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
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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
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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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
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
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.

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.

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.

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rickdraco
      I saw the Rocky miniatures, and with how cute they are I could not resist getting one to use as a dragon to send against my players. As such, here is my take on the Flying Rocky, as a juvenile Red Dragon!
       
      Comments, criticisms and advice as ever more than welcome! 
       

    • By kazmania7
      She I did try to copy the fan art on her. Again not happy with the way the hair turned out in the back...ugh...nightmarte for me.




    • By kazmania7
      Mortisha Adams? nope just a drow.




    • By strawhat
      I started Rimeblast a couple weeks ago.  She's the first thing I've painted in some time.  It won't be anything special (I've got to learn how to up my game one of these days), but it's a start.
       
      This won't be a real in-depth thread, just the "end of the night" update after a painting session.
       

       
      Well, that was where I started.  I knew that the "white" dragon wouldn't be white.  It's not the way things are in the world where Rimeblast dwells.  But, this is the Ocean Colors triad (specifically Deep Ocean), which isn't just blue enough.  
       
      So, after a couple weeks of unhappy-back-of-the-mind pondering I pull out the paints again.  This is where I am now.
       

       
      This is better.  This is Sky Blue with little bits of Deep Ocean peaking through.  I'm "OK" with that.  It gives some variation so she's not (quite) all the same shade.  I'm thinking I'm going to take a heavy drybrush of Frosty Blue, and then a lighter drybrush of Ghost White, or even Sparkling Snow, to finish the scales. 
       
      The scutes (belly scales) have received a coat of Foggy Grey which is, I've discovered, very close to the shade of Vallejo grey primer already on it.  I'll likely be using Pure White and Sparkling Snow to finish those up--assuming I don't go back and redo them in Rainy Grey.  I'm afraid the countershading will be a little too "bright" if I leave them at "Foggy."
       
      I'm still not sure where I'm going to take the spinal ridge, crest, and wings.  The bones/supports in the wings bug me a bit.  I keep thinking that there should only be three or four support "fingers" (like a bat), and there a lot more there.  Pardon me while I over-analyze fantasy creature morphology.  
       
      Thanks for dropping by!
       
    • By kazmania7
      OMG what's with me and drow nowadays.... this one I tried to stay true to the pathfinder fanart




  • Who's Online   16 Members, 1 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...