5e is still fantastically well balanced, and it is currently very very well liked by the table top community. It also fixed the vast majority of those issues I cited above (Some of them are a bit to personal taste. I think most people like the lore at present more than 4e's lore, but dislike that it was mostly just handwaved).
Moon druids (also known as God mode druids), Abjuration wizards with warlocks`armor of shadows (AKA Infinite shield of force wizards) and rangers (4 years in a row voted worst class and unfunniest class) beg to differ.
And just don´t let me start about OP Sentinel+Polearm master feats and Lucky feats and the fact that those are at the same level as Keen mind or Actor.
5e`s a fun edition to play, but balance is not his strongest point.
I dont think this is a convincing argument. You're comparing powergame builds against non powergame builds. That's not what most people consider good balancing in a table top. Of course there are some ways you can min-max your character to be better than other builds. If you compare a min-maxed build against someone who is playing without that level of forethought, then of course the min-maxed build will be more powerful.
Balancing is better thought of as: Would the casual player's level x fighter be roughly on par with the casual player''s level x wizard. Rinse and repeat with different classes.
I already agreed the Ranger is underpowered.
Back to my original point - 5e is better balanced in general than 3.5 or any edition before it. It's also better balanced with Pathfinder. Cannot speak necessarily every other tabletop game.
Edit - as a side note: A lot of the balancing points you're mentioning are actually affected by DM choices. If your Moon circle Druid doesnt get to meet the enemies to gain OP shape-shift forms, then it's not going to be an issue.
Warlocks require frequent short rests in order to be consistently effective (Which is how they're balanced. If you've given a half dozen short rests, they'll outpower other spell casters. Only once a session, and now they're behind the curve).
It's not as cut and dry as just "This class > other class".... except for the poor ranger.
I respectfully disagree: They are not power gaming "builds", they are official subclasses from the manual. If you choose to be a moon druid you cannot be underpowered. You have all the abilities of the class, the ones that make a Moon druid a CheatEngine character even if you do not want them because you get all of them automatically when you level up. Ergo-> unbalanced.
(Just to clarify, if you are a God Mode Druid, you can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn
Not even celestial dragons can deal 200hp damage per turn).
Feats like lucky or Sentinel+polearm gives you a great advantage, and they are at the same level as feats like Actor or Keen mind.
And force the DMs to do the balancing is not a good excuse, it´s putting more work in the DM, the ones that buy your books and miniatures. And D&D5e puts a lot of unintended work into the DMs you do not need more. I always spent 1,5 more time in a 5e campaign comparing it with a PF or TDE campaign because I always have to create a lot of homebrew rules to allow the players to do simple things like learning a new language or how to mount and take care of horses and other mounts that other game systems already have in the manual by default.
They already call 5e "The Bethesda edition" or the "Ikea Edition" because they give you "guidelines" and you have to do all the heavy lifting: balancing, creating rules for things like cooking and stuff, fixing underpowered classes like the ranger, etc etc.
They tried to give you more material in Xanathars guide, but when that book came years later most of the community already made his homebrews to fix bugs, overhaul underwhelming feats and class features or things like camping, brewing potions or cooking (and some of them are IMHO better than the official material. Ergo-> The Bethesda edition).
And yeah, 6 years later they still have the same ranger as the PHB. No official fixes.
So If you find your 5e campaign perfectly balanced and working as intended there are high chances that it´s because you have a very good DM that put a lot of work into the campaign you are playing, not because of the original ruleset.
I respectfully disagree: They are not power gaming "builds", they are official subclasses from the manual. If you choose to be a moon druid you cannot be underpowered. You have all the abilities of the class, the ones that make a Moon druid a CheatEngine character even if you do not want them because you get all of them automatically when you level up. Ergo-> unbalanced.
(Just to clarify, if you are a God Mode Druid, you can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn
Not even celestial dragons can deal 200hp damage per turn).
Feats like lucky or Sentinel+polearm gives you a great advantage, and they are at the same level as feats like Actor or Keen mind.
And force the DMs to do the balancing is not a good excuse, it´s putting more work in the DM, the ones that buy your books and miniatures. And D&D5e puts a lot of unintended work into the DMs you do not need more. I always spent 1,5 more time in a 5e campaign comparing it with a PF or TDE campaign because I always have to create a lot of homebrew rules to allow the players to do simple things like learning a new language or how to mount and take care of horses and other mounts that other game systems already have in the manual by default.
They already call 5e "The Bethesda edition" or the "Ikea Edition" because they give you "guidelines" and you have to do all the heavy lifting: balancing, creating rules for things like cooking and stuff, fixing underpowered classes like the ranger, etc etc.
They tried to give you more material in Xanathars guide, but when that book came years later most of the community already made his homebrews to fix bugs, overhaul underwhelming feats and class features or things like camping, brewing potions or cooking (and some of them are IMHO better than the official material. Ergo-> The Bethesda edition).
And yeah, 6 years later they still have the same ranger as the PHB. No official fixes.
So If you find your 5e campaign perfectly balanced and working as intended there are high chances that it´s because you have a very good DM that put a lot of work into the campaign you are playing, not because of the original ruleset.
First - I am that DM. I've been DMing my game for close to 2 years. I've only had to work to balance the game exactly once: because one of my players picked a Ranger and intentionally went away from min-maxing (Gnomish Ranger, Hunter archetype). Incidentally, I had almost needed to balance the game a second time, but we were reading the rules wrong (relating to how quicken spell works for a sorcerer).
Fine. We can respectfully disagree. From the community I've worked with, spoken to and read online: 5e is lauded as being fantastic. My own personal experience of 20 years playing table top has me feeling the same way.
