Man what's the fun in playing a system that's not a mess
Messy systems are where all the really hilarious rules manipulations come out which are great
Like, I can get the appeal of simple systems, but the more I look at them the more they feel completely arbitrary and limiting in really artificial ways and the more I realize I don't have fun in them. Especially when it's D&D, because 3.5 was my first roleplay and broken or not it's still one of my favorites, especially with PF's improvements
Like that flowchart looks complicated, but in practice it's really, really not if you actually read the rules. Anything can look ridiculously complicated if you put it in a flowchart. But in practice, it all really comes down to one opposed CMD check each round to determine dominance or escape. Which is not all that complicated.
[QUOTE=elowin;49908738]ok maybe i'm biased from basically only ever playing the fun classes, like wizard.
it's kind of ironic though that the classes that used to be the most complex by far, the spellcasters, are now arguably by far the simplest, because there are barely any spellcasting feats around that create one of these ridiculous webs of shit.
Either way though, I stand by it being easy to GM, because the GM doesn't really have to give much of a shit about any of this as long as the PCs bother to learn the rules that apply to them. And when they don't know the rules, the GM might as well just make something up on the spot.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's part of why spellcasters are so good. Metamagic, archmages (in 3e), and a utility belt of a zillion spells mean that you can accomplish as much or more than anyone else can, possibly for longer too via some spells. I mean, if you don't use the rules, why bother playing pathfinder anyways? Play 5e, or 3e, or hell.. AD&D. D20 Modern. I can understand skipping out on some of the obscure stuff, but there's so damn much to the CORE RULES that it's still a mess even then, and if you want to just ignore core rules then why bother?
[QUOTE=Chronische;49908822]Well, that's part of why spellcasters are so good. Metamagic, archmages (in 3e), and a utility belt of a zillion spells mean that you can accomplish as much or more than anyone else can, possibly for longer too via some spells. I mean, if you don't use the rules, why bother playing pathfinder anyways? Play 5e, or 3e, or hell.. AD&D. D20 Modern. I can understand skipping out on some of the obscure stuff, but there's so damn much to the CORE RULES that it's still a mess even then, and if you want to just ignore core rules then why bother?[/QUOTE]
what
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
no really, what
[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;49908813]Man what's the fun in playing a system that's not a mess
Messy systems are where all the really hilarious rules manipulations come out which are great
Like, I can get the appeal of simple systems, but the more I look at them the more they feel completely arbitrary and limiting in really artificial ways and the more I realize I don't have fun in them. Especially when it's D&D, because 3.5 was my first roleplay and broken or not it's still one of my favorites, especially with PF's improvements
Like that flowchart looks complicated, but in practice it's really, really not if you actually read the rules. Anything can look ridiculously complicated if you put it in a flowchart. But in practice, it all really comes down to one opposed CMD check each round to determine dominance or escape. Which is not all that complicated.[/QUOTE]
I don't want "hilarious rules manipulations", I want the rules to serve the game, not the other way around.
I want the system to be easy to play and support the story, while still having varied characters and interesting combat. 5e fits this perfectly.
I find pathfinder to be completely arbitrary and limiting in really artificial ways, because a lot of the options were total garbage mechanically, and I don't want to choose between mechanics and roleplay.
[QUOTE=elowin;49908831]what
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
no really, what[/QUOTE]
Take grappling: there's a FUCKTON of feats related to that, but you can grapple better than a grappling built character with something like Evard's Black Tentacles. You can sneak better than a Rogue with fly+greater invisibility. You can fight better than a fighter with one of your kajillion fight ending spells, or polymorph yourself into a damned dragon and just smoosh them. That's just for spellcasters being stronk.
If you don't use all the rules, like the million different combat actions, all the modifiers for situations, all the little feats, racial abilities, situational modifiers, skill synergy.. or whatever, then why play pathfinder? Pathfinder exists to HAVE all that bloat. Even 3.5 wasn't QUITE that bad as far as just sheer god damned choice paralysis goes.
Today in Earthdawn:
[quote]We interrogated a bandit, who accused [I]us[/I] of being bandits, because it turned out the troll witch we were delivering stuff for hired him and the rest of the bandittos we dealt with last session to retrieve her 'stolen' stuff from us.
