D&D 5E You can't necessarily go back

[B.T.]

As you mentioned Prone Shooting, which is a feat, I guess you mean all the feats from Paizo who dont came from 3e are mediocre. I disagree. Do you have something to back up your ivory tower bold statement, other than your personal opinion, which is not worth any more than mine?

I'd tell you to prove that Paizo's mechanics were good, but that would be trollish.

Let me make a list of things that are bad:

• Monk class. Terrible mess of sorta-kinda full BAB and far too many attack rolls.
• Fighters are still bad, as are shadowdancers.
• The assassin class losing spells is a huge nerf.
• Rangers, cavaliers, and inquisitors have too many mechanics.
• Full casters are still too powerful overall.
• Arcane Strike is a terrible feat. +5 damage at level 20? Lol.
• Combat Expertise is a useless feat tax that punishes fighters who want to do something besides HIT REALLY HARD.
• The entire line of Achievement feats are really awful and require finicky book keeping.
• The Disruptive feat increases the DC to cast defensively by +4. PLUS FOUR. Meanwhile, wizards who don't suck don't care.
• Wind Stance/Lightning Stance require you to give up your full attack in order to gain a 50% miss chance (terribad).
• Fleet is +5 feet to your speed for a feat.
• Nimble Moves lets your ignore all of five feet of difficult terrain. You can dump two feats into Acrobatic Steps to ignore up to 20 feet. What a deal.
• Strike Back is the worst thing in the world because you have to ready an action to use it. Again, if you're wasting your full attack, you're losing in 3e.
• Vital Strike line is almost good but requires three feats to make it good.
• (Greater) Penetrating Strike ignores up to 5/10 points of damage reduction. loooooool
• Most of the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats are fairly underwhelming.

That's material I'm familiar with. I would love to go through Ultimate Combat with a finetooth combat but I'm not going to waste my time with that level of terrible.

 

[triqui]

I'd tell you to prove that Paizo's mechanics were good, but that would be trollish.

Let me make a list of things that are bad:

• Monk class. Terrible mess of sorta-kinda full BAB and far too many attack rolls.
• Fighters are still bad, as are shadowdancers.
• The assassin class losing spells is a huge nerf.
• Rangers, cavaliers, and inquisitors have too many mechanics.
• Full casters are still too powerful overall.
• Arcane Strike is a terrible feat. +5 damage at level 20? Lol.
• Combat Expertise is a useless feat tax that punishes fighters who want to do something besides HIT REALLY HARD.
• The entire line of Achievement feats are really awful and require finicky book keeping.
• The Disruptive feat increases the DC to cast defensively by +4. PLUS FOUR. Meanwhile, wizards who don't suck don't care.
• Wind Stance/Lightning Stance require you to give up your full attack in order to gain a 50% miss chance (terribad).
• Fleet is +5 feet to your speed for a feat.
• Nimble Moves lets your ignore all of five feet of difficult terrain. You can dump two feats into Acrobatic Steps to ignore up to 20 feet. What a deal.
• Strike Back is the worst thing in the world because you have to ready an action to use it. Again, if you're wasting your full attack, you're losing in 3e.
• Vital Strike line is almost good but requires three feats to make it good.
• (Greater) Penetrating Strike ignores up to 5/10 points of damage reduction. loooooool
• Most of the Improved [Combat Maneuver] feats are fairly underwhelming.

That's material I'm familiar with. I would love to go through Ultimate Combat with a finetooth combat but I'm not going to waste my time with that level of terrible.

Do you realize some of the things you mentionare actually a 3e design?

Several others are just a matter of taste (cavaliers for example), and I think you dismiss some others too quickly. Nimble feet allows you to charge through a difficult terrain square, which is good, and do 5'steps, which is good too. And arcane strike is better than weapon specialization, which is a fine feat and does +2 at 4th and still +2 at 20.

However, you have mention like a dozen items (some of which are largelly questionable), from a pool of hundreds.
Telling me to point good mechanic from paizo isnt trollish, its fallacious (reverse burden of proof, as you were the one who pointed that Paizo is subpar, and it is up to you to prove your bold claim). However, I could point several cool Paizo mechanics, as True Grit, witches' Hexes, much better polymorph mechanics, better paladin class, or Archetypes as a whole. It's not like I need to, however, as I'm not defending that Paizo is good, as much as I'm defending that you make bold claims supported by anything else than your personal opinion as if they were proven facts, and then dismiss other people for "speaking from an ivory tower". For that, I dont need to point good Paizo mechanics. I only need to point your failure to show Paizo is subpar. So far you have pointed out a few limited examples (like point blank shot), who fall under hasty generalization, and personal opinions (such as your opinion about cavaliers)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Modular approaches to design have been in computer science far longer than that. And several terms, ways to work, scientific approachs, and class definitions come from programming, especially from object oriented programming.

That doesn't mean there is a causal link between modular design in computers and rpgs. I would argue it is just something that arises naturally in rpgs from things like optional rules. I just don't see that the concept in table top was influenced by comouter programming (though I am sure it has been adopted as an analogy plenty of times by designers trying to describe it).

Either way though. Regardless of how one wants to parse the history, video games and table top role playing games are both at points in their development where their needs are very different. I dont see why borrowing from computer concepts would be any more helpful than borrowing from other fields. Our focus should be on what works for rpgs, not trying to emulate comuter tech ImO. I am not saying there is nothing ever to be learned. Just the priority shouldn't be to use video games as a model for where table tops should be in terms of design.

 

[B.T.]

Shrug. Maybe that's your opinion, but if a company is publishing that much junk material, I'm not willing to give my money to them. It's like Dark Heresy. I love the setting, and I want to give FFG my money, but I'm not willing to deal with the system.

 

[Argyle King]

Shrug. Maybe that's your opinion, but if a company is publishing that much junk material, I'm not willing to give my money to them. It's like Dark Heresy. I love the setting, and I want to give FFG my money, but I'm not willing to deal with the system.

I just wanted to point out that Paizo is hardly the only company guilty of it. I can mostly certainly pick out plenty of D&D feats and options which currently exist which are considered "junk" by a lot of people I know.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Mostly, I'm curious who is considered an on-par designer by your standards.

 

[B.T.]

Mostly, I'm curious who is considered an on-par designer by your standards.

Rather than name names, I'll say that I think 4e was a very well designed game. It's not a game I like, but I'm willing to offer it (damningly faint) praise as a game that does what it is intended to do.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Rather than name names, I'll say that I think 4e was a very well designed game. It's not a game I like, but I'm willing to offer it (damningly faint) praise as a game that does what it is intended to do.

So....what is a game you do like? Do you like any version of D&D?

 

[triqui]

Shrug. Maybe that's your opinion, but if a company is publishing that much junk material, I'm not willing to give my money to them. It's like Dark Heresy. I love the setting, and I want to give FFG my money, but I'm not willing to deal with the system.

That is a totally different thing, and one I fully agree with you. But this is completelly different saying it is subpar, because you dont like it, and saying you wont buy it because you dont like it.

 

[B.T.]

So....what is a game you do like? Do you like any version of D&D?

The question is not whether I "like" D&D; it's whether I'm satisfied with it.

 

[Lanefan]

The question is not whether I "like" D&D; it's whether I'm satisfied with it.

Aaaand...are you, then, satisfied with any of the various D&D editions?

Lanefan