Pathfinder 1E What can 5e Give us that Pathfinder doesn't

Gundark

Explorer
The err in assumption is that if you play pathfinder, then you are a die hard fanboy. Some people play the game as it represents the best fit ( not perfect fit) for fantasy gaming. Or represents the gaming group's compromise on games to play. So for those people , then 5e gives the possibility of something exciting to look forward to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dice4Hire

First Post
Well, Pathfinder did not give my gaming group anything (though I know it gave a lot of people a lot) so that bar is awful low.
 

The main experience that D&D5 will offer over Pathfinder will be that it actually IS D&D, rather than just being 'the real D&D' or whatever. In terms of development, I hope to see a more authentic (but 'cleaned up') version of 1st Edition, and a simpler game to boot. The Pathfinder core rules are too big, too complex, and too generic in their design. I want something a little lighter.
 

mkill

Adventurer
I made my first PF character recently. My 4E group broke down because of players moving away, new DM wants to play PF, why not.

Made an elven Sorcerer.

I have a bow with +5 to attack and 1d8+5 damage (point blank). Which isn't bad.

However, since I'm a sorcerer, I tried to find a way to do anything similarly useful with spells. My alternative is Ray of Frost or Acid Splash. It's at-will (yay) but only does piddly 1d3. Not even 1d3 + Cha, plain 1d3.

Wait, I'm a celestial Sorc, so I get this ranged touch attack. Which deals 1d4, and I get 7/day. Bow is still massively better.

So that flavor weapon proficiency I get from race is better than all my class features.

Ok, a few times per day I can Color Spray, not exactly a manly spell but effective. Magic Missile isn't better than my bow either. 3.5 damage autohit doesn't beat 9.5 with a roll (unless the monster's AC is so high that we'd better run instead anyway).

It's kind of disappointing - I wanted a Sorcerer and got an Archer. The game promises me I'll be a powerful caster on day ... but I know the campaign won't go past level 5.

Of course, the char is still broken, because I can cast the harmless little cantrip called Daze at will. Dealing adequate damage with a cantrip is OP, but denying the opponent his turn, lowering his defenses and setting him up for Sneak Attack isn't. Right?
 
Last edited:


TheAuldGrump

First Post
My excitement for the Fifth Edition was rekindled yesterday afternoon at our Pathfinder game. Our group consists of devoted followers of almost every different edition of Dungeons & Dragons, but we really enjoy playing together in hilarious adventures and thrilling fights. We all agreed that it would be the best thing in the world if there really was an edition of Dungeons & Dragons which allowed us each to easily play the characters we want at the same table.

Certainly the fact that we can all have fun playing Pathfinder one week and Old School the other week shows that it is possible for roleplayers to adjust their visions to different systems. But each of us would be happier with characters more similar to them which come from our favourite edition: certainly we would not have to learn a different rules system each time one of us started a new campaign. (In fact when our Pathfinder dungeon master goes back to Canada from Korea, another group member has already set up a 3.5 Birthright Campaign to follow. More new rules for me to learn! And you would be surprised how many real differences there are.)

Therefore I think the Fifth Edition will offer this to Pathfinders: you will be able to play with a wider circle of happy people, and your group will be able to change campaigns dungeon masters more easily without people hesitating to join because this or that is not their edition. Plus I am sure that there are many players of Pathfinder like myself and my Old School friends who have other preferred editions, who would like a shot of that goodness in their Pathfinder.
I run Pathfinder, and I already have more players, and folks that want to be players, than I have room for. I am currently running two games a week (more accurately, I have three campaigns, one of Spycraft, the rest Pathfinder, with two alternating weeks and the third (Pathfinder) game weekly) of six players each. I have players trying to convince me to go to seven players....

So, a wider circle would not be needed in my case, thanks ever so.... :p

The Auld Grump
 

MrGrenadine

Explorer
*Increase realism and verisimilitude
*Reduce complexity and bookkeeping
*Redice dependency on computers and battlemaps
*Make all character types fun and interesting
*Grant players more narrative control
*Make the game more beginner-friendly and more accessible to non-gamers

Great list, except for narrative control. Thats a deal breaker for me. As a player, I want to inhabit and react to a fully realized world, not create it so it benefits me in specific situations.
 

mkill

Adventurer
How are you getting a +5 to damage with a 1st level elven sorcerer?
Looks like among all the fiddly bits I overlooked that 3E/PF doesn't allow everyone to add their attack stat to damage. You know a newer edition did something right when you just assume it's always been that way.

On a more general level, I'm just tired of the trope that fighters don't get nice things, but are useful every round. So in exchange for nice things, what you can do every round has to suck. (And I'm tired of it on both sides.)

If 5E does the same, count me out.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer
I think all but a few of the people in this thread are missing that the OP was asking to discuss actual problems in Pathfinder/3.5 that a new edition of D&D could address.

I definitely feel there are some verisimilitude problems with the number scaling, and even more with the economy.

Common guards, soldiers, and monstrous humanoids are weak compared to the creates that exists even at mid level, causing you to wonder how the intelligent races even survive. The flattening of the numbers will address much of this.

Magic item values are such that a powerful magic item is worth an Olympic pool filled with gold. And characters end up finding that much gold on an adventure. Which means that gold itself should be worthless as currency.

I'd like the source and workings of magic to be address in more detail, at least at the setting level. I don't need the rules to be complex, just to be grounded in something.

The three saving throws are an unnecessary level of mechanic, when the ability scores can do the same job. I'm glad that they're addressing that.

There are too many feats, which is where the system mastery problem comes in. I'd like to see feats reworked so that there are fewer of them, but each is more desirable.

A less granular skill system. Spending your points takes time, and each minor increase feels meaningless. While 4E took it too far, fewer, more meaningful ranks would be better.

Refinements to each class. Wizards could use access to some at-will magic in some form. Fighters could use some cool abilities. I think simpler forms of the druid and ranger would go over well with new female players, etc.

I wouldn't mind seeing classes restructured so there were fewer of them, but different talent trees or themes within them.

A greater focus on mundane equipment. I like cool things that aren't magical in nature.

A better system for spell resistance. I like the 4E concept of the spellcaster rolling, so SR could be a form of armor.

A well designed option for wounds and conditions for when I want more realistic combat.

A good set of rules for dramatic tasks, mass combat, followers, running businesses or cities, etc.

A wider variety in art, with a greater focus on setting and non-combat aspects of adventuring.

More love for the d12.

A rethinking of the place of wands and staves. Charged magic items make useful spells too powerful.

A revision of the way metamagic works. Instead of using a higher level slot, metamagic might required the use of an additional, lower level slot.

The ability to build NPCs and monsters on the fly.

A faster mechanic for iterative attacks and fighting with multiple weapons.

Generally more fluff in certain aspects of the rules. What, exactly, are undead and how does that work? Where do conjured effects come from? What do material components do for a spell? What, exactly, does a fighter's stance look like? etc.
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
Great list, except for narrative control. Thats a deal breaker for me. As a player, I want to inhabit and react to a fully realized world, not create it so it benefits me in specific situations.

I think you should see where they're drawing "more" from. They could be seeing players as having too little(not specifically your games, just in general). Remember, DMs are also players, even if it's not always traditional to think of them as such.
 

Remove ads

Top