Pathfinder and 4e's love child, what I want in 5e

[Dragonblade]

Its easy to see how that list would appeal to existing 4E fans. But, the exception here or there aside, the things that alienate a large portion of the fan base from 4E would continue to alienate that same portion from this hypothetical 5E.

Which isn't to say that making it 3E light wouldn't alienate 4E fans now. You can't put that genie back either.

My own group includes some 4e diehards and some Pathfinder diehards. After playing both extensively, we have come to a consensus that there are aspects of both systems we like and aspects we don't. Those are pretty much laid out in my first post.

After cutting through all the edition war BS even in our group, what it really came down to for the Pathfinder guys is that most 4e changes aren't an issue. Its the fact that so much of the feel of 4e comes from the cookie cutter classes/powers/magic items. And that boardgame/gamist atmosphere is what they hate the most. And of course that is huge. It defines the whole game after all.

For the 4e guys their biggest frustration was going back to things like failing a save and sitting out of the rest of combat, or going back to the 15 minute adventuring day because magic and so many classes powers are tied to a daily refresh. Random HP, and the fiddly and annoying combat rules like excitedly rolling a natural 20, only to see it lost after failing the confirmation roll.

But after talking it over, if you could keep Pathfinder style classes and magic, but bring in the 4e elements that do work and actually did make the game better, then you could have a truly evolved and fun system that would appeal to everyone.

Well, almost everyone.

 

[BryonD]

My own group includes some 4e diehards and some Pathfinder diehards.

....

But after talking it over, if you could keep Pathfinder style classes and magic, but bring in the 4e elements that do work and actually did make the game better, then you could have a truly evolved and fun system that would appeal to everyone.

Well, almost everyone.

Cool.

And if you tried to apply that to the market as a whole your would run into huge issues with the concept of "4e elements that do work". Specifically in asking "work at what?" I agree whole-heartedly that most of 4E works awesome at what it is SUPPOSED to do. But the market split isn't because of everyone thinks WotC failed at what they set out to do.

I won't begin to dispute that this would make YOUR group thrilled.

But if WotC did exactly what you propose, the overall market split would be just the same as it is now.

 

[NewJeffCT]

As far as counting squares, we found that going back to Pathfinder's double-counting of every other diagonal to be an irritating chore that adds nothing to the game. 4e really had it right, here. Realism is not as important as making combat run smoother and quicker. I'd offer diagonal double-counting as an optional sidebar. Or poll the gaming community, see which one is more popular and then offer the other as a sidebar.

How about moving to a hex-based battle mat instead of squares?

 

[Dragonblade]

I think it is possible to make one unifying system that brings the fractured fanbase back together.

Two things are required to make this happen:

1) Modularity/Compatibility - To allow those who like 4e innovations vs. Pathfinder style traditional rules to be able to swap in or out those elements they prefer. Even better, with some finessing, you could make a 5e that incorporates everything I love about 4e, but would still be 90% compatible with Paizo Pathfinder material such as APs and modules. That would be amazing!

2) Going back to the OGL - Scrap the GSL and go back to an open game that really brings the community along for the ride.

As I think WotC has discovered and Paizo already knows, you can sell subs for add-ons such as computer based builders and tools, AP, modules, and so on, but provide your core rules for free in an easy to acces hyperlinked format.

The PRD being a free web site is amazing and an invaluable gametable resource. WotC's DDI equivalent is clunky and lacking in comparison. Not to mention its stuck behind a paywall.

If you want people to play your game, give it away. Provide value in the add-ons, tools, and accessories and fans will come in droves.

 

[gamerprinter]

Yeah, it doesn't matter to me how much Pathfinder is combined with 4e concepts - no matter what 5e looks like, I won't be a customer. If it says WotC on the cover, I won't buy it.

 

[Dragonblade]

How about moving to a hex-based battle mat instead of squares?

I think you could easily support either hex or square. I just prefer a system that's equally adept at shifting between narrative, or mini-centric combat. Whether intentional or not, Pathfinder works well either way. 4e's tightly integrated mini-based movement powers really flops when handling combat that is not mini-based.

 

[Dausuul]

And if you tried to apply that to the market as a whole your would run into huge issues with the concept of "4e elements that do work". Specifically in asking "work at what?" I agree whole-heartedly that most of 4E works awesome at what it is SUPPOSED to do. But the market split isn't because of everyone thinks WotC failed at what they set out to do.

