D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

Vengarr: Jun 17, 2010; Smashed before noon

koreban posted:

Gonna need a page reference for where it says that DC checks are at a fixed number for each character attempting to make a check against it.

I don't have the book in front of me, but I can definitely say that that is the default assumption. It's an arbitrary ranking of how difficult an action is to perform. A door takes this much strength to break down. The advantage beefy characters have over wizards is just how much they get to add to their rolls.

Certainly for social tasks, your physical appearance or reputations can alter the DCs for an action tremendously between PCs. But otherwise, the numbers are almost always fixed.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 17:56

SettingSun: Aug 10, 2013

koreban posted:

Gonna need a page reference for where it says that DC checks are at a fixed number for each character attempting to make a check against it.

If I decide the intimidation DC for Meathead McKnucklefists should be 8 and the DC for Squidgy Pillowfluffer is 18, that's entirely reasonable.

By the same token, if they have to take Wis saves versus another monster's spell effect at DC17, they should be using the same check number.

Here's a freebie. PHB p.174. Ability Checks:

If you want to rules lawyer that "each" refers to per all checks from all characters, we'll disagree. Each player who makes a check will make the check at a DC. Meathead's will be lower than Squidgy's for intimidation. Squidgy will have a lower DC than Meathead for persuasion.

This is a very unusual take on how Difficulty Checks are interpreted. DCs are based on the check itself, not on who might be doing them. A DC 8 intimidate represents someone who's easy to bully in general. The meathead should be better at it by way of being trained in intimidate, presumably. If he were to argue he looked tough thanks to his strength I may give him advantage on the roll.

You're right in that I can't find an explicit rule that describes it this way, but it is very much implied to be so. I can cite any published adventure in existence saying something along the lines of "..the lock can be picked with a DC 12 dexterity (thievery) check." and not "...but only if you're a rogue, else it's DC 20."

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:39

nelson: Apr 12, 2009; College Slice

TheBlandName posted:

Still, I contend that the most natural interpretation of the rules is that each task is (in keeping with common usage of the word) independent from who attempts it, and thus should be represented by a single, static Difficulty Class until a significant change in the task occurs.

Agree completely. A task has the same DC regardless of who is attempting it and the difference is in the character's modifiers, not the task DC. I will say other games systems handle skill checks much more satisfyingly (Edge of the Empire for instance).

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:41

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

Gonna need a page reference for where it says that AC is the same number for each character attempting to hit the monster.

If I decide that the goblin has AC 8 when Wimpy McSpellarms tries to punch it, but is AC 18 for Fightman Muscleton, that's entirely reasonable.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:51

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Having different DCs for different characters is basically a tacit admission that the game cannot sufficiently depict levels of specialization across characters just from the characters's stats alone, such that the DM has to come in and fix it themselves.

Like, if the Rogue has high Dex and a high skill bonus to Lockpicking, that's supposed to be the difference between them and the low Dex, Lockpicking untrained Fighter.

If you have to lower the DC for the Rogue anyway, why have skill points/bonuses at all?

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:51

koreban: Apr 4, 2008; I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than p. . .player hatin'.; Fun Shoe

TheBlandName posted:

Your interpretation is not strictly supported by the text of the rules, and neither is my own. Objectively speaking, you should already be agreeing with me that the rules are bad. But you resist that admission for some reason.

Still, I contend that the most natural interpretation of the rules is that each task is (in keeping with common usage of the word) independent from who attempts it, and thus should be represented by a single, static Difficulty Class until a significant change in the task occurs.

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I am not saying you shouldn't be tweaking the Difficulty class so that Fightgar has a better chance of success at intimidation than Wizrob (your names were bad because they used 4 syllables too many). I'm saying that you should. But also that you should own that as your call and not try to hide behind interpreting a poorly written rule and pretend the rule is anything but what it is, poorly written.

This is a reasonable position to take and I can't/won't disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing.

I see the 6 core ability scores as being very limiting in terms of granular application to the 17 or whatever number of skills the game provides for. Intimidation being a charisma based ability is probably the best place to put it overall, but it's certainly not the best place it *could* be placed for what it is.

