their damage types to Radiant.

You've got a point about the physical damage types though. When something gives you resistance to physical damage nine times out of ten it's to all three physical damage types anyway.

>>54136482
Elemental resistance is a huge deal.
It's physical resistance, to Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing. There's not even a handful of monsters that resist or are weak to just one.

>>54133905
>Even the mechanical stuff that Pathfinder handles horribly is miles ahead of anything in 5e simply because it exists. When a ruling for something doesn't exist in 5e and it's up to the GM, more often than not I've found it results in a player's expectations being crushed and autistic screeching occurring, or the GM not really knowing how to handle it and letting some horrendously overpowered bullshit fly that sets a bad precedent for the rest of the campaign.

I have seen this occur once or twice. I have no problem adding house rules.

I still feel like it would be less work to make stuff up to full the gaps in 5e than to go through all of pathfinder and making a curated list of only the content thats actually viable as a replacement for d20pfsrd.

>>54134048
It can't use the unified multiclassing progressions, because it's spell progression is incompatible.

>>54134625
Yes.

>>54135275
Yeah. I'd disallow that. There are limits to refluffing.

>>54135275
Yeah sure but nobody in their right mind will let that go through

There's a huge difference between a pirate character wanting a cutlass instead of a shortsword and a guy in full plate armor wanting to look like an unarmed/armored person.

>>54137541
>Yeah sure but nobody in their right mind will let that go through
Go to /5eg/ there're people out there refluffing Sun Soul monk as a knife thrower rogue

>>54135708
Attacking with a weapon in a way it's not meant to be used turns out intoi an improvised weapon
>You can for example use Great Weapon Master with a Heavy Crossbow if you whack them with the crossbow
Wat

>>54136482
>Our Lore Master Wizard
Absolutely disgusting.jpg

>>54137773
I know, I know. I'm not the DM, I don't choose what gets banned and what doesn't.

>>54137844
I'm more alarmed that you play with people who want to play something so unbalanced. I know even munchkins that won't touch it

>>54138235
Most of the time she just casts Magic Missile anyway. It's actually not a big deal in my group.

Wait, why people say in 5e monks can't jump, grapple and trip/shove?

>>54137736

It's a very, very weird rules interaction.The game specifically allows making melee attacks with ranged weapons at the cost of reducing its damage die to 1d4 and specifically treats this as being different from the general rule that improvised weapons deal 1d4 damage. The conclusion here being that said attacks don't fall under the improvised weapons rule or they wouldn't have listed them.

This then collides with the second bullet point of GWM that states that has the only criteria that it be a heavy weapon, that you have proficiency in it, and that the attack be melee. Meanwhile, the Sharpshooter feat only specifies that the attack be made with a ranged weapon, but it doesn't actually specify that it be a ranged attack.

So, in theory RAW for the low, low cost of two feats that have no other positive interactions with each other and encourage wildly different playstyles you can make two-handed attacks at -10 for 1d4+20 with 1 bonus attack per turn if you splat a minion with it.

I allow it in my games because the RAW allows it and I see no reason to save someone from a lousy build if their heart is set on it, but its pretty clear this is a clear case of their commitment to "plain language" royally screwing the pooch on interactions.

>>54140269
Monks need Dex/Wis/Con, they have no room for Str, if you pick Elite Array (15,14,13,12,10,8) a monk will have at best 12 on Str, that means a +1 on Str.
Grapple/Shove is made with Athletism (Str), so if you have trained Athletism a Monk will have 1+Prof, which at best will be something like +5. That's it, +5 to Grapple/Shove, when other classes have +11 AND Advantage. There comes the "martial artist who can't into martial arts".

Now for jump, your jump distance is Str score, so if you're a monk with Str 12, your distance is 12 ft, so much for wuxia shit.

>>54140269

They can but that usually makes them even more multiple attribute dependent since Unarmored Defense keys off of Dex not Str and Martial Arts allows them to swap Dex for Str. Barring "rolled 4 18's, what do?" it almost always behooves the Monk to stack Dex instead.Grabbing Athletics proficiency makes them options, but not great ones, compared to what an actual Str build can do. Despite being positioned as supreme martial artists, monks are pretty much limited to striking.

This obvious rule cul-de-sac is what drove the creation of the Kensai archetype, but it didn't exactly make things better.