...

But if WotC did exactly what you propose, the overall market split would be just the same as it is now.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here are the big design elements that set 4E apart from 3E/Pathfinder in my mind:

• Healing surges and full hit point recovery with extended rest.
• All classes use a modified Vancian power system.
• Extremely position-dependent combat effects requiring a battlemat to adjudicate.

There's lots of little stuff, but those are the biggies, the things that make a player of earlier editions go "Whoa. What happened there?" And these are major points of contention for 3E/Pathfinder fans. But consider the design goals underlying them:

• Reduce the need for somebody to play a cleric.
• Provide a baseline of per-encounter resources, so a party that has exhausted its daily resources isn't totally drained.
• Make sure everyone has interesting mechanical options other than "roll to hit."
• Balance the classes across the level range.

While not everyone agrees that these are good things, I don't think you'd find nearly as much objection to them. As a 4E fan, I want a game that solves these problems. As a 4E critic (yes, I'm both), I don't like 4E's particular solutions. Both halves of me could be satisfied by a game that used 4E's design insights and experience to tackle the problems in a different way. Essentials made a good start by moving away from the single universal Vancian mechanic.

I will add that for me, the biggest knock on 4E is not so much any one design element as the overall design priority; the sense that verisimilitude and flavor go on the chopping block the instant there's a small mechanical concern, and the focus on nitpicky "crunch" elements where the flavor is painted on as an afterthought. (Feats and magic items, I'm looking at you.) But that's a separate issue, and it's an issue I have with 3E as well.

 

[Dragonblade]

Yeah, it doesn't matter to me how much Pathfinder is combined with 4e concepts - no matter what 5e looks like, I won't be a customer. If it says WotC on the cover, I won't buy it.

That's cool, I hope you enjoy all your non-WotC RPGs! Nothing wrong with that, my friend!

But for me, whether its WotC or Paizo, I'm all about having a good time with my friends and playing some amazing D&D! Whether it looks like Pathfinder, 4e, or some hybrid of the two, its all good!

 

[NewJeffCT]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here are the big design elements that set 4E apart from 3E/Pathfinder in my mind:

• Healing surges and full hit point recovery with extended rest.
• All classes use a modified Vancian power system.
• Extremely position-dependent combat effects requiring a battlemat to adjudicate.

There's lots of little stuff, but those are the biggies, the things that make a player of earlier editions go "Whoa. What happened there?" And these are major points of contention for 3E/Pathfinder fans. But consider the design goals underlying them:

• Reduce the need for somebody to play a cleric.
• Provide a baseline of per-encounter resources, so a party that has exhausted its daily resources isn't totally drained.
• Make sure everyone has interesting mechanical options other than "roll to hit."
• Balance the classes across the level range.

I will add that for me, the biggest knock on 4E is not so much any one design element as the overall design priority; the sense that verisimilitude and flavor go on the chopping block the instant there's a small mechanical concern, and the focus on nitpicky "crunch" elements where the flavor is painted on as an afterthought. (Feats and magic items, I'm looking at you.) But that's a separate issue, and it's an issue I have with 3E as well.

I like the fact that they reduced reliance on the cleric, however I'm still not in love with healing surges. Maybe it's just the name, but they generally seem a bit too readily available to the players. (Of course, I can run them into a necrotic area (or similar) that reduces the surge effectiveness, but I can only go to that well every so often)

 

[qstor]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Here are the big design elements that set 4E apart from 3E/Pathfinder in my mind:

• Healing surges and full hit point recovery with extended rest.
• Reduce the need for somebody to play a cleric.

Those and the "powers" and saves as defenses are my biggest gripes against 4e. I agree that 5e shouldn't have the "dead" level issue but if healing surges and the "powers" systems are included then I won't purchase the products. The "automatic" healing smacks of an computer game to me. I can't think of another game system where the characters can "heal" automatically during combat without say cyber-wear or assistance of another character. Certainly not say in GURPS Fantasy/Horror or Call of Cthulhu.

I personally don't have a problem with using a battlemat. But I see how nearly impossible it is to run 4e without one. So that isn't a defining issue for me. But when we used to play 1e in high school. We didnt have a battlemat or minis.

Mike