A few points worth making: I would define it as a power gamer build when I have to pick a selection of several feats in a row, select a particular weapon or weapon type to go along with the appropriate class archetype. Your OP Sentinel + Great Weapon Pole-arm fighter isnt just the bog standard battlemaster fighter. He's a BM fighter with a very particular build. I would know. My party has a Battlemaster. He's powerful, but not more powerful than our Sorcerer or Druid (and the Ranger isnt far off, owing to me working with him on it)
Also, your argument about the Druid might need some fact checking. I've got a druid in my group (not Moon, Land circle). I just went and consulted the PHB. The Druid gets only 2 shape shifts before they need to rest. At level 10, they can shape shift into an elemental, consuming both of their shape shifts. It's not until level 20 that a Druid can shape shift an unlimited number of times per day. As far as I can tell, the Druid can only shape shift into that earth elemental exactly once.
So when you say "Just to clarify, if you are a God Mode Druid, you can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn" - this wouldnt seem to be exactly true. They can do it once, at which point the Circle of the Moon Druid has traded the literal total sum of usefulness their archetype gives them. It's not exactly a "god form".
I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the page number in the PHB that makes your "change into an earth elemental every round" argument work. Maybe there's a feat or something I dont know about, but at face value - it doesnt seem to work.
Unless you're talking about a level 20 character, and which point the conversation is pretty uninteresting, since I'm not in the habit of worrying if the game is balanced there. I've never run a level 20 party before. Most games dont get there. I said it earlier in this thread, the balance of level 5s is waaaaaaaay more impactful than level 17s.
Combat Wild Shape
[At level 2]You gain the ability to use Wild Shape on your turn as a bonus action, rather than as an action.
while you are transformed by Wild Shape, you can use a bonus action to expend one spell slot to regain 1d8 hit points per level of the spell slot expended.
Bonus action-> Means that you can heal yourself for (1d8)x Spell level [And druids reach level9 spells] AND attack in the same round. Starting at level 2.
And I have to point out that
"When you transform, you assume the beast's hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed"
Which means that every time you wildshape you regain full health because you got the hp of your beast form even if you had 1hp as a druid before polymorphing yourself into a beast. And wildshape is also a bonus action so you can change and attack in the same round.
BTW you regain your wildshape with a SHORT or LONG rest. So if you just sit down 1hour, and you can do it again twice in the next combat. And since you can heal yourself as a bonus action there are not many combats that you have to use it twice (It lasts for an hour) for starters.
"Primal Strike
Starting at 6th level, your attacks in beast form count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage"
Your claws and bites overcome damage resistance so you do not need to use weapons anymore.
"Beast Spells you can cast many of your druid spells in any shape you assume using Wild Shape. You can perform the somatic and verbal components of a druid spell while in a beast shape"
You can cast spells in beast form.
"Archdruid
At 20th level, you can use your Wild Shape an unlimited number of times.
Additionally, you can ignore the verbal and somatic components of your druid spells, as well as any material components that lack a cost and aren't consumed by a spell. You gain this benefit in both your normal shape and your beast shape from Wild Shape"
You can wildshape unlimited times-> You can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn
BTW at level 20 you can cast lvl 9 spells. Still in elemental form.
And as I pointed out, not even a Tarrasque or celestial dragon deal 200hp of damage per turn, so you are basically playing in god mode at this point (And the fact that you are not doing it before due to how combat wildshape works it´s debatable).
Meanwhile, a ranger of level 20 gets
Foe Slayer
At 20th level, you become an unparalleled hunter of your enemies. Once on each of your turns, you can add your Wisdom modifier to the attack roll or the damage roll of an attack you make against one of your favored enemies. You can choose to use this feature before or after the roll, but before any effects of the roll are applied.
-> you get a "huge" max of +5 if you have 20 WIS (because in D&D5e you cannot have more than 20 in a stat) to ONE of the attacks of your turn to ONLY the enemies that are your favourite enemy.
And a Fighter ONE extra attack per turn at level 20. That´s it.
I do not know what do you consider a balanced ruleset, but by my standards, this is not. And that is only one example.
But as I said playing 5e is a lot of fun, so mostly It does not really matter how unbalanced it is in the end.
Look - This is the last reply I'll have to you on this. I dont feel as though this argument can continue in good faith, and you're being more than a little condescending with your needless snipe about "flawless logic".
I've said a few things from the beginning: First - That 5e is well balanced relative to previous editions of D&D. I've also said that the balancing is more important and is also better in the levels players are more likely to be playing at (Not level 20).
I dont think its outlandish to think that the game is well balanced, even if the balance gets wonky at level 20 (Which is literally 1/20th of the possible states of the game - and almost certainly the level least commonly gotten to, unless you start there). By level 20, the possible combination of spells/classes/features/feats is at its literal largest, so it makes sense that this would be a challenging area to ensure balance. Literally every edition of D&D I've seen and played suffers from this (2.5 and on).
I also dont find the mechanics overly persuasive. I've agreed that Rangers are underpowered, and I acknowledge that Circle of Moon druids are a little overpowered - but I think the difference between them isnt terribly large. I dont plan to enumerate on these any further because its plain to see you've made up your mind on the subject and I'm not interested in us shouting our opinions at each other with more and more sniping included.
This thread isnt even about D&D at all. It's about Pathfinder. I'm not interested in an irreconcilable argument like this with you, especially in the manner in which it is being conducted. Let's let it be done.
