D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

Satyrn · Oct 17, 2017

Fanaelialae said:
I'd be surprised if the players are being turned away because you don't allow UA. My guess would be it is because you don't allow feats and multiclassing (which we would have even if the PHB were the only 5e book).

My guess is it has nothing to do with the mechanics in use.

I did my share of looking for a group through ads and the like back in 3e. Through accessdenied.com mostly.

The key factor - pretty much the only factor - was "Will I enjoy playing with these people?" I'd have played Pathfinder if I liked the people and that's what they played.

(I'm glad my group doesn't want to play Pathfinder)

Tony Vargas · Oct 17, 2017

pming said:
I know there are quite a few vocal folks on ye olde 'net that clamour for ever more "choices" in 5e. I get that. Not my cup o' brew, but to each their own. That said...

I *thought* one of the key selling points of 5e was "simplified" (yes, the CORE system is that) with a focus on individual DM and Player creativity...specifically, "to avoid the proliferation of all the minutia that plagued 3.x/4e/PF" (in a nutshell). I also remember some promise about not having a "book of the month" club that 3.x/4/PF had/have. Technically, that's probably true..

'Technically.' There has been one non-core book with some player-facing character-choice content published in the last 3 years, and one about to be. Book-a-month would've been, what 38 supplements by now?

.but to me they were being a bit shady to me. We may not get a new book every month...but we get new "Sage Advice" and "Unearthed Arcana" every month; and that stuff seems to be regarded by the masses as more or less "official".

Meh. The total content of all the UAs doesn't add up to more than one or maybe two (it's a little unfocused) 3e/PF style supplements. And the quality is closer to what I'd've associated with 3pp supplements in the 3e era.

Why is this a problem? From where we sit (me and my group), it's made recruiting people for 5e virtually IMPOSSIBLE. An advert for "two or three 5e players for a weekly, Sunday game, 3pm to 7pm, give or take a half hour"...may get calls and emails, but the moment I say "Er, no, we don't use Feats, or Multiclassing, or stuff from SA or UA unless we all agree before hand and I don't see a problem with it, campaign wise"...POOF! No more interest. At all.

Well, that's fair. I mean, you want to play a certain way, they want to play another way, each to his own.

The problem in the past was that new players would be 'intimidated' by the yards of shelf-space and seemingly-duplicated titles and just think "there's too much to this game, it's not worth even checking out," or "this looks amazing, but I don't know where to start." 5e, you start with the starter set, or thePH to jump in at the deep end. Not so bad.

Yaarel · Oct 17, 2017

pming said:
Is anyone else out there in the same boat that we are? If you don't use the "so-called OPTIONAL" stuff mentioned, your chance of finding a game or players is virtually zilch?

I appreciate the additional options. Heh, I am still waiting for certain options that would make the game less problematic for me. But also, I like customizability in its own right. Sometimes the designers produce something that I as a gamer dont feel it. So, when the designers give me tools and tell me, ‘Ok, you decide what you like’ − for me, that is a win.

For players who want a simple gaming system, I can understand the appeal. Fewer moving parts, with more consistent balance, no feats, no choice paralysis. Yet it seems to me, if this is the gaming style that I am going for, why am I even looking at UA articles and new splatbooks? I would just the 5e SRD, and done. Or maybe 5e Basic, and done.

If I as a DM want a core-of-the-core style game, and at the same time happen to find something that I love in a UA article, why not just sneak it into the game. Heh, the hard work of a DM deserves at least some entitlement.

Satyrn · Oct 17, 2017

DEFCON 1 said:
Their design philosophy is not PHB+1. That is only the rule for their Organized Play.

Aye. Their design philosophy actually seems to be "don't make the players buy supplement X to use supplement Y."

Or "make each supplement independent of all but the PHB."

So it is sorta like PHB+1. (But aye, that phrase is from the organized play rules)

ccs · Oct 17, 2017

thethain said:
Honestly I am more bothered by the Player options be interspersed in bits and pieces across books. The player races from Volos should have been included in XGTE to make it a more solid PHB2. It is less than 10% of Volos but for many players, the only important part. To me it felt more like WotC making sure players have a reason to buy Volos instead of just DMs, ensuring more sales.

It kinda smacks against their design philosophy of "PHB+1" if the marketing philosophy of "Make sure players have a reason to buy the book" takes precedence.

You're confusing Adventure League PHB+1 restrictions with real D&D.
You shouldn't do that.

And yes, putting player based options in things like Volo's to boost sales is EXACTLY the plan. And a good one as well. Because if you're only going to release 1 or 2 non-adventure books a year, then you better sell as many of them as possible.

Dausuul · Oct 17, 2017

pming said:
Why is this a problem? From where we sit (me and my group), it's made recruiting people for 5e virtually IMPOSSIBLE. An advert for "two or three 5e players for a weekly, Sunday game, 3pm to 7pm, give or take a half hour"...may get calls and emails, but the moment I say "Er, no, we don't use Feats, or Multiclassing, or stuff from SA or UA unless we all agree before hand and I don't see a problem with it, campaign wise"...POOF! No more interest. At all.

It's one thing to ban UA, which is explicitly non-finalized playtest material. It's quite another to whack out an entire chapter from the Player's Handbook itself. Yes, feats and MCing are optional, but they're pretty darn popular options. You're cutting your player pool way down by forbidding them and you should not be surprised by that.

I don't see what on earth this has to do with Pathfinder or 3E. There has been, to date, exactly one (1) official rules supplement with new player options, and you don't even mention it on your list of banned material.

Fanaelialae · Oct 17, 2017

Satyrn said:
My guess is it has nothing to do with the mechanics in use.

I did my share of looking for a group through ads and the like back in 3e. Through accessdenied.com mostly.

The key factor - pretty much the only factor - was "Will I enjoy playing with these people?" I'd have played Pathfinder if I liked the people and that's what they played.

(I'm glad my group doesn't want to play Pathfinder)

It will vary from person to person, but I think mechanics can be a factor. While ideally a player is making a character for the campaign, that's not always the case.

Maybe I want to play a character based on Grey Mouser. You can sort of do it with maybe Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, but to really do the concept justice you need multiclassing.

Or maybe I have an idea for an archeologist based on Daniel Jackson (Stargate). Unless the DM is willing to work with me on a unique background the covers the same ground, the Linguist feat is kind of central to the concept.

Obviously the group is also important, but depending on the medium you use to get in contact, that may be harder to gauge until you've actually played a session or two with them.

Satyrn · Oct 17, 2017

Fanaelialae said:
It will vary from person to person, but I think mechanics can be a factor. While ideally a player is making a character for the campaign, that's not always the case.

Maybe I want to play a character based on Grey Mouser. You can sort of do it with maybe Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster, but to really do the concept justice you need multiclassing.

Or maybe I have an idea for an archeologist based on Daniel Jackson (Stargate). Unless the DM is willing to work with me on a unique background the covers the same ground, the Linguist feat is kind of central to the concept.

Obviously the group is also important, but depending on the medium you use to get in contact, that may be harder to gauge until you've actually played a session or two with them.

Certainly possible. But that's still my guess

Though I must admit my guess may very well be wrong, since pming said they turned down his game before ever playing, and I had at least one session with all the groups I tried.

dropbear8mybaby · Oct 17, 2017

sim-h said:
You must be spoilt for choice over in the States if players can afford to pick and choose their DM.

I regularly throw players out as I have dozens waiting in line begging to be part of my legendary games. Some even pay me just to speak to them for five minutes about their characters. I also charge for autographs.