Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorrstagg" data-source="post: 7736579" data-attributes="member: 15863">As a guy who's played Dungeons & Dragons since 1982, and played every iteration all the way through Pathfinder into Starfinder. I've found 5E D&D to be the most streamlined and smoothest edition to date. I love what they learned and applied to the game system, the bounded math, with fewer modifiers ever to worry about, that it can be played without ever awarding a single magic item, is fantastic. My only preference is that it had a little more crunch for characters per level, ala Pathfinder. I loved the granularity of Pathfinder, but abhor it's roots to 3.5 and how iterative attacks have negative modifiers to hit. I adore the smoothness associated with combat in 5E, some of it's innovations such as not provoking attacks of opportunity if you stay in base to base contact is fantastic. I loved it so much I ported it over to our Starfinder campaign. But that's where I find some problems as it were.. I would love if Starfinder was closer to 5E but with a bit more crunch for characters, but at the end of the day, I make the game work and tell a story.I'm cautiously optimistic here with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I hope they learn from 5E, advantage & disadvantage, mechanical bonus tied to proficiency & level, that they learn from Starfinder about stats and their inflation. 5e is arbitrary about stopping stats at 20 without exceptional magic/boons. But they did that to avoid too much math/modifiers at the table. As a 36 year DM, if we can keep the modifiers and math simple, it will help a variety of players remember all the damn modifiers.10th level spells? Sure, why not, one spell level every two character levels, sure easy and makes at least some semblance of sense. Action economy, 3 actions and 1 reaction, I'm fine with that too. Though saying an Action, Bonus Action, and Move, are equally simple. But whatever.The only thing I hope they learn from Starfinder is that assigning levels to weapons and gear and then some arbitrary wealth value makes little sense, and actually are a huge turn off for flavor reasons but done solely for a mechanical reason, may make sense from a design perspective, but feel about as soulless as 4E D&D outside of combat. Oh and limiting spell options in Starfinder to just a few ala a Sorcerer, felt and still feels an unnecessary limitation.I'm also not stoked though upon hearing that lower level spells diminish in power. Learn from 5E, PLEASE, that a spell increases in function the longer a caster has it, and tying it to their level felt liberating. Do NOT punish the caster player because they are forced to use their cantrips, tying a common attack spell to it and it getting better and can fill in for damage dealing when their other options run out is great. When I looked at the new spells for Starfinder, I was like who's the guy who hates on the casters? Their cantrips are jokes, they don't level and thus their utility will fade into obscurity to the point of leaving the caster to rely upon guns... which is that great meme of Gandalf with a Shotgun... sure it was funny then, but to flaunt it proudly as a thumbing nose and comments of Elderberries at other editions, is to do it simply out of spite. This I hope is where Pathfinder 2nd edition evolves past this notion of diminished power crap.Again, a lot of this is just my opinion and a little ventish I agree. I look forward to trying it, both from the perspective of the player and as a DM.</blockquote>

Verification