>>54140485
>Despite being positioned as supreme martial artists, monks are pretty much limited to striking.
I feel like this is kind of making light of open palm monk's ability to push or know prone people in a flurry with a dex or strength save. It's a short rest limited resource, but it also doesn't waste time by not damaging the enemy with the attack. The other monk subclasses don't have that ability, but those are more mystical and less martial artist than open palm

>>54140573
You can't still grapple for shit

>>54140573
Is pretty sad that any martial can grapple/shove easily and Monk has to be of a special path and only will be able if spending resource and only for shoving. Again, so much for the """"martial artist""""

>>54137339
Not the anon you're arguing with, but...
>I have seen this occur once or twice.
If there were rules in place then it wouldn't happen at all. Like even something like a template would've been preferable to something like 5e's "oh, you can make up whatever the fuck because we already have your fucking money.

For example, in Shadowrun, there aren't really any rules for buying molotov cocktails in the weapon's section of the manual but there are in fact rules for improvised thrown weapons and rules for what fire damage/attacks do. So taking those two aspects and mashing them together, you get a molotov and the overall consistency is still maintained.

The closest thing you'll find in 5e is rules that stat that improvised weapons deal like 1d4 damage, but you'd also need a feat to use it and at best, the DM will just say that it's an alchemist fire even though molotov's don't explode.

>>54140766
>Be goliath bearbarian
>Able to lift 2 tons
>Throw 1 ton boulder
>"Lol 1d4+Str"

>>54140573
Literally any other martial can do what the monk does better without sacrificing anything to actually be good at it.

Even flurry isn't worth it because you're only spending resources just to miss 2-4 times as many times as the Fighter, with the added risk of fumbling to boot.

>>54140573

I'm not saying that monks are bad, they're better than a lot of people on /tg/ realize. I am pointing out, though, that their "martial arts" ability limits them to stand-up striking and that Bards and Rogues make much better grapplers than they do. Rather the opposite of what most people expect out of a feature called "Martial Arts."

File: 1497105393799.jpg (246KB, 1700x850px)

246KB, 1700x850px

Without delving into a /pol/ thread, how do you guys justify meshing politically/religiously conservative ideologies (feudalism/monarchism/etc and medieval European church tropes) with modern liberal cultures (many races living mostly in harmony, high social mobility, romantic love, postmodern ideas of good and evil, etc)?

For me it's not so much an issue of immersion (it is a fantasy game, after all), just seems like an odd mishmash of things.

>>54137411
>Yes
>4e everyone is a half-caster

I'm skeptical

>>54143193
>They have "powers" so everyone's a caster
It's one of those people

>>54142987
I look to ancient Rome, rather than medieval Europe

File: make b8 gr8 again.jpg (158KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1000x1000px

>>54142987
>romantic love
>postmodern ideas of good and evil

Severe mental gymnastics.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

>>54132510
>it was a bleeding nightmare to actually DM for at all points.
It's no 4E but from pretty much every account but yours, it's WAY easier to run than 3.5 even if you account for having to make all the monsters yourselves.

>>54143225
They have a small number of limited use powers.

Everyone is a damned quarter casting sorcerer.

>>54132636
How many action scenes in movies involve fights in an open, flat space with no interesting features or obstacles?

I'm involved in a few games at the moment, all on roll20, one of which I DM. All just finished fights in which the environment was a meaningful element in the battle.

In my game, it was a fight against two young black dragons in their swamp lair, plus two trios of lizardfolk shamans who could Healing Word the dragons. There were various 10' tall "islands", around which was solid ground, but the rest was difficult terrain due to waist-high water. The martial characters spend the fight maneuvering, taking cover, splitting up to avoid acid breath, attacking, trying to chase down the dragons, throwing weapons at the lizardfolk, etc. The mages cast spells.

In a second game, we were on a flying airship attacked by pirates. We fought in the narrow bridge, where a table blocked the middle of the room, but there were windows to break and throw pirates out of.

The point is, in a white room scenario, martials simply move and attack and are boring. But if the GM puts the work in to make the combat encounters interesting and the environments engaging, martials are the ones who will interact with it more. Casters will more or less turret no matter what. It takes everyone to make the game work.

>>54146338
Ur diks a mental disorder

>>54146607
It's way better balanced than 3e on the player side. It lacks the obnoxious feat trees, and trap options, and has played content that scales appropriately by level.

But the stuff everyone likes about it is on the player side. The dm side of the game is a mess.

>>54146789
Ssh, you'll shatter their narrative that 5e martials are products of bad design.

>>54146789
There's only so much that comes up in d&d to make things interesting.

Difficult terrain, cliffs, bridges, cover and traps.

>>54146881
They are products of bad design.

Some classes have a variety of uses, others have just one.

>>54132766

STR is the path to the best weapon damage you can get, since there are no Finesse weapons that work with GWM or PAM. It's also the path to one of the two strongest sword-and-board builds (as Shield Master relies on Athletics). It is also significantly better at combat defense overall (typically starts at 16 AC vs 14 for a leather-wearer, though scale+dex is equal), and capping out at 18 via plate, usually available long before level 8 when DEX can usually be capped to 20.