Part of the simplicity that I like about 5e is that there aren't 50 different skills all controlling super-granular abilities or scores. You spend more time trying to find the number than playing the game, and that's before you spend another 40 seconds calculating bonuses to check successes.

Because the ability scores are broad abstractions and the rules are specifically/intentionally vague to allow for interpretation (per skill check vs. per task) it allows DMs to be creative in how they apply checks.

Barbarians and Fighters shouldn't have to be pumping 5 different stats to be effective. A fighter who wants to be an inspiring leader type can certainly take charisma and get his bonuses to persuasion and deception as a knock-on bonus. But if you're a big Fightgar with a massive axe, intimidation should be fairly core to your gimmick.

Yes, the rules aren't explicitly clear on this, I'm okay with that. I'd rather not have as many specific and thoroughly defined rules interactions to bog down my players with or stumble on "gotcha!" moments with. I get enough of that janky bullshit with tabletop miniatures games.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:56

Ever Disappointing: May 4, 2004

The DM book literally points out that you should mess with these rules when they don't make sense. Like an 18 strengh fighter trying to break a wooden door may have not even need to roll at DM discretion because it would be silly to have them fumble something so easy for them.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:01

Vengarr: Jun 17, 2010; Smashed before noon

koreban posted:

This is a reasonable position to take and I can't/won't disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing.

I see the 6 core ability scores as being very limiting in terms of granular application to the 17 or whatever number of skills the game provides for. Intimidation being a charisma based ability is probably the best place to put it overall, but it's certainly not the best place it *could* be placed for what it is.

Part of the simplicity that I like about 5e is that there aren't 50 different skills all controlling super-granular abilities or scores. You spend more time trying to find the number than playing the game, and that's before you spend another 40 seconds calculating bonuses to check successes.

Because the ability scores are broad abstractions and the rules are specifically/intentionally vague to allow for interpretation (per skill check vs. per task) it allows DMs to be creative in how they apply checks.

Barbarians and Fighters shouldn't have to be pumping 5 different stats to be effective. A fighter who wants to be an inspiring leader type can certainly take charisma and get his bonuses to persuasion and deception as a knock-on bonus. But if you're a big Fightgar with a massive axe, intimidation should be fairly core to your gimmick.

Yes, the rules aren't explicitly clear on this, I'm okay with that. I'd rather not have as many specific and thoroughly defined rules interactions to bog down my players with or stumble on "gotcha!" moments with. I get enough of that janky bullshit with tabletop miniatures games.

Its okay to just let the Fighter make a Strength(Intimidation) roll. Like the classic scene where the big guy picks up a metal pipe and bends it in half.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:03

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Vengarr posted:

Its okay to just let the Fighter make a Strength(Intimidation) roll. Like the classic scene where the big guy picks up a metal pipe and bends it in half.

Separating ability scores from the skill proficiencies as pairings is one option that is explicitly supported by the rules.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:07

koreban: Apr 4, 2008; I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than p. . .player hatin'.; Fun Shoe

gradenko_2000 posted:

Separating ability scores from the skill proficiencies as pairings is one option that is explicitly supported by the rules.

Is that fundamentally different from me just letting him roll charisma at a lower D.C.?

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:10

Vengarr: Jun 17, 2010; Smashed before noon

koreban posted:

Is that fundamentally different from me just letting him roll charisma at a lower D.C.?

Not mechanically. But it's easier to calibrate (I don't need to think up five separate DCs for each character) and it feels more fair to players.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:14

TheBlandName: Feb 5, 2012

Tir McDohl posted:

The DM book literally points out that you should mess with these rules when they don't make sense. Like an 18 strengh fighter trying to break a wooden door may have not even need to roll at DM discretion because it would be silly to have them fumble something so easy for them.

Right. And nearly all of the disagreements about "Is 5E "bad"?" come from semantic pissing contests. About whether 5E with houserules is 5E. About how much bespoke design is too much. But even the people (in this thread) who harp on it as a bad game have admitted in the past that 5E is merely "not great" and that it's worst crime is that WotC, as a large company and face of the hobby, should have been able to do better because they already had.

koreban posted:

Is that fundamentally different from me just letting him roll charisma at a lower D.C.?

