The "3.XE/PF Crowd" - where will they go? What will they play?

[delericho]

I wonder though if WOTC is in a catch22 with their open playtest. They're getting feedback from a lot of folks who are not PF/3.5 fans. The PF/3.5 folks are still playing their game and not playtesting. I would not be surprised if the number of folks downloading the playtest documents has dropped considerably lately.

Well, Mearls did note fairly recently that the number of playtesters was actually going up. Though depending on your definition of 'recently'...

That said, I did download the latest playtest packet, but haven't even gone so far as to open up the file to see what's in there (due to a combination of a lack of time and a lack of interest). Make of that what you will.

 

[I'm A Banana]

One thing that strikes me is that part of what will make or break 5e for me is how easily it supports 3rd party stuff. It's one of [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]'s big strengths in my book and one of 4e's big weaknesses.

If it's OGL, there's going to be a pretty decent environment of custom content and alt rules that will help to ensure that, whatever the Core Rules' failings, I'll be able to find and play a version of 5e that I like.

If it's as restrictive as the GSL, then I'll have to rely on WotC for all of my D&D needs, and that ain't gonna fly, because we frequently have different ideas about what we want from our games, and while there's no "fun police," there's also little incentive to struggle with something that doesn't work quite well for me when there's stuff out there that can.

Sort of: part of what the OGL means is that it's possible for me to replicate the qualities of 4e that I want within 3e without having to replicate the qualities of 4e that I don't want. If 5e makes something like that possible, it'll have a fightin' chance. If it doesn't, well, I might still play it, but it won't be without fighting against it. Still, as can be evidenced from how I interact with 4e, I do like messing with systems that don't want me messing with them.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

As a frequent visitor to the Paizo website, a PFS player and convention hopper, I can tell you that the many [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] people I've come across have not batted an eye at 5th edition and are not interested. [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] is a freight train that continues to roar down the rails collecting momentum more and more every day.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think it depends on why we stuck with 3.* and/or [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] in the first place, I think. And no two groups will necessarily share the same reasoning on that.

I've played 3.* and 4e, and of the two I prefer 3.5. I've looked at [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], but neither I nor my group were comfortable with the power-up it includes. I've also played with Arcana Evolved.

I sat in on an early 5e play test and was not impressed. Still, I'll wait to see what the final version looks like before I make any serious decision.

One consideration for me is the price. D&D 4e had this "Everything is Core" thing that implied that you needed to buy everything, since nothing was optional. That was a non-starter for me. It felt like a money-grab.

Also, I have a considerable "library" of 3.0 and 3.5 books, enough that my group can comfortably choose the optional add on material needed to give our campaigns just about any flavor we choose. It will take a while before I could afford to make a similar investment in yet another version, presuming that range of options is even available.

So, "where will we go"? Back to the game table to play the game of our choice, just as we always have. We might move to PF if the group chooses, or we might migrate to 5e. We've tried 4 for 10 levels and decided that we'd had enough. I doubt that we'll do much in that direction.

Regarding "legacy" gamers in general, some are simply grognards who don't want to change. Some others feel that they don't have to be the first one on their block with the latest gaming goodie. Some are "cheerleader" types who embrace the latest game with unbridled enthusiasm, and can see no flaws in it no matter what, until those flaws become too obvious and they burn out, totally disillusioned, until a new/sparkly comes along. Until then they'll stick with a comfort zone. Some are "evolvers" who want to play what they know, and incorporate more and more aspects of a newer version over time. (I played in a campaign that we used to describe as "D&D version 1.2.3.5" because of the mixture of old and new rules we used.)

So the short answer is and will be "Anywhere we like."

I just want to say that I don't think you looked at [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] close enough because it's actually a "power-down" from 3.5. Clerics and Druids are just two examples of things that were downgraded.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't have the time to commit to serious RPGing anymore, so my beloved 3.0 is a bit too demanding for me to run a game in that edition at the moment. I would probably play it, if someone else invites me to a game, but not DM.

I am looking forward to 5e because it's probably going to be much easier to run.

 

[BriarMonkey]

[notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] players don't have to go anywhere - they have Paizo and the OGL. They're set.

Those still playing 3.x, but not [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate], also don't have to go anywhere - they have the OGL. They're okay.

As for how many make the switch to 5E, no one knows nor can anyone say. WotC doesn't compile stats like that, nor if they did, would I think they'd make such public. We can only rely on third-hand sales information to make guesses.

Regardless, gamers will play what they enjoy playing. I'm sure many of us will look at 5E initially, even if for nothing more that to see if it has ideas we can port over to our own games. And for my own part, I'm pretty much in that camp - see if there are good ideas. But then too, WotC lost me as a customer when they came out with 4E, and Paizo and their 3PP have what I want.

 

[Greenfield]

I just want to say that I don't think you looked at [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] close enough because it's actually a "power-down" from 3.5. Clerics and Druids are just two examples of things that were downgraded.

[notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] characters have more free action options, 50% more Feats, more hit points and cheaper skills.

And that's without ever looking at the Alchemist and Witch classes, ranged healing and selective area healing bursts.

I could go on, but as a general rule PF core class characters will kick their 3.5 counterparts all over the field.

Both systems are subject to "optimization" to the point of the ridiculous, but PF characters have a head start.

 

[Aeolius]

I'll take a gander at the core rules for 5e, just as I did with 4e. Granted, neither 2e nor 4e inspired my imagination in the way that 3.5e does. If the game is geared solely for dungeon crawls, I'll pass. If it allows for world building from day one, color me intrigued; making stuff up is half the fun!

- It must have a Conversion Manual, so that players can easily transfer the heart/essence of their 1e/2e/3e/4e characters over to 5e.
- It must allow for World Building.
- It must have a robust online presence beyond simply providing the books in PDF form. This online presence must include a VTT and support for iOS devices.
- It must allow for players who wish to play a human fighter as well as those who wish to play a spellstitched swarm-shifter dread necromancer emancipated spawn half-scrag sea kin lacedon with aboleth grafts
- It must have something unique in the magic department
- It has to support the races and classes present in all prior Players Handbooks from day one
- It must not be arrogant, telling me what sort of play style is "fun".

Tall order?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

[notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] characters have more free action options, 50% more Feats, more hit points and cheaper skills.

And that's without ever looking at the Alchemist and Witch classes, ranged healing and selective area healing bursts.

I could go on, but as a general rule PF core class characters will kick their 3.5 counterparts all over the field.

Both systems are subject to "optimization" to the point of the ridiculous, but PF characters have a head start.

Having more feat options don't make PC's more powerful. You get less skill points in [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] than you did in 3.5. Polymorph has been completely reworked, prestige classes are at a minimum and I'm not sure what's so hideous about having ranged healing because for one thing, it doesn't heal much and second, if you don't take a certain feat you end up healing everyone.

You really need to go and read up on the rules because it's obvious you are a bit misinformed.

 

[Greenfield]

Having more feat options don't make PC's more powerful. You get less skill points in [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] than you did in 3.5. Polymorph has been completely reworked, prestige classes are at a minimum and I'm not sure what's so hideous about having ranged healing because for one thing, it doesn't heal much and second, if you don't take a certain feat you end up healing everyone.

You really need to go and read up on the rules because it's obvious you are a bit misinformed.

Actually, having more feats per character *does* make that character more powerful.

And while there may be fewer skill points handed out, but many skills have been condensed. Spot and Listen became Observation, which is also used for Tracking instead of Survival. And I think that Search got condensed in there as well (I might be wrong about that).

Similarly Hide and Move Silent got combined into Stealth.

There were other areas where skills got combined, so while there may be fewer skill points (I'm taking your word for that) there are also fewer points needed to achieve the same or superior results.

If you were to look in the various 3.5 errata, and in all of the RPGA standards, Polymorph got nerfed in D&D as well. Admitted, most people still play by the RAW that doesn't include these restrictions, so I'll give you that one.

PRCs, on the other hand, are hardly needed when you have the incredible scope of "base classes" that PF introduced. All the benefits of a Prestige Class without the nasty ol' prerequisites. (The Witch can cast Sleep as an "At will" ability? At lower levels that's pretty much a death spell.)

As for the healing: Healing bursts are "free" healing, in that they use "turn attempts" and don't use spell slots, so don't complain about how weak they are. They're a bonus that 3.5 doesn't have at all. And if you're saying that a feat is needed to make it work selectively, well, PCs aren't short of Feats in [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate]. They get 50% more than 3.5.

It's kind of like the Druid feat to allow them to cast while wild shaped in 3.5: Have you ever seen a Druid who didn't take it? I haven't.

I've seen some people playing Dhampyre (sp?) who are sort of undead, but not. They channel negative energy, which heals them and harms the enemy. Sort of a repeating fireball on the field, one that can't be resisted by any kind of energy resistance, nor even by SR, since it's a Supernatural rather than Spell Lik ability.

And could someone please explain how the Alchemist can prepare a "potion" (with no material cost or availability problems), fix it to a crossbow bolt, cock and load that crossbow and then fire it, faster than an expert with the weapon can load and fire? The Alchemist does all of that as part of a Standard Action. The Fighter needs to spend a Move action just to do the loading. That's the kind of special bonus ability you normally see in fairly specialized Prestige Classes, but Alchemist is a base class.

And while they may have weakened the Druid, the Summoner (I think that's what he's called) has an "animal companion" called an Edilon (sp?) that can come and fight and can't be killed. All the enemy can do is send it away until the next morning. From what I've seen the Edilon is a Paladin's Mount and an Animal Companion all rolled into one, and pretty much indestructible to boot. Again, a base class ability/feature that many a 3.5 PRC would be hard pressed to match.

I've played in mixed games, and unless the D&D characters are very well designed (read "optimized") the PF characters put them to shame.