People say that 5e is more balanced only because the gap between arcane and martial is smaller BUT the gap between divine and arcane is higher than ever.
And yes, on 3.5e divine casters was far better than arcane. They can do everything that arcanists can with better saves, with armor, better BAB, healing capabilities, no need to use expensive scrolls or having no flexibility, they can literally pray and switch to a complete different spells, a lot of powerful spells like animate dead are lesser level for divine casters, you can't mess with miracles like you can with wish, implosion ignores death immunity contrary to wail of the banshee (...)
On 5e, divine casters are even better. Some can get 24/7 heal and since OHK spells like Finger of Death no longer OHKills like on 3.5e, healing is better than ever.
>using the battlemaster as an example for tactical options in 5e
the battlemaster is the cherry on top.
the battlemaster is a "what could have been".
Even the battlemaster cant charge attack. He cannot flank.
you need an entire subclass to get the options that every class had in other games.
Note how this subclass is ofthen referred to as the de-facto fighter class exactly beacuse of that.
note how numerous paladin builds dip into battlemaster specifically to get those options.
Batltemaster is an argument against 5e, not for it.
The superioity die mechanic was SUPPOSED to be the mechanic martials use in 5e, only they scrapped it.
Just like they scrapped 5 foot step, just like they scrapped charge and locked it behind a feat.
Thats the entire issue with 5e, it locks all those "options" behind mutually exclusive choices and feat tax.
You want the Mark feature? better play a Cavaleer fighter, you get that at level 3. You want combat maneuvers? better be a battlemaster, oh you get that on level 3. You want to fear people in an AoE? yep, paladin subclass level 3 You want to be able to charge an enmy? better get that feat, level 4.
You want to be able to shield an ally? better get Protective Fighting style.
Note how in order to do all those things at once, youd need to multiclass and essentially have at least 9 levels to do all those things.
meanwhile, a Dragonborn Fighter in 4e does all of these things and more at level 1
I think some overhaul of the fighters would be needed to give them more options in combat than "I attack" for 50 h in the campaign because the rules of DND5e right now do not offer options outside homebrews.
5E
I´m a Fighter so I´m going to move and ATTACK. I´m level 11 so I´m going to ATTACK Twice or thrice. Maybe have a subclass or feature that allows me to add more damage to my ATTACK, like arcane archer that allows me to add elemental damage to my ATTACK or some special feats that I have to learn like charge that allows me to ATTACK from afar.
Maybe I´m a barbarian or a paladin so I can use my class features like rage or smite evil that basically allows me to add more damage to my ATTACKS.
I could also be a ranger, so I can mark my target and adding 1d6 damage to my ATTACK. Maybe I´m a hunter so I can ATTACK several targets too if I picked that feature.
There are some combat maneuvers I can use instead of your ATTACK. Well, two combat maneouvers : Grappling an enemy, holding it in place, and SHOVE the enemy ¡5 entire feet! or knocking him into the ground.
And then you can wait to swing the enemy with an AoO (Wich is basically another ATTACK!) if it´s dumb enough to try to move nearby or maybe protect an ally of an ATTACK! with your shield IF you picked that specific feature and none of the other ones (because for some reason you could only have one combat style ever unless you multiclass and does not improve with levels) and have a shield.
Pathfinder
I´m a warrior so I could move and ATTACK too, but since I´m trained in martial arts and knowledgeable in tactics and warfare, maybe I can do something else too:
This enemy seems too good at dodging, so maybe I could use a FEINT to caught him unaware and lower his defenses against the next strikes for this round or several rounds if I critically suceed.
I´m pretty intimidating so maybe I can use a fierce battlecry that demoralize de opponents, lowering his skills and saves so my fellow casters could take them out easily.
I will try to move to position myself on the battlefield so I and my allies will flank the enemy, giving us combat bonuses against him (Unlike PF1&2 5e flanking is optional and many GMs do not use it because they feel that the bonuses it gives are "gamebreaking").
I could also try to Grapple or TRIP the enemy, pushing him or knocking him down to get some combat bonuses against prone enemies(But unlike 5e, the enemy need to use an entire action to get up, in 5e they only lose half his movement, so it could get up, attack and move half his movement in its turn so it´s merely situational).
My adversary is a skilled swordsman with a deadly weapon, so I´m going to try to DISARM it, knocking his weapon to the ground. Then I´m going to SHOVE him 5ft in the same turn. Unlike 5e you could automatically move to occupy the space after shoving an enemy, so I will move and place my foot over the weapon so it cannot even recover it while I´m here.
An enemy is attacking my ally, so I will try a reposition maneuver, forcing him to swap positions with me and putting myself between it and my squishy party member.
I´m the first line of defense, so after the ATTACK I am going to raise my shield and brace myself to BLOCK one strike against me in the enemy´s turn.
I´m a ranger, so I will use my hunter´s prey to mark the enemy and unleash a volley of ATTACKS against him or making extra damage. But since I´m a veteran skirmisher I have some options too.
My scout skills will allow me to give an initiative advantage to my all allies due to my heightened senses. I could study the enemy to assess his vulnerabilities and allow us to hit it where it hurts.
I could make a PINNING shot, pinning the enemy in place.
After that, I will order my faithful beast companion to bite the enemies down (In 5e you forfeit your attack action to allow your animal companion to attack, in PF2e both you and your companion can attack in the same turn. Your companion also level-up with you, increasing size, stats, etc) and will use our teamwork strikes to give debuffs to the enemies we attack.
If I´m particularly bloodlust I will mount my faithful companion and we will both charge into melee to overrun the enemies with combined strikes.
