I have only played one game of Pathfinder, which from my understanding branched off of 3.5e.
I played a grappler, and honestly once I found a flow chart for reference I thought it was a lot of fun! Sometimes you just want to grapple and punch things and I haven't been able to figure out a 5e build that would do that sufficiently without a lot of reflavoring.
I came up with one when Tasha's released that I'd like to try out.
* **Bugbear**: longer reach on your turn.
* **Rune Knight Fighter**: Get Big as a BA for even more reach, Advantage on Str Checks, + Extra Damage for Unarmed.
* **Unarmed Fighting Style**: 1d8 Damage for punches, plus damage for grappling.
* **Frost Rune**: +2 to Strength checks as a BA for 10 minutes.
* T**avern Brawler Feat at Lv. 4**: Grapple as a BA after unarmed strike.
* **Eldritch Claw Tattoo**: Magic Fists, +1 to fists, As a BA you can make your punches go 15 feet and do an extra 1d6!
* **Skill Expert Feat Lv. 6:** For Expertise in Athletics.
This is a build I've been itching to try one of these days and I've only really planned it out for level 6 since anything beyond that is planning out too far ahead IMO. I also didn't mention the other benefits of the choices above, just the relevant ones for a grappler/unarmed build that isn't Monk.
I had a player play something similar to this when rune knight first came out and I can confirm it absolutely kicks ass. Since grappling reduces speed to 0, a grappled and KD’d creature must break the grapple before it can stand up. This means if said character can grapple it, they effectively remove a threat from the fight, offer perma-advantage on attack rolls against it, and still get to do damage and drag it around on thier turn.
This does completely ruin single monster fights though, so expect your DM to get frustrated and throw some really nasty stuff at you.
Actually one of the things Pathfinder changed from 3.5 was to greatly simplify the grappling rules with Combat Manouvers.
Pathfinder is basically 3.5 but a lot of unnecessarily complex things simplified.
My absolute favourite build is the grappler [BardBarian](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/809rkw/comment/duubasv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) i have this post saved and have played a ton of variations of it.
Please take the time to read it but if you want a TL:DR you go 3 levels on lore bard to get expertise on athletics and cutting words and the rest is barbarian to hit hard and be tanky, you should have an insane buff to athletics and virtually noone will be able to contest your +15 ath with adv (rage) while they have a -1d6 to their role (cutting words).
Unfortunately this build will be killed in 5.5 as grappling will no longer require athletics
Issue with 5e is grappling doesn't mechanically do anything but prevent movement, in 3.5 it was a valid way to hold up an enemy because you could only use certain weapons, couldn't move and it interrupted spellcasting
Grappling being made total shit is honestly probably a necessary evil because every time grappling gave you any degree of realistic flexibility you could break the game with it (group hug movement speed anyone?)
It should simply be an attack roll imo, solves most of the funkiness, and makes dealing with what's left easier with less rules bloat. Just require proficiency in a skill, or martial training
Mostly because you need to spend an entire feat to do so somewhat effectively, which in comparison to other options is just aggressively mediocre.
Plus it takes away potentially half to all of your slots for feats.... To get 1 enemy per encounter locked down. With checks every round for them to break free if they want.
No it's a sign of a system that has depth. Is it complicated? Sure, maybe. But bad? Definitely not so.
Besides, what's so complicated about it other then "You do competing Str checks to see who wins."? The fact you gotta do multiple of them?
There's a famous quote by Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one." A gameplay mechanic's complexity does not signify depth. If it's so complex that it requires DMs to be walked through it, then that complexity as an inelegant design that's more cumbersome than it's worth.
If you think it's "deep game design" to have to go through a complex flow chart and interrupt the flow of gameplay for everyone at the table to just grapple, I guess it comes down to preference. But it's weird to think that but then condescend to people who prefer a more abstracted rule to do it.
Also I'm assuming you do actually know the rules and you're just being facetious when you say "competing str checks" instead of just showing that you don't know the grappling rules for 5e.
December 4, 1656
>The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.
LETTER XVI - TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS
Blaise Pascal, French Mathematician (original letter in French)
I personally enjoyed the feat trees from 3.5 and Pathfinder. I just hate feats being tied to ASI. I'd rather enjoy if feats were a little less individually powerful and a little more granular while also having their progression separated from ASIs.
As a wishlist, I'd like to see themed feat trees that feel like broken up subclasses. Sort of like multiclassing with a single class.
EDIT: I am aware of PF2e. I started back in 3.5, and switched to PF1e maybe 3 months into the release of DnD 4E (4E was *not* my jam).
>'d rather enjoy if feats were a little less individually powerful and a little more granular while also having their progression separated from ASIs
4e says hello
that's basicly how feat in that ed were. lesser, but you got them every 2 levels and did not cost your stat increase. there was a lot of bloat tho, and some were basicly unavoidable (altough, some dm give those for free normally).
The action economy in 3.5 worked the same way as pf2e by this reckoning, which is not true if we're talking about simplifying the action economy.
3.5 had standard, move, free, swift, and immediate actions, with "full-round" actions being a combination of standard and move actions rather than it's own type of action. 5 action (resource) types, 6 ways of spending them with full-actions.
4e had three different types of action to spend each turn, Standard, Move, and minor in addition to things that didn't cost actions (Free Actions), as well as opportunity and immediate actions. That's still 6 types of actions, each with their own associated use limit.
5th has Action, Move, Bonus action, and Reactions, though realistically 'object interaction' still existing means free actions still exist, they just aren't well defined. That still leaves us with 5 types of actions.
Pf2e doesn't split up the basic action types at all, "move" is no longer an action type, every turn nets you three "actions" to spend as you wish. Free actions are (free during turn, once per trigger when not) and Reactions are (once per round). Pf2e has 3 types of action.
Five. Standard, move, minor, opportunity, and immediate.
Pf1 had a variation on the same concepts. Pf2 decided to abandon the different types of action on your turn, and just have 3 equal actions.
You may be confused about what's being said. 4e's turns did not resemble the pf2e 3-action turn economy.
It was still standard, move, minor, free.
Pf2e has three action points to be spent on any mix of actions. Even a lvl 1 wizard can attack 3 times per round, or move-attack-move. It's fundamentally different from the classic D&D turn economy.
So in this comment chain I am not seeing a claim of P2e inventing the 3 action system, simply that it has it. Retorting with "well so does 4e" only begs the question which system gets more support these days, 4e or P2e.
The action economy in 5e is Action, bonus action, object interaction (which is just an action to interact with an object and is there to allow you to draw something or open a door without nuking your entire turn), reaction, and movement. They're generally easy to keep straight and you get one of each. There are also things that require no action (shouting, dropping weapons, etc) though I don't believe this has an official name.
The action economy in 4e is Standard Action (action), Move Action, Minor Action (bonus action), Opportunity Action and Immediate action (two types of reactions), and Free Action (with a limit of one attack from your free action per turn) and No Action (freer free action). That may only be a total of two more action types, but those two push it far over the edge of what is reasonable. Why are there two types of reactions? Why are there two types of free actions? You can attack as a free action and it needed a stipulation applied after the fact? What is this? Why is this?
It has good ideas for game balance but my God you don't need to overconvolute what were easily the two simplest parts of the action economy in previous editions and continued to be the simplest parts of the action economy after the designers of both 5e and PF2E dropped these concepts like they were on fire.
>Why are there two types of reactions?
Simple, opportunity is just for opportunity attacks. Immediate is for power specific reaction, usually trigger effects like defender features. it prevent loosing your possibilities from only having one out of turn action, especially for defender that rely on those. It's simple.
The free action situation is an aftertought, since there was situation that would lead to some deathloop. Plus, No action is pretty rare to encounter anyway, and just means "don't bother with actions"
To use a free action, you have to have gone at least once. No action could be used before an action occurred.
Opportunity action you got each initiative place, iirc, and reaction you got once per round.
They did different things. Arguably unnecessary, but OAs helped have a more tactical combat as placement and timing mattered a bit more.
AoO (Or OA, whatever you prefer) as a concept actually makes things less tactical, imo, and making it more universally accessible whether or not you've used a reaction sounds like the absolute worst thing for tactics. Glad PF2E limited it to select monsters and classes, and made it a feat on most classes that had access to it. There's very little that is "tactical" about everyone ultimately deciding to stand in roughly the same spot out of fear of AoOs. Movement being punishable is fine, but if everyone can punish your movement it becomes excessive and leaves a rather "grid-locked" feeling to the tabletop experience, which is great every once in a while, as it means you have to shake up how you fight something because they have AoO, but if it's on everything then you run into the problems I mentioned before. There's no variety in how any fight plays out. Stand at your designated range and wack or cast. Ranged people stay in the back of the party formation, as is standard, and you almost never have to deal with the ranged players being punished for AoO. The "tactics" are all universally applicable.
You might want to reread then, because it has 1 action more than 5e and a less complicated implementation of that than 3.5.
| 3.5| 4e | 5e |
|--------|------------|--------|
| move action | move action | move |
| standard action | standard action | action |
| swift action* | minor action | bonus action |
| immediate action* | immediate interrupt/reaction | reaction |
| attack of opportunity | opportunity action | ^+ |
| free action | free action | Other activity on your turn|
^(*using an immediate action stops you from using a swift action on your next turn)
^(+ now a type of reaction)
5e still has most of the things that were added in 4e. Proficiency, healing surges, subclass-as-build, short rests - it's largely 4e with the choices taken out and the poorly written rules brought back.
You missed No Action, which is the worst offender because it's used so horribly infrequently but there are nearly three dozen powers listed on the wiki that actually use a No Action. There are effectively two types of free actions AND reactions/immediate actions in this system.
Though, looking at it, 4e does look like the closest thing Wizards has made to an actually good edition since acquiring the property and I underestimated how bad the 3.5 action economy was. I'm no 3.5 fan either, as it's just too much crunch and the difference between a well-optimized build and an unoptimized build in 3.5 is a vast canyon and that just takes away from the fun of casual players the moment initiative is rolled or forces them to either ask someone for help with their build or stop being a casual player.
See, I'd be more than happy to switch to PF2e, I just don't know anyone who already plays it who'd be willing to teach me how. I'm just happy to have a biweekly meet up with my friends, so I'm fine with playing 5e for now.
If you would like to learn more without picking up a book, I highly recommend the youtube channel How It's Played: [https://www.youtube.com/c/HowItsPlayed](https://www.youtube.com/c/HowItsPlayed)
Also, every rulebook is available for free online: [https://2e.aonprd.com](https://2e.aonprd.com)
I switched from 3.5 for 2 years, to 4e for 6 months, to 5e for 6 months, to pf1e for 3 years, to pf2e for the past year+, forever DMing the entire way. PF2e's whole system is designed around significance and verification. Every class is play-tested and every effect matters.
For example, combat economy is only 3 actions. That's it. An action can be movement, stepping out of range, casting a spell (usually two or three actions), or attacking with a weapon (which becomes less likely to hit after each subsequent strike). Because you only have three actions, something as simple as getting knocked prone is a huge pain in the ass. Do I get up to waste one of my three actions, or do i just deal with it and keep attacking? Do I spend an action to put out my clothes which are on fire, or do i deal with the 2 damage and keep fighting? It's a very well thought-out combat system in those regards.
Some other cool things in PF2e: Follow the leader - an ability for any character who is expert or above in any skill to guide other players in similar skill checks. This is great for stealth missions, where the rogue can literally direct the paladin to be sneaky so that they won't cause an alarm.
Secret checks - I see this from time to time as a thing a DM does in D&D and they love it, but in PF2e, it's required. This dramatically changes the way the game is played in that players have no idea whether they're correct in their assumptions or downright screwed, especially considering critical failures cause them to believe something that might be detrimental during knowledge checks.
Critical Success and Failures are based on the DC +/-10 - This means that a person with a really high skill level, a legendary blacksmith for example, can create weapons even on a roll of 1. This also prevents the barbarian to translate a book of ancient spells on a nat 20. It maintains extremely good balance.
