Jump to content


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, PaganMegan said:

I was talking about Background, which IS in the current Pathfinder, and which 5e DID borrow from Pathfinder.

 

 Actually, the 5th Ed. Backgrounds were borrowed from 4E, first published in the PHB2... The 4E backgrounds didn't give you proficiency in any skills, but they did allow you to add particular skills to your class list, and some of them gave you some gear or an additional language.

Certain campaign-dependent backgrounds actually gave you tangible benefits, like a bit of fire resistance from one of the Forgotten Realms location backgrounds, and others were particularly useful, such as Born Under A Bad Sign which let you use your highest stat for your HP bonus instead of CON...

 

 

 

Edited by Mad Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marvin said:

 

 

And I mean, they werent that bad or anything, but still. The flavor's all over the place, seems like. I actually don't understand why the D&D powers didn't do an entirely straight, clean PHB for 5e and then release a kickin' guidebook for pertinent settings. I understand wanting to avoid the overload of previous editions, but I'd've been all-in on such a setup.

 

And see, that's something that I thought the 5E PHB got right!  For every thing that could have been setting specific they showed how it could work in the various existing settings.  Like how sun elves from FR were High Elves and so forth.  the 3E PHB only listed the Greyhawk deities, while the 5E book listed Greyhawk, FR, Eberon, Norse, Egyptian and so forth.

 

Now, all of the adventures they have released have all taken place in the FR; and the other source books have a leaning towards the FR.  But the PHB seems fairly neutral from my point of view.

 

As always, just my opinion, YMMV and so forth.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cautiously optimistic.  We don't know much about what's changing.  I know if they make equipment leveled like Starfinder (this is a level 3 gun that does more damage than a level 1 gun but you can only use a level 1 gun...) I'll be disappointed.  I also don't want to see a joke of an economy that Starfinder is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dilvish the Deliverer said:

And see, that's something that I thought the 5E PHB got right!  For every thing that could have been setting specific they showed how it could work in the various existing settings.  Like how sun elves from FR were High Elves and so forth.  the 3E PHB only listed the Greyhawk deities, while the 5E book listed Greyhawk, FR, Eberon, Norse, Egyptian and so forth.

 

Now, all of the adventures they have released have all taken place in the FR; and the other source books have a leaning towards the FR.  But the PHB seems fairly neutral from my point of view.

 

As always, just my opinion, YMMV and so forth.

 

Oh, yeah, it's got stuff related to all the settings, and I agree that's better than making it straight Realms-themed or something--but I'd've found it better still to have dispensed altogether with the setting info practically altogether in the core material. And that's maybe an oddball idea, idk.

 

I'm hoping they do drop some adventures in other settings--I'd like to see Greyhawk and Eberron particularly--but I do think adventures, especially of the path-type lengths as they've been, should be setting-specific. That makes sense at every level for ready-to-run DM materials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I pretty much abandoned D&D when they went to 3.x, and slowly got back into it.  I never got into Pathfinder.

The more I explored the OSR, the more I discovered that more rules didn't make the game better for me.

 

So, I wish Paizo lots of luck, but their game never reflected the worlds I wanted to play in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mad Jack said:

 

 Actually, the 5th Ed. Backgrounds were borrowed from 4E, first published in the PHB2... The 4E backgrounds didn't give you proficiency in any skills, but they did allow you to add particular skills to your class list, and some of them gave you some gear or an additional language.

Certain campaign-dependent backgrounds actually gave you tangible benefits, like a bit of fire resistance from one of the Forgotten Realms location backgrounds, and others were particularly useful, such as Born Under A Bad Sign which let you use your highest stat for your HP bonus instead of CON...

Though Grump already mentioned the options in Pathfinder, you could even go as far back as 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana for background generation. I still remember the DM section having tables for family, number of siblings, social class (Lower-Lower-Class is basically a freed slave, Upper-Upper-Class is wealthy royalty.)

 

Though in most cases, background had little effect on current PC skills and abilities. Traits in Pathfinder were the first time I remember background options actually giving something unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheAuldGrump said:

 

 

I... am not actually convinced in regards to the simplified monster creation - I prefer a mechanistic, structured approach, and am afraid that this may be borrowing too much from 5e. I like having the same mechanics between creatures and PCs.

 

But I might well be in the minority on that one.

 

 

Me, too. To my mind, it only makes sense. Not only does standardization make a system easier to understand in general, it also better ensures more balanced encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

On fluff - I've known several people who complained about Pathfinder because there wasn't enough fluff. A number of people I know up like to read the handbooks cover-to-cover like books and appreciate the fluff. Then again, I mostly know gamers who started in the last 10 years, due to my age. 