I could craft and use traps in the battlefield, giving unaware enemies some nasty surprises.
Then I will be ready to use AoO to enemies that move nearby, or protect an adjacent ally with my shield, clock with my shield, dodge and retaliate, or if I´m a champion use my reactions to protect and use divine punishment in the enemies that attack my allies. If I´m a ranger I could make AoO with my ranged weapons too.
Look - This is the last reply I'll have to you on this. I dont feel as though this argument can continue in good faith, and you're being more than a little condescending with your needless snipe about "flawless logic".
My reply was meant to be sarcastic, not offensive. If it could be read as offensive, my apologies.
I dont think its outlandish to think that the game is well balanced, even if the balance gets wonky at level 20 (Which is literally 1/20th of the possible states of the game - and almost certainly the level least commonly gotten to, unless you start there). By level 20, the possible combination of spells/classes/features/feats is at its literal largest, so it makes sense that this would be a challenging area to ensure balance. Literally every edition of D&D I've seen and played suffers from this (2.5 and on).
I also dont find the mechanics overly persuasive. I've agreed that Rangers are underpowered, and I acknowledge that Circle of Moon druids are a little overpowered - but I think the difference between them isnt terribly large. I dont plan to enumerate on these any further because its plain to see you've made up your mind on the subject and I'm not interested in us shouting our opinions at each other with more and more sniping included.
This thread isnt even about D&D at all. It's about Pathfinder. I'm not interested in an irreconcilable argument like this with you, especially in the manner in which it is being conducted. Let's let it be done.
Mmm... you got combat wild shape at level two and improves with your levels, you can heal more and polymorph into more powerful beasts.
At the same time, other classes get very situational features like proficiency in the disguise kit or the ability to track one type of enemy with advantage ¿? so I think you and I have a very different opinion about what is a large gap in the balance between classes, indeed. so let´s leave it at that.
On 5e, divine casters are even better. Some can get 24/7 heal and since OHK spells like Finger of Death no longer OHKills like on 3.5e, healing is better than ever.
I'm incredibly over random balance arguments, so I'm not going to reply at all with respect to balance on anything you said. I dont know if you've played 5e or not, but the devs decided to put an emphasis on damage rather than healing. Healing isnt bad, but the expectation is that it's rarely as useful as damage in most situations. Again, this isnt a balance argument. It's just that the devs decided it isnt fun to be a healbot in D&D, so they tried to design the edition with a philosophy moving away from that.
Having played the edition for 2 years straight, I find this very much to be the case.
People say that 5e is more balanced only because the gap between arcane and martial is smaller BUT the gap between divine and arcane is higher than ever.
And yes, on 3.5e divine casters was far better than arcane. They can do everything that arcanists can with better saves, with armor, better BAB, healing capabilities, no need to use expensive scrolls or having no flexibility, they can literally pray and switch to a complete different spells, a lot of powerful spells like animate dead are lesser level for divine casters, you can't mess with miracles like you can with wish, implosion ignores death immunity contrary to wail of the banshee (...)
On 5e, divine casters are even better. Some can get 24/7 heal and since OHK spells like Finger of Death no longer OHKills like on 3.5e, healing is better than ever.
Yeah, healing is superb. They improved it a lot. You have the classic cure wounds but you also have means to cure as a bonus action from level one, using "healing words", so you can heal and attack after that.
And moreover, you also have healing spirit, that heals automatically any ally or yourself if you stay in the healing zone (And you can move your spirit to heal another in your turn).
The way the casting mechanics work, you can empower your low-level spells using higher spell slots so your low-level spells are as useful in high levels. Even more if you are using classes like Life cleric.There are some subclasses that are so over his counterparts for some roles that the game gives you little reason to choose another over this if not for roleplay reasons.
In fact, since Life cleric´s feature that improves healing done applies to any healing spell you cast so you can just dip one level of life cleric and you will have improved all your healing spells for your bard, druid, ranger, etc.
Disciple of Life
Also starting at 1st Level, your Healing Spells are more effective. Whenever you use a spell of 1st Level or higher to Restore Hit Points to a creature, the creature regains additional Hit Points equal to 2 + the spell’s level.
Those who have an instagram account can win a plush owlcat, a physical Pathfinder: Kingmaker artbook, a cloth map of the Stolen Lands from Kingmaker and a unique T-shirt with a stylized print of their favorite race candidate. Contest is up 'till the 30th of June. That's when the race poll closes too.
Honestly, I don't much care for the animal races, so didn't even bother to vote for the race.
As I've said before, for a forum about RPGs, the consensus seems to be that three good ones have ever been made. Fallout 1, Age of Decadence, and Underrail. Apparently everything else is total horsehit.
Honestly, I don't much care for the animal races, so didn't even bother to vote for the race.
As I've said before, for a forum about RPGs, the consensus seems to be that three good ones have ever been made. Fallout 1, Age of Decadence, and Underrail. Apparently everything else is total horsehit.
Uff I usually go RPG Codex to watch some news, they´re good at it, but I seldom participate.
Once I said that I liked a game that I like and I "forgot" about making a snarky comment about some minor imaginary flaw in the game, a comparison with a vastly superior obscure game of years ago or Age of decadence and some kind of veiled insult against the previous poster... and I think I was almost banned for breaking a forum rule or something... :
You have a Transformation sequence (Su) and a Magical animal guide (Ex) and are proficient with staffs (They absolutely made this class after a marathon of Sailor moon or something)
You have a Transformation sequence (Su) and a Magical animal guide (Ex) and are proficient with staffs (They absolutely made this class after a marathon of Sailor moon or something)
Mahou Shoujo Harrim! In the name of Groteus he wil bring our eyesight the end times.