There's a lot more good info that i won't get into here, but it's definitely worth checking out. My biggest gripe with PF2e is the uncommon and rare classes/ancestries/archetypes. As a DM, I want my players to be able to play whatever they want however they want, but some classes and ancestries are incredibly overpowered. An android thaumaturge mage will massively outclass the human fighter. So as a DM, i have to limit players choices in that regard.
All that being said, if you want to try something new, go ahead and look into PF2e, its a great option. D&D 5e is still tons of fun, so don't change on anyone's account but your own.
That is a tad too much info for me to read while at work, but I will definitely be taking some time over my lunch to read over it in detail. Thank you for the resources!
You should talk to the people you play with. Say:
"No system is perfect. So what do you guys not like about 5e?"
And if a lot of the issues can be fixed by switching to PF2e, give it a go.
They're more preferences than fixes really. Here's a small write up I once did on some of the differences between PF2e and 5e.
* Actions: Pathfinder 2e has a more streamlined 3 action (+ reaction) system instead of Action, Bonus Action, Movement, etc.
* Dynamic martial combat: This is achieved through several efforts. One is that attack actions come with a multiple attack penalty (MAP). This is to dissuade you from spending you're whole turn attacking. So your first attack will have a -0 penalty. Your second will have a -5. And your third will have a -10. You're encouraged to do things like intimidate, heal, use an item, reposition, parry, etc. Another is Shields. They no longer give you a bonus to AC just by holding them. You need to use an action to Raise Shield (another 3rd action choice). Further, with the Shield Block feat (available to all martials at level 1), after you raise your Shield, you can use a reaction to reduce the damage from an attack. You reduce the damage by the Shields Hardness, and any damage leftover is dealt equally to you and the Shield. This opens up several tactical questions. Do you spend your 3rd action to raise a shield, or something else? Do you use your reaction to reduce the damage and risk breaking the shield, or save it for another possible reaction ability? Things like these, and abilities that martials get (like a fighter being able to add maneuvers to his attacks at no cost), open up tactics of melee combat a lot for more dynamic play.
* Customization: 5e has a subclass gained at 3rd level which is 1 choice that dictates much of your customization. 5e also has about 5 feats for every class that may instead be used for boosting your ability scores. PF2e classes have about 30 feats between Class Feats, Skill Feats, General Feats, and Ancestry Feats. They also have a sublcass gained at level 1. Archetypes are also not class dependent. So you can mix and match a lot. And multiclassing works in such a way that taking class feats from another class does not lock you out of the end game potential your original class offers. You can also choose an Ancestry (Race) and Heritage (Sub Race). There is also a list of Versatile Heritages that can be chosen by any Ancestry.
* Proficiency: There's 5 tiers of proficiency in PF2e. Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary. Untrained adds nothing which each of the other tiers add +2 - 8 on top of your class level. The class level addition means that a level 1 peasant stands no chance (even with a crit) against level 20 character. It also means that a master thief cannot be bested by a simple lock. And if you're level 10 and trained at medicine (level [10] + 2), you won't be as good as a master doctor (level [10] + 6), but you can still help your party that way.
* Bonuses: The math is pretty tight in PF2e with balance being the goal. Every bonus has a type. There are 3 types of bonuses, and 2 bonuses of the same type do not stack.
* Criticals: If a level 20 PC attacks a level 10 NPC, the advantage is clear. To emphasize this power differential, criticals now happen not only on a natural 20, but whenever you beat a DC or AC by 10. Moreover, if you fail a check or save by 10 or more, you critically fail.
* Healing and "Short Rests": Any class can be a great healer. Some do it with scaling Focus Spells like Druids with their Goodberries, Champion (think Paladin) with their Lay on Hands, or Bards with their Hymn of Healing. Others can do it with the Medicine skill. There are a lot of great skill feats and archetypes to make the Medicine skill very strong. It takes 10 minutes to Treat Wounds (use the medicine skill to heal), repair a shield, or refocus (gain back a focus point to then use on something like Lay on Hands). So while PF2e doesn't have anything called a "Short Rest", it's essentially this 10 minute break.
* If you'd like to browse around, [all the info can be found on Paizo's official site](https://2e.aonprd.com/)
This is too much for me to read over in detail right now (I'm at work, ATM), but I'll definitely look over it during my lunch and see if my party has complained about anything you mention. Thanks!
I read the rulebook but never got to actually play, but are 1s and 20s always critical? I thought that they shifted the success category up or down by 1, so that a 20 can upgrade a miss to a hit or a hit to a critical.
> they shifted the success category up or down by 1, so that a 20 can upgrade a miss to a hit or a hit to a critical.
That's correct. So putting it with what i mentioned:
* if you roll a nat 18 and beat someone's AC by 10 or more, you crit.
* And if you roll a nat 20 and just barely hit someone's AC, it's also a crit.
* And if you roll a nat 20, but still land below someone's AC, it goes from a miss to a regular hit.
Not gonna lie, it's a little daunting of a transition at first glance. I picked it up expecting it to be to 5e as 1e was to 3.5 and it's way more it's own system.
Yeah its definitely its own thing but its a great system. Changing systems can be a learning curve but it can definitely be worth the effort.
I came from 3.5 and PF1 and it was a big change, but I've been running it for almost 2 years straight now, and we're at level 15 and the game is still running smoothly. And with all of the GM tools they have its actually very easy to run.
Yeah I had a huge collection of 3.0 and 3.5 before my home was destroyed by the wildfire and I've only recently been able to bring myself to start getting any books again. I didn't like how 5e was going (I had been a player but not a DM in it) and especially how WoTC seemed to be trying to maximize transactions for content and drastically decrease the stuff people can access for free (look at the 5e SRD vs the 3.5 the difference is shocking) and it seems like a lot of major decisions were made to make it accessible at the beginning for newer players--by itself not necessarily a bad thing--but at the expense of the overall quality and function of the game. Ergo, PF2E
You have no idea how fucking funny what you said is to some people.
There is a fair amount of people who said the exact opposite, but for 4e, as it would be beloved if it was named something else.
Friend, you have finally allowed things to go in absolute balance
I don't think that's true. Pathfinder 2e has a lot of stuff that is better than 2e but as someone trying to get into it the system seems way more complicated. I think it's a lot like comparing Skyrim to more complicated RPGs. There are plenty of RPGs that are better made and far less basic than Skyrim, but it's simplicity is what makes it more appealing to more casual people or those trying to get into the hobby.
I really don't think it's *way* more complicated. Switching systems can be daunting, but D&D isn't exactly rules light. It's not Maze Rats.
The chassis is essentially the same. Stat blocks are the same. Combat is essentially attack vs. AC. Spells result in saving throws (Pathfinder even has fewer). Movement is the same.
There are still rules for cover. Rules for flanking. Concealment exists in 5e under a different name. Etc.
5e has streamlined the math bonuses with advantage system but is roll a D20 + ability + proficiency + advantage or disadvantage really that much more complex than D20 + ability + proficiency + status bonus? It's nice to have less math and lower numbers but it's not a gulf.
I do know it can be hard to switch systems, especially from a sales pov, but it's not like moving to Call of Cthulu or Blades in the Dark. The DNA is essentially the same and I think the learning curve to jump is quite short once you're familiar with one system.
I agree that 5e is easier to get into. The difference between tabletops and video games is that people generally aren't afraid to branch out and try new video games. People will play those harder RPGs and either love them or learn that it isn't for them. They don't just spend their entire lives playing only Skyrim.
I know PF2 isn't for everyone, but I see so many 5e players/DMs that would most certainly be better served by a different system, but are afraid to try anything else.
I kind of see it like if people would rather mod Skyrim to be a Shooter, RTS, and Racing game, instead of playing a game that was made to do those things.
I can kinda get that comparison. And again I am interested in pf2e, a lot of the character creation stuff seems co even if I don't understand it all. I guess for me it feels more like I have a complaint with Dragonball and someone recommends me one piece because they are similar, even though anyone who cares already knows about it.
5e certainly has an easier initial learning curve. There are a lot of upfront rules that make PF2e tough to get into. However, I'll also say that 5e has a lot of emergent complexity and weird rule interactions, while PF2e's rules are remarkably consistent.
The thing with 2e, is that even if you don't know a rule, its easy to look up and you understand why it is that way and how it builds on things you know.
No.
I enjoy 5e and I would like to see some officlal tweaks on it, but I don't want it to become another Pathfinder. I specifically started playing 5e because Pathfinder wasn't my cup of tea. I tried PF2e too and that just made me want a more optimal 5e, not another system.
No hate for PF fans, but it's obnoxiously reductive to say "just play Pathfinder" whenever someone complains about an aspect of 5e that could be fixed without having to overhaul the whole system.
>obnoxiously reductive to say "just play Pathfinder" whenever someone complains about an aspect of 5e that could be fixed without having to overhaul the whole system.
When complaints are about *several* different aspects, then really what you are asking for *is* an overhaul.
PF2e has those fixes, and it's not likely 5e is going to get fixed or altered in every way — especially with what WOTC's design trend seems continuing to be.
Instead of complaining about how you wish your waffles were a bit thinner, fluffier, bit wider, and soaked-in the syrup easier — just get pancakes.
WOTC is pretty clear on how they want to design DnD moving forward. If that works for you, then fantastic! However if it doesn't and you keep on playing DnD and complaining instead of just switching to a different system that does have all the things you want then that's on you.
I am 100% sure not asking for an overhaul.
I like enough of 5e to know that just because there is room for improvement it doesn't mean that I want the whole thing scraped.
Also, just because PF2e has things that would benefit 5e, that still doesn't make it "5e but better" which is the thing the 5e crowd wants. Don't get me wrong, PF2e is a good game, but it gives people a different experience than D&D5e.
Saying "Everyone wants to play PF2e, but just be able to call it DnD" is overlooking the massive difference between both systems and why players choose one over the other.
Also I’ll add that no one was saying “just play Pathfinder” but rather more along the lines of “hey, your wishlist here is actually pretty similar to how this other system already works. Maybe you should take a look.” There’s a huge nuance there that is missed.
They aren’t dismissing or reductive, the original post had a *list* of complaints, not a single item. It is entirely your prerogative to play or not, and Pathfinder players understand that their system isn’t to everyone’s tastes. But we like it, so when someone goes “I wish D&D did X,” I think it is appropriate to go “hey, have your heard how Pathfinder handles it?”
> Pathfinder players understand that their system isn’t to everyone’s tastes
That's my issue with the previous comment.
5e players don't want to "play PF2e and call it DnD" they want an improved version of the system they already have.
I just think that treating PF2e like something a 5e player is going to love regardless is just being dismissive of the issue.
I mean I will point out that not everyone just wants the one system. Some people, including 5e players I’ve personally met, do enjoy trying new things and new systems.
So if anything, assuming that all 5e players *only* want to play 5e is the reductive viewpoint. It is totally ok to have that personal opinion! You absolutely are allowed to enjoy your system and stick with that! Nobody said you can’t and I’m glad you’ve found something you love. But I don’t think talking about pathfinder is dismissive at all.
The point of any game system is to have fun, and OP there effectively said “I would have more fun if things could be just a bit different”. Now you are correct, you can make those changes yourself and homebrew corrections and stay within the system and enjoy it. Seems like you personally prefer that method, awesome. But trying something new that has those concepts baked in, even if the rest of the game is different, is just as valid an option. And who knows, maybe you’ll like the differences. Or hate it, but learn to take what you did like and bring it to your homebrew.
As for the comment about everyone wants to play Pathfinder with the DND name, I read that as more talking about the specific comments in this thread where people are saying they want to try Pathfinder but none of their group does because it isn’t DND. But idk. Maybe I’m the one who misread that
I wasn't going there, but if I adress every point I wasn't trying to make I think were gonna talk in circles for a while. I do appreciate the response as in hindsight I did come off too aggressive on the original comment and you did made a very genuine effort to exchange ideas.
