Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MechaPilot" data-source="post: 6507275" data-attributes="member: 82779">Sorry if I offended (tone is hard to tell online), but your post's wording was confusing as to what you meant; I just wanted some clarification.I have played 3.5, but I have not played PF.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have heard numerous people say that PF is basically 3.5 with only a tiny smattering of minor differences.&nbsp; I have no real reason to doubt the people who've said that, and I had no incentive to get involved in PF when I still had my 3.5 books, and when I was already enjoying 4e.Regarding specialization, I agree and disagree.&nbsp; Specialization in grappling isn't role specialization.&nbsp; Grappling is a means to fulfilling a role, not a role in itself.Also, you are using that same wording that confused me before when you say the following:Wouldn't optional feats, classes, subclasses, and subclass/class features constitute 5e introducing &quot;rules, mechanics, or even informal description?&quot;&nbsp; That's part of what confused me in your first post.I disagree with this for a few reasons:1) If there is a choice that makes a character better at achieving a given role, I see no reason to actively avoid saying so.2) Choosing to focus on dealing damage for one encounter does not make a character a &quot;striker&quot; (a striker is a character who excels at dealing damage over performing the other combat roles), and choosing to attempt to fulfill a different role is not something that couldn't be done in 4e (you would just never be as good at fulfilling that role as you would be at fulfilling the role you receive enabling mechanics for).3) People come into RPGs from a variety of different sources.&nbsp; Role-indicating language facilitates players who come into 5e from 4e, MMOs, and tactical wargames.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MechaPilot, post: 6507275, member: 82779"] Sorry if I offended (tone is hard to tell online), but your post's wording was confusing as to what you meant; I just wanted some clarification. I have played 3.5, but I have not played PF. I have heard numerous people say that PF is basically 3.5 with only a tiny smattering of minor differences. I have no real reason to doubt the people who've said that, and I had no incentive to get involved in PF when I still had my 3.5 books, and when I was already enjoying 4e. Regarding specialization, I agree and disagree. Specialization in grappling isn't role specialization. Grappling is a means to fulfilling a role, not a role in itself. Also, you are using that same wording that confused me before when you say the following: Wouldn't optional feats, classes, subclasses, and subclass/class features constitute 5e introducing "rules, mechanics, or even informal description?" That's part of what confused me in your first post. I disagree with this for a few reasons: 1) If there is a choice that makes a character better at achieving a given role, I see no reason to actively avoid saying so. 2) Choosing to focus on dealing damage for one encounter does not make a character a "striker" (a striker is a character who excels at dealing damage over performing the other combat roles), and choosing to attempt to fulfill a different role is not something that couldn't be done in 4e (you would just never be as good at fulfilling that role as you would be at fulfilling the role you receive enabling mechanics for). 3) People come into RPGs from a variety of different sources. Role-indicating language facilitates players who come into 5e from 4e, MMOs, and tactical wargames. [/QUOTE]

Verification