Statistically that depends on how much you shift the DC and how consistently you apply the shift. The maximum difference between modifiers in 5E is pretty small and more often than not doesn't alter the success or failure of any given roll.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:17

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

koreban posted:

The context for that statement was immediately following my post about D&D being simpler to calculate rolls vs. Pathfinder's "weaponized algebra" method.

In my head at the time was "I roll to hit, add my ability score (max of +5) plus proficiency bonus (max of +6), maybe +1/2/3 for magical weapons." Versus "I roll to hit, plus ability score, proficiency, magical item, minus penalty, plus feat bonus, minus monster bonus, plus weird edge-case bonus that may only come up once god I hope I remember it... ad nauseum."

But if you guys want to die on the hill of pointing out that there are bad CR rules as written, Godspeed.

Doing a lot of simple math isn't algebra, come on. The most complicated math Pathfinder asks you to do regularly is divide poo poo by four or so to see if you have a class ability upgraded yet.

User0015 posted:

You have to though. In fact, I poured over so much material and still never found out about Path of War. I had been making a martial character, but struggled with finding a build that wasn't played by "attack/move, end turn." so spending time looking for defender style, damage, control, builds that are designed to avoid magic, alpha strike, etc...trying everything I could to make a martial character that didn't suck, without PoW. There's just so much to the game nowadays and you'd better believe that Arcanist is going to be picking up everything to become a god.

I don't know how much extra stuff exists for 5e. I've heard about Unearthed Arcana, but maybe that's all?

There's plenty. Your whole argument is wrong, because Path of War of course isn't referenced anywhere - it's a third party product not by the people who actually publish Pathfinder. Expecting the Pathfinder books to tell you about that is like wanting a 5e rulebook to recommend stuff from the DM's Guild to you (or any of the other 5e third-party content.) If you're using Path of War, fine, it's a great system, but it's no one's fault for not including a third-party rules set in every discussion.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:26

Babylon Astronaut: Apr 19, 2012

gradenko_2000 posted:

Having different DCs for different characters is basically a tacit admission that the game cannot sufficiently depict levels of specialization across characters just from the characters's stats alone, such that the DM has to come in and fix it themselves.

Like, if the Rogue has high Dex and a high skill bonus to Lockpicking, that's supposed to be the difference between them and the low Dex, Lockpicking untrained Fighter.

If you have to lower the DC for the Rogue anyway, why have skill points/bonuses at all?

If you're changing the DC for each character, you really could get rid of all the modifiers and just come up with a number to beat on the spot like they're suggesting. You could easily get the game down to a single page front and back because all the mechanical cruft would be reduced to "fighters are strong, give them low numbers for strong guy stuff" ect. That's the annoying part: they put out a thousand pages to tell you "make it up as you go." Don't get me started on their example DCs; they confuse more than they explain.

Paramemetic posted:

The biggest criticism of 5e that I would have is that it doesn't do much to cultivate good DMs. But then thinking back I'm not sure what other systems would have done differently to make people good DMs, I think it just comes from experience and the right kind of personality.

You could have a written example of a typical session of play, then lead them through a sample character, then let them play a choose your own adventure style self-running adventure they can roll along with, then you could have a starter module for the DM to run that includes advice for typical problems that arise.

Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:40

mastershakeman: Oct 28, 2008; by vyelkin

Getting a redo to where you're already grappled seems insane. What a weird point to pick

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:55

Elector_Nerdlingen: Sep 27, 2004

I have designed an awesome fun roleplaying game, and I can guarantee that I have played it lots and had fun every single time. Here are the rules.

Part 1. The rules:

The DM should make something up with dragons and adventures and stuff in it. When a PC tries to do a task, the player rolls a normal six sided die. They pass an easy task on 2+, a medium task on 4+, and a hard task on 6. The DM should feel free to adjust those numbers up and down if they need to. I graciously grant the DM permission to add or ignore rules as they see fit.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:55

Agent355: Jul 26, 2011

mastershakeman posted:

Getting a redo to where you're already grappled seems insane. What a weird point to pick

It's the point where the session actually ended, so it didn't require a retcon.

The session of course ended in loud arguments so the combat didn't end up actually resolving.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:07

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Agent355 posted:

It's the point where the session actually ended, so it didn't require a retcon.