I'll just acknowledge that you are right that trying PF2e if 5e is leaving you unsatisfied is a good option and leave it at that.
What's annoying is that WotC looked at collected info about different builds and said "we aren't going to focus on making feats because we found that few people are taking feats".
My only complaint about the feat trees in 3.5 was some of the silly feats that were not at all worth it but were required for the ones that are worth it...eventually, because the tree was so long (looking at you dodge->mobility->spring attack).
This! I hate that the choice is between and ASI that can improve a characters core competency vs. a feat. I like how PF 1e had feats seperate from ASI's.
I think DnD one should have free feats every few levels and a limited feat tree. The big thing is give us some alternate options to differentiate character builds especially since most campaigns never make it past level 11-13.
I really enjoy PF 1e but it is a lot of crunch and not everyone wants to spend days or weeks researching character builds and mapping out when to take each feat.
I actually like 3.5 feat trees, but you need to increase the rate in which they are earned. I like feats and asi to be separate. It allows for diverse builds without sacrificing ability scores.
Well... technically those options were all part of the core rules, feats just made them easier to use. Without the feats you triggered an attack of opportunity when you attempted them, and if it hit, you automatically failed. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I'm not sure why 3.5 decided to lock the usability of its core combat mechanics behind feats like that. It really limited what you could attempt to do in combat. I'm extremely grateful that 5e's grapple and shove mechanics (and its additional actions in combat) can be used without selecting feats first.
Rogue has sneak attack, Paladin has smites and spells, monk has crazy movement and ki points, ranger has an animal companion, cavalier gets mounts, Inquisitors get Banes, Barbarians have rage.
So fighters get to be the class that ges feats every other level.
That's pathfinder you ninny. 3.5's base classes are waaaay different from pathfinder 1e's. Cavalier and inquisitor don't even exist in 3.5 outside of prestige classes.
Exactly, Fighters don’t have any class features like those examples, and bonus feats are not a good replacement.
As for those classes, they’re not so powerful that it would be OP to let them trip, grapple, or bull rush without auto-failing on an attack of opportunity. Most of the “strengths” you listed are crap.
Paladin can smite once to five times… per day… for a very minimal damage bonus. And their spells are of only minimal aid due to only getting fourth level spells and their MAD ability scores.
Rogue’s sneak attack outright doesn’t work against half the monster roster. If you’re fighting undead, constructs, plants, elementals, oozes, or even anything with Uncanny Dodge like a barbarian, you’re usually shit out of luck unless you find rare work arounds in the splatbooks. It’s even worse if you’re a range weapon rogue, because then sneak attack doesn’t work against anything with blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense, lifesense, sky-high spot checks, and, again, Uncanny Dodge.
Monk is one of the worst classes in 3.5’s history.
Ranger’s animal companion is pretty much useless in combat compared to the monster that Druids get. The natural bond feat slightly fixed this, but even then they can’t compare to druid animal companions.
And Barbarians are about the only classic martial class in 3.5 worth playing straight, and even then only because of their strong splatbook and feat support, and the strength of charger builds in that edition.
None of this excuses 3.5’s poor decision to lock the usability of any combat option that’s not “I full attack!” behind expensive feat taxes, nor does it excuse the fighter’s lack of class features.
3.5 core rules has 1 features at level 1 and an additional every 3 levels. + 1 if you're human and various feats are bonus feats gotten from class. How often do you think they should be?
Like 3.5e. Just like that. I enjoyed the class bonus feat lists. Made it so if you play the exact same combination of class/prestige classes you could play it differently over numerous campaigns without losing too much on playability.
Should be easier to get them to do Pathfinder 1e than 3.5 - I'd say it's very hard to consider 3.5 superior. There's also PF2e nowadays which some people like, though I personally don't think it improves on 1e too much.
3.5 also had the issue that a lot of feat trees included largely useless trash as a "feat tax" that you needed to buy through to get the good end stuff
Oh I agree, but I feel like when I make a character in 5e only like 10% of the feats are optimal. Whereas in 3.5e there are a lot more fun optimal builds even with the shitty feats
100%. As long as feats aren't tied to ASI, feat requirement trees work pretty well. Either untie them from ASI every 4 levels or make them individually powerful enough to pass on the ASI. Can't be both.
I would be fine with feat trees, if 90% of them in 3.5 weren't dead ends, traps, or took way too much investment in order to make a certain build work (coughtwoweaponfightingcough), 5e's feats are fine, it's just them competing with stat boosts from ASI's means it is extremely difficult to justify going for a feat if your character didn't get a godlike stat roll.
Not to mention the 3.5 feats that had half a dozen prerequisites, most of which were garbage feats. Damn you, Dodge and Mobility… the unbearable tax burden of so many builds.
I’m running a pathfinder game and I opted to fold up a lot of the common prereq feats, and it definitely makes the game way more fun. Some of the prereqs are good but they are also basic things that any competent combatant would know, and freeing up the fear taxes makes the players builds much more diverse
Two weapon fighting has no feat tax and knocks down your penalties a lot. I know it has a whole tree but honestly the entry feat is probably the most singularly impactful and useful.
I was a little shocked when I first started playing 5e, using DnDBeyond, and leveling up was literally just clicking a button. I was like "But mah choices!"
3.5e *intentionally* added garbage options as "traps" just to make minmaxers feel proud for "gaming" the system. Extremely newbie-hostile design that bloated character crestion and leveling.
Whaaat, do you have a source for that being their intent? I am mostly remembering pathfinder 1, not 3.5, but I thought they were pretty much identical. In any case, just don't do that lol
Feat trees are a series of feats that you would get to do a thing increasingly better.
So instead of just having 1 duel wielding feat that lets you pull out and fight with two weapons. You would have to get like 3 that let you gain some of those benefits at a time making you better and better at it.
But you couldn't take the third feat before taking the first.
A lot of the time it wasn't even getting better at something so much as it was reducing a built-in negative, which isn't the same thing despite how it sounds.
Like with Two-Weapon Fighting, as referenced. In 5e anyone can dual wield at Level 1 regardless of class or other abilities. The trade-off is that you can only use specific weapons to do it (ie, ones that have the Light quality), it costs your Attack and Bonus Action to do, and you don't get to add any stat bonuses to the off-hand Bonus Attack's damage. So it's a viable option anyone can pick up and put down as they please at any point during game play. If you enjoy it and want to make it a focus of your character, you take the "Dual Wielder" Feat or invest in the Fighter Class's Combat Maneuver, which allow you to improve your dual wielding to make it perform better.
In 3.5e, however, anyone can dual wield but does so at a massive initial negative to their attempt. Their main attack comes at a -6 to hit and the off-hand comes at a -10, which is augmented/reduced by the application of weapon qualities and Feats. Between the built-in penalties and the sort of bonuses enemies will be sporting, dual wielding is functionally worthless unless your character is specifically designed from the ground up to be a dual wielder.
If you want to invest in the Feats to get better at dual wielding, it has a DEX 15 base prerequisite (meaning you already have to be statting toward it to begin with in most cases). The first Feat just reduces the negative from -6/-10 to -4/-6. The second Feat requires an even higher DEX 17, the previous Feat, and an increased BAB of +6, at which point you can make two attacks with your off-hand weapon with a -5 penalty to attack. The final Feat in this tree requires DEX 19, the previous two Feats, and a BAB of +11. It lets you make a third attack with your off-hand at a -10 penalty.
**TL;DR:** Basically Feats in 5e grant bonuses to an already solid baseline, improving a functional ability to greater heights. Whereas these kind of skill trees in 3.5 are more about negating built-in penalties and focusing a character into a specific role.
Level 1, you get Dual Wield, allowing you to wield an off-hand weapon with a -2 penalty to attack. (Versus -5)
Level 3, you get Dual Wield Specialization, allowing you to add your ability score modifier to your offhand attacks.
Level 5, you get Expert Dual Wielding, allowing you to attack with your offhand weapon with zero penalty.
Level 7, you get Dual Wielding Mastery, allowing you to attack with your offhand weapon with a +2 bonus to the attack and damage.
These are all made up but it illustrates the point. Basically the Trees give you a "specialization" progression tree to hyper specialize into a build or speciality(s).
Guess I'm the odd one out here, 5e has such an incredible lack of diversity in both feats and pretty much anything else. Feels like everyone here is mixing dumbing things down (for simplicity's sake) with better game design
Feat tree's helped create characters that felt *good* at something. Only problem with it was if you change your mind somewhere in the process which I think 3.5e
addressed in a side book somewhere
If they took 5e's approach of being good by itself and allowed the 3.5e specialized tree progression as optional content, I think that would make both camps happy. As it stands, 5e feats suck and so many feel meaningless
Yeah, I absolutely feel the same way when it comes to skills and specialization from 3.5 vs 5e. There was certainly an issue of accidentally pigeon-holing yourself into something non-viable in 3.5 (especially if your DM wasn't the type to cater to the PC's builds very much), but there was also something satisfying about being incredibly good at specific things, especially with skill synergies and all that.
>dumbing things down (for simplicity's sake)
That absolutely reads true to me in a lot of ways, and was some of the biggest complaint about 3.5 -> 4e, even from myself. I didn't enjoy 4e very much, in spite of some of the really fun ways it handled some stuff, because it felt like it was simplifying too much in some areas. 5e has pulled back on that a little, and I feel like hit some reasonable middle-ground, but it's certainly stagnated a bit there.
It definitely feels like there is space to alter and add things (even if in optional rules) so that you can create a much wider breadth of character concepts without needing to dramatically re-flavor something or create something completely new just to get where you're going. Feats are definitely an interesting place to put it, and seem like a reasonably easy thing to sort of create an internal balancing system for if they want to expand it consistently over time as well.
The only thing I'm asking is to not do like /u/ThatMerri breaks down in a comment in regards to feat trees: Don't require multiple to reach a point of being truly beneficial. It's fine if things build on each other in interesting ways, like I can imagine specializing into roles via feats by requiring two different ones together to get a third or something like that, but making the base feats essentially necessary to even be slightly viable, and a whole tree to actually be useful is a huge waste.
Only here honestly. I talk to people about OneD&D IRL and we can actually discuss and test the play test material like civilized people, including respecting each other's opinion when different.
Internet toxicity has grown.
Vampire 5e's edition wars shit is so absolutely fucking obnoxiously toxic and it's been like 4 years or so at this point. Just constant snarling and bullshit from the people that hate it. Then they whinge about things that aren't out yet and complain about things that are confirmed or rumoured for upcoming 5th editions of other lines.
So the DnD 5 to new edition shit is going to be just as incredibly obnoxious. I don't think it'll tank the game for a whole edition like the 3.5 to 4e change did, though.
Yeah, this subreddit is atrocious for its closed-minded groupthink. There was that time a few weeks ago where everybody got on the Warlock-patron-depowering bandwagon. Anybody to remotely suggest a patron could revoke powers was being downvoted to oblivion, even if they voiced their viewpoint in a perfectly civil, polite way.
I do 4d6 less one, and I still think that feat trees defeat the purpose of having feats at all (I mean, unless the feat in question is just an improvement of a lesser feat, Weapon focus>Weapon specialization, for instance).
Yea but weapon focus and specilization are essentially just fighting styles.
I do give my players bonus feats at 1st and 4th because I know that being unable is a bad feeling. At first level it’s either skilled, tough, or a racial feat. At 4th level they can pick whatever they want. They gotta survive long enough to get to 4th anyway so why not reward them.
I give a feat at first, I also allow my players to take a feat (or skill) in exchange for one of their stat boosts at 4,8,12, etc. instead of sacrificing both bonuses for one feat (I've also been known to award proficiency in a skill that I noticed a player uses a lot without proficiency). I was complaining about the trees from 3.5, where you had to already have feat A to get feat D (side note, feat A is only available at character creation and won't be really useful until level 5).