So we buried his boss, Jim, yoinked a blood charm he had on him, then delivered the witch's shit to Magnus back in the city we came from. Then we went back to Fasha's hamlet, and the dwarf girl who told us where to find her last time informed us that she didn't want to see anybody again today, or tomorrow. We knocked on the door, and she started got angry then started counting to 10 to give us time to fuck off before she attacked. We waited, and I attempt to reattune on of my spell matrices to something more useful.(I failed.)
Over the following 3 rounds of combat, Fasha attacked with some fire wolves she summoned, but our ork troubadour and obsidiman warrior wrecked her until she went unconscious. I spent the entire time trying to reattune the spell matrix, and [I]finally[/I] succeeded on the last round. While we waited for her to wake up, so we could talk, I reattuned back to the spell I'd had in the matrix originally, and did my karma ritual, while the rest of the group looked outside to make sure the village didn't want to kill us for KOing their mascot/founder/whatever.
When she woke up, the ork started questioning her, but she was clearly insane, and kept trying to get him to attack her. Eventually, she cast a spell to set her fists on fire, and they walked outside to fight. The ork knocked her out in two hits, and we left it there.[/quote]
I also got a spell matrix object(in the form of a bone amulet) off of Fasha, after we knocked her out the first time. Never got the name of it, though. :frown:
[QUOTE=Chronische;49909123]Take grappling: there's a FUCKTON of feats related to that, but you can grapple better than a grappling built character with something like Evard's Black Tentacles. You can sneak better than a Rogue with fly+greater invisibility. You can fight better than a fighter with one of your kajillion fight ending spells, or polymorph yourself into a damned dragon and just smoosh them. That's just for spellcasters being stronk.
If you don't use all the rules, like the million different combat actions, all the modifiers for situations, all the little feats, racial abilities, situational modifiers, skill synergy.. or whatever, then why play pathfinder? Pathfinder exists to HAVE all that bloat. Even 3.5 wasn't QUITE that bad as far as just sheer god damned choice paralysis goes.[/QUOTE]
If a setting is any good, spellcasters will ALWAYS be stronger than non-spellcasters, it comes with the territory of literally breaking the physics of reality.
But on the same token, spellcasters will also be much more complicated to play.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49909358]If a setting is any good, spellcasters will ALWAYS be stronger than non-spellcasters, it comes with the territory of literally breaking the physics of reality.
But on the same token, spellcasters will also be much more complicated to play.[/QUOTE]
Complexity is a really dodgy way to balance characters in a tabletop rpg, I don't really think it's ever been done successfully if it's ever even been intentionally attempted.
Rules need to be understandable, and if they're understandable then it's just a matter of time til complexity becomes mundane. And complexity usually also means a lot more options so once you've got over the learning curve then there isn't really a balancing mechanic there. Unless by complexity you mean in-setting complexity, like needing to do rituals, risk hurting yourself or acquiring regents etc like in Shadowrun.
Personally, if I were to play high fantasy games or something I'd rather have non-magic people be superhuman and be strong in a different way from magic users rather than just inferior.
(I'm not really casting any shade on any particular systems, I'm just talking about balancing mechanics in general. I don't really know or play enough D&D to talk about balance in any of their games.)
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49909034]I don't want "hilarious rules manipulations", I want the rules to serve the game, not the other way around.
I want the system to be easy to play and support the story, while still having varied characters and interesting combat. 5e fits this perfectly.
I find pathfinder to be completely arbitrary and limiting in really artificial ways, because a lot of the options were total garbage mechanically, and I don't want to choose between mechanics and roleplay.[/QUOTE]
If you want to limit yourself to simplified systems go for it, but none of those arguments are valid
[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;49909517]Personally, if I were to play high fantasy games or something I'd rather have non-magic people be superhuman and be strong in a different way from magic users rather than just inferior.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the Pros of Earthdawn. [I]Everyone[/I] is an Adept, which means roughly the same thing as it does in Shadowrun(someone who is capable of using magic), but only 4 of the Disciplines(5 if you count late-game Weaponsmiths) are capable of casting spells.
The Magician(Technically Mystic Adept, by Shadowrun standards) Disciplines are just as good as any of the others, albeit a bit more flexible provided they know what's coming; As in the story I posted above, I spent an entire combat trying to re-attune on of my spell matrices so I could cast a certain spell, while everyone else was wailing on the enemies. I couldn't really have stopped, because then I would have been useless for the rest of the fight(if you stop trying to reattune mid-combat, all of your matrices empty, and remain empty until you can do the non-combat version of reattuning).