I'd also argue that initiative is less godly than it once was - while acting first is always useful, 5e is less rocket tag than PF and 3e were, so the effect is mitigated.

>>54132854
>>54133529
>>54133545
>What's the point of the BM if you can use Shove

He can do it alongside an attack rather than forfeiting one.
It does extra damage.
It can be done at range.
It can be done by a Dex fighter.
It can be done without proficiency in any skill.

The only downside is that the DC is 2.5 lower than the average result of an offensive Athletics check, if the BM's attack is based on STR.

I mean think of it this way. Let's say you're using a longbow. Trip Attack is an on-call critical hit. It also forces a save vs. trip.

>>54146807
Really?

I always found DM-ing 4e super easy, especially now that funin.space exists. Monsters are actually balanced for their written difficulty, so I don't need to put too much thought into what I put the party against as long as it's level appropriate

>>54133545
I don't understand why one archetype of one class should mean every other class doesn't get to have interesting options in combat so that one class can feel like a special snowflake.

This would be like saying only wizards can cast actual spells and all other casting classes just get cantrips.

>>54146889
Those are some extremely broad categories, friend. That's like saying D&D in general is boring because there's only so many monsters.
>difficult terrain
What kind? Can it be bypassed? Some of my characters had items that let them swim at full speed. Can it be maneuvered around? Can enemies be forced into it?
>Cliffs
How high are they? Would they still be in the fight? Do you want to get up them? Or down? Can they be climbed? Are there stairs or ropes?
>bridges
Plenty of options here
>cover
Many, many options here
>traps
Also hundreds of options.

>>54146789
>The martial characters spend the fight maneuvering, taking cover, splitting up to avoid acid breath, attacking, trying to chase down the dragons, throwing weapons at the lizardfolk, etc. The mages cast spells.

I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do. But this really just shows that you made the martials jump through hoops to do their job while the mages just sidestepped the whole thing by casting spells. And also that, in the end, the martial was still just moving and attacking. Because he had no other option. Sometimes it was a thrown weapon attack.

It's also something that any caster could do just as well, while still having spells. The Cleric could wade alongside the fighter to do all that shit, while also having the option at any time to just say "fuck this, water walk!", and now you bypass the whole swampy part.

>airship, bridge, windows

This is actually a lot better way of giving martials options, but it's still something a caster could easily participate in, if he wanted; in fact, there's bound to be a spell or two that pushes enemies away much better than the 5 feet shove of a fighter.

>>54132254
>>54134134
I don't understand why they don't go back to old style multiclassing, where you literally level two separate classes. So if you are a Fighter 5 and want to add Rogue 1, you don't need exp for level 6, you need exp for level 5 + exp for level 1.

>>54147128
That makes dipping ridiculously easy, which would require an entirely different sort of class design paradigm; one where your first level is worth a lot less than later levels, which is backwards from the current one.

It also requires tracking XP, which is sorta being phased out.

>>54147079
>you made the martials jump through hoops to do their job
>in the end, the martial was still just moving and attacking

"Making players jump through hoops" is the core function of a DM. And those hoops are what made the act of moving and attacking *interesting and fun*, such that a blatant bauble of debuffs or whatever are not necessary to keep a player interested in their character's actions. Besides, other than the Champion, most rogues, and I think certain Barbarians (can't remember), all classes in 5e DO have those abilities. Paladins and rangers have spells and abilities. Battlemasters have maneuvers.

Ultimately, it seems as though you're trying to say that martials can never be interesting because it's *easier* for a caster to be interesting, and perhaps that *you* find casters more interesting. I'd argue that the effort I put in made the encounter interesting for everyone, and matters of personal taste account for the latter. Some people LIKE moving and attacking as long as it's not totally uninspired.

>>54147017
Not 4e, were talking about d20 Legend.

4e is fantastic on the dm side.

>>54147128
That proposal ignores the very heavy penalties that came with that. Namely, you either had to split your XP evenly between your two classes from the get-go (so no getting to 5 them just spending 300 XP for a level of Rogue), or you gave up all class abilities except your HP total and started over entirely in the new class, and you couldn't go back to your first one.

You're asking for the best features of that system with none of the drawbacks.

>>54146916
They're not as bad as autists think they are though.

I would like a rogue sub type that actually does things. Right now Rogue is painfully simplistic to play.

>>54147170
a 3 level dip isn't worth not raising your main class by 3 more levels. In a vacuum they look god but what class actually provides "must have" things in their early levels?

>>54147173
You're talking to multiple people, FYI.

