Pathfinder/5e

Sure, refluffing goes a long way. The fluff attached to a class is basically meaningless.

If i find something lacking in 5e, it's about wanting something mechanical that 5e doesn't cover, not about matching some meaningless fluff.

Do you really need an entire new book to swap the dagger from piercing to blunt?

Options, if I want to roll a dude who punches like a truck, I want to have the option to do it and not be relegated as the worst damage dealer who has to settle for being a stun gun

I did that, then the GM kicked me out for changing stuff

I don't know, I like the mechanical options, especially ones from UA

having it be non-homebrew is a good way to avoid autistic screeching

I like a lot of them too. But there are homes where there's either a lack of options or crap options, like artificer.

The DM kicked you out rather that you just stating that you hit them with the pommel instead of the blade?
Seems like you're both at fault there.

>just stating that you hit them with the pommel instead of the blade?
So you want him to carry around a knife but never use the blade for some reason?

A sap is just a form of club. A specific new version isn't needed because in 5e you can declare any melee attack that put the target at 0 HP to be knocked out, instantly placing them unconscious but stable.

Don't play with cunts.

A lot of them are good. There are shitty exceptions, however.

Fighter, barbarian, ranger(PHB), monk(some subclasses), artificer, warlock.

Limited options, limited options, chump, chump, crap design, crap design.

Are you implying an adventurer will never require a knife at some point?
Sure if he wants his entire gimmick to be a non-lethal rogue then he really wants to carry around small batons instead of a knife, but using a knife just you the option to stab if you need to.
It's not that big an issue.

His problem is that the club is not a finesse/ranged weapon, so you can't sneak attack with it.

You ask the dm if you want homebrew, you don't dump it on him, regardless of what it is. He probably dumped you just out of principle.

A dagger is not just a knife. It's a damn big knife.

Carrying a knife as a backup is one thing, but why would you primarily carry a knife without any real intent to use it? Especially if you do plan on being a knockout rogue and need to, y'know, not leave bloodstains everywhere.

I think that's a dumb restriction they've addedin 5e.

I see no reason you shouldn't be able to sneak attack with a greataxe if you sneak up behind a guy and he can't see it coming, or if he can't get out of the way because flanking.

Well I have a campaign where we fight skeletons and one player has a low str paladin, so I helped them by making a curse rapier that does blunt damage...And shouts curse words when killing undead

Warlock has most options in the game, I don't see the problem there.

I agree, it seems like a last moment addition. The Rogue even has longsword proficiency (which is useless for him since he can't SA).

The game should pretty much just use Gamma World's weapon table and be done with it, but noooo, we need to stat out weapons where the only difference is a bit of weight and like 5 gold.

As a caster I'll often carry around a sword as well, doesn't mean I intend to charge into the enemy front lines and hack them all to bits.
You're fixating a lot on the knife.
IF your DM insists on not letting you use a small club/baton as a weapon AND they decline the idea of you hitting someone with the pommel of a knife for damage then you likely don't want to be at that table.
Also bear in mind that if you can't get over your character using a knife to do non-lethal damage because it doesn't fit your aesthetic you're probably being a little too stubborn as well.

Everything they have is inferior to EB, andtheirspellcasting has a stupid progression that doesn't multiclass right. Also you need a specific patron to not be complete shit as a gish warlock.

Knife pommel isn't fimesse

Different posters. I thought that would be obvious since we're both talking to the same guy and I responded to him.

So do your sneak attack damage with a finesse weapon. The only restriction on knocked out is that it be a melee attack.

I'd like to see a handful of weapon types with modular modifications you can slap on them that change the price, weight, stats, and functionality.

Pick and choose weapon building rules.

Pathfinder only exists because its free online and well organized. Pathfinder has more better choices, but also more moral hazards (opportunities to either make a broken character or an unplayable character)

5e is better balanced but presents far fewer character options. The one thing it does well is scale back the importance of minutia in nearly every respect.

I would say that 5e feels like a better game, but it feels like the skin of a better game wrapped around the skeleton of a bad one. The problems with class-based design are on display for all to see in 5e with nothing to distract from them, and caster supremacy is still as troublesome as ever.

There's no requirement that the pommel be used. Any melee attack can be used to trigger the knocked out rule.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's like talking about engines of this model vs another when someone asks what accessory features you want in your new car.