I could have not tried to reattune in the first place, and I would have been contributing roughly as much to the fight as the rest of the players were, individually. But I wanted to use my strong, flashy spell, and ended up gimping myself for the entire fight as a result.
Another example where this is done well, in my opinion, is Chronicles of Darkness(In 2e). Mages are, by far, the most powerful splat, in terms of what kinds of things they can do, second only to Demons. A mage can, at 5 dots in a given Arcanum, create something ex nihilo; this includes new forms of life. The downside is, if anybody sees them casting the spell, or they try to do too much with it, they risk invoking Paradox. And [I]then[/I], if they do still cast it, if anybody(90% of the population, roughly, are Sleepers) sees this life form, it will start to disappear, and the Sleeper will forget about it or rationalize what they saw to something that makes sense.(That weird glowing worm was actually just a glowstick somebody dropped on the ground.)
Demons, on the other hand, have 2 kinds of powers; Embeds and Exploits(and Demonic Form abilities, though using those is usually a panic button situation anyways, and if it isn't they're in the same space as Exploits). Embeds are subtle bits of reality hacking that usually feels heavily of espionage and tradecraft. Exploits are explicitly supernatural powers that risk the attention of the God-Machine and its Angels, which will definitely try to kill the Demon in question if they do get alerted.
Aside from Mages and Demons, though, the rest of the splats aren't [I]quite[/I] as flexible, but they all have their areas of specialization.
[editline]10th March 2016[/editline]
Also worth noting that the spell I was trying to reattune to takes 2 turns to cast, minimum, and would have had a damage step of 13, which is roughly the same as the Ork was doing with his axe. The only other spell I have that does that much is instant, but requires me to be within touch range.(And is the spell I was reattuning from, because I didn't want to risk being close enough to the troll to touch her.)
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;49909747]If you want to limit yourself to simplified systems go for it, but none of those arguments are valid[/QUOTE]
If you want to bog yourself down with bloated systems go for it, but my reasons are valid.
System crunch and roleplay are not mutually exclusive.
You can have roleplay in systems like pathfinder, and I'd say that crunch-heavy systems give you MORE options for roleplay based on what people have on them, what's for sale, etc.
I'm not saying that crunch-lite systems are bad, but my preference definetly lies with the crunch side of things.
[QUOTE=FetchingToaster;49910177]You can have roleplay in systems like pathfinder, and I'd say that crunch-heavy systems give you MORE options for roleplay based on what people have on them, what's for sale, etc.[/QUOTE]
While this is, technically, true, you're not going to find as broad a selection of character types in Pathfinder as, say, Dungeon World, 5e, or any other system that sits on the light side of the rules.
A fighter in pathfinder is always going to be someone who is exceptionally skilled at using their chosen weapon, and can kick the ass of just about anybody with equal or lesser level, maybe even a couple of levels higher, as long as they have their favored weapon class handy, and they're always going to have the same fighting style as any other fighter with that weapon.(Because they'll take the same feats)
A fighter in 5e is always going to be a skilled combatant, but how they fight can vary wildly from one fighter to the next; maybe they're just great at combat(Champion), maybe they use magic to enhance their natural fighting skills(Eldritch Knight), maybe they give other people openings to do the kind of shit another fighter would do(Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight), or maybe they just shift the tide of combat in their side's favor(Battle Master).
While none of that really decides anything about their character, a 5e Fighter has more room to wiggle with their background and personality, given the many ways they can express the whole Fighter thing, than a pathfinder Fighter, who is always just going to be the best combatant on the field in an equal fight.
TL;DR some people really like options, 5e gives you more options than Pathfinder does.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49910406]While this is, technically, true, you're not going to find as broad a selection of character types in Pathfinder as, say, Dungeon World, 5e, or any other system that sits on the light side of the rules.
A fighter in pathfinder is always going to be someone who is exceptionally skilled at using their chosen weapon, and can kick the ass of just about anybody with equal or lesser level, maybe even a couple of levels higher, as long as they have their favored weapon class handy, and they're always going to have the same fighting style as any other fighter with that weapon.(Because they'll take the same feats)
A fighter in 5e is always going to be a skilled combatant, but how they fight can vary wildly from one fighter to the next; maybe they're just great at combat(Champion), maybe they use magic to enhance their natural fighting skills(Eldritch Knight), maybe they give other people openings to do the kind of shit another fighter would do(Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight), or maybe they just shift the tide of combat in their side's favor(Battle Master).