The session of course ended in loud arguments so the combat didn't end up actually resolving.

Wait, so you came in here and whined about dying but you didn't actually die yet? Oh my god grow up

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:10

Spiteski: Aug 27, 2013

Arivia posted:

Wait, so you came in here and whined about dying but you didn't actually die yet? Oh my god grow up

Where he died was where the session ended. Reading isn't hard.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:14

Agent355: Jul 26, 2011

There were also about 4 rule overturns including grappling, legendary actions, and the way stealth checks should work in combat. So I was dead to fuckin rights with the old rules and now we're just replaying the last bit where I have a fighting chance, and if I'm lucky a bit of DM fiat.

I'm still going to be super loving pissed if I die, but thats a problem for 2 weeks from now.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:22

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Agent355 posted:

There were also about 4 rule overturns including grappling, legendary actions, and the way stealth checks should work in combat. So I was dead to fuckin rights with the old rules and now we're just replaying the last bit where I have a fighting chance, and if I'm lucky a bit of DM fiat.

I'm still going to be super loving pissed if I die, but thats a problem for 2 weeks from now.

I look forward to your next series of complaints about how the bad game did you wrong.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:25

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

koreban posted:

This is a reasonable position to take and I can't/won't disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing.

I see the 6 core ability scores as being very limiting in terms of granular application to the 17 or whatever number of skills the game provides for. Intimidation being a charisma based ability is probably the best place to put it overall, but it's certainly not the best place it *could* be placed for what it is.

Part of the simplicity that I like about 5e is that there aren't 50 different skills all controlling super-granular abilities or scores. You spend more time trying to find the number than playing the game, and that's before you spend another 40 seconds calculating bonuses to check successes.

Because the ability scores are broad abstractions and the rules are specifically/intentionally vague to allow for interpretation (per skill check vs. per task) it allows DMs to be creative in how they apply checks.

Barbarians and Fighters shouldn't have to be pumping 5 different stats to be effective. A fighter who wants to be an inspiring leader type can certainly take charisma and get his bonuses to persuasion and deception as a knock-on bonus. But if you're a big Fightgar with a massive axe, intimidation should be fairly core to your gimmick.

Yes, the rules aren't explicitly clear on this, I'm okay with that. I'd rather not have as many specific and thoroughly defined rules interactions to bog down my players with or stumble on "gotcha!" moments with. I get enough of that janky bullshit with tabletop miniatures games.

Yeah keep going, why not drop ability scores altogether then ? They don't really serve any purpose, what are they there for? So the number is bigger if someone uses a Ray of -Reduce Stat- ?

kingcom fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:29

Wrestlepig: Feb 25, 2011; my mum says im cool; Toilet Rascal

AlphaDog posted:

I have designed an awesome fun roleplaying game, and I can guarantee that I have played it lots and had fun every single time. Here are the rules.

Part 1. The rules:

The DM should make something up with dragons and adventures and stuff in it. When a PC tries to do a task, the player rolls a normal six sided die. They pass an easy task on 2+, a medium task on 4+, and a hard task on 6. The DM should feel free to adjust those numbers up and down if they need to. I graciously grant the DM permission to add or ignore rules as they see fit.

I'm not playing unless it's got the D&D logo on it.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:46

Paramemetic: Sep 29, 2003; Area 51. You heard of it, right?; Fallen Rib

rumble in the bunghole posted:

I'm not playing unless it's got the D&D logo on it.

He just leaked the design docs for D&D NEXTER 6E. Just wait a few months.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:52

empathe: Nov 9, 2003; >:|

kingcom posted:

Yeah keep going, why not drop ability scores altogether then ? They don't really serve any purpose, what are they there for? So the number is bigger if someone uses a Ray of -Reduce Stat- ?

Dice are just too RNG. Can I just tell you if I succeed?

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:57

koreban: Apr 4, 2008; I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than p. . .player hatin'.; Fun Shoe

If the 5e hate squad we're police officers, no one would ever go 66mph in a 65zone.

Even on the best of clear, dry days where traffic is flowing easily at 70mph, the left lane is clear for passing and freight trucks are all the way to the right.

66 in a 65 is NOT allowed by the rules. TICKET for YOU, SIR!