 

Pathfinder's core books had no less fluff than did the 1st through 3.X editions of the D&D core books. Technically speaking, D&D's old default setting was Greyhawk, but you would never know it from reading just core because it was incredibly generic and rather transparent. There were merely the barest mentions of elder spellcaster names in the spell titles, and a handful of deities. Otherwise, it was not much more than a hodge podge of tropes from fantasy, myth and literature.

 

So it's hard to imagine what the comparison is. You have forty-some-odd years' tradition worth of non interference vanilla rules there, right from the source of the hobby itself.

 

I can appreciate fluff where the setting existed beforehand. For instance, I like the Iron Kingdoms. I like Warmachine/Hordes, and I own the IK RPG books. I bought those for the fluff. But I will never play an IK RPG. Because I don't like getting other people's fluff in my storytelling, and you can't extricate it in such a severe case.

 

As to Pathfinder not having enough fluff, one should note that it began as a campaign setting, has volumes upon volumes of campaign setting expansions available, novels, Golarion-themed splatbooks, and an endless line of adventure paths. With that extreme level of fluff available on cheap PDFs to anybody who wants it, regardless of whether they ever even play the game itself, I fail to see why it has to invade the vanilla ruleset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

Pathfinder's core books had no less fluff than did the 1st through 3.X editions of the D&D core books. Technically speaking, D&D's old default setting was Greyhawk, but you would never know it from reading just core because it was incredibly generic and rather transparent. There were merely the barest mentions of elder spellcaster names in the spell titles, and a handful of deities. Otherwise, it was not much more than a hodge podge of tropes from fantasy, myth and literature.

 

So it's hard to imagine what the comparison is. You have forty-some-odd years' tradition worth of non interference vanilla rules there, right from the source of the hobby itself.

 

I can appreciate fluff where the setting existed beforehand. For instance, I like the Iron Kingdoms. I like Warmachine/Hordes, and I own the IK RPG books. I bought those for the fluff. But I will never play an IK RPG. Because I don't like getting other people's fluff in my storytelling, and you can't extricate it in such a severe case.

 

As to Pathfinder not having enough fluff, one should note that it began as a campaign setting, has volumes upon volumes of campaign setting expansions available, novels, Golarion-themed splatbooks, and an endless line of adventure paths. With that extreme level of fluff available on cheap PDFs to anybody who wants it, regardless of whether they ever even play the game itself, I fail to see why it has to invade the vanilla ruleset.

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Werkrobotwerk said:

No. This is not what I am getting at.

 

what I am getting at is an attempt to understand what the specific complaint is. Dr. wyrm's statement about setting names within the rules gets toward what I am trying to understand. I do not agree with it, but convincing people of it or being convinced is not my goal. I want to get to what factors cause this to be an issue for some people so I can better understand what causes people to choose one ruleset over another for specific uses, and to that end what use do people put pathfinder to that doesn't match their new rules changes.

Okay, that's fine. No offense meant. You seemed to be cautiously getting somewhere using brief posts, and it seemed like that was the direction.

 

I can be wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

I wouldn't call any of those books "dry reference material." They are filled with exciting illustrations, game play examples, advice on world building, fascinating spell descriptions, and yes, a tiny amount of fluff.

 

"Dry reference material" is the old SRD WoTC put out that removed all actual IP and had only statistics, charts, and the barest instructions on how to use the rules. Yet, even that has a sort of fascination to it.

 

Now, you need to be careful. Implying that only the most obsessed people would ever bother to read any of the books that came before your time is wrong-headed and kind of gross. Do you really think you can dismiss entire generations of players like that?

 

Getting back to it, all I am saying is that vanilla rulesets are very handy tools. They are instruments for world building and storytelling, like guitars are instruments for music. You can always buy a new songbook if you want to do something new with that guitar. A guitar that is programmed to play one tune, would be pretty worthless to me.

Edited by Bruunwald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Paradoxical Mouse said:

Ok, so most people I know DID NOT play at all before 5e. 5e made D&D approachable because the core rules weren't just table after table, they had stuff breaking up the tables, interesting setting type stuff. 

 

Rulebook without fluff are just dry reference material are just reference books that are only read by the most obsessed with the game and make the game less approachable. Adding the fluff lets people read and get a bit of flavor, be able to imagine how the world is while learning.

 

Otherwise, they are relegated to books where you just look at the rules you care about immediately...

 

I think this is pretty fair, if maybe overestimating both the dullness of the more straightforward early books and the usefulness of any PHB beyond rules referencing beyond the initial read-throughs. Marketing-wise it probably does make a lot of sense to include some sort of fluff in base materials to help hook the n00bz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marvin said:

 

I think this is pretty fair, if maybe overestimating both the dullness of the more straightforward early books and the usefulness of any PHB beyond rules referencing beyond the initial read-throughs. Marketing-wise it probably does make a lot of sense to include some sort of fluff in base materials to help hook the n00bz.