While none of that really decides anything about their character, a 5e Fighter has more room to wiggle with their background and personality, given the many ways they can express the whole Fighter thing, than a pathfinder Fighter, who is always just going to be the best combatant on the field in an equal fight.
TL;DR some people really like options, 5e gives you more options than Pathfinder does.[/QUOTE]
I completely disagree. Even ignoring the huge amount of archetypes available for all the classes, which changes the class powers you get as you level up, and just by using nothing but the insane amount of feats, you can make more varied fighters in Pathfinder than in DnD 5e, in which you can esssentially "just" make three different types... maybe they won't be optimized or whatever, but they will play differently. WITH the archetypes you can make a shitton of fighters that each play differently AND are (usually) fairly well balanced.
And that is not necessarily a bad thing, since you can argue that the archetypes just added to the bloat of the game, and the point of DnD 5e is to streamline the roleplay experience (I quite like it for that actually), but at its current state it doesn't even come close to provide the same class options that Pathfinder does.
TL;DR: Pathfinder is for people that like really huge amounts of options in character creation, due to archetypes and feats, while DnD 5e is for people who don't mind sacrificing options for streamlining (which is cool).
[QUOTE=Chronische;49909123]Take grappling: there's a FUCKTON of feats related to that, but you can grapple better than a grappling built character with something like Evard's Black Tentacles. You can sneak better than a Rogue with fly+greater invisibility. You can fight better than a fighter with one of your kajillion fight ending spells, or polymorph yourself into a damned dragon and just smoosh them. That's just for spellcasters being stronk.
If you don't use all the rules, like the million different combat actions, all the modifiers for situations, all the little feats, racial abilities, situational modifiers, skill synergy.. or whatever, then why play pathfinder? Pathfinder exists to HAVE all that bloat. Even 3.5 wasn't QUITE that bad as far as just sheer god damned choice paralysis goes.[/QUOTE]
what
no???
I mean for starters, the only reason Pathfinder is "worse" than 3.5 is the huge amount of feats. All that other shit is not even remotely "worse" than it was in 3.5, except now you can decide to switch out certain racial abilities for certain others if you want. That's a pretty simple system though.
And the only reason that you have the perception that Pathfinder has too many feats is that you use the SRD, which unlike the 3.5 SRD includes all, or almost all of the content from splatbooks as well. The core book of Pathfinder isn't bloated in the slightest, whatever bloat you see comes from literally years of releasing splatbooks full of feats.
And there's a lot of other reasons to prefer Pathfinder than the feats, lmao. For one, sorcerers aren't completely gimped to the point that at higher levels they're actually [i]forced[/i] to use the mechanic for exchanging old spells for new ones, in order to get any spells at higher level at all. And spellcasters in general get bigger toyboxes. Also the cantrips aren't bullshit.
As for your other seemingly completely unrelated problems, polymorphing into a dragon isn't nearly as strong as it sounds, Black Tentacles don't outgrapple characters that are specifically made for grappling, invisibility is arguably better than sneaking except it's countered instantly by anything that can see invisible, or has a permanent detect magic or true seeing or what have you. And of course, it's temporary and consumes spell slots.
either way though, Earthdawn > Any Edition of D&D
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;49909358]If a setting is any good, spellcasters will ALWAYS be stronger than non-spellcasters, it comes with the territory of literally breaking the physics of reality.
But on the same token, spellcasters will also be much more complicated to play.[/QUOTE]
Complexity isn't a balancing mechanic.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49910406]While this is, technically, true, you're not going to find as broad a selection of character types in Pathfinder as, say, Dungeon World, 5e, or any other system that sits on the light side of the rules.
A fighter in pathfinder is always going to be someone who is exceptionally skilled at using their chosen weapon, and can kick the ass of just about anybody with equal or lesser level, maybe even a couple of levels higher, as long as they have their favored weapon class handy, and they're always going to have the same fighting style as any other fighter with that weapon.(Because they'll take the same feats)
A fighter in 5e is always going to be a skilled combatant, but how they fight can vary wildly from one fighter to the next; maybe they're just great at combat(Champion), maybe they use magic to enhance their natural fighting skills(Eldritch Knight), maybe they give other people openings to do the kind of shit another fighter would do(Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight), or maybe they just shift the tide of combat in their side's favor(Battle Master).
