Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What Would You Want from PF2?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7596534" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>In a lot of ways, 5e is a lateral from 3.5, and the Rogue is one of them. The 5e Rogue can count on SA working against a wider range of foes, but he can't snowball SA damage with iterative attacks, he doesn't get a huge advantage in number of skills or skill points but does get expertise. </p><p></p><p> It's an example of D&D when the game was, however briefly & unpopularly, delivering class balance and, more to the point, the strongest role support for the defensive fighter/offensive rogue dynamic you said you were hoping would 'finally' appear in PF2. No "finally" when it was already done 10 years ago. </p><p></p><p> I disagree with 'bare bones' and 'goodness.' The 3.x fighter was wonderfully customizeable, and perhaps the strongest example of D&D every being 'simple' to the point of /elegance/. That it lacked the profound brokenness of classes with supernatural power - "supernatural badness," let's say - is just a matter of being all alone as a good class design (though I'd argue the 3e Sorcerer was also as good a design as could be hoped for while leveraging wizard legacy spells).</p><p></p><p>Not to a meaningful degree. First of all, 5e loosens restrictions on magic. 5e casters enjoy spontaneous casting, prepped casting, out-of-combat slotless ritual casting, /and/ at-will cantrips, for instance. Access to at-will or 'free' out-of-combat magic is something TSR era casters didn't get, at all (and greatly coveted), and 3e casters barely got a taste of late in the ed. Spontaneous casting was the 3e Socrecer's whole schtick, and such a profound advantage, that even crippled by few spells known, it was a pretty serious Tier 2 class. And the sheer number of daily slots 5e casters gets dwarfs the availability (and power) of dailies 4e classes got. </p><p>Then consider casting spells successfully - casting in melee in 1e was a rules nightmare and the physical restrictions imposed by components were very tight, in 2e hardly better, in 3e required a cheese-able Concentration check, in 4e, at least provoked like all range/area attacks, and in 5e, nuth'n, you just cast. 5e 'Concentration' is restricted to a very small number of spells, some of them quite powerful, and is much less restrictive than the 1e version (which was less formal, but very restrictive, with any hit ending concentration on a spell with that duration) and less common than the 4e version (which required you expend an action every round to maintain such spells). (Concentration was really another lateral move, it means that casters can't load up on pre-cast spells the way that was de rigur in 3.x, but, along with BA, it also means they don't /need/ to, the demand on spell slots is much lower, giving them more flexibility to use every slot optimally.)</p><p></p><p>Compared to any and every other edition, 5e casters have it pretty easy. The reduction in sheer numbers of spells to choose from relative to 3.5 makes system mastery less of a factor in creating an effective caster, but there are still very good spells. The (Over) power(edness) of the most potent 5e spells is arguably dialed down from 3e, when casters were insanely OP, but also dialed way up from 4e, when casters were nearly-balanced.</p><p></p><p></p><p> Yep. It's a design choice that helps accessibility - a new/casual player is less likely to feel left out because his off-the rack character feels non-contributing in combat for want of big damage numbers - at the cost of role-support (but then there are no roles, so no foul, right?).</p><p></p><p>Though it lost SC's, 5e retained the group check, and, between that and BA, a DM can let the whole party participate in many of the activities that in other eds might have been rogue-solo. I guess that further 'hoses' the rogue, in the sense you mean, though. ;(</p><p></p><p>Then there's the Fighter with even fewer tricks than the rogue - and the barbarian, for that, matter, is pretty trick-less, even if he does have sleeves, which seems far from certain given the stereotypes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that's an entirely justifiable hope, given Paizo's record. Certainly moreso than trying to hold onto any hopes regarding 5e & WotC.</p><p></p><p> Well, and 2e fighters doing absurd damage by combining multiple attacks from leveling, (double) specialization, and TWF. And, at first, with things like Bull's Strength being very long-duration and ideal to give to an already-high-STR character, the spells didn't entirely hurt, either. The 'lack of aggro' was something noticed by the growing portion of the fanbase that was familiar with MMOs - to us old-timers (who were already old-timers in 2000, that is), it was just SOP for the players to put the fighter in front, and the DM to have the monsters attack said fighter. </p><p></p><p>Nothing about everyone finally getting on one exp chart broke class balance let alone the game, though, it just made it easier to compare just how imbalanced the classes were. </p><p></p><p>Overall, 3.x/d20/PF was a huge improvement over the WotC era - the mechanics were simpler, clearer & more consistent and players got many more