log in or register to remove this ad

 

2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Supporter
While this is a very good point, it also means that the players can't afford to be as picky. The OP may be the only DM in town with a new game at the moment...
Sure, but we don't have any posts from players in the Yukon Territory saying the only DM they can find won't let them use feats or multiclassing. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Played 3.0 the day it released back in 2000, after having spent the last decade+ playing 2E. Switched to 3.5 (eventually) and even a bit of Pathfinder (eventually) and never, ever liked that level of crunch. Could never really get a group past level 7. So, this level of crunch from 5E is absolutely perfect. Nothing wrong with optional customization - if your limited approach to how you want to play isn't compatible with other people, that is certainly not a concept fault of the system. A system has flexibility, but it requires equal flexibility in its player base to be run in that regard. I personally wouldn't be able to stand 5E without multiclassing and Feats, nor would any of my ancient grognards at the table. I understand that's just us, and that everyone plays the way they want, but it can't be the fault of the system for having options that a great deal of people desire to use.

As an addendum to this maybe the reason that a lot of people seem to want to use them is that maybe they have more fun this way and can have more meaningful choices to create and flavor their character how thye like.
 

thethain

First Post
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.

But I can appreciate that spreading sources also gives the feeling of fresh and new options, without dumping a giant pile at once. If all the options of the few books had released with SCAG, then by today, they would all be old and boring.
 

Greg K

Adventurer
Or maybe it means that GMs should not be as demanding or picky about their games either.

Nah, I will be picky when it comes to running fantasy rpgs- especially, D&D*- and it begins with my player selection. If it ever came to not having any interested players, I would offer to run an entirely different game system upon which we can agree. If we could not agree on anything, it is no skin off my nose. There are many other ways that I can utilize my time.

*Which, for D&D, begins with no Dragonborn, Drow, or PC Tieflings and limiting official PC subclasses, primarily, to those in the SRD (and then adding several other from third parties).
 

Aldarc

Legend
Nah, I will be picky when it comes to running fantasy rpgs- especially, D&D*- and it begins with my player selection. If it ever came to not having any interested players, I would offer to run an entirely different game system upon which we can agree. If we could not agree on anything, it is no skin off my nose. There are many other ways that I can utilize my time.

*Which, for D&D, begins with no Dragonborn, Drow, or PC Tieflings and limiting official PC subclasses, primarily, to those in the SRD (and then adding several other from third parties).
IME, groups rarely form so unilaterally from GM to some sort of drafting of players, but rather tends to be a group of potential people/friends wanting to roleplay with one most interested or motivated volunteering to GM.
 

Greg K

Adventurer
IME, groups rarely form so unilaterally from GM to some sort of drafting of players, but rather tends to be a group of potential people/friends wanting to roleplay with one most interested or motivated volunteering to GM.

I start by asking my friends that form my group which is never a problem unless work schedules conflict. However, half of them were brought by two players when two friends/players moved to different parts of the country and a third moved over an hour drive away. Each of those new players had to go through an initial screening and then a probationary period. At the same time, I have several friends that game and with whom I would never play D&D- a few with whom I would never play any rpg- due to playstyle conflicts.
 

sim-h

Explorer
To answer the OP - no, no problems here. You must be spoilt for choice over in the States if players can afford to pick and choose their DM. My guys are lumbered with me, since no-one else can be bothered, and hence - no feats, dragonborn, aasimar, tieflings, genasi etc.
 

Matthan

Explorer
I DM for a group that I pulled together near the beginning of 5E. We're all adults so we don't get to play as often as we'd like, but we still enjoy it. Of the group, only myself and my good friend had played any D&D before. The four other players were completely new to D&D and to tabletop rpgs altogether (they had played WoW for years though).

I have a wide open policy of allowing just about anything as long as you run it past me and I approve it. If it becomes an issue, we revisit it. Only one of the new players has taken me up on that. He got bit by the bug hard. He reads all the UA, follows reddit, and checks out forums. He's even itching to DM himself. The others are just fine with their core characters. I get the new option books as they are released and make them available. They just don't see the need.

I think there are different kinds of players and 5E is built to be very accommodating to many kinds of players. There are some players who will buy the PHB and be perfectly content playing with it for the life of the game. They'll never look at feats or even consider multiclassing. They're playing a Paladin (or wizard or whatever), and that's their character. There are others who engage with the game on a different level. They are reading the books and constantly dreaming up new characters or possibilities. They're the ones who want the options available (even though they may not use them).