While none of that really decides anything about their character, a 5e Fighter has more room to wiggle with their background and personality, given the many ways they can express the whole Fighter thing, than a pathfinder Fighter, who is always just going to be the best combatant on the field in an equal fight.
TL;DR some people really like options, 5e gives you more options than Pathfinder does.[/QUOTE]
lmao what
this is literally just blatantly untrue?
Like it's straight up the exact opposite of reality. Pathfinder has way, [i]way[/i] more options. Your argument that "all fighters are the same because they'll all take the same feats" is literally just blatantly false, there are so many ways to make a fighter.
The way that 5e does it is, essentially you have a class, and then each class has a number of sub-classes that you pick from, and that's the majority of your character customization right there. There's some other stuff, but it's relatively quite minor compared to Pathfinder. It's easier, much, [i]much[/i] easier to just pick the sub-class you want, but it's also a lot less flexible.
[QUOTE=Muggi;49910559]WITH the archetypes you can make a shitton of fighters that each play differently AND are (usually) fairly well balanced.[/QUOTE]
i disagree
there's definitely more options, but they are certainly not balanced
there is an optimized build for fighters, there's a lot of variety in prestige classes but they're not internally balanced
the problem with PF is that a lot of the time, you're given the impression of a great deal of flexibility, when in reality you'll need certain feats to be worth bringing along
eg two handed weapon fighter is almost certainly taking power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialization, the greater of each, furious focus, step up (maybe, maybe not), improved critical
like, there's definitely choice between the archetypes, but there's always an optimized way of doing those archetypes.
there's definitely choice, but that doesn't mean they're competitive
this is inevitable in pathfinder because of the thousands of feats: you've got choice, but that doesn't mean they're internally balanced
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911020]i disagree
there's definitely more options, but they are certainly not balanced
there is an optimized build for fighters, there's a lot of variety in prestige classes but they're not internally balanced
the problem with PF is that a lot of the time, you're given the impression of a great deal of flexibility, when in reality you'll need certain feats to be worth bringing along
eg two handed weapon fighter is almost certainly taking power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialization, the greater of each, furious focus, step up (maybe, maybe not), improved critical
like, there's definitely choice between the archetypes, but there's always an optimized way of doing those archetypes.
there's definitely choice, but that doesn't mean they're competitive
this is inevitable in pathfinder because of the thousands of feats: you've got choice, but that doesn't mean they're internally balanced[/QUOTE]
I agree, atleast to the extend that they might not be "competitive", so if you want to focus on the "game" part of the RPG, then sure, you might have to do things in a specific way. As for the way I usually run things, I tend to do my best to make anything work for my players, ESPECIALLY if their characters are interesting and/or unique.
but anyone who says that 5e has more character options than pathfinder is pretty blatantly incorrect - pathfinder has been around for longer, so just through sheer time it's going to have more content, ignoring the depth of the rules allowing for more
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Muggi;49911039]I agree, atleast to the extend that they might not be "competitive", so if you want to focus on the "game" part of the RPG, then sure, you might have to do things in a specific way. As for the way I usually run things, I tend to do my best to make anything work for my players, ESPECIALLY if their characters are interesting and/or unique.[/QUOTE]
i use the word competitive in the literal sense of the word, in terms of comparisons vis-a-vis other builds
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911040]but anyone who says that 5e has more character options than pathfinder is pretty blatantly incorrect - pathfinder has been around for longer, so just through sheer time it's going to have more content, ignoring the depth of the rules allowing for more
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
i use the word competitive in the literal sense of the word, in terms of comparisons vis-a-vis other builds[/QUOTE]
Ah, fair enough. But then again, although it might not be as bad in 5e (haven't played enough yet to tell), hasn't there always, no matter what system, been balance issues between builds? You know, something akin to the old problem of "magic users vs. martial characters".
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911020]i disagree
there's definitely more options, but they are certainly not balanced
there is an optimized build for fighters, there's a lot of variety in prestige classes but they're not internally balanced
the problem with PF is that a lot of the time, you're given the impression of a great deal of flexibility, when in reality you'll need certain feats to be worth bringing along
eg two handed weapon fighter is almost certainly taking power attack, weapon focus, weapon specialization, the greater of each, furious focus, step up (maybe, maybe not), improved critical
like, there's definitely choice between the archetypes, but there's always an optimized way of doing those archetypes.
there's definitely choice, but that doesn't mean they're competitive
this is inevitable in pathfinder because of the thousands of feats: you've got choice, but that doesn't mean they're internally balanced[/QUOTE]
I'd still have to disagree on that.