Champion, most rogues, and some barbarians were what I was complaining about. Battlemaster and ranger and paladin are what I think all the martials should be like.

>>54147275
Agreed. Theyre not useless, just underwhelming and kindof boring.

>>54147173
>"Making players jump through hoops" is the core function of a DM.

I'm in total agreement! I just found it worth pointing out that half of the group was ignoring those hoops, while the other could not, even if they wanted to.

>And those hoops are what made the act of moving and attacking *interesting and fun*,

I think it'd have made it more fun if the characters had unique ways of interacting with those hoops, or force enemies to jump through different hoops.

Also, while I'll give you that movement is slightly more interesting, I don't think attacking was made any different in this situation.

As for classes that have abilities >>54147308

>>54147303
Not sure, but having Sorcerer metamagic on all casters seems like a pretty damn sweet deal, and under this system at higher levels it'd cost you only a fraction of a level. Not to mention the havoc it wrecks on the unified progression of your proficiency and slots. A 1 level dip is definitely worth more than 1st level XP (which... would be 0 actually, no?).

>>54131876
>could also go for a better quality arcane gish class along the lines of pf magus + arcane archer subclass.

Warlock has some options.
fey Bladelock has a bow option in UA (moonbow I think it's called).
Also you could super easy homebrew eldritch blast into an archer skill. It has insane sniper range, It's customizable, and scales up. Dunno about epic levels but at 1-8 EB seems to hold up decently.

>>54147335
>Not sure, but having Sorcerer metamagic on all casters seems like a pretty damn sweet deal, and under this system at higher levels it'd cost you only a fraction of a level. Not to mention the havoc it wrecks on the unified progression of your proficiency and slots. A 1 level dip is definitely worth more than 1st level XP (which... would be 0 actually, no?).
Oh fuck, forgot about proficiencies. Yeah, that poses a problem.

>>54134987
I've seen PF GMs disallow classes for being too weak within the party, but never for being OP. At that point they usually just suggest dumb archetypes that make the weak classes pseudo-casters. Every single class has them, sometimes multiple ones that stack.

>>54146607

Remember it how you'd like, not even the official forum will back you up on that. DM after DM quit, game after game blew up, forum after forum soured on it. It was a fun system to homebrew for that played like a monkey fucking a football.

The system was beautiful in the abstract, but when you tried to play a real-time game with it the get up and go got up and went. Players had to track too much and the DM was caught between running full monsters like the forest wolves with the four interlocking skill progressions or resorting to slapping a Beast or Undead racial path onto one of the lines from the CR chart and calling it day.

I'm a happy little 5e player now, the kind that looks back at my old Pathfinder DM notes just for the amusement value of going "Oh God, what was I thinking?" on every single page. It wasn't just bad, it was amusingly bad.

But if you told me I had 30 minutes to prep a four-hour session in PF I could do it. I could grab the rulebook, Unchained, MM1, and the PFS pregens and actually put together something reasonably entertaining for an evening. The mechanics might be clunky, the balance might be off, the math might be over-complicated, there might be too many charts, but it would be a playable tabletop experience.

Legend never got to be that. That's why there's an active Paizo general and Legend is relegated to a bunch of "whatever happened to" threads on other forums, with a refrain of "It was great, I loved it, but I just had a problem with...." on them.

Legend was the fantasy heartbreaker that broke my heart.

>>54147079

>"Martials just have to stand there and do one thing. It's so boring it's unfair. You suck and your system sucks."

--description of Martial having fun doing Martial things--

>"How dare you make the Martials do all that when the casters get to just stand there and pick out one thing to do? It's so complicated it's unfair. You suck and your system sucks."

>>54147025

A balanced all-Cantrip class would be fucking amazing. And impossible.

>>54148225
I mean, if you want to read it that way, sure.

But it's not what I said.

I guess it's just that my expectations are a bit more complicated than "You move and attack these guys... BUT you sometimes move half as fast!"

>>54147128
They did in 4e but everybody hated it

>>54147289
So is barb

>>54148250
The warlock is basically a class built entirely around supporting casting the same cantrip the same way a fighter using the attack action. I would like to see a wizard archetype that specializes in cantrips though

>>54147341
Bladelocks don't actually get to summon bow pact weapons, its just if they attune to one the can use the moonbow invocation for extra damage. They rolled that function into eldritch smite in the revised ua

>>54148721
Why not a warlock archetype? They're already halfway there, and what's the sense in giving wizards even more toys?

>>54142987

> many races living mostly in harmony
> high social mobility
> romantic love

If you believe these are leftist ideas, then you have a very lacking understanding of reality.