You have a Transformation sequence (Su) and a Magical animal guide (Ex) and are proficient with staffs (They absolutely made this class after a marathon of Sailor moon or something)
Mahou Shoujo Harrim! In the name of Groteus he will bring our eyesight the end times.
I just cannot unsee the mental image your words have conjured up...
I blame KFC for the popularity of the fowl angel mythic path.
Myself, I did test out demon, lich, aeon and trickster. Out of those I found the lich's quest to be most interesting. While the aeon one had the weakest background story as of now in my opinion. Hopefully the coming pre-beta test build will iron out some things and improve on other plot parts.
I blame KFC for the popularity of the fowl angel mythic path.
Myself, I did test out demon, lich, aeon and trickster. Out of those I found the lich's quest to be most interesting. While the aeon one had the weakest background story as of now in my opinion. Hopefully the coming pre-beta test build will iron out some things and improve on other plot parts.
Did you provide this feedback to Owlcat? Hope you did.
What's an Aeon? I'd never heard of them before in Pathfinder.
@ThacoBell Aeons are neutral aligned outsiders, so-called monitors. They were True Neutral in Pathfinder 1st edition and were changed to Lawful Neutral with 2e. Owlcat implemented them like the latter: basically cosmic judges which seek to balance the forces of good and evil. Bit of a shame that psychopomps (TN) and proteans (CN) didn't make the cut. Pathfinder's serpentine proteans are so much more interesting than fey or D&D's froggy slaads...
What's an Aeon? I'd never heard of them before in Pathfinder.
@ThacoBell Aeons are neutral aligned outsiders, so-called monitors. They were True Neutral in Pathfinder 1st edition and were changed to Lawful Neutral with 2e. Owlcat implemented them like the latter: basically cosmic judges which seek to balance the forces of good and evil. Bit of a shame that psychopomps (TN) and proteans (CN) didn't make the cut. Pathfinder's serpentine proteans are so much more interesting than fey or D&D's froggy slaads...
You guys don't have any Idea about how I love Paizo for allowing OwlCat to make PF:WoTR on PF1e.
Pf 2e has the same problems of D&D 5e ie - low lethality, lackluster spells, lackluster magical items, dumbing down legendary monsters(Strahd is just a lv 9 caster instead of lv 16 necromancer in 5e) and etc. 2e is the best D&D edition. Mainly because they keep the lethality of combat even on high levels, where even fighters get little hp after lv 10 and very powerful magical weapons. But give +12 hp per level while all spells/monsters/melee attacks progress slowly(3e) or barely progress at all(5e), just makes high level fights boring and tedious. I call it the "Oblivion effect", where the damage grows up by X and the health by 10X² meaning that at high level, be prepared to spend 4 hours in any challenging encounter.
Hell, even Gods avatar and ancient dragons on 2e rarely has more than 200 hp.
Here is, one of the strongest dark lords in 2e and ... 50 hp. If this guy was in 5e, it would have 500 hp but no defensive spells, very lackluster offensive spells and if was on 4e, would have 5k hp and fell more like a boring long wow clone raid boss. On 3e, he would have some HP inflation but nothing that makes extremely tedious.
And the mythic paths and cruzade seems so interesting.
IDK if I should play as a Lich, Demon, Azata or wathever. If it had a vampire mythic path, I would pick it. IMO vampirism > lichdoom.
You guys don't have any Idea about how I love Paizo for allowing OwlCat to make PF:WoTR on PF1e.
I think they're really going to seriously alienate their fanbase with the decisions they're making in 2nd ed. They attracted their fanbase by not going along with the changes D&D was ramming through.
You guys don't have any Idea about how I love Paizo for allowing OwlCat to make PF:WoTR on PF1e.
I think they're really going to seriously alienate their fanbase with the decisions they're making in 2nd ed. They attracted their fanbase by not going along with the changes D&D was ramming through.
I agree. If Pf 2e is essentially the same as D&D 5e, what would be the point of it. And you can already see this in the reactions of Pf fans in the Paizo forum and elsewhere, where the comments on Pf 2e are quite negative.
Comments
I dont think this is a convincing argument. You're comparing powergame builds against non powergame builds. That's not what most people consider good balancing in a table top. Of course there are some ways you can min-max your character to be better than other builds. If you compare a min-maxed build against someone who is playing without that level of forethought, then of course the min-maxed build will be more powerful.
Balancing is better thought of as: Would the casual player's level x fighter be roughly on par with the casual player''s level x wizard. Rinse and repeat with different classes.
I already agreed the Ranger is underpowered.
Back to my original point - 5e is better balanced in general than 3.5 or any edition before it. It's also better balanced with Pathfinder. Cannot speak necessarily every other tabletop game.
Edit - as a side note: A lot of the balancing points you're mentioning are actually affected by DM choices. If your Moon circle Druid doesnt get to meet the enemies to gain OP shape-shift forms, then it's not going to be an issue.
Warlocks require frequent short rests in order to be consistently effective (Which is how they're balanced. If you've given a half dozen short rests, they'll outpower other spell casters. Only once a session, and now they're behind the curve).
It's not as cut and dry as just "This class > other class".... except for the poor ranger.
(Just to clarify, if you are a God Mode Druid, you can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn
Not even celestial dragons can deal 200hp damage per turn).
Feats like lucky or Sentinel+polearm gives you a great advantage, and they are at the same level as feats like Actor or Keen mind.