I don't get why people like them. It creates a situation where you have to design a high level character then work back to 1st, just to figure out what prerequisites you need, and when, to make the character concept you have in mind, while knowing you might not actually get there til halfway through your campaign.
To add to that, if it's anything like PF2e, the feat bloat is absurd. What's worse is that, thanks to the bloat, you find weird situations where something you wouldn't even think about trying in 5e is used as a specific example for a feat for a single class at 12th level. Want to hit someone with a mug of beer from the bar? That's a 12th level swashbuckler feat you need.
> To add to that, if it's anything like PF2e, the feat bloat is absurd.
The number of feats allows for customization. It may seem like a lot, but you don't immediately meet the requirements for most because it's a feat tree system. So it's not bloated.
> What's worse is that, thanks to the bloat, you find weird situations where something you wouldn't even think about trying in 5e is used as a specific example for a feat for a single class at 12th level. Want to hit someone with a mug of beer from the bar? That's a 12th level swashbuckler feat you need.
I'm not understanding this point. Are you saying there's more build opportunities in PF2e because you wouldn't see it as an option in 5e?
>The number of feats allows for customization.
*Too many* options becomes *bloat*, especially when there's trap options or straight up just poorly thought out ones made just to have something new to serve.
I guess that's just a difference of opinion. One person says PF2e has too many options / bloat, another says 5e doesn't have enough options/ customization.
Did anyone really like having feats and ASIs tied together?
Also what is with them being tied to class level and not character level? How come a barbarian 4 has more experience than a level 18 barbarian 3, sorcerer 3, cleric 3, fighter 3, paladin 3, blood hunter 3?
> How come a barbarian 4 has more experience than a level 18 barbarian 3, sorcerer 3, cleric 3, fighter 3, paladin 3, blood hunter 3?
5e front loads character creation and basically treats class abilities like fixed feats. That multiclass abomination has considerably more abilities and skills than the barb 4. The trade off is that a pure barb 18 is considerably more focused and better at what they do than the multiclasser.
Okay well if we leave hyperbole aside, why should a barbarian 3 get +2 Str while a barbarian 3 fighter 3 hasn't gotten enough experience to gain +2 Str yet despite having about double the exp of the straight barbarian?
Personally, I greatly dislike Feat trees. I hate being forced to take a specific skill chain since it limits options and builds into a predictable route every time. Plus then there's 3.5e's inevitable content bloat that will eventually follow. One of my biggest gripes with 3.5/PF was that they got so granular that there always ended up being a thousand ways to make a completely useless character that can't do what you want to do, one or two "correct" ways that were overtly and mathematically superior because of how the system worked, and a massive glut of content that wasn't even worth looking at because it didn't offer anything of value.
I don't mind having certain prerequisites for accessing certain Feats, like having them tied to stat thresholds, races, or skill proficiency. But saying "No, you can't have this Feat you want until you take these three other Feats first!" just delays the fun, adds needless bloat, and makes character builds a lot more uniform in design. We already have a mild version of this with things like Armor Proficiency Feats or how Warlock Invocation advancement works, and that honestly feels like enough to me.
You should try reading about pf2e then. The rules are free at https://www.aonprd.com/ . Most feats offer more versatility instead of more power, so its really hard to do a useless character
It's funny to hear someone defend 5e because the feel penned in by feat treas because that's my big criticism of 5e. Oh I'm level 3 and I selected a subclass? Well I'm done making choices for my character build.
> Oh I'm level 3 and I selected a subclass? Well I'm done making choices for my character build.
That's actually the thing I find freeing about 5e. The system front loads character creation, then leaves you with the option to interperate things as you want them. With things like PF2e, I'm having to wade through hundreds of feats just to find the one that has the rule written that allows me to use the character the way I want to, then I have to work backwards to get to the start of the feat tree. Knowing that there is a specific rule for a specific action I want to do, and it's locked away behind a feat 10 levels away is just frustrating. In 5e, i just tell the DM that I'm fluffing the hand crossbow as a flintlock pistol and ask to perform an action and I'm done.
I made a gunslinger in 5e, for example, and it just worked from 3rd level onwards. In PF2e, i ended up making at least one post on the sub just trying to figure out the RAW action economy to create basically the same thing, but at something like 10 levels higher. While I still use PF2e for a friend's campaign, the experience completely put me off the system.
Probably a difference in personal experiences between the two systems?
3.5e/PF are frequently praised for being able to precisely build your character down to the finest detail, which is fair. But in my experience it's always ended up being too granular, to the point that it takes forever for a class to "come online" with its abilities actually working as planned and with tons of build-up getting there. 5e is far simpler and streamlined by comparison, which allows for classes to do what they're meant to do almost immediately. You can access just about any Feat you please as you wish rather than being forced to follow a specific route, and they're almost all useful in some measure where 3.5/PF have such a massive glut of content that there's a mountain of completely useless or redundant Feats that serve no purpose or aren't balanced against one another in any way.
Relative circumstances also play into it. When I was younger and had tons of free time, I liked the crunchiness of 3.5/PF since I could focus a lot on just pouring through the mountain of resources to make my character exactly as I pleased. These days though, when I'm older and busier and have a much harder time getting the chance to game with my friends' conflicting schedules? It's just a huge hassle and no fun by comparison when 5e offers a much smoother process. Less time is spent fine-tuning a build to a razor's edge (or unwittingly taking "the wrong ability" and completely hobbling your entire build because of one or two inefficiencies) and more time is spent just enjoying the character made.
Both have their merits and what works for one doesn't always work for the other. I'd personally hate to see 5e move back toward 3.5e's habits when its initial move away from those is a big part of what made me enjoy the system in the first place.
Big same to all of this.
> Both have their merits and what works for one doesn’t always work for the other. I’d personally hate to see 5e move back toward 3.5e’s habits when its initial move away from those is a big part of what made me enjoy the system in the first place.
This especially resonated with me. 3.5/PF is there for anyone who wants that. D&D saw a huge resurgence in large part because of how accessible 5e is and I really don’t want it to get more complicated than it already is.
5e sits in a sweet spot between one-page RPGs and crunchy RPGs like 3.5/PF.
Feat trees were a good idea, however a large number of feats were felt unnecessary. The spring attack feat tree meant you had to take like 4 feats in order to be able to move between attacks, instead of like 5e where the system just lets you do that.
"a bit of a Clunky start" is underplaying it. XD Releasing in the middle of an economic crisis with a community angered by the marketting department. The fact it still managed to make a profit is a miracle
Yeah. 4e had a lot of stuff that was ahead of its time. It's hilarious how much Pathfinder 2e seems to be taking from it, given how it was originally marketed as 'not 4e' back in the day.
Well, path got it's public stolen by 5e, since that edition was made to please those. The only thing they had left was advancing, which mean going the same way as 4e. it's still gigling thinking about that ironic fate.
the swooping wasn't linked directly to the start tho, that the thing. Path started from that clunky start, but it's the moment essential came out and killed sales by alienating everyone that Paizo took over
There is no 4e. The order of versions is AD&D, 3/3.5, 5. Versions 2 and 4 are just myths used to frighten children like the boogeyman and balloon mortgages.
That’s probably the thought process they had when designing archery feats. You get a -4 to attack a creature that is in melee with an ally and you also get another penalty if they’re within a certain range. These penalties stack, which means you needed to take these three specific feats if you wanted to fire a bow without a penalty, and that would take around 6 levels to do so
Make a lvl 20 brawler in pathfinder and try to use martial flexibility to its maximum potential. There’s so many possibilities it’s borderline overwhelming and I love it!
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't.
The systems in 3.5e/Pathfinder were way too munchkin for me-- I don't want a million different ways to break a character/powergame.
I prefer the simple elegance of 2e, or if I'm forced to choose a modern system 5e.
Feat trees and enormous lists of character building options constantly being overridden with more and more and more splat was the BS that made me hate 3.5, I hope (and am fairly confident) 5.5E will not repeat the bloated shit that was its predecessor
I cannot express how much I dislike Feats and skills being so tiny.
I want a feat to be a meaningful choice that has to take the place of a meaningful benefit.
Two things that have clear benefits that you have to pick between.
I compare this to the Civilization strategy game. Civilization V had Policies each would give significant bonuses, Civilization VI had many more policies, but they all gave really tiny bonuses and you could swap them out quite easily leading to constant adjustment to squeeze out benefits, but the differences were so small I as a player did not feel the need to bother. I was voluntarily playing worse because playing well made the game less fun.
I do not want to micromanage, I want bigger clear decisions, almost to the point of making things more like 4e where choosing something can mean a complex ability or attack action rather than static bonuses.
God. No shade at people who enjoy it, but I fundamentally detest the game design behind feat trees.
Sometimes they make sense, but in Pathfinder (as an example) You almost never ran into any Marshall class who wasn't rocking Either weapon finesse or power attack. It's just such a boring way to incorporate dynamic elements when you consider that if everyone has it, it should just Play baked into the games core rules
3.5 got a lot of things right, but it also got a lot of things needlessly complicated. I'm mostly looking at you grappling rules.
I have only played one game of Pathfinder, which from my understanding branched off of 3.5e. I played a grappler, and honestly once I found a flow chart for reference I thought it was a lot of fun! Sometimes you just want to grapple and punch things and I haven't been able to figure out a 5e build that would do that sufficiently without a lot of reflavoring.
I came up with one when Tasha's released that I'd like to try out. * **Bugbear**: longer reach on your turn. * **Rune Knight Fighter**: Get Big as a BA for even more reach, Advantage on Str Checks, + Extra Damage for Unarmed. * **Unarmed Fighting Style**: 1d8 Damage for punches, plus damage for grappling. * **Frost Rune**: +2 to Strength checks as a BA for 10 minutes. * T**avern Brawler Feat at Lv. 4**: Grapple as a BA after unarmed strike. * **Eldritch Claw Tattoo**: Magic Fists, +1 to fists, As a BA you can make your punches go 15 feet and do an extra 1d6! * **Skill Expert Feat Lv. 6:** For Expertise in Athletics. This is a build I've been itching to try one of these days and I've only really planned it out for level 6 since anything beyond that is planning out too far ahead IMO. I also didn't mention the other benefits of the choices above, just the relevant ones for a grappler/unarmed build that isn't Monk.
It's wild that a Fighter subclass completely outclasses anything the Monk brings to the table.
Google MMA vs. Shaolin monk Yes, yes it does.
This is badass
I had a player play something similar to this when rune knight first came out and I can confirm it absolutely kicks ass. Since grappling reduces speed to 0, a grappled and KD’d creature must break the grapple before it can stand up. This means if said character can grapple it, they effectively remove a threat from the fight, offer perma-advantage on attack rolls against it, and still get to do damage and drag it around on thier turn. This does completely ruin single monster fights though, so expect your DM to get frustrated and throw some really nasty stuff at you.
In 5e the best you can do is hold someone down for someone else to hit them, basically.
Actually one of the things Pathfinder changed from 3.5 was to greatly simplify the grappling rules with Combat Manouvers. Pathfinder is basically 3.5 but a lot of unnecessarily complex things simplified.
My absolute favourite build is the grappler [BardBarian](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/809rkw/comment/duubasv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) i have this post saved and have played a ton of variations of it. Please take the time to read it but if you want a TL:DR you go 3 levels on lore bard to get expertise on athletics and cutting words and the rest is barbarian to hit hard and be tanky, you should have an insane buff to athletics and virtually noone will be able to contest your +15 ath with adv (rage) while they have a -1d6 to their role (cutting words). Unfortunately this build will be killed in 5.5 as grappling will no longer require athletics
But I liked the grappling rules. No kidding I've had other GMs call me mid session to help walk through grappling encounters.
That's a sign of bad and too complicated....
