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

[Tony Vargas]

First, this thread is about 5e becoming Pathfinder - not min/maxing. That is probably our issue right there!

PF certainly is open to the acquisition & application of system mastery in considerable depth. So, if 5e is substantially less open to the same, that's a point against it becoming like PF.

Also a point against 5e becoming PF: PF is a D&D clone, 5e is actual D&D. PF may be more or less like D&D depending on the edition of D&D, but it's still the imitator. ;P

intention plays some part in it. The context I am referring to is: all the decision of character creation and advancement. From my perspective, if the majority of your decisions are made to maximize some aspect of your character, to the detriment of some other aspect - then you are a min/maxer. It seems pretty simple to me.

It seems like a hollow/useless term if it is defined as anyone who has made any choice to maximize or otherwise increase the performance of some aspect of their character at any time.

It's not like there's a formal definition or anything. But, 3.5/PF, arguably more a min-maxer/powergamer/munchkin/sytem-master/gamist/whatever paradise than 5e tries to be.

Why wouldn't they? it is not like players wanting feats and multiclassing are defective or inferior somehow is it? Would you rather have no players than playing with feats and Multiclassing?

Would they rather have no DM than play without them? It's not hard to find players.

Do you know which is the best game system

Yes. But I can't tell you, it's a secret... ;P Also, off topic.

the best playstyle and the best playing group?

The one you enjoy, obviously.

DMs not wanting multiclassing telegraph that they have little tolerance for characters outside Gygaxian archetypes and no feats signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles and won't tolerate many of the innovations nor any creativity with unusual character types.

A good thing to telegraph: as long as the players now enough Morse to figure it out, you'll get a group of grognards who will appreciate your campaign.

Given that I like sorcerers that act quite non-traditionally -by refusing to blow stuff up- and have never been able to stand the wizards, it is in my best interest to look for DMs that allow multiclassing and feats...

...and UA/3pp/DMsG variations on the sorcerer...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Do you know which is the best game system, the best playstyle and the best playing group? the ones you get to experience! If you don't get to experience them, then they are purely theoretical. Sad thing, is that DMs not wanting multiclassing telegraph that they have little tolerance for characters outside Gygaxian archetypes and no feats signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles and won't tolerate many of the innovations nor any creativity with unusual character types. Given that I like sorcerers that act quite non-traditionally -by refusing to blow stuff up- and have never been able to stand the wizards, it is in my best interest to look for DMs that allow multiclassing and feats .

I mean no offense, but you're stereotyping.

I actually know a DM who was pretty old school for a long time (just wanted to run 2e without any of the extra options). Yet he encouraged people to play non-traditional concepts.

One of his favorite stories was of the time a druid turned into a duck and flew into a well to escape from a big bad (the minions poured soap into to well to make her sink and thereby captured her anyway, but he loved that player's creativity so much that he still tells that story to this day).

Admittedly, nowadays he's relaxed a bit and allows feats and probably multiclassing too in the 5e game he's running. But if he said he was running a no feats / no multiclassing game, we'd still play. I'd rather have feats and multiclassing because after playing D&D for close to 30 years (20 of those years being weekly game sessions) playing vanilla can feel... a bit vanilla. But I'm certainly not going to make a stink about it if that's what the DM feels like doing.

The point is, if you haven't found a DM whose style matches your preferred play style, then that's unfortunate but dollars to donuts those DMs are out there.

It may be theory in your own personal experience, but that doesn't mean it is theoretical with respect to the RPG community.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why wouldn't they? it is not like players wanting feats and multiclassing are defective or inferior somehow is it? Would you rather have no players than playing with feats and Multiclassing?

There's nothing wrong with a player wanting feats or multiclassing, but I wouldn't have fun running a game for a player who insisted on using those. I would rather not run anything, than try to run a game I did not enjoy.

I might play in such a game, though. The amount of investment required to play a game is significantly less than that required to run a game. If anyone should be making concessions for a smooth play experience, it should always be the players and it should never be the DM.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If anyone should be making concessions for a smooth play experience, it should always be the players and it should never be the DM.

I disagree. While I would say that concessions ought to be weighted to favor the DM (he or she does have the hardest job at the table) that doesn't mean that the players' wishes are inconsequential. It's important that everyone have fun at the table, not just the DM.

There have been plenty of times that I've pitched an idea to my players (that I was very excited about) but relented because they weren't enthused. It's not just about what I want.

 

[Mistwell]

Sad thing, is that DMs not wanting multiclassing telegraph that they have little tolerance for characters outside Gygaxian archetypes and no feats signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles and won't tolerate many of the innovations nor any creativity with unusual character types.

I disagree. This is absolutely the reasons why most DMs I know decline to play with those options. In fact, it smacks of your own biases, not theirs.

 

[Greg K]

I guess I most associate the term 'optimize(r)' with Char-Ops boards, which to my way of thinking are a horrid abomination bent on nothing but finding the most broken builds possible - the serious hard-core number-crunchers. Hence, to me 'optimize(r)' is a four-letter word.