And force the DMs to do the balancing is not a good excuse, it´s putting more work in the DM, the ones that buy your books and miniatures. And D&D5e puts a lot of unintended work into the DMs you do not need more. I always spent 1,5 more time in a 5e campaign comparing it with a PF or TDE campaign because I always have to create a lot of homebrew rules to allow the players to do simple things like learning a new language or how to mount and take care of horses and other mounts that other game systems already have in the manual by default.
They already call 5e "The Bethesda edition" or the "Ikea Edition" because they give you "guidelines" and you have to do all the heavy lifting: balancing, creating rules for things like cooking and stuff, fixing underpowered classes like the ranger, etc etc.
They tried to give you more material in Xanathars guide, but when that book came years later most of the community already made his homebrews to fix bugs, overhaul underwhelming feats and class features or things like camping, brewing potions or cooking (and some of them are IMHO better than the official material. Ergo-> The Bethesda edition).
And yeah, 6 years later they still have the same ranger as the PHB. No official fixes.
So If you find your 5e campaign perfectly balanced and working as intended there are high chances that it´s because you have a very good DM that put a lot of work into the campaign you are playing, not because of the original ruleset.
First - I am that DM. I've been DMing my game for close to 2 years. I've only had to work to balance the game exactly once: because one of my players picked a Ranger and intentionally went away from min-maxing (Gnomish Ranger, Hunter archetype). Incidentally, I had almost needed to balance the game a second time, but we were reading the rules wrong (relating to how quicken spell works for a sorcerer).
Fine. We can respectfully disagree. From the community I've worked with, spoken to and read online: 5e is lauded as being fantastic. My own personal experience of 20 years playing table top has me feeling the same way.
A few points worth making: I would define it as a power gamer build when I have to pick a selection of several feats in a row, select a particular weapon or weapon type to go along with the appropriate class archetype. Your OP Sentinel + Great Weapon Pole-arm fighter isnt just the bog standard battlemaster fighter. He's a BM fighter with a very particular build. I would know. My party has a Battlemaster. He's powerful, but not more powerful than our Sorcerer or Druid (and the Ranger isnt far off, owing to me working with him on it)
Also, your argument about the Druid might need some fact checking. I've got a druid in my group (not Moon, Land circle). I just went and consulted the PHB. The Druid gets only 2 shape shifts before they need to rest. At level 10, they can shape shift into an elemental, consuming both of their shape shifts. It's not until level 20 that a Druid can shape shift an unlimited number of times per day. As far as I can tell, the Druid can only shape shift into that earth elemental exactly once.
So when you say "Just to clarify, if you are a God Mode Druid, you can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn" - this wouldnt seem to be exactly true. They can do it once, at which point the Circle of the Moon Druid has traded the literal total sum of usefulness their archetype gives them. It's not exactly a "god form".
I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the page number in the PHB that makes your "change into an earth elemental every round" argument work. Maybe there's a feat or something I dont know about, but at face value - it doesnt seem to work.
Unless you're talking about a level 20 character, and which point the conversation is pretty uninteresting, since I'm not in the habit of worrying if the game is balanced there. I've never run a level 20 party before. Most games dont get there. I said it earlier in this thread, the balance of level 5s is waaaaaaaay more impactful than level 17s.
But is it really not unbalanced until level 20?
Let´s make the fact check.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/marketplace/sourcebooks/players-handbook#CircleoftheMoon
Bonus action-> Means that you can heal yourself for (1d8)x Spell level [And druids reach level9 spells] AND attack in the same round. Starting at level 2.
And I have to point out that Which means that every time you wildshape you regain full health because you got the hp of your beast form even if you had 1hp as a druid before polymorphing yourself into a beast. And wildshape is also a bonus action so you can change and attack in the same round.
BTW you regain your wildshape with a SHORT or LONG rest. So if you just sit down 1hour, and you can do it again twice in the next combat. And since you can heal yourself as a bonus action there are not many combats that you have to use it twice (It lasts for an hour) for starters.
Your claws and bites overcome damage resistance so you do not need to use weapons anymore.
You can cast spells in beast form.
You can wildshape unlimited times-> You can turn yourself into damage-resistant earth elemental with 147hp every turn. So to kill a Moon druid you have to kill his elemental form AND his druid form in only one turn because if not, he can turn himself/herself into a 147hp damage-resistant Earth elemental every 6 seconds: I.E-> Every turn
BTW at level 20 you can cast lvl 9 spells. Still in elemental form.
And as I pointed out, not even a Tarrasque or celestial dragon deal 200hp of damage per turn, so you are basically playing in god mode at this point (And the fact that you are not doing it before due to how combat wildshape works it´s debatable).
Meanwhile, a ranger of level 20 gets
-> you get a "huge" max of +5 if you have 20 WIS (because in D&D5e you cannot have more than 20 in a stat) to ONE of the attacks of your turn to ONLY the enemies that are your favourite enemy.
And a Fighter ONE extra attack per turn at level 20. That´s it.
I do not know what do you consider a balanced ruleset, but by my standards, this is not. And that is only one example.
But as I said playing 5e is a lot of fun, so mostly It does not really matter how unbalanced it is in the end.
I've said a few things from the beginning: First - That 5e is well balanced relative to previous editions of D&D. I've also said that the balancing is more important and is also better in the levels players are more likely to be playing at (Not level 20).
I dont think its outlandish to think that the game is well balanced, even if the balance gets wonky at level 20 (Which is literally 1/20th of the possible states of the game - and almost certainly the level least commonly gotten to, unless you start there). By level 20, the possible combination of spells/classes/features/feats is at its literal largest, so it makes sense that this would be a challenging area to ensure balance. Literally every edition of D&D I've seen and played suffers from this (2.5 and on).