>>54148788
Putting more attention to other cantrips on a warlock would just fall into the same traps as the bladelock in that the best you could hope for is extreme specialization to put your output almost on par with using eldritch blast with agonizing blast.

>>54147341
>he thinks he's going to find a magic bow to attune and use with pact weapon
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>54136772
I've made Skeletons weak to Bludgeoning and resistant to Piercing in my campaign. Is that weird?

>>54148830
And would you not be in the same situation with a cantrip only wizard, while also contending with the massive sacrifice you make just to be a shittier warlock?

>>54148703
... what? No they did not.

What the fuck anon?

>>54148924
4e had hybrids, everyone hated 4e. Simple.

>>54148863

Weird, no. IIRC it was that way in earlier editions, although in the 5e MM it's only the vulnerability to bludgeoning that's listed.

Be aware that effectively you're giving your skeletons double HP against Dex builds, though, and may need to resize encounters accordingly.

Also, if you have a Rogue or archer you may want to warn them ahead of time to make it clear it's a deliberate change meant to encourage different tactics in the encounter and not just an ass-pull to spite them in particular.

>>54148891
No, because you would still get wizard casting on top of that.

Warlock sucks in this regard cause he also has limited slots, so even if he wanted to, he couldn't really do anything else besides Hex->blast + maaaybe one spell until pretty high levels.

>>54148963
But that's not how hybrids work. Hybrids are gluing together two classes, that anon says you level the second class as if it had its own level.

>>54148987
Ah, I thought you meant to make a cantrrip only archetype. Seemed far more appropriate for lock specifically because it doesn't get much beyond suped up cantrips

File: 1347312535625.jpg (116KB, 500x405px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x405px

>>54131753
3.5/PF's monster classes, stating monsters on the same or at least a similar level as PCs. 5e monsters a sort of dull and they so many hit points that your party basically HAS to spec into damage just keep the fight from being a slog. The need for constant damage also devalues non-damaging combat actions even further since that's one more round of not plunking down the big-ass HP pools on everything.

While I'm not saying we need skill ranks and BAB exactly as they were again, it would be nice to have different levels of proficiency. Say an A-Prof that starts at +3 a B-Prof that starts at +2 and a C-Prof that starts at +1 or something like that.

It would be nice if the spell section was better organised. I miss quick descriptions and schools being listed right there.

>>54147017

Well it's not exactly hard to referee a tactical miniatures game.

Welp, this thread has once again proved that /tg/ doesn't actually read any of their splat books or rules and just spouts bullshit and parrots the misinformation spread within /tg/ the majority of the time, while about 1 out of 15 anon's actually bother to read the fucking rules of the system they care to play.

>>54146758
>They have a small number of limited use powers.
So does the Monk, the Barbarian, the Paladin, and most races that aren't human in 3.PF so what's your point?

>>54149370
Actually, most of the 4e powers are at-will/encounter, so they are much better off than them.

>>54148176
Using /tg/ threads as a measuring stick for a system's worth is retarded because the only games that people talk about on this fucking site is D&D, WH40K, and MtG.

There are plenty of people who'd probably want to talk about Legend if someone made a thread about it, it's just that more people like paying attention to shitposters who post the same threads over and over again or are more interested in talking about how /qst/ was the best/worst thing to happen to /tg/ in years.

>>54149370
those that fire "powers" like bullets are casters, those that keep hammering at stable rate all day are martials

>>54149155
Proving once again that D&D causes brain damage.

>>54149678
So DMM Cleric and wildshape Druid are martials, but Barbarian with its limited rage numbers, or monk with its limited stunning fist isn't?

Trolling aside, there's like 4-5 essentials classes that do that, and most of the optimized charge hybrids only do that one thing, but they do it all day long.

>>54140480
>Monk is still MAD in 5e
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Rules for Epic levels and more insanely deadly monsters for such characters. The "boons" that you get aren't really that good, not as good as epic destinies in 4e anyway.

>>54149749
Are you talking about epic rules for 5e (shit) or mythic rules for PF (super broken if caster, shit to meh if martial)?

>>54140480

God I miss 4e's 'Here is a power. Jump your movement speed. Bam, done' monk stuff.

>>54149559

Legend. Bombed.

Move. On.

File: 1487233373587.png (80KB, 211x244px)

80KB, 211x244px

>>54149923
>If I don't see a dozen threads for it, it must mean that it was a huge failure and nobody likes it.

>>54149763
No, I mean levels beyond 20. i.e., a 25th level Wizard has X level Y spell slots and a prof. bonus of Z.

>>54131768
This, Real character options like the skill system

>>54148863
>>54148981
I would create a type of undead for each:
Skeletons resist pierce, weak to blunt
Zombies resist blunt, weak to slash
Spooky (white sheet ghost) resist blunt, weak to pierce

And so on. I miss the times a fighter would sheat its sword and grab a club.