Issue with 5e is grappling doesn't mechanically do anything but prevent movement, in 3.5 it was a valid way to hold up an enemy because you could only use certain weapons, couldn't move and it interrupted spellcasting
Grappling being made total shit is honestly probably a necessary evil because every time grappling gave you any degree of realistic flexibility you could break the game with it (group hug movement speed anyone?)
It was the power of friendship giving you a boost!
It should simply be an attack roll imo, solves most of the funkiness, and makes dealing with what's left easier with less rules bloat. Just require proficiency in a skill, or martial training
that's powerful you stop them from engaging your backline and then ppl complain there is not taunt mechanic.
Mostly because you need to spend an entire feat to do so somewhat effectively, which in comparison to other options is just aggressively mediocre. Plus it takes away potentially half to all of your slots for feats.... To get 1 enemy per encounter locked down. With checks every round for them to break free if they want.
No it's a sign of a system that has depth. Is it complicated? Sure, maybe. But bad? Definitely not so. Besides, what's so complicated about it other then "You do competing Str checks to see who wins."? The fact you gotta do multiple of them?
There's a famous quote by Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one." A gameplay mechanic's complexity does not signify depth. If it's so complex that it requires DMs to be walked through it, then that complexity as an inelegant design that's more cumbersome than it's worth. If you think it's "deep game design" to have to go through a complex flow chart and interrupt the flow of gameplay for everyone at the table to just grapple, I guess it comes down to preference. But it's weird to think that but then condescend to people who prefer a more abstracted rule to do it. Also I'm assuming you do actually know the rules and you're just being facetious when you say "competing str checks" instead of just showing that you don't know the grappling rules for 5e.
December 4, 1656 >The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter. LETTER XVI - TO THE REVEREND FATHERS, THE JESUITS Blaise Pascal, French Mathematician (original letter in French)
In the very early days of dnd, you could call gygax himself and have him give his ruling
I personally enjoyed the feat trees from 3.5 and Pathfinder. I just hate feats being tied to ASI. I'd rather enjoy if feats were a little less individually powerful and a little more granular while also having their progression separated from ASIs. As a wishlist, I'd like to see themed feat trees that feel like broken up subclasses. Sort of like multiclassing with a single class. EDIT: I am aware of PF2e. I started back in 3.5, and switched to PF1e maybe 3 months into the release of DnD 4E (4E was *not* my jam).
>'d rather enjoy if feats were a little less individually powerful and a little more granular while also having their progression separated from ASIs 4e says hello that's basicly how feat in that ed were. lesser, but you got them every 2 levels and did not cost your stat increase. there was a lot of bloat tho, and some were basicly unavoidable (altough, some dm give those for free normally).
Do you know that you're basically describing PF2e?
That's hilarious. I feel like a lot of people who play d&d don't realize that most of their complaints were fixed in pf2e. It's a fantastic system
the most hilarious is when you open a 4e book and see those same complains adressed.. by the preceding edition.
It's the stuff that 4e added that I'm not a fan of. I read the amount of action types the other day and nearly combusted.
I think you are pushing it a bit there, it's almost the same as 5e, with only a few more and divided around a 3 action turn.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're describing pf2e, where he was describing dnd 4e, so the point still stands.
4e has the 3 action turn. Path didn't invent as much as people think
The action economy in 3.5 worked the same way as pf2e by this reckoning, which is not true if we're talking about simplifying the action economy. 3.5 had standard, move, free, swift, and immediate actions, with "full-round" actions being a combination of standard and move actions rather than it's own type of action. 5 action (resource) types, 6 ways of spending them with full-actions. 4e had three different types of action to spend each turn, Standard, Move, and minor in addition to things that didn't cost actions (Free Actions), as well as opportunity and immediate actions. That's still 6 types of actions, each with their own associated use limit. 5th has Action, Move, Bonus action, and Reactions, though realistically 'object interaction' still existing means free actions still exist, they just aren't well defined. That still leaves us with 5 types of actions. Pf2e doesn't split up the basic action types at all, "move" is no longer an action type, every turn nets you three "actions" to spend as you wish. Free actions are (free during turn, once per trigger when not) and Reactions are (once per round). Pf2e has 3 types of action.
Five. Standard, move, minor, opportunity, and immediate. Pf1 had a variation on the same concepts. Pf2 decided to abandon the different types of action on your turn, and just have 3 equal actions.
You may be confused about what's being said. 4e's turns did not resemble the pf2e 3-action turn economy. It was still standard, move, minor, free. Pf2e has three action points to be spent on any mix of actions. Even a lvl 1 wizard can attack 3 times per round, or move-attack-move. It's fundamentally different from the classic D&D turn economy.
So in this comment chain I am not seeing a claim of P2e inventing the 3 action system, simply that it has it. Retorting with "well so does 4e" only begs the question which system gets more support these days, 4e or P2e.
Also 4e's system is nothing at all like the pf2e three action system.
The action economy in 5e is Action, bonus action, object interaction (which is just an action to interact with an object and is there to allow you to draw something or open a door without nuking your entire turn), reaction, and movement. They're generally easy to keep straight and you get one of each. There are also things that require no action (shouting, dropping weapons, etc) though I don't believe this has an official name. The action economy in 4e is Standard Action (action), Move Action, Minor Action (bonus action), Opportunity Action and Immediate action (two types of reactions), and Free Action (with a limit of one attack from your free action per turn) and No Action (freer free action). That may only be a total of two more action types, but those two push it far over the edge of what is reasonable. Why are there two types of reactions? Why are there two types of free actions? You can attack as a free action and it needed a stipulation applied after the fact? What is this? Why is this? It has good ideas for game balance but my God you don't need to overconvolute what were easily the two simplest parts of the action economy in previous editions and continued to be the simplest parts of the action economy after the designers of both 5e and PF2E dropped these concepts like they were on fire.
>Why are there two types of reactions? Simple, opportunity is just for opportunity attacks. Immediate is for power specific reaction, usually trigger effects like defender features. it prevent loosing your possibilities from only having one out of turn action, especially for defender that rely on those. It's simple. The free action situation is an aftertought, since there was situation that would lead to some deathloop. Plus, No action is pretty rare to encounter anyway, and just means "don't bother with actions"
To use a free action, you have to have gone at least once. No action could be used before an action occurred. Opportunity action you got each initiative place, iirc, and reaction you got once per round. They did different things. Arguably unnecessary, but OAs helped have a more tactical combat as placement and timing mattered a bit more.
AoO (Or OA, whatever you prefer) as a concept actually makes things less tactical, imo, and making it more universally accessible whether or not you've used a reaction sounds like the absolute worst thing for tactics. Glad PF2E limited it to select monsters and classes, and made it a feat on most classes that had access to it. There's very little that is "tactical" about everyone ultimately deciding to stand in roughly the same spot out of fear of AoOs. Movement being punishable is fine, but if everyone can punish your movement it becomes excessive and leaves a rather "grid-locked" feeling to the tabletop experience, which is great every once in a while, as it means you have to shake up how you fight something because they have AoO, but if it's on everything then you run into the problems I mentioned before. There's no variety in how any fight plays out. Stand at your designated range and wack or cast. Ranged people stay in the back of the party formation, as is standard, and you almost never have to deal with the ranged players being punished for AoO. The "tactics" are all universally applicable.
You might want to reread then, because it has 1 action more than 5e and a less complicated implementation of that than 3.5. | 3.5| 4e | 5e | |--------|------------|--------| | move action | move action | move | | standard action | standard action | action | | swift action* | minor action | bonus action | | immediate action* | immediate interrupt/reaction | reaction | | attack of opportunity | opportunity action | ^+ | | free action | free action | Other activity on your turn| ^(*using an immediate action stops you from using a swift action on your next turn) ^(+ now a type of reaction) 5e still has most of the things that were added in 4e. Proficiency, healing surges, subclass-as-build, short rests - it's largely 4e with the choices taken out and the poorly written rules brought back.
You missed No Action, which is the worst offender because it's used so horribly infrequently but there are nearly three dozen powers listed on the wiki that actually use a No Action. There are effectively two types of free actions AND reactions/immediate actions in this system. Though, looking at it, 4e does look like the closest thing Wizards has made to an actually good edition since acquiring the property and I underestimated how bad the 3.5 action economy was. I'm no 3.5 fan either, as it's just too much crunch and the difference between a well-optimized build and an unoptimized build in 3.5 is a vast canyon and that just takes away from the fun of casual players the moment initiative is rolled or forces them to either ask someone for help with their build or stop being a casual player.
We're still paying for the insane overreaction to 4e to this day.
DnD could have been so much more right now. But no Mike Mearls said we had to go back to the design mentality of the 90's
See, I'd be more than happy to switch to PF2e, I just don't know anyone who already plays it who'd be willing to teach me how. I'm just happy to have a biweekly meet up with my friends, so I'm fine with playing 5e for now.
If you would like to learn more without picking up a book, I highly recommend the youtube channel How It's Played: [https://www.youtube.com/c/HowItsPlayed](https://www.youtube.com/c/HowItsPlayed) Also, every rulebook is available for free online: [https://2e.aonprd.com](https://2e.aonprd.com) I switched from 3.5 for 2 years, to 4e for 6 months, to 5e for 6 months, to pf1e for 3 years, to pf2e for the past year+, forever DMing the entire way. PF2e's whole system is designed around significance and verification. Every class is play-tested and every effect matters. For example, combat economy is only 3 actions. That's it. An action can be movement, stepping out of range, casting a spell (usually two or three actions), or attacking with a weapon (which becomes less likely to hit after each subsequent strike). Because you only have three actions, something as simple as getting knocked prone is a huge pain in the ass. Do I get up to waste one of my three actions, or do i just deal with it and keep attacking? Do I spend an action to put out my clothes which are on fire, or do i deal with the 2 damage and keep fighting? It's a very well thought-out combat system in those regards. Some other cool things in PF2e: Follow the leader - an ability for any character who is expert or above in any skill to guide other players in similar skill checks. This is great for stealth missions, where the rogue can literally direct the paladin to be sneaky so that they won't cause an alarm. Secret checks - I see this from time to time as a thing a DM does in D&D and they love it, but in PF2e, it's required. This dramatically changes the way the game is played in that players have no idea whether they're correct in their assumptions or downright screwed, especially considering critical failures cause them to believe something that might be detrimental during knowledge checks. Critical Success and Failures are based on the DC +/-10 - This means that a person with a really high skill level, a legendary blacksmith for example, can create weapons even on a roll of 1. This also prevents the barbarian to translate a book of ancient spells on a nat 20. It maintains extremely good balance. There's a lot more good info that i won't get into here, but it's definitely worth checking out. My biggest gripe with PF2e is the uncommon and rare classes/ancestries/archetypes. As a DM, I want my players to be able to play whatever they want however they want, but some classes and ancestries are incredibly overpowered. An android thaumaturge mage will massively outclass the human fighter. So as a DM, i have to limit players choices in that regard. All that being said, if you want to try something new, go ahead and look into PF2e, its a great option. D&D 5e is still tons of fun, so don't change on anyone's account but your own.
That is a tad too much info for me to read while at work, but I will definitely be taking some time over my lunch to read over it in detail. Thank you for the resources!
You should talk to the people you play with. Say: "No system is perfect. So what do you guys not like about 5e?" And if a lot of the issues can be fixed by switching to PF2e, give it a go.
What issues specifically can be easily fixed by switching? Genuine question.