Well, when setting up the Char-Ops boards, WOTC simply usurped the term. I assume it had to do with neither power gamer nor butt-kicker go over well to describe certain playstyles despite them often being the optimization goals for that board (when not dealing builds intended for only theoretical purposes rather than play).

 

[Lanefan]

Would you rather have no players than playing with feats and Multiclassing?

I'd give it very serious thought.

Which is better - running a game I don't like, or running no game at all?

Sad thing, is that DMs not wanting multiclassing telegraph that they have little tolerance for characters outside Gygaxian archetypes and no feats signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles

IMO neither of those are particularly 'sad things' at all.

Given that I like sorcerers that act quite non-traditionally -by refusing to blow stuff up- and have never been able to stand the wizards, it is in my best interest to look for DMs that allow multiclassing and feats .

Er...it's very possible to have a character act non-traditionally in a Gygaxian game...

It's just that not everything needs to be reflected in the mechanics.

Lan-"a caster that refuses to blow stuff up is my kind of caster, as it means they won't be blowing me up at the same time"-efan

 

[Greg K]

Why wouldn't they? it is not like players wanting feats and multiclassing are defective or inferior somehow is it? Would you rather have no players than playing with feats and Multiclassing?

Defective or Inferior? As people? I have no idea about individual player without meeting them (that goes for players of any play style). However, wrong for a given DM? If the DM does not want to play with multi-classing and feats, a player whom only will play with if multi-classing and feats are included is a wrong match for that DM. Similarly, in that instance, the DM is a wrong match for that player.

signals they don't like more "modern" playstyles and won't tolerate many of the innovations nor any creativity with unusual character types. Given that I like sorcerers that act quite non-traditionally -by refusing to blow stuff up- and have never been able to stand the wizards, it is in my best interest to look for DMs that allow multiclassing and feats

I , personally, don't care about gygaxian or necessarily "modern" play styles( depending on what definition you are using to define the latter). Since AD&D 1e, I care about tailoring the rules to fit my own influences. For editions, I prefer much of AD&D 1e and early 2e classes and kits- especially, the 1e Barbarian, 2e Priests of Specific Mythoi, and Thieves (much of what has been incorporated into the rogue for 4e and 5e is a separate archetype for which I like a variant light armor fighter), as well as kits, because many of the classes and kits are closer to my own fantasy influences (not a big fan of the cleric or monk). At the same time, I prefer the 3e Sorcerer and 4e Ranger to other official D&D versions. In terms of mechanics, however, I prefer 3e, 5e, and some 4e (But still prefer 3e skill points).
What I generally don't like are the majority of the new races introduced since Planescape and many of the 5e official subclasses including those previewed for Xanthar. Therefore, what I don't include reflects my own influences and tastes when I create a homebrew setting. My preference is to build setting, get players with similar tastes (has not been a problem, plus I have a long term group), have players build PC that fit into the world and cultures, and then set the players free to pretty much what they want (as long as they are not evil and and what they want to do is possible within the setting.

 

[RobertBrus]

Balance in all things

Well, my view is, once you start prioritizing resources to best meet your character concept, you are engaging in optimization.

Good point Greg. I should have been more specific. I was really trying to make the point, clearly not very clearly, that the personality of the character should get as much thought as does the thinking that goes into the "optimizing."

To further expand: There are many threads along the lines of the power of the character, which usually means the number of skills/feats/etc., and how many modifiers I can add to my die rolls. For me this misses the fundamental joy of RPG's: pretending to play as someone else. And that someone else must be more than numbers, or it becomes nothing more than a glorified game of Yatze or Farkle.

I wish the "min/maxers, optimizers, power builders," call them what you will, would put in at least as much time on the whole character as they do on the damn numbers. If a person can't compete in the fantasy world thru their creative use of the character you are pretending to be, and can only succeed--bulldoze your way thru--by high stats and even higher modifiers, than maybe you have missed the whole point of RPG's. And missed out on exploring the great joy that comes from exercising your own creative/improvisational mind.

Edit: I am not suggesting we create buffoons that fall over their own feet. I am suggesting that there be a balance between skills/feats/modifiers, and personality and backstory. That the weaknesses of any character are what make it worth playing and quite often the most memorable. Stage actors line up to play Hamlet not because he is so powerful--though being a duke in a kingdom ain't horsemeat--but it is the delicious flaws that make Hamlet so fascinating.

Or to put it more simply: stop playing RPG's with a one-dimensional comic book mindset. The "R" stands for ROLE, not roll.

 

[RobertBrus]

Another cognitive nugget: If you can only accomplish things in a fantasy world because you have some "mechanic," perhaps you are not ready to think for yourself. While I have no study to support this, I will make a hypothesis: Free-thinking creative types prefer Castles & Crusades, and D&D 5E, while those other inclined folks prefer Pathfinder, where everything is laid out for you.

One style holds your hand, the other says "have at it."

Please no hate mail, I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Though I do think there might be something to my above hypothesis.