• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

5E (5e + PF2e)/2?

robus

Lowcountry Low Roller
And the current CRs actually work for some people. I think it is just easier for them to publish a separate encounter guideline for hardcore or advanced gamers. That with some more advanced options of existing monsters (which they are already doing) and the issue is solved., IMO.
That’s a great way to handle an “advanced” mode and actually the table approach like in Xanathar’s would be a great way to present it.

The whole reason we have these encounter guidelines is to identify the challenge range where the outcome is uncertain. Too easy for the PCs - outcome is certain, too hard for the PCs outcome also certain: TPK! :) Our problem with 5e has been that the outcome of too many combats has been certain: the PCs win with ease and thus the dissatisfaction. Simply providing an alternate table where the CRs are recalculated would be ideal. And then companions to published adventures could be made available on DMs Guild to make scaling them up easy.
 
Last edited:

aramis erak

Explorer
I hear a lot of complaints on the PF forums that 5e does have enough options and is not tactical enough. However, for me PF2e is not just adding some depth and options, but a lot more fiddle bits and complexity. To much for my taste. So I have a few questions for forum foragers:

  1. Is there a RPG that has the simplicity of 5e with some more depth and tactical options like PF2e (or 4e really)?
  2. Can you add depth and tactics to 5e without losing much of its simplicity / streamlined play?
  3. Assumed “yes” to #2: how would you do it?
To start here are my thoughts on an answer to #3 (which means I think #2 is a yes):
  • I would give tactical options to monsters (I’m already doing that)
  • add tactically oriented subclasses
  • Maybe rework feats to be half or mini feats and spread them across more levels
5E's simplicity is in the limited math: roll the die, add a static value.

Several tactical options are in the DMG...
  • Facing
  • Flanking
  • Speed Factor
  • Every turn initiative
  • Marking target
  • Move through opponents via .... Overrun, Shove Aside, Tumble
  • Hitting/damaging cover
  • Cleaving through targets
  • Lingering injuries
  • Massive Damage
  • NPC/Monster Morale

Some more simple ones to add in, tho' all at once may be problematic

  • Use more terrain in your tactical maps, and make it worthy as cover and/or concealment.
  • grab the AD&D weapon table (the one in the AD&D tools CD adds to attacker's To Hit AC0, so is a bonus to target's ac.
  • Use a hit location table. I'd recommend the one from Hero System - it includes damage multipliers and damages scale reasonably well - or from Chaosium's BRP (note the HP by location rules therein)
  • Reduce all hit dice one step (making HP matter more) (which reduces THP by 1+(Number ofHD)).
    (BX/BECMI used C=d6, F=d8, MU=d4, Th=d4, My=d6; my experience is that players are much more careful when they have fewer HP)
  • Make armor a damage reduction instead of to hit TN increase. (Natural AC should also do this; only dex and magic.) This means more hits, but less damage each. Allow narrative ways to work around armor, possibly including hit location.
  • Size affects AC: +1 AC per size under medium, -1 per size over medium. This encourages smaller PCs...
  • Size affects class HP: -1 hp/level per size under medium, +1 hp/level per size over medium. Minimum HP = level.
  • Allow attacks to damage armor or weapons.
  • Make each HP of damage also a 1 point penalty to an attribute. Totally nerfs high level HP...

Similar in-between complexity can be had by using Cyclopedia D&D (but it's descending AC) or one of the various psuedoclones or retroclones using ascending AC.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I hear a lot of complaints on the PF forums that 5e does have enough options and is not tactical enough. However, for me PF2e is not just adding some depth and options, but a lot more fiddle bits and complexity. To much for my taste. So I have a few questions for forum foragers:

  1. Is there a RPG that has the simplicity of 5e with some more depth and tactical options like PF2e (or 4e really)?
  2. Can you add depth and tactics to 5e without losing much of its simplicity / streamlined play?
  3. Assumed “yes” to #2: how would you do it?
It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. What if 5e had half or even a quarter of what Pathfinder has. 5e's feat options are very, very limited, as are the number of sub-classes. There's plenty of room for more, without going anywhere near what 3e, 4e and PF I and II have.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. What if 5e had half or even a quarter of what Pathfinder has. 5e's feat options are very, very limited, as are the number of sub-classes. There's plenty of room for more, without going anywhere near what 3e, 4e and PF I and II have.
I agree, I even stated that in the OP. Personally, I think it could be done with just a few modifications to 5e really. The simple chassis of 5e allows for mods quite well, IMO
 

Matrix Sorcica

Explorer
It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. What if 5e had half or even a quarter of what Pathfinder has. 5e's feat options are very, very limited, as are the number of sub-classes. There's plenty of room for more, without going anywhere near what 3e, 4e and PF I and II have.
I also agree. I get the feeling more and more that my own personal heartbreaker is a game based on the 5e chassis with some PF2 elements tacked on.
If only I had the time....
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
I think your on the right track. I like the idea of extra attack giving you another attack for the same action cost and I agree you probably need to make "move" an action if you do that. However, I might just make that a fighter ability, or perhaps they have a feature that removes the DA from the 2nd and/or 3rd attack.
It might not have been clear in my original comment. The way I want Extra Attack to work so far is not to give additional attacks as part of existing actions, but rather for each additional attack given by the feature in the current system, to remove the disadvantage on an additional attack. So a Level 5 Fighter can make two attacks without disadvantage and a Level 11 fighter could make all three attacks without disadvantage. Of course, fighters get a 4th attack at 20, so perhaps they would gain an ability to make two attacks in one action.