>>54150142
>I miss the time when a fighter had to waste a full attack to draw a weapon

>>54131882
The number of times someone just wanted to hold their action and had to pick a cappy "if this happens"

>>54150142

>And so on. I miss the times a fighter would sheat its sword and grab a club.

You'd want to make sure there is options for each class in that case for each type. Rogues are rather short on blunt options.

4e Ki Foci and Inherent Bonuses were something I loved on that front. A ki focus applies to any single weapon you wield. My Avenger gets a lot of work out of her Rain of Hammers ki focus (Lets her do a little damage to a nearby target whenever she fells a foe, so she can combo her way through groups of minions) and it works both Unarmed and with her Sword.

>>54150197
>Area damage
>To minions
I thought you chouldn't area damage minions

>>54132160
>caster supremacy is still as troublesome as ever.
That is not true in 5th IMO. It is about the only thing I like in reskinned 4th ed to look like 3,5 ed that is 5thED

>>54150210
You can't damage minions on a miss, area damage is the best way to take out minions

>>54150210

Nah, minions are immune to damage on a miss.

They've got the 4e equivalent of Evasion basically because they have 2 states 'You haven't dealt them a solid blow' and 'Taken out'.

Rain of Hammers works a lot like Magic Missile. No rolls, no hit or miss, just a small amount of damage. It's part of the reason why monks (And anyone else using it) devour minions like candy.

>>54149957

As opposed to pretending there's a vast, active community in love with the game that plays it so constantly they can't find the time to say a nice word about it on the internet? People were ripping into it the week 1.0 came out http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52886&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=125

Your game sucked. People tried it, hated it, and it died. People don't play it, people don't talk about it, It can't even get enough traction to keep its own official forum going. Stop digging the corpse up, it stinks.

>>54132223
LOL one the the reason I loved to play Role Master in the day. Level cap on how high you can buy a skill but you get to spend the point any way you wanted. Killed the "I only good at combat so these just murder Hobo already" BS

>>54150244
More like it's just ok, and to succeed, you either need a pre-existing playerbase a-la D&D, or you need to do something brilliant

Legend has neither of those, it's just ok, no one hated it, they just didn't care enough about it to play it when so many more people play other games that are just as good

>>54150244
I don't see constant threads for Mouse Guard or Paranoia or any of the other more niche tabletop RPGs but that doesn't mean that they don't have an audience.

I mean seriously anon, did "Legend" murder your family or something? Because you seem pretty butthurt over it to continue claiming that it's dead just because it doesn't get daily bait threads on this shitty board.

File: Slowpoke.png (1MB, 1174x881px)

1MB, 1174x881px

I want to GM my first pathfinder campaign, do you guys have any plot ideas/tips?
I also don't know which monsters I should use that are neither overpowered nor underpowered

A good melee caster (magus for example), a good artificer because my god does the current UA version suck, and probably more feats.

>>54150551
The monster CR is ok starting point. go to you tube and watch GM tips videos. Some are good. Best to start with players that already know the game and set up your limits before. We using theses books and yes/no 3 party stuff . The more you GM the better you get. Well most people get LOL

>>54150551
Firstly, look up the tiers and figure out where you want your campaign's power level to be, because what's challenging for a T1/T2 class is downright impossible for a T5/T6 classes and what's challenging for T5/T6 is a cakewalk for every other tier.

Be consistent in your power levels and don't be afraid to put your foot down if someone decides to go outside of the campaign's tiers, so no Fighters in a party comprised of Wizards, Druids, and Clerics and no Wizards in a party comprised of Monks, Rogues, and Fighters.

Secondly, realize that the CR system is busted, like a giant bee that kills itself whenever it attacks is in the same CR bracket as a ghoul that can paralyze you with a touch and produce more ghouls whenever it kills someone, so actually go into each CR bracket and research which monsters seem appropriate for the party to fight.

Lastly, don't invite people who have played the system before if you're including newbies as well, it never works out in the long run.

>>54150551
Try to stick to the basics of the system. Core only at first even if there is a lot of useful 3rd and 1st party content you can use to fix issues with the system.
Know your players and make the game according to what they are like, such as trying to hold back powergaming ones or fudging stuff if they can't into building.

>>54148225
Because as much as you can fluff that up to look impressive, the fighter isn't doing anything unique mechanically. It's the equivalent of a wizard describing how he's weaving an illusion to its minor details to fool his enemies. It's nice and all from a roleplay standpoint, but isn't actually changing anything as far as dice rolling goes, it's just good roleplay you can do with any character in any system.
That you have to create situations where fighters have more things to do(but contribute less to a battle, where, if it was possible to simply unload all their attacks, they'd fight better) but that isn't needed for mages since they have various options already shows a flaw in the system that you have to fix.