options, some of them even meaningful. </p><p>There were just some giant-sized holes in 3.x that system masters could exploit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7596534, member: 996"] In a lot of ways, 5e is a lateral from 3.5, and the Rogue is one of them. The 5e Rogue can count on SA working against a wider range of foes, but he can't snowball SA damage with iterative attacks, he doesn't get a huge advantage in number of skills or skill points but does get expertise. It's an example of D&D when the game was, however briefly & unpopularly, delivering class balance and, more to the point, the strongest role support for the defensive fighter/offensive rogue dynamic you said you were hoping would 'finally' appear in PF2. No "finally" when it was already done 10 years ago. I disagree with 'bare bones' and 'goodness.' The 3.x fighter was wonderfully customizeable, and perhaps the strongest example of D&D every being 'simple' to the point of /elegance/. That it lacked the profound brokenness of classes with supernatural power - "supernatural badness," let's say - is just a matter of being all alone as a good class design (though I'd argue the 3e Sorcerer was also as good a design as could be hoped for while leveraging wizard legacy spells). Not to a meaningful degree. First of all, 5e loosens restrictions on magic. 5e casters enjoy spontaneous casting, prepped casting, out-of-combat slotless ritual casting, /and/ at-will cantrips, for instance. Access to at-will or 'free' out-of-combat magic is something TSR era casters didn't get, at all (and greatly coveted), and 3e casters barely got a taste of late in the ed. Spontaneous casting was the 3e Socrecer's whole schtick, and such a profound advantage, that even crippled by few spells known, it was a pretty serious Tier 2 class. And the sheer number of daily slots 5e casters gets dwarfs the availability (and power) of dailies 4e classes got. Then consider casting spells successfully - casting in melee in 1e was a rules nightmare and the physical restrictions imposed by components were very tight, in 2e hardly better, in 3e required a cheese-able Concentration check, in 4e, at least provoked like all range/area attacks, and in 5e, nuth'n, you just cast. 5e 'Concentration' is restricted to a very small number of spells, some of them quite powerful, and is much less restrictive than the 1e version (which was less formal, but very restrictive, with any hit ending concentration on a spell with that duration) and less common than the 4e version (which required you expend an action every round to maintain such spells). (Concentration was really another lateral move, it means that casters can't load up on pre-cast spells the way that was de rigur in 3.x, but, along with BA, it also means they don't /need/ to, the demand on spell slots is much lower, giving them more flexibility to use every slot optimally.) Compared to any and every other edition, 5e casters have it pretty easy. The reduction in sheer numbers of spells to choose from relative to 3.5 makes system mastery less of a factor in creating an effective caster, but there are still very good spells. The (Over) power(edness) of the most potent 5e spells is arguably dialed down from 3e, when casters were insanely OP, but also dialed way up from 4e, when casters were nearly-balanced. Yep. It's a design choice that helps accessibility - a new/casual player is less likely to feel left out because his off-the rack character feels non-contributing in combat for want of big damage numbers - at the cost of role-support (but then there are no roles, so no foul, right?). Though it lost SC's, 5e retained the group check, and, between that and BA, a DM can let the whole party participate in many of the activities that in other eds might have been rogue-solo. I guess that further 'hoses' the rogue, in the sense you mean, though. ;( Then there's the Fighter with even fewer tricks than the rogue - and the barbarian, for that, matter, is pretty trick-less, even if he does have sleeves, which seems far from certain given the stereotypes. I think that's an entirely justifiable hope, given Paizo's record. Certainly moreso than trying to hold onto any hopes regarding 5e & WotC. Well, and 2e fighters doing absurd damage by combining multiple attacks from leveling, (double) specialization, and TWF. And, at first, with things like Bull's Strength being very long-duration and ideal to give to an already-high-STR character, the spells didn't entirely hurt, either. The 'lack of aggro' was something noticed by the growing portion of the fanbase that was familiar with MMOs - to us old-timers (who were already old-timers in 2000, that is), it was just SOP for the players to put the fighter in front, and the DM to have the monsters attack said fighter. Nothing about everyone finally getting on one exp chart broke class balance let alone the game, though, it just made it easier to compare just how imbalanced the classes were. Overall, 3.x/d20/PF was a huge improvement over the WotC era - the mechanics were simpler, clearer & more consistent and players got many more options, some of them even meaningful. There were just some giant-sized holes in 3.x that system masters could exploit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What Would You Want from PF2?
Top