I also dont find the mechanics overly persuasive. I've agreed that Rangers are underpowered, and I acknowledge that Circle of Moon druids are a little overpowered - but I think the difference between them isnt terribly large. I dont plan to enumerate on these any further because its plain to see you've made up your mind on the subject and I'm not interested in us shouting our opinions at each other with more and more sniping included.
This thread isnt even about D&D at all. It's about Pathfinder. I'm not interested in an irreconcilable argument like this with you, especially in the manner in which it is being conducted. Let's let it be done.
And yes, on 3.5e divine casters was far better than arcane. They can do everything that arcanists can with better saves, with armor, better BAB, healing capabilities, no need to use expensive scrolls or having no flexibility, they can literally pray and switch to a complete different spells, a lot of powerful spells like animate dead are lesser level for divine casters, you can't mess with miracles like you can with wish, implosion ignores death immunity contrary to wail of the banshee (...)
On 5e, divine casters are even better. Some can get 24/7 heal and since OHK spells like Finger of Death no longer OHKills like on 3.5e, healing is better than ever.
That was already discussed elsewhere so I will copypaste it. It makes a comparison with pathfinder so it´s not so much of a derail, I hope.
I think some overhaul of the fighters would be needed to give them more options in combat than "I attack" for 50 h in the campaign because the rules of DND5e right now do not offer options outside homebrews.
5E
I´m a Fighter so I´m going to move and ATTACK. I´m level 11 so I´m going to ATTACK Twice or thrice. Maybe have a subclass or feature that allows me to add more damage to my ATTACK, like arcane archer that allows me to add elemental damage to my ATTACK or some special feats that I have to learn like charge that allows me to ATTACK from afar.
Maybe I´m a barbarian or a paladin so I can use my class features like rage or smite evil that basically allows me to add more damage to my ATTACKS.
I could also be a ranger, so I can mark my target and adding 1d6 damage to my ATTACK. Maybe I´m a hunter so I can ATTACK several targets too if I picked that feature.
There are some combat maneuvers I can use instead of your ATTACK. Well, two combat maneouvers : Grappling an enemy, holding it in place, and SHOVE the enemy ¡5 entire feet! or knocking him into the ground.
And then you can wait to swing the enemy with an AoO (Wich is basically another ATTACK!) if it´s dumb enough to try to move nearby or maybe protect an ally of an ATTACK! with your shield IF you picked that specific feature and none of the other ones (because for some reason you could only have one combat style ever unless you multiclass and does not improve with levels) and have a shield.
Pathfinder
I´m a warrior so I could move and ATTACK too, but since I´m trained in martial arts and knowledgeable in tactics and warfare, maybe I can do something else too:
This enemy seems too good at dodging, so maybe I could use a FEINT to caught him unaware and lower his defenses against the next strikes for this round or several rounds if I critically suceed.
I´m pretty intimidating so maybe I can use a fierce battlecry that demoralize de opponents, lowering his skills and saves so my fellow casters could take them out easily.
I will try to move to position myself on the battlefield so I and my allies will flank the enemy, giving us combat bonuses against him (Unlike PF1&2 5e flanking is optional and many GMs do not use it because they feel that the bonuses it gives are "gamebreaking").
I could also try to Grapple or TRIP the enemy, pushing him or knocking him down to get some combat bonuses against prone enemies(But unlike 5e, the enemy need to use an entire action to get up, in 5e they only lose half his movement, so it could get up, attack and move half his movement in its turn so it´s merely situational).
My adversary is a skilled swordsman with a deadly weapon, so I´m going to try to DISARM it, knocking his weapon to the ground. Then I´m going to SHOVE him 5ft in the same turn. Unlike 5e you could automatically move to occupy the space after shoving an enemy, so I will move and place my foot over the weapon so it cannot even recover it while I´m here.
An enemy is attacking my ally, so I will try a reposition maneuver, forcing him to swap positions with me and putting myself between it and my squishy party member.
I´m the first line of defense, so after the ATTACK I am going to raise my shield and brace myself to BLOCK one strike against me in the enemy´s turn.
I´m a ranger, so I will use my hunter´s prey to mark the enemy and unleash a volley of ATTACKS against him or making extra damage. But since I´m a veteran skirmisher I have some options too.
My scout skills will allow me to give an initiative advantage to my all allies due to my heightened senses. I could study the enemy to assess his vulnerabilities and allow us to hit it where it hurts.
I could make a PINNING shot, pinning the enemy in place.
After that, I will order my faithful beast companion to bite the enemies down (In 5e you forfeit your attack action to allow your animal companion to attack, in PF2e both you and your companion can attack in the same turn. Your companion also level-up with you, increasing size, stats, etc) and will use our teamwork strikes to give debuffs to the enemies we attack.
If I´m particularly bloodlust I will mount my faithful companion and we will both charge into melee to overrun the enemies with combined strikes.
I could craft and use traps in the battlefield, giving unaware enemies some nasty surprises.
Then I will be ready to use AoO to enemies that move nearby, or protect an adjacent ally with my shield, clock with my shield, dodge and retaliate, or if I´m a champion use my reactions to protect and use divine punishment in the enemies that attack my allies. If I´m a ranger I could make AoO with my ranged weapons too.
My reply was meant to be sarcastic, not offensive. If it could be read as offensive, my apologies.
Mmm... you got combat wild shape at level two and improves with your levels, you can heal more and polymorph into more powerful beasts.
