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

[Guest 85555]

What I would like to see:

1) Eliminate the 4E innovations and go back to the old spell and class system

2) Go back to including the standard races/classes in the PHB.

3) No more of this PHB 1, PHB 2, etc. No more splat books either (like we had in 3E). Just give me three solid core books and supplements for the GM.

4)I like BaB from 3E, but I think some of the spells could be nerfed a bit.

5) Contain the numbers a bit more. There were too many crazy modifiers in d20.

6) Flavor first.

 

[Dausuul]

Wait, 4e took its flavor seriously enough to actually reflect it in the rules, and this is a perfect example of 4e not taking its flavor seriously?

If 4E were taking the flavor seriously, it would make it consistent. The "Hit Points Are Not Toughness" paragraph would be supported by the flavor throughout the game. "Healing surges" would be called something else. An attack that beat the target's AC but did not bloody the target would not be dealing "damage" and might not even be called a "hit." Et cetera.

It's not easy to create consistent flavor for 4E's hit point mechanic. It can be done, but it's a substantial departure from what people expect "hit points" to mean, and the flavor in the books does little to help. Pre-4E, all you had to do was ignore the "Hit Points Are Not Toughness" paragraph (which half the players never read anyway, since a lot of folks learn the rules by playing rather than reading the manual cover to cover) and everything worked fine. To be sure, it meant high-level PCs were made of iron, adamant, and old cold bagels, but that was just how the game rolled.

 

[gamerprinter]

So if Paizo would do the same mechanics you would buy it? You just dislike the company...
And I thought we were speaking about rules and fluff here...

Probably not.

Really I had no particular like or dislike for Paizo up until the creation of Pathfinder. I was never a heavy purchaser of 3pp products during 3.5 and I hadn't purchased any Dragon/Dungeon magazines in the latter 15 years of its publication, so I was not even aware of Paizo's existence until I began to look at 3pp's in 2007.

I was glad to learn that WotC purchased TSR when it had folded in the 90's - for the sake of the game. However, I hadn't purchased any 3.5 until 2004, so I was late getting out of AD&D 2e. While I did purchase the core books from 3.5, I never purchased a glut of 3.5 books. One of our new players had almost 100 WotC 3.5 books and a few 3pp material as well. So I didn't have to buy much. 3.5 somewhat resembled my previously preferred version of AD&D 2e - fixing some of the issues I had for that system, thus I did like the basic concept of 3.5, but still cannot consider myself a WotC fan even then.

So it really isn't preference of one company over another. My opinion is strictly based on the products they produced.

When WotC created the latest version of the game (4e) - I looked and did not care at all for the direction they went.

Really my excitement for D&D was greatest probably between 1981 up until 1992-ish. While I still played the game, I did not have the excitement that I have now until the inception of Pathfinder. I really like the system, and it compelled me to try to create commercial products for it.

This is where I am today.

 

[DEFCON 1]

What I would like to see:

1) Eliminate the 4E innovations and go back to the old spell and class system

2) Go back to including the standard races/classes in the PHB.

3) No more of this PHB 1, PHB 2, etc. No more splat books either (like we had in 3E). Just give me three solid core books and supplements for the GM.

4)I like BaB from 3E, but I think some of the spells could be nerfed a bit.

5) Contain the numbers a bit more. There were too many crazy modifiers in d20.

6) Flavor first.

So basically, you want an edition of D&D that for the most part already exists and doesn't actually make WotC any money.

 

[Guest 85555]

So basically, you want an edition of D&D that for the most part already exists and doesn't actually make WotC any money.

No. I want something that is a more organic outgrowth of the previous editions, rather than a complete break in a new direction. The jump from 2E to 3E is about my speed here. If I wanted a totally revamped game there are so many other options out there than D&D. I go back to D&D because I like things like vancian casting, the classic races and classes, etc. If I need something different I go elsewhere.

 

[Gundark]

Honestly, I just want a system that doesn't take forever to prep and stat (PF) and doesn't have mandatory hour-long combats (4e). Everything else is details.

While I could make a detailed wants and do not want list, really this is all I'm asking for.

 

[Walking Dad]

...
So it really isn't preference of one company over another. My opinion is strictly based on the products they produced.

...

Fair enough. My opinion is based similar, but with a different conclusion. Tastes differ.

For me, Pathfinder in 3.5 with houserules (some I like, some I don't) and with some really nice art and some good flavor for their setting.
It is a very good (best?) retro-clone of 3.5.

But I want something different.

 

[gamerprinter]

For me, Pathfinder in 3.5 with houserules (some I like, some I don't) and with some really nice art and some good flavor for their setting.
It is a very good (best?) retro-clone of 3.5.

Considering I hadn't gotten into 3.5 until 2004, up until the arrival of Pathfinder, I hadn't developed a 'special love' for 3.5, as I was really still learning the system. Before I achieved system mastery, Pathfinder showed up. So I hadn't even had time to look at possible houserules for 3.5, as I was still very much a stranger to the system - vs. my longtime participation in 2e and 1e before that.