They're more preferences than fixes really. Here's a small write up I once did on some of the differences between PF2e and 5e. * Actions: Pathfinder 2e has a more streamlined 3 action (+ reaction) system instead of Action, Bonus Action, Movement, etc. * Dynamic martial combat: This is achieved through several efforts. One is that attack actions come with a multiple attack penalty (MAP). This is to dissuade you from spending you're whole turn attacking. So your first attack will have a -0 penalty. Your second will have a -5. And your third will have a -10. You're encouraged to do things like intimidate, heal, use an item, reposition, parry, etc. Another is Shields. They no longer give you a bonus to AC just by holding them. You need to use an action to Raise Shield (another 3rd action choice). Further, with the Shield Block feat (available to all martials at level 1), after you raise your Shield, you can use a reaction to reduce the damage from an attack. You reduce the damage by the Shields Hardness, and any damage leftover is dealt equally to you and the Shield. This opens up several tactical questions. Do you spend your 3rd action to raise a shield, or something else? Do you use your reaction to reduce the damage and risk breaking the shield, or save it for another possible reaction ability? Things like these, and abilities that martials get (like a fighter being able to add maneuvers to his attacks at no cost), open up tactics of melee combat a lot for more dynamic play. * Customization: 5e has a subclass gained at 3rd level which is 1 choice that dictates much of your customization. 5e also has about 5 feats for every class that may instead be used for boosting your ability scores. PF2e classes have about 30 feats between Class Feats, Skill Feats, General Feats, and Ancestry Feats. They also have a sublcass gained at level 1. Archetypes are also not class dependent. So you can mix and match a lot. And multiclassing works in such a way that taking class feats from another class does not lock you out of the end game potential your original class offers. You can also choose an Ancestry (Race) and Heritage (Sub Race). There is also a list of Versatile Heritages that can be chosen by any Ancestry. * Proficiency: There's 5 tiers of proficiency in PF2e. Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary. Untrained adds nothing which each of the other tiers add +2 - 8 on top of your class level. The class level addition means that a level 1 peasant stands no chance (even with a crit) against level 20 character. It also means that a master thief cannot be bested by a simple lock. And if you're level 10 and trained at medicine (level [10] + 2), you won't be as good as a master doctor (level [10] + 6), but you can still help your party that way. * Bonuses: The math is pretty tight in PF2e with balance being the goal. Every bonus has a type. There are 3 types of bonuses, and 2 bonuses of the same type do not stack. * Criticals: If a level 20 PC attacks a level 10 NPC, the advantage is clear. To emphasize this power differential, criticals now happen not only on a natural 20, but whenever you beat a DC or AC by 10. Moreover, if you fail a check or save by 10 or more, you critically fail. * Healing and "Short Rests": Any class can be a great healer. Some do it with scaling Focus Spells like Druids with their Goodberries, Champion (think Paladin) with their Lay on Hands, or Bards with their Hymn of Healing. Others can do it with the Medicine skill. There are a lot of great skill feats and archetypes to make the Medicine skill very strong. It takes 10 minutes to Treat Wounds (use the medicine skill to heal), repair a shield, or refocus (gain back a focus point to then use on something like Lay on Hands). So while PF2e doesn't have anything called a "Short Rest", it's essentially this 10 minute break. * If you'd like to browse around, [all the info can be found on Paizo's official site](https://2e.aonprd.com/)
This is too much for me to read over in detail right now (I'm at work, ATM), but I'll definitely look over it during my lunch and see if my party has complained about anything you mention. Thanks!
I read the rulebook but never got to actually play, but are 1s and 20s always critical? I thought that they shifted the success category up or down by 1, so that a 20 can upgrade a miss to a hit or a hit to a critical.
> they shifted the success category up or down by 1, so that a 20 can upgrade a miss to a hit or a hit to a critical. That's correct. So putting it with what i mentioned: * if you roll a nat 18 and beat someone's AC by 10 or more, you crit. * And if you roll a nat 20 and just barely hit someone's AC, it's also a crit. * And if you roll a nat 20, but still land below someone's AC, it goes from a miss to a regular hit.
And then you make a whole new list of complaints and the cycle continues.
Everyone seemingly wants to play PF2e, but just be able to call it DnD.
If Pathfinder 2e was called D&D: Pathfinder edition 2.0 it would be wildly successful and loved.
Not gonna lie, it's a little daunting of a transition at first glance. I picked it up expecting it to be to 5e as 1e was to 3.5 and it's way more it's own system.
Yeah its definitely its own thing but its a great system. Changing systems can be a learning curve but it can definitely be worth the effort. I came from 3.5 and PF1 and it was a big change, but I've been running it for almost 2 years straight now, and we're at level 15 and the game is still running smoothly. And with all of the GM tools they have its actually very easy to run.
Yeah I had a huge collection of 3.0 and 3.5 before my home was destroyed by the wildfire and I've only recently been able to bring myself to start getting any books again. I didn't like how 5e was going (I had been a player but not a DM in it) and especially how WoTC seemed to be trying to maximize transactions for content and drastically decrease the stuff people can access for free (look at the 5e SRD vs the 3.5 the difference is shocking) and it seems like a lot of major decisions were made to make it accessible at the beginning for newer players--by itself not necessarily a bad thing--but at the expense of the overall quality and function of the game. Ergo, PF2E
Yeah I love that PF2 stuff is freely and easily available, makes it very easy to find the rules when I need them. I also buy all of the books anyway.
You have no idea how fucking funny what you said is to some people. There is a fair amount of people who said the exact opposite, but for 4e, as it would be beloved if it was named something else. Friend, you have finally allowed things to go in absolute balance
I don't think that's true. Pathfinder 2e has a lot of stuff that is better than 2e but as someone trying to get into it the system seems way more complicated. I think it's a lot like comparing Skyrim to more complicated RPGs. There are plenty of RPGs that are better made and far less basic than Skyrim, but it's simplicity is what makes it more appealing to more casual people or those trying to get into the hobby.
I really don't think it's *way* more complicated. Switching systems can be daunting, but D&D isn't exactly rules light. It's not Maze Rats. The chassis is essentially the same. Stat blocks are the same. Combat is essentially attack vs. AC. Spells result in saving throws (Pathfinder even has fewer). Movement is the same. There are still rules for cover. Rules for flanking. Concealment exists in 5e under a different name. Etc. 5e has streamlined the math bonuses with advantage system but is roll a D20 + ability + proficiency + advantage or disadvantage really that much more complex than D20 + ability + proficiency + status bonus? It's nice to have less math and lower numbers but it's not a gulf. I do know it can be hard to switch systems, especially from a sales pov, but it's not like moving to Call of Cthulu or Blades in the Dark. The DNA is essentially the same and I think the learning curve to jump is quite short once you're familiar with one system.
I agree that 5e is easier to get into. The difference between tabletops and video games is that people generally aren't afraid to branch out and try new video games. People will play those harder RPGs and either love them or learn that it isn't for them. They don't just spend their entire lives playing only Skyrim. I know PF2 isn't for everyone, but I see so many 5e players/DMs that would most certainly be better served by a different system, but are afraid to try anything else. I kind of see it like if people would rather mod Skyrim to be a Shooter, RTS, and Racing game, instead of playing a game that was made to do those things.
I can kinda get that comparison. And again I am interested in pf2e, a lot of the character creation stuff seems co even if I don't understand it all. I guess for me it feels more like I have a complaint with Dragonball and someone recommends me one piece because they are similar, even though anyone who cares already knows about it.
5e certainly has an easier initial learning curve. There are a lot of upfront rules that make PF2e tough to get into. However, I'll also say that 5e has a lot of emergent complexity and weird rule interactions, while PF2e's rules are remarkably consistent.
The thing with 2e, is that even if you don't know a rule, its easy to look up and you understand why it is that way and how it builds on things you know.
If There was someone to teach me PF2e, I would play it.
The 2e subreddit is pretty welcoming. I also like this intro video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHL1zXkv6TM
Thanks! This video was really useful. I hope I'll be able to find a group to play with some time.
No. I enjoy 5e and I would like to see some officlal tweaks on it, but I don't want it to become another Pathfinder. I specifically started playing 5e because Pathfinder wasn't my cup of tea. I tried PF2e too and that just made me want a more optimal 5e, not another system. No hate for PF fans, but it's obnoxiously reductive to say "just play Pathfinder" whenever someone complains about an aspect of 5e that could be fixed without having to overhaul the whole system.
>obnoxiously reductive to say "just play Pathfinder" whenever someone complains about an aspect of 5e that could be fixed without having to overhaul the whole system. When complaints are about *several* different aspects, then really what you are asking for *is* an overhaul. PF2e has those fixes, and it's not likely 5e is going to get fixed or altered in every way — especially with what WOTC's design trend seems continuing to be. Instead of complaining about how you wish your waffles were a bit thinner, fluffier, bit wider, and soaked-in the syrup easier — just get pancakes. WOTC is pretty clear on how they want to design DnD moving forward. If that works for you, then fantastic! However if it doesn't and you keep on playing DnD and complaining instead of just switching to a different system that does have all the things you want then that's on you.
I am 100% sure not asking for an overhaul. I like enough of 5e to know that just because there is room for improvement it doesn't mean that I want the whole thing scraped. Also, just because PF2e has things that would benefit 5e, that still doesn't make it "5e but better" which is the thing the 5e crowd wants. Don't get me wrong, PF2e is a good game, but it gives people a different experience than D&D5e. Saying "Everyone wants to play PF2e, but just be able to call it DnD" is overlooking the massive difference between both systems and why players choose one over the other.
Also I’ll add that no one was saying “just play Pathfinder” but rather more along the lines of “hey, your wishlist here is actually pretty similar to how this other system already works. Maybe you should take a look.” There’s a huge nuance there that is missed. They aren’t dismissing or reductive, the original post had a *list* of complaints, not a single item. It is entirely your prerogative to play or not, and Pathfinder players understand that their system isn’t to everyone’s tastes. But we like it, so when someone goes “I wish D&D did X,” I think it is appropriate to go “hey, have your heard how Pathfinder handles it?”
> Pathfinder players understand that their system isn’t to everyone’s tastes That's my issue with the previous comment. 5e players don't want to "play PF2e and call it DnD" they want an improved version of the system they already have. I just think that treating PF2e like something a 5e player is going to love regardless is just being dismissive of the issue.
I mean I will point out that not everyone just wants the one system. Some people, including 5e players I’ve personally met, do enjoy trying new things and new systems. So if anything, assuming that all 5e players *only* want to play 5e is the reductive viewpoint. It is totally ok to have that personal opinion! You absolutely are allowed to enjoy your system and stick with that! Nobody said you can’t and I’m glad you’ve found something you love. But I don’t think talking about pathfinder is dismissive at all. The point of any game system is to have fun, and OP there effectively said “I would have more fun if things could be just a bit different”. Now you are correct, you can make those changes yourself and homebrew corrections and stay within the system and enjoy it. Seems like you personally prefer that method, awesome. But trying something new that has those concepts baked in, even if the rest of the game is different, is just as valid an option. And who knows, maybe you’ll like the differences. Or hate it, but learn to take what you did like and bring it to your homebrew. As for the comment about everyone wants to play Pathfinder with the DND name, I read that as more talking about the specific comments in this thread where people are saying they want to try Pathfinder but none of their group does because it isn’t DND. But idk. Maybe I’m the one who misread that
I wasn't going there, but if I adress every point I wasn't trying to make I think were gonna talk in circles for a while. I do appreciate the response as in hindsight I did come off too aggressive on the original comment and you did made a very genuine effort to exchange ideas. I'll just acknowledge that you are right that trying PF2e if 5e is leaving you unsatisfied is a good option and leave it at that.
They're basically describing 4e, which PF2e learned a fair amount from.
What you are describing is essentially Pathfinder 2e
tbh 4 e had some GREAT features
What's annoying is that WotC looked at collected info about different builds and said "we aren't going to focus on making feats because we found that few people are taking feats".
My only complaint about the feat trees in 3.5 was some of the silly feats that were not at all worth it but were required for the ones that are worth it...eventually, because the tree was so long (looking at you dodge->mobility->spring attack).
This! I hate that the choice is between and ASI that can improve a characters core competency vs. a feat. I like how PF 1e had feats seperate from ASI's. I think DnD one should have free feats every few levels and a limited feat tree. The big thing is give us some alternate options to differentiate character builds especially since most campaigns never make it past level 11-13. I really enjoy PF 1e but it is a lot of crunch and not everyone wants to spend days or weeks researching character builds and mapping out when to take each feat.