In your case, I think when you advertise for players that you are most likely to get responses from the crowd that is very deeply engaged with the game. Now that probably depends on where you're advertising. I'm assuming that you were advertising at a local game store. Most of my players will never go to a local game store. They have the book they need and don't feel like they need anything else. It's the ones who are engaged and want to look at new material that go to the game store.

I don't think 5E has the level of complexity of PF. I don't think we'll ever see official 5E have the level of complexity that PF has. That doesn't mean that players and DMs won't have differing preferences for the game. I know I would be fine with the restrictions that you lay out if I was able to play as long as the game was fun. When it was my turn to DM for the group, I'd probably open up the options a bit more and then be fine going back to your rules when my turn ended. I think you just need to find the right players for your table, and the right players for your table may not be where you expect them.
 

Hiya! 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...but to me they were being a bit shady to me.

We don't have a book every month. Were you here for 3E? For 4E in particular where it literally was a new hardcover book every month for quite a while? Try explaining up with that adjustment to the gaming budget. Do you play Pathfinder where it's literally 2+ books per month, though smaller ones than the 4E hardcover rush?

So no. Fifth is not even in the same universe as those editions/games.

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".

With every "Somebody's Guide to..." or Sage Advice column, it seems we are heading down the exact same path that 3e took (and PF...we avoided 4e like the plague, so no comment on that system).

OK, you may not like those things, but they have always been a part of D&D. In the 0E/1E/2E days we had Dragon magazine every month and it contained this same kind of stuff - rules interpretations, essays on how certain subsystems could be interpreted or improved, new classes (barbarian! cavalier! thief-acrobat!), new magic items, new spells, new monsters - it was all there, even if it was on paper and not electronic. I wouldn't think that disallowing them would be a deal breaker, but maybe instead of a flat-out "no" you might consider "not until we've looked them over as a group and come to an agreement about them".


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.

So much for "Now anyone can jump into a 5e game and play the way they want!"....should be "Now anyone can jump into a 5e* game and play the way they want! (*Feats, Multiclassing, SA, UA and all other WotC produced content is assumed)".

Alright I think this is a combination of several things.

- Some players think multiclassing is essential to the character concepts they like. I don't feel that way bit for some players it is a dealbreaker. It's also an element of the game that's been around since at least AD&D - why are you against it?

- Some players see feats as a critical part of the game for trying different concepts or approaches. I get this more as when I'm a player, particularly if it's a class with a lot of opportunities to take them, stat boosts can start to look a little boring after a while. Feats help give a character a little more mechanical flavor.

- Sage Advice is generally rules clarifications. I'm not sure why you would be looking to lock those out as a general policy. Assuming you have some reasons it might be helpful to explain them.

- Unearthed Arcana - I get this. I go back and forth myself but I tend to allow it if a player is really fired up about something.

This was what I was afraid of. And probably why I won't be DM'ing a 5e campaign anytime in the next decade. :(

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?

^_^

Paul L. Ming (a now, more-or-less, "ex-5e DM" at this point).

I think it might help if you shared some of your reasoning on these decisions. For example - Feats: are you trying to protect against powergaming here? They're really not that mechanically complicated so I'm not sure what the issue is. Same with multiclassing - why don't you want players to do it? Some of the other stuff I get but MC and feats are right there in the PHB so it's not even really a "needing another book" type of issue that some people are bothered by. If you can explain it with some sound reasoning then it might be easier to sell them on why they want to join the rest of your game.

Aside from that, yes, some players see any kind of restriction as limiting their fun. It may not make much sense but I've seen it quite a bit over the years. They don't understand why they shouldn't be able to mix and match elements from 14 different sourcebooks and if you don't allow it nothing you can say is going to help them get past it. They'll join or they won't and even if they do it may or may not work out over time because of the constant sore spot thinking about what they can't do rather than enjoying what they have.

Regardless, good luck in your efforts. Finding and keeping a stable dependable group of players is one of the great challenges in RPG-ing. I've had a stable group for a long time but even there bringing in new people is always a delicate operation, regardless of system.
 


BookBarbarian

Expert Long Rester
a now, more-or-less, "ex-5e DM" at this point

i'm sorry to see this. While I personally have no problem playing a Featless PHB game, heck I'd even play a Basic rules game and I don't even mean all the stuff that's in the SRD literally the original 5e basic rules where the only classes are Champion, Thief, Life Cleric, and Evocation Wizard.