>Ima going to knock you out with a flaming chainsaw

I know but saying "it's a BIG knife" doesn't help compromise at the table.

It has the problems of BAD class based design, complete with level-by-level multiclassing bullshit.

You use the butt of the chainsaw, are you even thinking before you type dude?

If you don't like 5e's rules go back to Pathfinder. You won't be missed.

That's improvised weapon rules so you lose special traits like finesse

... flaming chainsaws are finesse?

He's talking about knocking someone out.
I suggest you read things twice before you respond to them.

Level by level multiclassing is a good concept, but there's issues with the implementations that have been used.

Namely the requirement that you load up on low level features that don't scale properly to your character level.

But if im playing a game with classes, I definitely want per-level multiclassing.

Ideally though, just give me point buy character features to build what i want to play, even if the game still has levels.

I don't play PF either, the closes to it I play nowadays is FC

>FC
I tried it. Maybe I'll try it again if they ever finish the damn game, but for now, nope.

This whole thread is sort of pointless, as 5e isnt really designed to take on new features wholesale. There is nothing 5e needs from pathfinder, however there are several things it needs from other games that it is in no way set up to incorporate. The only advantage Pathfinder has over 5e that could be incorporated into 5e would be a better online catalog, which Im sure exists in some form somewhere.

Thats one way of looking at it. The way I see it, class-based systems CAN have many problems that classless systems cannot, making designing a game on a class-based system more difficult to get right. Older editions (attempted to) fixed these problems by having deeper class-independant pools of options, whereas 5e does nearly nothing.

Why not? think of sun blade.

The thing is that it's ridiculous to "knock out" someone with the cutting edge of your flaming cutting weapon

The rules for knock outs aren't trait-dependent for or against. It can be invoked on any successful melee attack whatsoever.

Again, the 5e ruleset does not give a shit what you think. You very much can knock someone out with the cutting edge of your flaming cutting weapon while sneak attacking, smiting, and casting Grean Flame Blade if you'd like as long as you don't throw it.

Finesse was handled half right. The bane of my experience in 5e is that every single character I've played alongside or run a game for seemed to use a fucking rapier.

Level by level multiclassing assumes that you actually get a steady, consistently increasing drip of value from each class, which is just not the case. Its actually never been the case in any edition that Im aware of (it may have been better in 4e, but I never played it). Thats ultimately the failing of a class-level based system: when you level up you get what the game gives you, not what you're interested in. 5e goes a long way to fix that, but not quire far enough (rolling feats in with ability score increases is legitimately an amazing design decision that Im sure will be retained in any further installments of the game, should there be any).

>5e isn't designed to take on new features
The UA articles and published supplemental products like Volo would seem to indicate otherwise. What are you on about, exactly?

>Advantage
I mean yeah, d20pfsrd is worlds better than a ton of physical books, but that's not even vaguely a mechanical part of the game someone could miss from pf while playing 5e,.

>But if im playing a game with classes, I definitely want per-level multiclassing.

>Ideally though, just give me point buy character features to build what i want to play, even if the game still has levels.

Of course you want level-by-level, since it's basically just a very chunky pointbuy system.

Which is why it squanders the benefits of a class system.

This doesn't mean it's inherently bad, but it does mean it should be designed differently.

> The way I see it, class-based systems CAN have many problems that classless systems cannot, making designing a game on a class-based system more difficult to get right.

It's the other way around. Class systems are easier to get right than pointbuy systems, because you don't have to care about stupid combinations of stuff... assuming you want to play something mechanically diverse anyway. Level-by-level multiclassing removes this benefit. This is why "you don't multiclass UA!" is the golden rule, and why the UA stuff when it comes out will be gutted and have nonsensical (in a vacuum) restrictions.

Im curious what you think of this

I agree with your criticism of the class level design.

Ideally if you're reaching level 6, you get level 6 abilities regardless of what class you take, not level 1 abilities that are a waste of space.

Classes as a pool of point-purchaseable abilities and proficiencies would be good, but the fixed progression is not good.

I strongly disagree about ability scores/feats. One of the worst parts of 5e.

Those are expansions of existing features, at least thats the way I see them. Its apples and oranges at that point though.

I think it's correct that 4e fixed this, mostly by removing level-by-level.