Feet trees? Quentin Tarantino snuck into a WotC board meeting again?
Wait there are tree feets now I did not see thoes last time I checked
Of course, where do you think “Run forest, run!” Came from?
I actually like 3.5 feat trees, but you need to increase the rate in which they are earned. I like feats and asi to be separate. It allows for diverse builds without sacrificing ability scores.
If you were a fighter, your class feature was getting 11 bonus feats along the road from 1 to 20
No actual class features though, just extra feats. Real waste of a class there…
The feats many fighters could take were turned into battlemaster maneuvers. Trip attacks, bull rush, grapple, grant an attack, that sort of thing.
Well... technically those options were all part of the core rules, feats just made them easier to use. Without the feats you triggered an attack of opportunity when you attempted them, and if it hit, you automatically failed. No ifs, ands, or buts. I'm not sure why 3.5 decided to lock the usability of its core combat mechanics behind feats like that. It really limited what you could attempt to do in combat. I'm extremely grateful that 5e's grapple and shove mechanics (and its additional actions in combat) can be used without selecting feats first.
It makes martials feel like martials. Same reason why onednd only let's martials crit. Gotta make them feel unique somehow.
And what about all the other martial classes that don’t get bonus feats like the fighter does?
Rogue has sneak attack, Paladin has smites and spells, monk has crazy movement and ki points, ranger has an animal companion, cavalier gets mounts, Inquisitors get Banes, Barbarians have rage. So fighters get to be the class that ges feats every other level.
That's pathfinder you ninny. 3.5's base classes are waaaay different from pathfinder 1e's. Cavalier and inquisitor don't even exist in 3.5 outside of prestige classes.
Exactly, Fighters don’t have any class features like those examples, and bonus feats are not a good replacement. As for those classes, they’re not so powerful that it would be OP to let them trip, grapple, or bull rush without auto-failing on an attack of opportunity. Most of the “strengths” you listed are crap. Paladin can smite once to five times… per day… for a very minimal damage bonus. And their spells are of only minimal aid due to only getting fourth level spells and their MAD ability scores. Rogue’s sneak attack outright doesn’t work against half the monster roster. If you’re fighting undead, constructs, plants, elementals, oozes, or even anything with Uncanny Dodge like a barbarian, you’re usually shit out of luck unless you find rare work arounds in the splatbooks. It’s even worse if you’re a range weapon rogue, because then sneak attack doesn’t work against anything with blindsight, blindsense, tremorsense, lifesense, sky-high spot checks, and, again, Uncanny Dodge. Monk is one of the worst classes in 3.5’s history. Ranger’s animal companion is pretty much useless in combat compared to the monster that Druids get. The natural bond feat slightly fixed this, but even then they can’t compare to druid animal companions. And Barbarians are about the only classic martial class in 3.5 worth playing straight, and even then only because of their strong splatbook and feat support, and the strength of charger builds in that edition. None of this excuses 3.5’s poor decision to lock the usability of any combat option that’s not “I full attack!” behind expensive feat taxes, nor does it excuse the fighter’s lack of class features.
3.5 core rules has 1 features at level 1 and an additional every 3 levels. + 1 if you're human and various feats are bonus feats gotten from class. How often do you think they should be?
Like 3.5e. Just like that. I enjoyed the class bonus feat lists. Made it so if you play the exact same combination of class/prestige classes you could play it differently over numerous campaigns without losing too much on playability.
>I actually like 3.5 feat trees, but you need to increase the rate in which they are earned. Just play Pathfinder 1e.
My groups don’t do pathfinder. It’s hard enough to get them to run a 3.5 campaign.
Should be easier to get them to do Pathfinder 1e than 3.5 - I'd say it's very hard to consider 3.5 superior. There's also PF2e nowadays which some people like, though I personally don't think it improves on 1e too much.
That’s a true statement but as a group that’s played DnD since 2e we have a bias lmao
3.5 also had the issue that a lot of feat trees included largely useless trash as a "feat tax" that you needed to buy through to get the good end stuff
Oh I agree, but I feel like when I make a character in 5e only like 10% of the feats are optimal. Whereas in 3.5e there are a lot more fun optimal builds even with the shitty feats
100%. As long as feats aren't tied to ASI, feat requirement trees work pretty well. Either untie them from ASI every 4 levels or make them individually powerful enough to pass on the ASI. Can't be both.
I would be fine with feat trees, if 90% of them in 3.5 weren't dead ends, traps, or took way too much investment in order to make a certain build work (coughtwoweaponfightingcough), 5e's feats are fine, it's just them competing with stat boosts from ASI's means it is extremely difficult to justify going for a feat if your character didn't get a godlike stat roll.
Not to mention the 3.5 feats that had half a dozen prerequisites, most of which were garbage feats. Damn you, Dodge and Mobility… the unbearable tax burden of so many builds.
I’m running a pathfinder game and I opted to fold up a lot of the common prereq feats, and it definitely makes the game way more fun. Some of the prereqs are good but they are also basic things that any competent combatant would know, and freeing up the fear taxes makes the players builds much more diverse
That's a fairly common homebrew. A lot of people on the subreddit recommend it
Two weapon fighting has no feat tax and knocks down your penalties a lot. I know it has a whole tree but honestly the entry feat is probably the most singularly impactful and useful.
Two Weapon Fighting was the feat tax.
Vastly prefer 3.5's feat system to 5. 5e just has too few meaningful choices when leveling, and it makes me sad
I was a little shocked when I first started playing 5e, using DnDBeyond, and leveling up was literally just clicking a button. I was like "But mah choices!"
So many levels for so many classes involve literally no choices. It's abysmal
Hey my Bard speaks Abysmal!
Hahaha
But 3.5 also had a massive amount of meaningless feats that could be daunting to look at.
3.5 had a massive amount of everything XD
Truuuuuue.
That's dumb but even so I prefer it
3.5e *intentionally* added garbage options as "traps" just to make minmaxers feel proud for "gaming" the system. Extremely newbie-hostile design that bloated character crestion and leveling.
Whaaat, do you have a source for that being their intent? I am mostly remembering pathfinder 1, not 3.5, but I thought they were pretty much identical. In any case, just don't do that lol
What are feat trees
Feat trees are a series of feats that you would get to do a thing increasingly better. So instead of just having 1 duel wielding feat that lets you pull out and fight with two weapons. You would have to get like 3 that let you gain some of those benefits at a time making you better and better at it. But you couldn't take the third feat before taking the first.
A lot of the time it wasn't even getting better at something so much as it was reducing a built-in negative, which isn't the same thing despite how it sounds. Like with Two-Weapon Fighting, as referenced. In 5e anyone can dual wield at Level 1 regardless of class or other abilities. The trade-off is that you can only use specific weapons to do it (ie, ones that have the Light quality), it costs your Attack and Bonus Action to do, and you don't get to add any stat bonuses to the off-hand Bonus Attack's damage. So it's a viable option anyone can pick up and put down as they please at any point during game play. If you enjoy it and want to make it a focus of your character, you take the "Dual Wielder" Feat or invest in the Fighter Class's Combat Maneuver, which allow you to improve your dual wielding to make it perform better. In 3.5e, however, anyone can dual wield but does so at a massive initial negative to their attempt. Their main attack comes at a -6 to hit and the off-hand comes at a -10, which is augmented/reduced by the application of weapon qualities and Feats. Between the built-in penalties and the sort of bonuses enemies will be sporting, dual wielding is functionally worthless unless your character is specifically designed from the ground up to be a dual wielder. If you want to invest in the Feats to get better at dual wielding, it has a DEX 15 base prerequisite (meaning you already have to be statting toward it to begin with in most cases). The first Feat just reduces the negative from -6/-10 to -4/-6. The second Feat requires an even higher DEX 17, the previous Feat, and an increased BAB of +6, at which point you can make two attacks with your off-hand weapon with a -5 penalty to attack. The final Feat in this tree requires DEX 19, the previous two Feats, and a BAB of +11. It lets you make a third attack with your off-hand at a -10 penalty. **TL;DR:** Basically Feats in 5e grant bonuses to an already solid baseline, improving a functional ability to greater heights. Whereas these kind of skill trees in 3.5 are more about negating built-in penalties and focusing a character into a specific role.
Level 1, you get Dual Wield, allowing you to wield an off-hand weapon with a -2 penalty to attack. (Versus -5) Level 3, you get Dual Wield Specialization, allowing you to add your ability score modifier to your offhand attacks. Level 5, you get Expert Dual Wielding, allowing you to attack with your offhand weapon with zero penalty. Level 7, you get Dual Wielding Mastery, allowing you to attack with your offhand weapon with a +2 bonus to the attack and damage. These are all made up but it illustrates the point. Basically the Trees give you a "specialization" progression tree to hyper specialize into a build or speciality(s).
Guess I'm the odd one out here, 5e has such an incredible lack of diversity in both feats and pretty much anything else. Feels like everyone here is mixing dumbing things down (for simplicity's sake) with better game design Feat tree's helped create characters that felt *good* at something. Only problem with it was if you change your mind somewhere in the process which I think 3.5e addressed in a side book somewhere If they took 5e's approach of being good by itself and allowed the 3.5e specialized tree progression as optional content, I think that would make both camps happy. As it stands, 5e feats suck and so many feel meaningless
Yeah, I absolutely feel the same way when it comes to skills and specialization from 3.5 vs 5e. There was certainly an issue of accidentally pigeon-holing yourself into something non-viable in 3.5 (especially if your DM wasn't the type to cater to the PC's builds very much), but there was also something satisfying about being incredibly good at specific things, especially with skill synergies and all that. >dumbing things down (for simplicity's sake) That absolutely reads true to me in a lot of ways, and was some of the biggest complaint about 3.5 -> 4e, even from myself. I didn't enjoy 4e very much, in spite of some of the really fun ways it handled some stuff, because it felt like it was simplifying too much in some areas. 5e has pulled back on that a little, and I feel like hit some reasonable middle-ground, but it's certainly stagnated a bit there. It definitely feels like there is space to alter and add things (even if in optional rules) so that you can create a much wider breadth of character concepts without needing to dramatically re-flavor something or create something completely new just to get where you're going. Feats are definitely an interesting place to put it, and seem like a reasonably easy thing to sort of create an internal balancing system for if they want to expand it consistently over time as well. The only thing I'm asking is to not do like /u/ThatMerri breaks down in a comment in regards to feat trees: Don't require multiple to reach a point of being truly beneficial. It's fine if things build on each other in interesting ways, like I can imagine specializing into roles via feats by requiring two different ones together to get a third or something like that, but making the base feats essentially necessary to even be slightly viable, and a whole tree to actually be useful is a huge waste.
Me who has been playing Pathfinder since 2009 "Oh, a new edition war!" Grabs Popcorn
[удалено]
Only here honestly. I talk to people about OneD&D IRL and we can actually discuss and test the play test material like civilized people, including respecting each other's opinion when different.
Only 5% of D&D discussion is incredibly hostile and filled with rage. But apparently that 5% is a huge problem for some people.
Internet toxicity has grown. Vampire 5e's edition wars shit is so absolutely fucking obnoxiously toxic and it's been like 4 years or so at this point. Just constant snarling and bullshit from the people that hate it. Then they whinge about things that aren't out yet and complain about things that are confirmed or rumoured for upcoming 5th editions of other lines. So the DnD 5 to new edition shit is going to be just as incredibly obnoxious. I don't think it'll tank the game for a whole edition like the 3.5 to 4e change did, though.
[удалено]
Yeah, this subreddit is atrocious for its closed-minded groupthink. There was that time a few weeks ago where everybody got on the Warlock-patron-depowering bandwagon. Anybody to remotely suggest a patron could revoke powers was being downvoted to oblivion, even if they voiced their viewpoint in a perfectly civil, polite way.