And then other abilities that allow extra attacks as bonus actions will allow for an additional attack without disadvantage as long as whatever their particular requirements are. So two-weapon fighting lets you make two attacks without disadvantage as long as their light weapons. Monk martial arts would let you make another attack with disadvantage as long as you use an unarmed attack (or monk weapon?).

Then you've got weirder stuff like the monk's flurry of blows. This would also let you attack twice in one action. I'm undecided on how that should affect or be affected by multi-attack penalty.

I really like the idea of people making weapon attacks having the option to make more attacks at penalty, as is portrayed in PF2 where you choose each action individually. If you hit twice, maybe you do something else with your third. If you miss twice, maybe you go all in. Etc. I like the dynamics.
 

Myrhdraak

Explorer
Well I have been playing with the idea to take one of my 4th Edition Class Compendiums and rework the damage output to match the 5e damage levels. Then release it on DM's Guild. You would then have all the 4th Edition combat powers to fit into the 5e class system. Would love to see something like that from WotC, but I am not expecting it. Maybe with PF2 coming out, they might want to do it to meet the Pathfinder competition? However, I do not think WotC would allow it to be published on DM's Guild.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Well I have been playing with the idea to take one of my 4th Edition Class Compendiums and rework the damage output to match the 5e damage levels. Then release it on DM's Guild. You would then have all the 4th Edition combat powers to fit into the 5e class system. Would love to see something like that from WotC, but I am not expecting it. Maybe with PF2 coming out, they might want to do it to meet the Pathfinder competition? However, I do not think WotC would allow it to be published on DM's Guild.
I think that is an interesting idea and you do great work. I think it would be absolutely acceptable for the DMsGuild. That is kind of the point. You probably couldn't do it with the OGL, but the DMsGuild should be just fine. Have at it!
 

Myrhdraak

Explorer
Maybe I should give it a shot. Question is which class one should start with? Probably the martial classes. Those are the one's that are boring to play in 5e. Maybe I should give the fighter a try, and then potentially the Warlord, which are missed on the forums, as far as I can tell.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Maybe I should give it a shot. Question is which class one should start with? Probably the martial classes. Those are the one's that are boring to play in 5e. Maybe I should give the fighter a try, and then potentially the Warlord, which are missed on the forums, as far as I can tell.
I very much miss playing both the 4E Fighter and Warlord, myself.
 

Myrhdraak

Explorer
Hmmm, did some fast calculations on a 5e Fighter damage per round, vs. 4e Fighter damage and it is very different. 5e Figher damage grows exponentially to something like 120 HP/round in damage at 20th level, while the 4e Fighter is almost half of that, and much more linear
 

Matrix Sorcica

Explorer
How does the fighter do that? 1d8 + 5(str) + 3 (+ weapon) + ~2 ~(misc) = 15 per attack. That's only half. 10% chance of a crit doesn't cut it, and action surge is 2 rounds max.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
How does the fighter do that? 1d8 + 5(str) + 3 (+ weapon) + ~2 ~(misc) = 15 per attack. That's only half. 10% chance of a crit doesn't cut it, and action surge is 2 rounds max.
Great Weapon Master with assumption that you'll hit every attack and get to make the bonus action attack, maybe? Using your 15 and just adding +10 puts it at 125. Have to agree that the former estimate doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Good point. But that's only +4 more per attack/16 per round. So 75 - 80 or so.
You replied before I added GWM for +10 damage. So that gets: 7(2d6) + 5 (ability) + 3(magic) + 10(feat) = 25 per hit x 4 = 100 DPR or 200 DPR with surge (both max).

Add a belt of SGS and you get 116 DPR or 232 w/ surge.

You can get close, but I am not sure where the 120 DPR came from. I do think that probably averages out pretty close to 120 DPR with surges factored in (even without the belt). So my guess is that is what he was thinking.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
You replied before I added GWM for +10 damage. So that gets: 7(2d6) + 5 (ability) + 3(magic) + 10(feat) = 25 per hit x 4 = 100 DPR or 200 DPR with surge (both max).

Add a belt of SGS and you get 116 DPR or 232 w/ surge.

You can get close, but I am not sure where the 120 DPR came from. I do think that probably averages out pretty close to 120 DPR with surges factored in (even without the belt). So my guess is that is what he was thinking.
Assuming the bonus attack from GWM would put it at 125, right? I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make but gives you the fifth attack that gets you closest to 120.
 

Advertisement

Top