There are few reasons I can think of, marketing wise, that might seem a benefit to Paizo for jamming the setting into the core, among them what you're saying here. There are also reasons I can think of why it's a bad decision, marketing-wise. Chief among them that Golarion isn't exactly a property as hot as Star Wars, the Cthulhu Mythos, WH40K, or even Forgotten Realms, and Paizo would be banking an awful lot on reeling people in on an IP that is years-tested, yet still not on many people's top ten lists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

There are few reasons I can think of, marketing wise, that might seem a benefit to Paizo for jamming the setting into the core, among them what you're saying here. There are also reasons I can think of why it's a bad decision, marketing-wise. Chief among them that Golarion isn't exactly a property as hot as Star Wars, the Cthulhu Mythos, WH40K, or even Forgotten Realms, and Paizo would be banking an awful lot on reeling people in on an IP that is years-tested, yet still not on many people's top ten lists.

 

I meant it makes sense for D&D--I agree it doesn't seem to make as much sense for Paizo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bruunwald said:

I wouldn't call any of those books "dry reference material." They are filled with exciting illustrations, game play examples, advice on world building, fascinating spell descriptions, and yes, a tiny amount of fluff.

 

"Dry reference material" is the old SRD WoTC put out that removed all actual IP and had only statistics, charts, and the barest instructions on how to use the rules. Yet, even that has a sort of fascination to it.

 

Now, you need to be careful. Implying that only the most obsessed people would ever bother to read any of the books that came before your time is wrong-headed and kind of gross. Do you really think you can dismiss entire generations of players like that?

 

Getting back to it, all I am saying is that vanilla rulesets are very handy tools. They are instruments for world building and storytelling, like guitars are instruments for music. You can always buy a new songbook if you want to do something new with that guitar. A guitar that is programmed to play one tune, would be pretty worthless to me.

Ok. I started playing with 3.5. I didn't mean to be insulting, but I had my first 3 or 4 characters (all those before 5e) made more or less for me because I couldn't get through the rules.

 

This was true for many of my friends who gamed before 5e, as well. The rules only became interesting once you played several times with guidance.

 

Guitars are actually a good example of what I mean. While you can teach yourself to play a guitar and read music, It's difficult without a teacher, especially if you only have fingering charts and sheet music. However, with guided instruction books and interesting music, it becomes much easier. Most people read the music for their first songs and play familiar tunes. Very few start by writings songs, which could comparable to settings in your comparison. 

 

Additionally, most people don't want to invest in more than one book to learn to play a new game when the books can cost $25-50. It's a large investment for the younger audience, with no guaranteed reward. 

 

I don't quite personally understand why fluff vs. no fluff is so heated among veterans...maybe I haven't read enough rulebooks to know. I'm just stating observations as someone in the younger, newer to rpg audience new editions are usually aiming for. From veterans, I've heard an incredible amount that still play AD&D 1 and 2. With people still preferring their beginning system in general, new editions make more sense to market to gamers new or mostly new to the scene. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Dom
      Hi Guys,
       
      I have read the guidelines of posting kickstarters and hope I am doing this correctly.
       
      If anyone has a chance come along and check out my kickstarter project specialising in hardwood dice boxes.
      If you have any thoughts or future stretch goal ideas then please I would love to hear them.
       
       
    • By Ironhammer
      So I had an occasion to create a new D&D character after a brief hiatus from playing, and I wound up rolling a half orc ranger named Logar Quickarrow, a vociferously proud member of the Bison Clan.  Naturally, being the conversion obsessed sort of person I am, I was obliged to fabricate a proper miniature for him.  I apologize for a few slightly blurry pictures, as I'm still trying to get used to my current camera (which is cleverly hidden inside my phone).
       
      After canvassing Reaper's catalog for half orcs and various iterations thereof, I quickly decided that Skreed Gorewillow by Derek Schubert was by far my favorite.  It was merely a matter of transforming him from a spell caster into a ranger.
       
      For reference, here is the miniature as it comes from the factory:
       

       
      The first step was to remove both the dagger and the burning flask and make way for his new weapons.  Rather than dig around in my parts bin for a matching set of new hands or sculpting a pair from scratch, I decided to simply bore out the existing hands and carve away all the pewter I didn't need and shape it to fit his new weapons.  My character uses a shield in his offhand in melee combat, so to reflect this I also cut away the front two flasks on his belt to make room for a shield which will be hung there.
       

       
      Next, I dug around in my parts bin for some suitable weapons.  I found an appropriately aggressive looking sword blade which was orphaned from its moorings, however after trimming away a portion of the lower half and rounding it out with a file I created a shaft for it which easily fit inside the hole I had drilled in his hand.  I like my figures to have appropriately shaped scabbards for their weapons, so I traced out the outline of the blade onto a sheet of styrene and cut it out as a starting point for making him a matching scabbard.
       