But in the 5e game I run I allow anything from WotC, UA, and 3rd party. as long as I review it before, and am open to tweak it as we go. I've found it works fine to just let try and play what they want, and adjust as we go.

That said, I have recently switched from 5e to Adventures in Middle Earth. Only six classes and no 5e spellcasting system was a pretty drastic change. It's been really fun as a simple "5e" game.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
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.

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.
 

Even if WotC increased their player offerings (subclasses, races, feats, etc.) five times over, 5E would still not be Pathfinder 2.0. The core mechanical assumptions and systems are different. 5E is simpler, PF is more comprehensive and detailed. Some people will prefer one, some the other, but you would have to literally rewrite the game to turn one into the other.

I'm sorry, but the original assertion is just silly.
 

Azurewraith

Explorer
I think where doing OK on releases atm. I think the biggest issue with your game is no feats, after you have a 20in your primary stat it's a bit meh getting another +2.
 

tglassy

Adventurer
So first, a new Sage Advice or UA a month isn't the same as a book a month. Having someone say "This is a cool concept for a class, try it out," isn't the same as having a new 200 page "Player's Guide to Rangers: Making the Most of Your Animal Companion" every month. So the comparison is rather silly.

If by "Same Path" you mean in ten years time we'll be at the point 3.5e was when they were at the one year mark, sure. They'll keep releasing new stuff, and new players that show up in ten years will likely have ten different books to draw from. But of COURSE they're going to keep releasing new stuff. They're a company. They have to make moneys. Right now, they're just going the "Less with more quality is better" approach, and it's been working. And unless you get on the bandwagon, you're going to be a lonely DM with no one to play with because you thought the original book was perfect and get pissed every time they release something new.

So yeah, same path, but walking real slowly and taking frequent breaks rather than riding down it in a rocket sled.

As for the next complaint, you're upset because...people like options? Then you need to find a new game. People are going to play the game they want. That's what the sign said. "Jump in and play the game you want." That means if you come across a DM who is hard headed and really just wants his players to play out his fan fiction that he's been writing since he was twelve, then they have the right not to play that. As a DM, the game is about the players. I like having concepts in my fantasy settings, but I work with my players to make sure they are interested in those concepts. If no one is interested, I don't go on forums and complain that people suck and nobody is interested in my totally cool, retro DMing style.




Sent from my iPad using EN World
 

Saelorn

Hero
Basically, you're only allowing vanilla ice cream. Nothing wrong with that per se, but lots of people like things like chocolate-vanilla swirl and rocky road. You can't attract those people offering just vanilla.
It's more like offering twelve flavors - one of which is already rocky road - but not letting you combine flavors or mix in candy bars and gummy bears or anything.

There's more than enough variety to tell any number of fantasy stories, but the players have become jaded so they insist on mixing and matching.
 


Xaelvaen

Stuck in the 90s
Since I love reading the material so much anyway, I try to be on top of every 3rd party release and unearthed arcana as soon as it 'drops' for the purposes of checking its balance, and tweaking it in a way where it -can- be allowed at my table, so players with desire to try something out, can do so without upsetting our personal ideas of balance. Thus, the Unearthed Arcanas are pretty popular around here, but never considered official - hell, even the stuff in the books isn't considered official - until everyone gets a chance to have their opinion heard at our table.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
It's more like offering twelve flavors - one of which is already rocky road - but not letting you combine flavors or mix in candy bars and gummy bears or anything.

There's more than enough variety to tell any number of fantasy stories, but the players have become jaded so they insist on mixing and matching.

Splitting hairs. I'm describing it from what is likely the pov of the players being advertised to, you're describing what the OP's pov likely is.

You say the players are jaded, I say they are excited in exploring certain concepts and mechanics that are not available in the OP's game.

Just two sides of the same coin.
 

Satyrn

First Post
Territory, not Province, the Yukon, Northwest Territory, and Nunavut are all Territories, not Provinces.

Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Aleberta, Saskawan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland & Labour, Prince Edward Island are Canada's provinces.

Territories don't have the same level of autonomy, power, or influence of a Province, although the Territories still have their own Premiers.

That is quite the nitpick! But I have a nitpick of my own.

It's the Northwest Territories. Plural.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top