So moving to Pathfinder which felt a lot like 3.5, so aside from the changes, it was fairly easy to adapt to Pathfinder rules. I have since achieved system mastery for Pathfinder.

So I can't give the 'Pathfinder is a houseruled 3.5' sentiment, as I hadn't gotten to houserule 3.5 at all. Pathfinder became the version of 3.5 I thought as best.

Also since I have only been playing 3x for three years total - I still don't see 3x as retro - I see it as current.

4e, IMO, is a brand new game, and I don't mean a brand new version of D&D, as I don't see it resembling D&D much, rather as some new kind of RPG with some inference to what came before. If I really wanted to try a non-D&D game, there are plenty out there.

So when I wanted to go to the next inception of the game, Pathfinder seemed to be the outgrowth of 1e, 2e, 3x. Whereas 4e's only connection to the previous games as IP and logo, plus some reference to classes and other components of D&D. It was too far away from what I am familiar, thus not a comfortable change for me (at least this is what I perceive - it probably isn't the same perception as yours).

 

[Greg K]

I am hard pressed to think of much I want from Pathfinder.

I'd rather start with core 3e
1. Remove level drain
2. Remove 3e XP costs
3. tone down the spellcasters starting with the following:
a. wizards can only learn spells from those found in spellbooks or scrolls or from other willing wizards (buy/trade). Increase the memorization time to 1e levels)
b. clerics can only cast spells from their deity's domain and alignment, plus a handful of universal spells.
c. Spell level does not add to DC

4. Fewer Absolutes (Sean K Reynolds web article)

5. Multi-Classing
a. does not grant new Armor and Weapon Proficiencies (use feats)
b. The DMG training variant becomes the default.

6. Skills
a. Boost the 2+Int classes without Int as a primary stat and boost them to 4+Int
b. incorporate the Cityscape enhancement Urban/Wilderness Skill Swap

7 Incorporate the many of the Unearthed Arcana class variants as examples of class customization

8. Incorporate the spellless Paladin and Ranger variants from Complete Champion as examples of class customization.

9. pare down the list of feats, make some standard combat maneuvers, and rewrite many of them.

10. pare down the list of spells, rewrite many of them

11. Saving Throws:
a. a single unified saving throw progression based on 4e defenses
b. each class gives a bonus to one or more saves. This bonus is not gained via multi-classing. If you want a permanent bonus, take the appropriate save feat.

12. From Unearthed Arcana
a. Add Environmental Races to the DMG under customizing races
b. Add many of the UA class variants (Barbarian Hunter, Bardic Sage, Divine Bard, Savage Bard, Cloistered Cleric, Monk Fighting styles, Urban Ranger, Martial Rogue, Wilderness Rogue, Battle Sorcerer)
c. Spontaneous Divine casting for divine casters and the druid
d. Specialist Wizard variant abilities
e. Favored Terrain
f. Weapon Groups
g. Death and Dying
h. Complex Skill Checks/4e Skill Checks
i. Incantations/ 4e Rituals

11. Use the ability damage variant from the DMG

12. Incorporate from 3e third party
a. Additional Classes: Green Ronin's Psychic, Shaman, and Witch classes
b. Book of Iron Might maneuver system and Fighter Styles: Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc)
c. Alternate poison rules: Poisoncraft (Blue Devil Games)
d. Alternate magic item creation rules: Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games)
e. Action Points work like True 20 Conviction/ M&M Hero Points
f. M&M 3e complications

13. Incorporate from 4e
a. backgrounds
b. Removing non-biological aspects of race and making feats
c. spell casters balanced with martial casters
d. Spellless Rangers
e. Warlord
f. More starting HP
g. Set hp per level
h. Con score gives a hit point bonus
i. base all saves on 4e Defense progression
j. Disease Track
h. Feywild

 

[NewJeffCT]

4e, IMO, is a brand new game, and I don't mean a brand new version of D&D, as I don't see it resembling D&D much, rather as some new kind of RPG with some inference to what came before. If I really wanted to try a non-D&D game, there are plenty out there.

So when I wanted to go to the next inception of the game, Pathfinder seemed to be the outgrowth of 1e, 2e, 3x. Whereas 4e's only connection to the previous games as IP and logo, plus some reference to classes and other components of D&D. It was too far away from what I am familiar, thus not a comfortable change for me (at least this is what I perceive - it probably isn't the same perception as yours).

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I'm playing 4E D&D and not Pathfinder, as 3.5E became way too much work for me as DM once the players got up to level 9 or so (access to Raise Dead & Revivify). If I were running a PC with a DM that had a mastery of Pathfinder, I might prefer Pathfinder to 4E.

However, I'm the DM and my group chose 4E and I'm thankful for it. I can work on preparing cool NPCs and developing the story instead of spending all my free time coming up with unique and challenging encounters and building bad guys and monsters for it.