If you want your build to be "competetive", that definitely narrows down your choices [i]a lot[/i], this much I can agree on. But there isn't really one end-all be-all way to make a fighter. There are certain feats that are pretty much essential for certain types of fighters, like as you bring up, power attack for two handed fighters, but there's still a fair bit of leeway with some of the less important feat choices. Especially for fighters, since they get so many bonus feats.
Buuut most of that leeway only really manifests itself at later levels, because you need to get those essential feats as soon as possible, because they're, well, essential.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911040]but anyone who says that 5e has more character options than pathfinder is pretty blatantly incorrect - pathfinder has been around for longer, so just through sheer time it's going to have more content, ignoring the depth of the rules allowing for more
[/QUOTE]
I think that was just purely his reason for wanting to do PF, i think he saw an inquisitor class and lost his shit for it
[QUOTE=Muggi;49911069]Ah, fair enough. But then again, although it might not be as bad in 5e (haven't played enough yet to tell), hasn't there always, no matter what system, been balance issues between builds? You know, something akin to the old problem of "magic users vs. martial characters".[/QUOTE]
5e seems pretty balanced so far in my campaign, haven't noticed anything glaringly broken even between casters and martials (we're at level 4 though so take my opinion with mountains of salt).
but yeah, there will always be balance issues between builds - where there's large amounts of crunch, there are balance issues
where there are small amounts of crunch, there are balance issues
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=kenji;49911083]I think that was just purely his reason for wanting to do PF, i think he saw an inquisitor class and lost his shit for it[/QUOTE]
inquisitor is really fun, i can't blame him for that - i think it's one of the more interesting classes in DnD
my last inquisitor died in a single round to a friend playing a teleporting bugbear monk that hit me for over 140 damage
this is what you get when you accuse the party of consorting with demons, and attempt to judge one of them
[QUOTE=Muggi;49911069]Ah, fair enough. But then again, although it might not be as bad in 5e (haven't played enough yet to tell), hasn't there always, no matter what system, been balance issues between builds? You know, something akin to the old problem of "magic users vs. martial characters".[/QUOTE]
Yeah, unless all characters are essentially the same, it's literally impossible to balance a game 100%
Still, some games are certainly better balanced than others. 5e is by no means perfectly balanced, there are some pretty egregious blunders there, but I would probably have to agree that it's relatively more balanced than Pathfinder is. [i]Especially[/i] if you count splatbooks, since Pathfinder has such a massively huge library of them in comparison.
[QUOTE=Rats808;49910406]While this is, technically, true, you're not going to find as broad a selection of character types in Pathfinder as, say, Dungeon World, 5e, or any other system that sits on the light side of the rules.
A fighter in pathfinder is always going to be someone who is exceptionally skilled at using their chosen weapon, and can kick the ass of just about anybody with equal or lesser level, maybe even a couple of levels higher, as long as they have their favored weapon class handy, and they're always going to have the same fighting style as any other fighter with that weapon.(Because they'll take the same feats)
A fighter in 5e is always going to be a skilled combatant, but how they fight can vary wildly from one fighter to the next; maybe they're just great at combat(Champion), maybe they use magic to enhance their natural fighting skills(Eldritch Knight), maybe they give other people openings to do the kind of shit another fighter would do(Banneret/Purple Dragon Knight), or maybe they just shift the tide of combat in their side's favor(Battle Master).
While none of that really decides anything about their character, a 5e Fighter has more room to wiggle with their background and personality, given the many ways they can express the whole Fighter thing, than a pathfinder Fighter, who is always just going to be the best combatant on the field in an equal fight.