I think the score/feat combinations implementation is poor, but it makes sense. Getting an ability score increase is one of the most boring level-up rewards you can get, mostly because there's almost no real thought involved. Most people know from character creation what ability scores they would like to increase. Bolting them into feats was fairly smart IMO.

Classes as a pool of point-purchasable abilities is an interesting idea, however you still need some kind of level-capping system otherwise there is no progression to the class, and at that point you're objectively better off going to a full point-buy system.

It's more popular than it should be. Unless you specifically want Finesse it's strictly inferior to War Pick in all ways and inferior to Battleaxe, Flail, Longsword, Morningstar, and War Hammer in one or more.

Unless you like the aesthetics or want to pack a spare to hand the rogue if they lose theirs, its a minor, forgivable, but nonetheless clear waste.

>Of course you prefer level by level, it makes it into a chunky point buy system.

Yeah. If the classes were rigid the whole way up I'd avoid it in favor of other games. 4es multiclassing was one of the big things I hated about it, and it wasn't "classic" class+level either.

At low levels, before you get plate, going DEX is a sound choice, especially for the munchkins that actually roll for stats and can start with 18-20 in a stat.

If those aren't new features in the system, what exactly would be? Switching games to Everyone is John mid way through a session?

I really have no idea what kind of content you would actually consider to be new mechanical content, that couldn't be included a la UA.

Oh yeah, not denying that it absolutely has its niche as the highest-damage 1-hander for DEX builds that can use Martial weapons. Just also pointing out that's literally all it has going for it.

Full disclosure, I havnt read all of UA, Ive used some of its content (mostly its trove of vastly improved feats), but from what I saw it seems like more of a hotfix than an expansion of or departure from the core mechanics of the game.

4e's multiclassing is by far the best in the series, aside from maybe the feat+power cost being a bit too steep. It has the benefits of class-based leveling but also gives you the option to dip your toes into any of the classes for a single feat, or hybrid if you want to go half and half.

The cost was probably a bit too high, and I'm not saying it worked perfectly, but it's basically the best single-class system I saw.

Legend sorta perfected it with the track approach, but I don't remember if it had multiclass feats.

>Legend

The greatest Fantasy Heartbreaker of them all.

Having to choose between a feat and an ASI is dull as fuck. The 'right' answer makes the game less fun, at least until you've maxed out your main attributes.

Next game I'm trying feats-only, 42PB, max of 18s at start, continuing the pattern to price out higher starting abilities.

My group is pretty hyped about not having to waste opportunities to be interesting on keeping up with the math.

As for the pools, I'm thinking something like qinggong monk for Pathfinder, but if abilities are to be gated (a good idea, imo), I'd gate them not by class level, but by character level.

So if you go from fighter 5 to fighter 5 monk 1, you get to grab monk features that are appropriate for a 6th level character.

That's because 4e has ""PrCs"" and feat requirements depending on classes

What sort of departure from core mechanics do you mean, like alternate magic systems? There's MP magic in the DMG. And I haven't looked at mystic, but if I understand right it has a custom magic system too.

There's also a downtime rules system in UA.

It seemed neat on the player side, then I saw how they expected you to build monsters and said "absolutely not"

I think there's a fan-made monster manual, isn't there?

I'm familiar with it. I found it rigid and irritating, but more tolerable than pre-3e multiclassing.

If there is, this is the first I'm hearing about it.

Have you actually played 5e?

>I found it rigid and irritating

What were you trying to do? If you don't mind me asking

I would wager that if they have it's some houseruled-to-hell pseudo 3.PF version of it. Too many people throw out half the rulebook and then complain that the classes don't work right.

Yes.

I like options. I was hoping 5e would fix how martials in 3.x are bland, and lacking in viable tactical choices. It didn't, really. But at least now they don't have to stand still to get their attacks.

At the end of the day you still tend to need spells if you want many choices on your turn.

How can you argue otherwise?

The skill system.

I like the expanded skill list, intelligence actually mattering thanks to ranks and the clearer DC values in Pathfinder and find 5E really lacking in options.

I've considered home-brewing it so that every level you get +int skill ranks with 4 ranks= to a +1 bonus that you can put in any skill you want to a max of perhaps +3, with proficiency bonus applying as well.

Battlemaster fighter is somewhat entertaining, but the new maneuvers get progressively more underwhelming as you collect all the ones you actually wanted and then have to take the leftover crap in your remaining slots.