# ? Feb 9, 2017 23:58

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

koreban posted:

If the 5e hate squad

empathe posted:

Dice are just too RNG. Can I just tell you if I succeed?

No seriously why do you need ability scores AND ability modifiers?

EDIT: Also I don't understand where you go from 'why is this superfluous thing in the game' take you all the way to 'why is there randomness'? Seems like a pretty big stretch with absolutely nothing connecting the two threads imo.

kingcom fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Feb 10, 2017

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:00

Bar Crow: Oct 10, 2012

empathe posted:

Dice are just too RNG. Can I just tell you if I succeed?

Yes, you can still play as a wizard.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:10

404notfound: Mar 5, 2006; stop staring at me

koreban posted:

If the 5e hate squad we're police officers, no one would ever go 66mph in a 65zone.

Even on the best of clear, dry days where traffic is flowing easily at 70mph, the left lane is clear for passing and freight trucks are all the way to the right.

66 in a 65 is NOT allowed by the rules. TICKET for YOU, SIR!

This is a weird backpedal, especially considering that most of the people telling you you're wrong aren't part of the "hate squad." Sorry nobody likes your house rule

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:10

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

AlphaDog posted:

I have designed an awesome fun roleplaying game, and I can guarantee that I have played it lots and had fun every single time. Here are the rules.

Part 1. The rules:

The DM should make something up with dragons and adventures and stuff in it. When a PC tries to do a task, the player rolls a normal six sided die. They pass an easy task on 2+, a medium task on 4+, and a hard task on 6. The DM should feel free to adjust those numbers up and down if they need to. I graciously grant the DM permission to add or ignore rules as they see fit.

Mearls, you've done it again!

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:11

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Paramemetic posted:

He just leaked the design docs for D&D NEXTER 6E. Just wait a few months.

It's a single sheet of paper that simply says "The wizard lives, the fighter dies. Ask your DM How."

This sheet of paper cost $85 dollars

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:15

Admiral Joeslop: Jul 8, 2010

Kurieg posted:

It's a single sheet of paper that simply says "The wizard lives, the fighter dies. Ask your DM How."

This sheet of paper cost $85 dollars

Did Wizards get bought out by GW?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:19

koreban: Apr 4, 2008; I guess we all learned that trying to get along is way better than p. . .player hatin'.; Fun Shoe

404notfound posted:

This is a weird backpedal, especially considering that most of the people telling you you're wrong aren't part of the "hate squad." Sorry nobody likes your house rule

Backpedaling would be suddenly agreeing that I had the same opinion as everyone else all along.

I'm cool with my reading of the rules out of the PHB for handling ability checks. My players are okay with it, especially the fighter.

That you're not cool with it is okay too. We'll just call it a good thing that you aren't playing in any of my games because the pedantry of arguing whether you should succeed on an 13 instead of an 8 would get old pretty quickly.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:21

User0015: Nov 24, 2007; Please don't talk about your sexuality unless it serves the ~narrative~!

Arivia posted:

Doing a lot of simple math isn't algebra, come on. The most complicated math Pathfinder asks you to do regularly is divide poo poo by four or so to see if you have a class ability upgraded yet.

There's plenty. Your whole argument is wrong, because Path of War of course isn't referenced anywhere - it's a third party product not by the people who actually publish Pathfinder. Expecting the Pathfinder books to tell you about that is like wanting a 5e rulebook to recommend stuff from the DM's Guild to you (or any of the other 5e third-party content.) If you're using Path of War, fine, it's a great system, but it's no one's fault for not including a third-party rules set in every discussion.

I don't think you have any idea what my argument is. Martials suck rear end in PF, so it took me forever to make a half-decent (read: still poo poo) martial character compared to an hour for 5e, and you think I'm wrong. Are you suggesting martials in PF are very good and that creating a very good martial that is on par with magic users is easy and quick in PF? Are you seriously arguing that?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:32

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

User0015 posted:

I don't think you have any idea what my argument is. Martials suck rear end in PF, so it took me forever to make a half-decent (read: still poo poo) martial character compared to an hour for 5e, and you think I'm wrong. Are you suggesting martials in PF are very good and that creating a very good martial that is on par with magic users is easy and quick in PF? Are you seriously arguing that?