TL;DR some people really like options, 5e gives you more options than Pathfinder does.[/QUOTE]
I think you're comparing apples to oranges a bit, PF has a lot more "dude with weapons" classes than just fighters, magus, war priest or alchemist can fill roughly the same roll as an Eldrich knight, battle master is somewhat similar to a cevalier or skald, plus all of those have archetypes to modify them and most of them have orders/exploits/discoveries/bonus feats to change the class to what you want a little more too.
pf literally lets you play as guts either with the titan mauler or titan fighter class, with endurance and diehard as your human feats like that's the greatest thing ever
5e doesn't have that lol
like sure theres the whole thing of fighters being the worst class, or any combat class that isn't a mage, but thats why your dm is there, to balance everything, 5e essentially balances everything while streamlining everything so you can't be ultra cool other than saying you are
like it may just be me but there's something extra cool about creating a cool character and then having the mechanics to back it up
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;49911118]pf literally lets you play as guts either with the titan mauler or titan fighter class, with endurance and diehard as your human feats like that's the greatest thing ever
5e doesn't have that lol
like sure theres the whole thing of fighters being the worst class, or any combat class that isn't a mage, but thats why your dm is there, to balance everything, 5e essentially balances everything while streamlining everything so you can't be ultra cool other than saying you are[/QUOTE]
i think coolness is 100% your mileage
if i boil down titan fighter, it's "oh man i can use a weapon one size-category larger and a small bonus to CMB and CMD"
5e has paladins that teleport through trees - i think that's fucking amazing and it's a really interesting take on paladin
to me, with the titan stuff you're just saying you're cool with some pretty minor modifiers - the whole coolness aspect is in the idea of the character
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911139]i think coolness is 100% your mileage
if i boil down titan fighter, it's "oh man i can use a weapon one size-category larger and a small bonus to CMB and CMD"
5e has paladins that teleport through trees - i think that's fucking amazing[/QUOTE]
one size category larger is fucking huge though
Remember that a large creature is 2x2 squares, that is they take up a space of 10 feet by 10 feet. They're big motherfuckers, and their weapons are equally big.
Using a two hander that's for creatures one size category larger than you means you're swinging around a weapon that's likely bigger than yourself. That's inherently fucking awesome, even if you don't try to mimic Guts.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911139]i think coolness is 100% your mileage
if i boil down titan fighter, it's "oh man i can use a weapon one size-category larger and a small bonus to CMB and CMD"
5e has paladins that teleport through trees - i think that's fucking amazing and it's a really interesting take on paladin
to me, with the titan stuff you're just saying you're cool with some pretty minor modifiers - the whole coolness aspect is in the idea of the character[/QUOTE]
don't get me wrong i mean 5e is super cool and all, but like all 5e classes are stronger than their 3.5/75
like with the feats and stuff from 5e you can make a paladin hit for a minimum damage of 13 at level 1, which is enough to destroy anything in a hit at that level
it's that pf has more options to customize your character which is cool af roleplaying wise
and i can think of no other game(well i can, just not dnd based) that literally lets you be a henshin hero or have a stand from jojo other than pathfinder with the summoner
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;49911154]don't get me wrong i mean 5e is super cool and all, but like all 5e classes are stronger than their 3.5/75
like with the feats and stuff from 5e you can make a paladin hit for a minimum damage of 13 at level 1, which is enough to destroy anything in a hit at that level
it's that pf has more options to customize your character which is cool af roleplaying wise[/QUOTE]
i think it really depends what you're looking for
finding that little bit of crunch that lets you do something is super-awesome, i won't deny (i have had fun with finding the tiny things in PF that let you do stupid crazy shit)
but my players in 5E, who are/were all die-hard pathfinder players are having great fun because 5e lets them focus on characterisation, rather than having their character dictated by the feats they pick
it really depends if you feel that you [I]need[/I] the crunch explicitly written to feel justified in doing certain things (i get that when the rulebook doesn't say you could do something, but the DM says you can, it feels belittled), or whether you're willing to roll with it
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49911168]i think it really depends what you're looking for
finding that little bit of crunch that lets you do something is super-awesome, i won't deny (i have had fun with finding the tiny things in PF that let you do stupid crazy shit)
but my players in 5E, who are/were all die-hard pathfinder players are having great fun because 5e lets them focus on characterisation, rather than having their character dictated by the feats they pick
it really depends if you feel that you [I]need[/I] the crunch explicitly written to feel justified in doing certain things (i get that when the rulebook doesn't say you could do something, but the DM says you can, it feels belittled), or whether you're willing to roll with it[/QUOTE]
Taking the example of using a huge weapon, it's really not the same if it's not represented mechanically.
Using a huge two hander that's bigger than yourself is cool as fuck, but not so much when it doesn't actually do any more damage than just a regular sword. That just makes it seem silly.
And there's absolutely nothing stopping you from focusing on characterization just because feats are a thing. I don't really see how they dictate anything?
Similarly, there's nothing stopping the GM from saying you can do whatever in Pathfinder as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
