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

[KahlessNestor]

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

Their design philosophy is to produce mechanical content at a slow and steady pace in order to ensure it is playtested effectively... so that they can be confident it is fairly well-balanced and does not cause undo issues when mixed and interspersed with other mechanical options currently available.

But you are correct that they do spread their player options over several books... some of that in part so players and DMs will all have reason to buy the books they release. But that in no way should be a detriment to any player, seeing as how it is a single mechanical book every 12 months. Because if this was the 3E / 4E era, we'd be receiving player-option books every or every-other month of which most players would be buying. So there's no reason why any of us should complain about buying one book a year if we want mechanical options that badly. If you would have been willing to buy 6 players books in a single year during 3E / 4E, but buying one such book during 5E is a hardship to you... I don't know what to tell you.

Actually, PHB+1 was the rule given ny WOTC to the AL Admins. It isn't a rule the Admins can change. And it was given because it is a core design consideration. When they make new crunch, they balance it against the PHB only, not SCAG, or Volo's, or XGTE.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

Anecdote or data? Or neither?

That sounds suspiciously like the unproven assumption of somebody who likes more options.

On the surface it seems obvious: More variety means it's more likely any given player will see at least one option that appeals.

But, it also means a higher investment in /finding/ that option, potentially greater system mastery to implement it in a viable way, and, it requires that everyone involved respect the others' choices. Those could constitute barriers to entry.

I dunno. It sounds pretty logical. The more restrictions you place on the game, the smaller the population of gamers will be who will like your game. There's a reason that AL play doesn't have many restrictions.

But it does definitely have some: Core +1, no 3pp or DMsG...

...compared to what you could theoretically play in the PFS, that's pretty restrictive.

 

[KahlessNestor]

On the surface it seems obvious: More variety means it's more likely any given player will see at least one option that appeals.

But, it also means a higher investment in /finding/ that option, potentially greater system mastery to implement it in a viable way, and, it requires that everyone involved respect the others' choices. Those could constitute barriers to entry.

But it does definitely have some: Core +1, no 3pp or DMsG...

...compared to what you could theoretically play in the PFS, that's pretty restrictive.

PFS doesn't allow 3PP either. And you technically have to actually OWN the book or watermarked PDF to be able to use it, even if it's on the PRD for free. And there's a mile long list of FAQs and Erratas and special cases you are expected to know (trust me, my first PFS character was a druid with an animal companion. The amount of extra material I had to know beyond Core for the animal was unexpected).

 

[Tony Vargas]

PFS doesn't allow 3PP either. And you technically have to actually OWN the book or watermarked PDF to be able to use it, even if it's on the PRD for free. And there's a mile long list of FAQs and Erratas and special cases you are expected to know (trust me, my first PFS character was a druid with an animal companion. The amount of extra material I had to know beyond Core for the animal was unexpected).

I guess that illustrates the "system mastery" and "more effort to find that option" points I made.

But you can use a lot more than core +1 books, if you own 'em, right? So way, way more options in PFS than AL, no? I guess I mean total options, net of restrictions?

 

[KahlessNestor]

I guess that illustrates the "system mastery" and "more effort to find that option" points I made.

But you can use a lot more than core +1 books, if you own 'em, right? So way, way more options in PFS than AL, no? I guess I mean total options, net of restrictions?

Yes, you can use any broken number of options Paizo has published, as long as you own them. But remember, it got bad enough that PFS a few years ago started a CORE program, which only uses PHB.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

 

[MoonSong]

Funnily, my prediction of something like this happening came true. It didn't matter that everybody here went up in arms when I made it, it came true -or mostly-. Maybe not most players, but a lot of players actually expect phb+feats+multiclassing, at the bare minimum -instead of being just happy with plain-no-frills basic -. Yeah, no matter how much posters here were in love with the idea of basic, and how insistent a lot of posters here are about multiclass and feats being optional. For tons of players out there they aren't. Almost as if an unspoken standard existed? n_n

 

[cbwjm]

My guess would be that past editions drive that expectation. People who have played 3e or 4e would probably expect feats and multiclassing to be available.

 

[MechaPilot]

My guess would be that past editions drive that expectation. People who have played 3e or 4e would probably expect feats and multiclassing to be available.

AD&D 2e players probably expect multiclassing as well.

 

[cbwjm]

AD&D 2e players probably expect multiclassing as well.

Oh yeah. I think i was a bit focused on the feats and multiclassing combined and the way 5e follows the 3e cersion of multiclassing.

 

[MechaPilot]

Oh yeah. I think i was a bit focused on the feats and multiclassing combined and the way 5e follows the 3e cersion of multiclassing.

No problem. Lord knows I sure miss 2e-style multiclassing though. I'm glad it's an option for people who like it, but god I hate 3e-style multiclassing, and prestige classes.