       
      Next, I selected and appropriate bow and quiver.  I also dug out a small shield, as my character uses a shield in his the offhand in melee combat.  I drilled and pinned the quiver so that it can be mounted on his back where the figure's original sword would have gone.
       

       
      After test fitting the shield, I came to the conclusion that it just didn't sit very well on the front of his belt.  So to cover up the damage I did earlier I simply sculpted a satchel where the flasks used to be.  I thought about cutting off the empty dagger sheath from the original figure and replacing it with a completely new dagger, however instead I simply sculpted a small nub at the top and called it a day.  The idea was that the dagger fits almost entirely inside the sheath itself, much like a dark age Seax or a traditional Finnish hunting knife.  At this point I've also drilled and pinned his feet in preparation for basing.  I've also tweaked the shape of his right hand by filing and carving it a bit more so that it closely fits around the handle of the bow I picked out for him.
       

       
      Next, I created a base using a very handy texture stamp made by Happy Seppuku.  Our campaign takes place in a rather wintery sort of place, so I will go back later and add some small piles of snow to reflect this.
       

       
      In an attempt to mirror the design aesthetic of his dagger sheath, I sculpted the sword scabbard to match with a raised bulge on top of a flatted base.  I left it otherwise plain, as I intend to hang the shield on top of the scabbard much like a medieval buckler. 
       
       
       
      Next, I flattened out the nub of his sword with a pair of smooth nosed pliers to create a rough disk shape to serve as the basis for a pommel.  I also sculpted a flap on top of his satchel.
       

       
      I then sculpted a fairly basic hilt, using a combination of styles mixing a "viking" type crossguard with a later medieval style disk pommel with a peen block.  I also sculpted a small throat around the top of the scabbard to suggest that it is actually hollow on the inside
       

       
      After test fitting the buckler, I realized that a portion of the scabbard was just barely visible underneath.  It was probably overkill, but I sculpted a rudimentary belt attachment to fill this gap (because I'm weird that way and can't let things like this go).  I then went ahead and glued the shield in place.
       

       
      I then glued the bow into his hand and glued the quiver on his back.  I had filed out the opening in his left hand specifically to fit the bow I had chosen for him, so it didn't take much to get it to fit snugly in place.  The bottom end of the bow rests directly against the lower part of the figure's clothing, which serves as a useful second anchor point for glueing (he is a tabletop figure after all).
       

       
      For the final step, I took the last bits of putty I had mixed and put them in little piles on his base, which I then stippled to make them look like little piles of snow.  Next up is painting!
       


    • By Jeepnewbie
      Left home in a hurry for a family emergency. Grandfather having heart trouble so I’m hanging out with him helping out.
       
      I didn’t bring any minis or paint so I found a local game store and picked up a few. I went to hobby lobby and michaels for some brushes and paint. 
       
      The paint was extremely cheap but hey if it doesn’t work out I can do something else. Space for travel is super limited (motorcycle) so I don’t want much to carry. 
       
      I brushed on some foundation white from model color. Since I don’t have any skin tone I had to experiment making it. I am happy with the results. I’m not quite sold on the color for the armor yet. 
    • By Auberon
      In the 5E game I recently started played, one of the characters created a halfling bard.  I had yet to paint Lem from the Kickstarter so he received a quick paint for the tabletop last week.  Of course, that player didn't show up to last weeks game but Lem is ready when needed.  Now that I look at it I see there are a few little bits that I missed but I doubt I go back and touch him up.
       

    • By Darcstaar
      Here's another post.
      Hellakin languished on my shelf of shame for about 5 years.  He was intended as an entry into a forum contest for painting "little people."
      Life got in the way.  I recently decided to finish him, in a little bit of a rushed fashion.
       
      He sat and sat at the basecoat stage.  I struggled with figuring out how to do his cloak black.
      I am not too happy with it.  It reads dark blue, as I'm trying to paint black without cycling up through gray, as you'll see here:
       
       
       
      I'm more pleased with the gold nmm on the knife than the steel.
      But, I tried to really suggest he's in a dark area by the shadowed part of the blade remaining nearly black.
      Here are some more shots of him.
       

       
      I'm pretty pleased with the hair color and face:
       

       
      He's got a very intense stare.
      The eyebrows didn't please me very much.
      The base is a "hollow" round base with a circle of cobblestone patterned sheet styrene from a model railroad supply hobby shop that I painted up to give him a feeling of being in a dungeon.
      If I wanted to spend more time on him, I'd paint his toenails and fiddle more with the knife.  I originally had a thought to try to paint shadows and light on the base to make it seem like he's sneaking up on someone to backstab from the shadows.  I gave up on that ;)
      Overall, he fills a missing niche among my painted figures of an iconic halfling rogue.
       
      C&C Welcome.
  • Who's Online   29 Members, 2 Anonymous, 0 Guests (See full list)

×