>>54150632
What are your thoughts of mystic and hexblade?

>>54151115
Hexblade feels like a step in the right direction, and while mystic is pretty versatile it's melee build got shafted.

No unique disciples, and RAW you have to form both knives when you conjure soulknife. So you can't use your offhand for anythint. I know that an easy house rule fixes that but it still annoying they made that the official ruling.

>>54149781
God 4e Monks were fun as hell.

>>54150197
Ki Foci are one of those things I'm still fucking amazed no other edition of D&D's tried doing yet.

Our PF DM even threw one into his game because he thinks they're a great idea, and it REALLY helped out our Barbarian who was focusing everything on using improvised weaponry.

>>54151772
What I wanna know is how magic Woads have not become a thing after decades of shirtless barbarians running around

>>54132766
The fact that DEX is superior defensive attribute (better AC, better reflex saves, better initiative aka best defense is good offense) while it provides roughly the same damage benefits as STR is an issue.

If you could add either STR or DEX to AC, it would make things a little bit more reasonable.

>>54152007

Str has vastly better damage due to the lack of 2 handed dex weapons.

>>54152007
Well you can add str in a way - heavy armor is for that. Now we just need a way to remove dex from AC once figting....

>>54152028
Feats are "optional" though

>>54152056

Ah yes 'Optional'

>>54131826
>Choose what you want to do
It's best that way for me

>>54152056
Feats are optional in the sense that so are miniatures and a table.

>>54152182
miniatures are more optional than feats

you can use dice or coins in place of miniatures

>>54152291
Or none at all in 5e.

>>54152291
"Using feats is about optional as using a physical object as a representation of your character to more easily visualize what is currently happening on the table at any given time"

>>54152406
if you want to take fucking forever getting anything done sure.

>>54152815
Its not at all a problem if all combat is basic attacks occurring on a blank featureless plane. Or better yet is avoided altogether by a well prepared spell. Only idiots play DND as an engaging combat simulator

>>54152908
>Only idiots play DnD as how it was intended

>>54152908
>avoid entire combat with 1 spell
Good luck doing that in any edition before mid to high level?

>>54153024
>Only idiots play DnD

File: 1498493327149.gif (282KB, 400x296px)

282KB, 400x296px

>>54153040

>>54153024
I feel like there should be some sarcasm fonbt option for when posting

>>54153026
Sleep was made for that purpose in low level play

>>54153247
Average roll on sleep is 22.5. That's about 3/4 goblins or 2 wolves. Not a full combat for level 1s or higher.

>>54150218
>5e is 4e reskinned to look like 3.x.
Is really not .
More like AD&D reskinned to look like 3.x

There's no minions, and everyone doesn't function on encounter powers.

>>54132047
This. The best written rules in the world won't make the game fun if you're playing with a bag of cunts.

>>54153561
Yeah. Some people function on daily powers.

God forbid you try to play the game without a strictly enfored quota of daily encounters. Every fucking fight turns into the party alphastriking everyone to hell.

>>54150551
Use everything 1st party in d20pfsrd for options, plus psionics from DSP.
Pick a tier and allow classes up to one tier away in either direction. I'd pick tier 2.
Advise the use of class guides unless your players are experienced pathfinder players.

The only books you want are core (for convenient core rules referencing) - you could print out the text only pdf that's free on d20pfsrd if you want, or use pdfs, or whatever, it doesn't matter,

Setting books like inner sea world guide and inner sea gods and faction/adventurers guide for whatever setting you're using if any,

And any DM books you want like bestiaries / npc codices, adventures / dmg / whatever that will make your job easier.

There are some optional subsystems in apg/ultimate campaign /dmg/unchained, but you won't need those in your first campaign.

>>54151933
We have Magic tattoos and unguents. That's basically the same, no?

>>54153760
For some reason, the expected encounters per day settings to be around 8-9 for some stupid reason.

We struggle even getting 5 out, and even then we always have to turn back because the fighter is almost dead, and not because we're running out of spells or anything.

>>54132465
Disagree. Just play creatively. Run, hide, and ambush. Grapple, shove prone. Use fittings, furniture and npcs in the room.

Unless your DM is making you fight in empty rooms 20ft square, there's no excuse for melee to be dull. Certainly when compared to eldritch blast spam.

>>54153884
We tried to run a Wilderness exploration game with 5e. It really didn't work out, for pretty much the opposite reason. If they aren't in a situation where they're getting slammed with encounters until they drop, they're usually going into most fights with most of their resources intact. And since 5e PCs have a LOT of resources that work around the idea of having to conserve them through multiple encounters... yeah.