Its the most interesting of the bunch

>importing things from a bad game
>into a good game
Wow really makes me think

Absolutely disgusting.

Monster creation was just a symptom of the major design issue that the designers were admitted play-by-post junkies with limited to no OTB experience and proud of it. Between character builds managing 3-4 resource pools and 3 page writeups for mid-level monsters it was a bleeding nightmare to actually DM for at all points.

I don't regret the year we spent trying to play it because I feel a lot of it made me a better DM. But it does bother me how much of that was learning to compensate for system weaknesses.

I do sometimes wonder if it could have held on long enough for a Legend: Revised Edition if the Next playtest didn't happen when it did.

Nothing specific springs to mind. Haven't played it in almost 7 years.

I just recall it being annoying having to forget abilities rather than have them scale up and get new ones, and I remember it being annoying that you couldnt generally make a character that didn't neatly fit into one or two classes.

But as I said at the beginning of the comment chain, I'd rather classless d&d anyways.

Ive been wanting to try everstone , but I've never gotten around to it.

And you think Pathfinder had good martials? PoW notwithstanding because that's third party.

5e gives you a ton of options, it just doesn't go full autistic and place minutae attached to it.

Do you also want a shit ton of shit, underbalanced, terrible, underwhelming and trap options? Because that's how Pathfinder does it.
You have your options, good luck doing anything worthwhile and actually being useful with them.

With all the new UA feats its less of "either or" and more "both" when it comes to ASI/Feats, which I think is a perfect solution.

Both games have issues.

Pf has its trap options and steep class tiers and slow npc creation and bullshit feat trees and prerequisites.

5e has its rigid classes and minimal character customization, and skill math wherein proficiency is basically irrelevant for the first chunk of the game, because bounded accuracy + small base-level bonuses + level based scaling is good for combat but crap for skills.

Neither is a perfect game. 5e comes out ahead imo, but it's still lacking in many areas.

Maybe it's as simple as those of who like the Martials put more emphasis on positioning and target selection than pure attack options? I think my Sentinel build requires more tactical depth than my caster builds do simply because where I have to consider where I'm standing and what everyone is likely to do on the next turn. Really, with a Sentinel build your "turn" is more what you do when it isn't your initiative than when it is.

I don't think I would port pathfinders skill system, but I 100% agree about having actual skill dc guidelines. The "guidelines" in 5e are shit.

No. No I said the opposite.

I had hoped 5e would provide interesting martials because 3.x didnt and in 4e everyone is a half caster with a very limited list.

But instead they made one interesting martial, a couple interesting half casters, and more of the same bland crap martials, but with nerfed casters to make it less obvious.

No. I want martials with a variety of viable options. I want substantial improvement, not to trade one set of bullshit annoyances for another set of bullshit annoyances with some shared overlap.

"Level up and forget abilities" is definitely one of the most criticized parts of 4e (and I fullheartedly agree), but doesn't really have anything to do with multiclassing.

I asked specifics, because in my experience people get upset about not being able to do a thing they usually either shouldn't do, or don't need to do in the first place.

I would like to go back to the attacks of opportunity in 3.5pf. It's retarded that an enemy can literally run laps around you and you can't hit their ass.

I'd also like to be able to attempt to disarm or trip enemies without being a battle master, since 5e only gives them the ability to do so.

I'd like a feat for combat reflexes to either give you extra attacks of opportunity or increase the amount of reactions you can make. Some things like defensive duelist only stop 1 attack, and once you reach multiattacker enemies it stops being a useful ability.

A lot of it has to do with the way 5e offloads things that used to be skills-based into pre-calculated things like "you have a long jump of your STR score provided you can take a 10 foot run-and-go, and thus doesn't need detailed guideline.

That just leaves skills with "how often would an untrained person succeed at this?"

Almost every time? Just give it to them.
Most of the time? 5.
Half the time? 10.
Rarely? 15.
Almost never? 20.
Literally never? 25.
The best in the world would still be 50/50? 30.
The best in the world expect to fail? Just say no.

Sure. Those are interesting elements, and I agree they add something of value. But it still mostly comes down to those classes being all "i move here and attack". More variety/utility/buffs/debuffs would be greatly appreciated.

shit, sent too early

Just want to add that I don't want to force my opinion on you, you seem to have a good idea about what you like, so go, shine on, have fun.

I like being able to tell exactly how well I can track someone based on my roll, as an example.