At the same time, other classes get very situational features like proficiency in the disguise kit or the ability to track one type of enemy with advantage ¿? so I think you and I have a very different opinion about what is a large gap in the balance between classes, indeed. so let´s leave it at that.
*desperate thumbs up*
I'm incredibly over random balance arguments, so I'm not going to reply at all with respect to balance on anything you said. I dont know if you've played 5e or not, but the devs decided to put an emphasis on damage rather than healing. Healing isnt bad, but the expectation is that it's rarely as useful as damage in most situations. Again, this isnt a balance argument. It's just that the devs decided it isnt fun to be a healbot in D&D, so they tried to design the edition with a philosophy moving away from that.
Having played the edition for 2 years straight, I find this very much to be the case.
Yeah, healing is superb. They improved it a lot. You have the classic cure wounds but you also have means to cure as a bonus action from level one, using "healing words", so you can heal and attack after that.
And moreover, you also have healing spirit, that heals automatically any ally or yourself if you stay in the healing zone (And you can move your spirit to heal another in your turn).
The way the casting mechanics work, you can empower your low-level spells using higher spell slots so your low-level spells are as useful in high levels. Even more if you are using classes like Life cleric.There are some subclasses that are so over his counterparts for some roles that the game gives you little reason to choose another over this if not for roleplay reasons.
In fact, since Life cleric´s feature that improves healing done applies to any healing spell you cast so you can just dip one level of life cleric and you will have improved all your healing spells for your bard, druid, ranger, etc.
Owlcat brithday.
Those who have an instagram account can win a plush owlcat, a physical Pathfinder: Kingmaker artbook, a cloth map of the Stolen Lands from Kingmaker and a unique T-shirt with a stylized print of their favorite race candidate. Contest is up 'till the 30th of June. That's when the race poll closes too.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2865057
Hellknigts, Students of War, Assassins, Loremasters, Hellknight signifer and Winter Witches are all in.
I'm glad to see some more warrior type prestige classes, along with a pure rogue type and a couple for heavy magic types.
Also some rule changes on the contest for the new race
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2865895
I don't really care much which of the 3 makes it in. They're at least just letting people email art in, instead of requiring an instagram account.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2880573
People on codex are freaking out about it....
I stay far away from the codex forums
Honestly, I don't much care for the animal races, so didn't even bother to vote for the race.
People in the Codex are always freaking about everything. The entire forum is about it...
As I've said before, for a forum about RPGs, the consensus seems to be that three good ones have ever been made. Fallout 1, Age of Decadence, and Underrail. Apparently everything else is total horsehit.
Once I said that I liked a game that I like and I "forgot" about making a snarky comment about some minor imaginary flaw in the game, a comparison with a vastly superior obscure game of years ago or Age of decadence and some kind of veiled insult against the previous poster... and I think I was almost banned for breaking a forum rule or something... :
If they really want JRPG fans they should include the magic girl archetype in WOTR
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/vigilante/archetypes/vigilante-archetypes-paizo-inc/magical-child/
You have a Transformation sequence (Su) and a Magical animal guide (Ex) and are proficient with staffs (They absolutely made this class after a marathon of Sailor moon or something)
Mahou Shoujo Harrim! In the name of Groteus he wil bring our eyesight the end times.
I just cannot unsee the mental image your words have conjured up...
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2919402
Apparently, Angels and Liches are the most popular mythic paths and demons the less popular
Myself, I did test out demon, lich, aeon and trickster. Out of those I found the lich's quest to be most interesting. While the aeon one had the weakest background story as of now in my opinion. Hopefully the coming pre-beta test build will iron out some things and improve on other plot parts.
@ThacoBell Aeons are neutral aligned outsiders, so-called monitors. They were True Neutral in Pathfinder 1st edition and were changed to Lawful Neutral with 2e. Owlcat implemented them like the latter: basically cosmic judges which seek to balance the forces of good and evil. Bit of a shame that psychopomps (TN) and proteans (CN) didn't make the cut. Pathfinder's serpentine proteans are so much more interesting than fey or D&D's froggy slaads...
@kanisatha Of course I did.
I seriously hope guys, you're feedback will help Owlcat to made a better game than Kingmaker (which was a MAJOR letdown for me).
Pf 2e has the same problems of D&D 5e ie - low lethality, lackluster spells, lackluster magical items, dumbing down legendary monsters(Strahd is just a lv 9 caster instead of lv 16 necromancer in 5e) and etc. 2e is the best D&D edition. Mainly because they keep the lethality of combat even on high levels, where even fighters get little hp after lv 10 and very powerful magical weapons. But give +12 hp per level while all spells/monsters/melee attacks progress slowly(3e) or barely progress at all(5e), just makes high level fights boring and tedious. I call it the "Oblivion effect", where the damage grows up by X and the health by 10X² meaning that at high level, be prepared to spend 4 hours in any challenging encounter.
Hell, even Gods avatar and ancient dragons on 2e rarely has more than 200 hp.
Here is, one of the strongest dark lords in 2e and ... 50 hp. If this guy was in 5e, it would have 500 hp but no defensive spells, very lackluster offensive spells and if was on 4e, would have 5k hp and fell more like a boring long wow clone raid boss. On 3e, he would have some HP inflation but nothing that makes extremely tedious.
And the mythic paths and cruzade seems so interesting.
IDK if I should play as a Lich, Demon, Azata or wathever. If it had a vampire mythic path, I would pick it. IMO vampirism > lichdoom.
I think they're really going to seriously alienate their fanbase with the decisions they're making in 2nd ed. They attracted their fanbase by not going along with the changes D&D was ramming through.