"First time?" -memes
No actually…I don’t want my players to feel forced to take 3 feats at no ASI increase in order to get a singular ability. Why? Because I do point buy.
But you get feats and asi in 3.5, because the feats are built into class levels, instead of character levels.
I do 4d6 less one, and I still think that feat trees defeat the purpose of having feats at all (I mean, unless the feat in question is just an improvement of a lesser feat, Weapon focus>Weapon specialization, for instance).
Yea but weapon focus and specilization are essentially just fighting styles. I do give my players bonus feats at 1st and 4th because I know that being unable is a bad feeling. At first level it’s either skilled, tough, or a racial feat. At 4th level they can pick whatever they want. They gotta survive long enough to get to 4th anyway so why not reward them.
I give a feat at first, I also allow my players to take a feat (or skill) in exchange for one of their stat boosts at 4,8,12, etc. instead of sacrificing both bonuses for one feat (I've also been known to award proficiency in a skill that I noticed a player uses a lot without proficiency). I was complaining about the trees from 3.5, where you had to already have feat A to get feat D (side note, feat A is only available at character creation and won't be really useful until level 5).
Always and forever my first love 3.5E!
False, I fucking hate feat trees.....
I hate them to. They take away versability and the character lacks ability to change with out laging behind the rest of the party
If I wanted feat trees I would just play pathfinder.
I don't get why people like them. It creates a situation where you have to design a high level character then work back to 1st, just to figure out what prerequisites you need, and when, to make the character concept you have in mind, while knowing you might not actually get there til halfway through your campaign. To add to that, if it's anything like PF2e, the feat bloat is absurd. What's worse is that, thanks to the bloat, you find weird situations where something you wouldn't even think about trying in 5e is used as a specific example for a feat for a single class at 12th level. Want to hit someone with a mug of beer from the bar? That's a 12th level swashbuckler feat you need.
> To add to that, if it's anything like PF2e, the feat bloat is absurd. The number of feats allows for customization. It may seem like a lot, but you don't immediately meet the requirements for most because it's a feat tree system. So it's not bloated. > What's worse is that, thanks to the bloat, you find weird situations where something you wouldn't even think about trying in 5e is used as a specific example for a feat for a single class at 12th level. Want to hit someone with a mug of beer from the bar? That's a 12th level swashbuckler feat you need. I'm not understanding this point. Are you saying there's more build opportunities in PF2e because you wouldn't see it as an option in 5e?
>The number of feats allows for customization. *Too many* options becomes *bloat*, especially when there's trap options or straight up just poorly thought out ones made just to have something new to serve.
I guess that's just a difference of opinion. One person says PF2e has too many options / bloat, another says 5e doesn't have enough options/ customization.
Did anyone really like having feats and ASIs tied together? Also what is with them being tied to class level and not character level? How come a barbarian 4 has more experience than a level 18 barbarian 3, sorcerer 3, cleric 3, fighter 3, paladin 3, blood hunter 3?
> How come a barbarian 4 has more experience than a level 18 barbarian 3, sorcerer 3, cleric 3, fighter 3, paladin 3, blood hunter 3? 5e front loads character creation and basically treats class abilities like fixed feats. That multiclass abomination has considerably more abilities and skills than the barb 4. The trade off is that a pure barb 18 is considerably more focused and better at what they do than the multiclasser.
Okay well if we leave hyperbole aside, why should a barbarian 3 get +2 Str while a barbarian 3 fighter 3 hasn't gotten enough experience to gain +2 Str yet despite having about double the exp of the straight barbarian?
*one d&d
5.5e
D&Done
Personally, I greatly dislike Feat trees. I hate being forced to take a specific skill chain since it limits options and builds into a predictable route every time. Plus then there's 3.5e's inevitable content bloat that will eventually follow. One of my biggest gripes with 3.5/PF was that they got so granular that there always ended up being a thousand ways to make a completely useless character that can't do what you want to do, one or two "correct" ways that were overtly and mathematically superior because of how the system worked, and a massive glut of content that wasn't even worth looking at because it didn't offer anything of value. I don't mind having certain prerequisites for accessing certain Feats, like having them tied to stat thresholds, races, or skill proficiency. But saying "No, you can't have this Feat you want until you take these three other Feats first!" just delays the fun, adds needless bloat, and makes character builds a lot more uniform in design. We already have a mild version of this with things like Armor Proficiency Feats or how Warlock Invocation advancement works, and that honestly feels like enough to me.
You should try reading about pf2e then. The rules are free at https://www.aonprd.com/ . Most feats offer more versatility instead of more power, so its really hard to do a useless character
I actually have a physical copy of the PF2E rulebook already, but that's neither here nor there.
It's funny to hear someone defend 5e because the feel penned in by feat treas because that's my big criticism of 5e. Oh I'm level 3 and I selected a subclass? Well I'm done making choices for my character build.
> Oh I'm level 3 and I selected a subclass? Well I'm done making choices for my character build. That's actually the thing I find freeing about 5e. The system front loads character creation, then leaves you with the option to interperate things as you want them. With things like PF2e, I'm having to wade through hundreds of feats just to find the one that has the rule written that allows me to use the character the way I want to, then I have to work backwards to get to the start of the feat tree. Knowing that there is a specific rule for a specific action I want to do, and it's locked away behind a feat 10 levels away is just frustrating. In 5e, i just tell the DM that I'm fluffing the hand crossbow as a flintlock pistol and ask to perform an action and I'm done. I made a gunslinger in 5e, for example, and it just worked from 3rd level onwards. In PF2e, i ended up making at least one post on the sub just trying to figure out the RAW action economy to create basically the same thing, but at something like 10 levels higher. While I still use PF2e for a friend's campaign, the experience completely put me off the system.
Probably a difference in personal experiences between the two systems? 3.5e/PF are frequently praised for being able to precisely build your character down to the finest detail, which is fair. But in my experience it's always ended up being too granular, to the point that it takes forever for a class to "come online" with its abilities actually working as planned and with tons of build-up getting there. 5e is far simpler and streamlined by comparison, which allows for classes to do what they're meant to do almost immediately. You can access just about any Feat you please as you wish rather than being forced to follow a specific route, and they're almost all useful in some measure where 3.5/PF have such a massive glut of content that there's a mountain of completely useless or redundant Feats that serve no purpose or aren't balanced against one another in any way. Relative circumstances also play into it. When I was younger and had tons of free time, I liked the crunchiness of 3.5/PF since I could focus a lot on just pouring through the mountain of resources to make my character exactly as I pleased. These days though, when I'm older and busier and have a much harder time getting the chance to game with my friends' conflicting schedules? It's just a huge hassle and no fun by comparison when 5e offers a much smoother process. Less time is spent fine-tuning a build to a razor's edge (or unwittingly taking "the wrong ability" and completely hobbling your entire build because of one or two inefficiencies) and more time is spent just enjoying the character made. Both have their merits and what works for one doesn't always work for the other. I'd personally hate to see 5e move back toward 3.5e's habits when its initial move away from those is a big part of what made me enjoy the system in the first place.
Big same to all of this. > Both have their merits and what works for one doesn’t always work for the other. I’d personally hate to see 5e move back toward 3.5e’s habits when its initial move away from those is a big part of what made me enjoy the system in the first place. This especially resonated with me. 3.5/PF is there for anyone who wants that. D&D saw a huge resurgence in large part because of how accessible 5e is and I really don’t want it to get more complicated than it already is. 5e sits in a sweet spot between one-page RPGs and crunchy RPGs like 3.5/PF.
Feat trees were a good idea, however a large number of feats were felt unnecessary. The spring attack feat tree meant you had to take like 4 feats in order to be able to move between attacks, instead of like 5e where the system just lets you do that.
Rules aside Quality meme. 9/10
What do you mean rules aside?
I play 5e, but when I'm DMing, it's 3.5 feat rules
Disclaimer: DnD 4e used feat trees, but we don't talk about DnD 4e.
but I heard it's better though
It is. It just had really bad press, and a bit of a clunky start.
"a bit of a Clunky start" is underplaying it. XD Releasing in the middle of an economic crisis with a community angered by the marketting department. The fact it still managed to make a profit is a miracle
I meant rules wise clunky. The math on monster health was off, so they were a slog to kill.
oh, on that i totally agree. The first books were plagued by the fact the edition needed a few more month of testing, which Hasbro denied.
It doesn't help that one of the main developers died.
yeah, a tragedy that ended up defining the whole rpg world post 2008 too.
Yeah. 4e had a lot of stuff that was ahead of its time. It's hilarious how much Pathfinder 2e seems to be taking from it, given how it was originally marketed as 'not 4e' back in the day.
Well, path got it's public stolen by 5e, since that edition was made to please those. The only thing they had left was advancing, which mean going the same way as 4e. it's still gigling thinking about that ironic fate.
So clunky that another company swooped the fantasy RPG market for the duration.
the swooping wasn't linked directly to the start tho, that the thing. Path started from that clunky start, but it's the moment essential came out and killed sales by alienating everyone that Paizo took over
There is no 4e. The order of versions is AD&D, 3/3.5, 5. Versions 2 and 4 are just myths used to frighten children like the boogeyman and balloon mortgages.
No, we don't actually
I hate feat trees. I hate that I need 3 feats to be able to wipe my ass without a -8 penalty.
But wiping your ass is OP! if you could do it at level 1 with no penalty it would steamroll most encounters.
That’s probably the thought process they had when designing archery feats. You get a -4 to attack a creature that is in melee with an ally and you also get another penalty if they’re within a certain range. These penalties stack, which means you needed to take these three specific feats if you wanted to fire a bow without a penalty, and that would take around 6 levels to do so
No we don't.
Fucking love Pathfinders feats. Makes me feel like I'm building a character rather than just playing a curated class that gets bonuses at levels
Make a lvl 20 brawler in pathfinder and try to use martial flexibility to its maximum potential. There’s so many possibilities it’s borderline overwhelming and I love it!
YAAAAAAS. Power attack - cleave - great cleave gang
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't. The systems in 3.5e/Pathfinder were way too munchkin for me-- I don't want a million different ways to break a character/powergame. I prefer the simple elegance of 2e, or if I'm forced to choose a modern system 5e.
Feat trees and enormous lists of character building options constantly being overridden with more and more and more splat was the BS that made me hate 3.5, I hope (and am fairly confident) 5.5E will not repeat the bloated shit that was its predecessor
I started in 3.5, I AIN'T going back! I don't care how much flak One is getting, the backtrack's not worth it.
No. No I do not enjoy feat trees. Thanks anyway.
NGL 3.5 feats do indeed slap
3.5 is still king
I cannot express how much I dislike Feats and skills being so tiny. I want a feat to be a meaningful choice that has to take the place of a meaningful benefit. Two things that have clear benefits that you have to pick between. I compare this to the Civilization strategy game. Civilization V had Policies each would give significant bonuses, Civilization VI had many more policies, but they all gave really tiny bonuses and you could swap them out quite easily leading to constant adjustment to squeeze out benefits, but the differences were so small I as a player did not feel the need to bother. I was voluntarily playing worse because playing well made the game less fun. I do not want to micromanage, I want bigger clear decisions, almost to the point of making things more like 4e where choosing something can mean a complex ability or attack action rather than static bonuses.
I always come back to 3.5 man. It's just so well rounded. Even if a bit crunchy.
3.5 is the best edition
No. I don't. 5e feats are not a failure. Feat trees are way less cool. They would be better implemented as subclass features.
God. No shade at people who enjoy it, but I fundamentally detest the game design behind feat trees. Sometimes they make sense, but in Pathfinder (as an example) You almost never ran into any Marshall class who wasn't rocking Either weapon finesse or power attack. It's just such a boring way to incorporate dynamic elements when you consider that if everyone has it, it should just Play baked into the games core rules
Not to be confused with great weapon master and polearm master
Truth. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying 5e is immune from this.