I guess it just makes everyone the wizard, in a way, and extends the same design woes to everyone.

>>54153973
Unless you have constant 50 foot+ drops to push people off of, you're going to almost always be way better off just attacking them in 5e.

>>54153986
You just throw deadly encounters at them. Thanks to flat math they will still be able to affect higher level monsters but they'll soon feel the pain.

>>54154551
and then they get paranoid, start taking more rests, have more resources for each encounter, stomp it harder, and the cycle continues.

>>54154590

>Not interuptting sleep with monster attacks.

>Not reinforcing dungeons that the parties decide to invade then run off and have a nap in.

>Not hitting the players with disease, hunger , thirst , exhaustion and other non hp forms of damage.

>Not creating objectives the players need to accomplish within certain time limits. Or just objectives in general beyond don't die.

>Not finding ways to separate the party , steal their shit, threaten their villages/favourite NPC/base, giving them hard choices and putting them in difficult spots.

>Not taking away the wizards spell book

>Not having pc>NPC>pc triangles to create further dramatic conflict beyond I hit it with my sword lol

>Not having encounters that are deadly in of themselves. As in they challenge a maxed out party not to wipe or lose a member.

Don't blame the system for scrub tier, unimaginitive dming.

>>54154969
Also intellect devourers. Good luck sleeping off a creature burrowing into your brain, turning it into liquid and replacing it.

>>54142987
UK is made of many races and cultures even before we start importing third worlders here.
Aside from some initial cultural clashes, living in harmony is pretty easy once everyone display the willingness to work and be nice to each other. The last part is the most important part since idiots forget that everyone, regardless of races and culture, hate assholes.

Also get out of your room once in a while and go to the library to read up history there instead of in forums if you think both are incompatible when it already happened for a long time ago.

>>54154969
Are you implying this won't make them more paranoid? Because on top of needing more resources for the tougher encounters, they also need to conserve them for the constant night ambushes.

>>54154192
>Not having enemies with such high AC the only way to get through them is to sunder/shield disarm

>Not having NPC's grapple the casters so they can't cast somatic spells (inb4 grapple doesn't work like that. It does in any game that makes sense)

>Not running zombies with weak brains , vampires with weak hearts and hydras with weak necks (long as you have some fire )

>Not creating encounters over falling bridges , across towering mountains, along rushing rivers.

I think I'm.the best GM here by the sounds of it.

>>54155041
How is this a bad thing?

You seem.to want the contradictory goals of players not being afraid, conservative and careful but also somehow being constantly challenged.

You alternatively can accept the players are heroes and are meant to win most of their fights and just let it be as it is. Or you can challenge them.

>>54155041
If things are time sensitive, then they have to weigh the cost of resting against the cost of not resting.

If they rest too much, they don't stop the demon cultists in time, and now instead of cultists, they're facing a dozen demons.

>>54154590
>Not having some hornblowing cunt staying out of fireball range pumping out Careless whisper in b minor so they can't rest for as long as the bastard can keep up.

Really the thing about per encounter/per day type abilities is that it enforces a certain pacing to near every single damn adventure you'll ever run. Makes d&d a lot less flexible in what the gm can do and still have gameplay hold up.

>>54155133
I've never run a mountainside encounter where they could fall off, consider that nabbed.

Rivers are okay.

You can only do so many crumbling bridges.

There's no sunder support in 5e.

Grapple doesn't work like that. It's like grabbing their arm. You're talking about pinning them.

How do you handle such called shots in 5e?

>>54155370
Then how do you plan to fix casters?

>>54155480
Ntgb

I've been wanting to take 5e and it's MP subsystem, and expand that to all the classes and all of the limited use abilities, then you can play with refresh rules and how many points you get in order to change the balance.

>>54155498
That's not a bad plan.
You also can make areas where MP for certain characters/classes easier/harder to get during battle/daily life to make things more different, tactical and exciting.

>>54150214
5e is reskinned Essentials at best.

And even then it fails.

>>54155688
Sure. I can see that with the massive power difference between players and everything else, with pcs killing enemies by the dozen every turn, every attack pushing and pulling people around the battlefield, and how everything but psionics uses the same power framework.

Oh wait... Not at all. It's not like 4e or 45., imo.

Can you justify your position?

>>54155544
Yeah. But first you need a single shared unified limited resource.

>>54156142
>>54155688
It sounds like you both have the same opinion

>>54156876
He seems to be saying it's at least somewhat like essentials. I don't think it's like any variety of 4e, aside from the fact that healing surges exist in 5e as "hit dice".