Thats their secret User0015, everything in PF sucks rear end.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:37

User0015: Nov 24, 2007; Please don't talk about your sexuality unless it serves the ~narrative~!

kingcom posted:

Thats their secret User0015, everything in PF sucks rear end.

5e is the best DnD, because it only takes me an hour to poo poo out a garbage character. :v:

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:53

TheBlandName: Feb 5, 2012

User0015 posted:

5e is the best DnD, because it only takes me an hour to poo poo out a garbage character.

By that metric you should give original D&D a try. Die in combat? Have a new character rolled up by the time the party enters the next room.

Unfortunately a lot of the 1st level design quirks that were based on disposable characters have persisted all the way to fifth edition.

EDIT: Oh I'm sorry. You're actually new to the discussion and I was being glib. Truthful, but glib. There's not a lot to original D&D unless you're willing to dive all the way in to its weird eccentricities. It has left a few rotten beams inside the skeleton of D&D that haven't been removed 30-40 years later. I can't remember off the top of my head how old it is.

TheBlandName fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 10, 2017

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:57

Turtlicious: Sep 17, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

You had a "loud argument" over elf games? Doesn't that conflict with what you first told us?!

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:59

kingcom: Jun 23, 2012

User0015 posted:

5e is the best DnD, because it only takes me an hour to poo poo out a garbage character.

Unironically the best argument in defence of D&D. Cause holy poo poo ever since 3.x did they make character creation a laborious nightmare. I'd still recommend people go check out one of the retro D&D games that make nice and quick character creation a real thing but yeah being able to sit down and get a full group from blank slate to ready to play in a few hours is a long forgotten fact about rpgs.

Edit: Can we rename the thread to 3.x gon give it to ya?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 17:56

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

User0015 posted:

I don't think you have any idea what my argument is. Martials suck rear end in PF, so it took me forever to make a half-decent (read: still poo poo) martial character compared to an hour for 5e, and you think I'm wrong. Are you suggesting martials in PF are very good and that creating a very good martial that is on par with magic users is easy and quick in PF? Are you seriously arguing that?

You may have been thinking something different, but the argument you made goes as follows, returning to your posts:

User0015 posted:

I cannot fathom how someone familiar with Pathfinder would ever, ever describe Pathfinder as a light weight or simple rpg comparitively. Ok sure, on the completely arbitrary example of comparing just core rulebooks, pathfinder has fewer pages. Add up all available material for pathfinder, and you're a walking library of congress, but for dragons.

I mean, the idea pathfinder is easier to play than 5e is one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. It took me an hour to roll up a 5e character. It took me days to roll up a pathfinder character, and then I found out about Path of War and had to do it all over again.

User0015 posted:

You have to though. In fact, I poured over so much material and still never found out about Path of War. I had been making a martial character, but struggled with finding a build that wasn't played by "attack/move, end turn." so spending time looking for defender style, damage, control, builds that are designed to avoid magic, alpha strike, etc...trying everything I could to make a martial character that didn't suck, without PoW. There's just so much to the game nowadays and you'd better believe that Arcanist is going to be picking up everything to become a god.

I don't know how much extra stuff exists for 5e. I've heard about Unearthed Arcana, but maybe that's all?

Argument: Pathfinder is bad.
Reason: Because it takes so much longer to create a character.
Subreason: It takes so much longer to create a character because there is so much material to look through.
Subreason 2: I know this because it took me so long to find the material I was interested in (Path of War).

Now, I'm pointing out that subreason 2 is wrong. It's wrong because Path of War isn't official Pathfinder content produced by the rules designers, so difficulty in finding out about it isn't a statement about the Pathfinder rules system itself. Because I've done this, your entire argument is invalidated. The onus is on you to repair that argument by revisiting, restating, or providing additional supplemental material. Are you going to do that?

Aside from that, you can make a quick and easy effective martial combatant in Pathfinder. You need the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, and Ultimate Combat. Make a barbarian and pick up the beast totem and superstitious to spell sunder rage power chains. You'll be quite effective. Note that Path of War doesn't expand martial characters' out of combat options very much at all.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 01:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > D&D NEXT: Infinite Posts of the Abyss

«‹›1608 »