Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if someone thinks that there are already enough classes, I'll respect their opinion. However, if someone says that my opinion does not matter because I haven't been playing since AD&D, that is gatekeeping. Sure experience is a thing, but it is not everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
Too bad we cannot just chop them both in half and shuffle the good halves together like a deck of cards.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if someone thinks that there are already enough classes, I'll respect their opinion. However, if someone says that my opinion does not matter because I haven't been playing since AD&D, that is gatekeeping. Sure experience is a thing, but it is not everything.
I second this. There is a significant difference between someone with experience in the older editions having a polite debate on why they think the current classes are plenty and showcasing a health argument of different opinions of game philosophies with a newer player while still listening and respecting their opinion.....and stating that because someone has been here longer, that they are the only ones allowed to have their opinions matter or be listened to by Wizards and all the newer players either have to deal with it or leave. That is Gatekeeping.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
Pathfinder is a game where any given single roll can have 20+ different, discrete floating modifiers affecting it, and a game in which your bonus from a skill can range from -2 or so to +85 or more. Pathfinder has resoundingly rejected the idea of eliminating number bloat and hews closely to a system wherein every last single little thing gets its own modifier. Which is an absolute crying shame, because the three-action turn economy is excellent and their character creation rules are among the best I've seen for a class-based fantasy RPG.
Like Sposta said, what I really want more than most anything is to chop PF2e and D&D5e into chunks, throw out the chunks that each game gets horribly wrong, and put the chunks each game gets delightfully right together into a blended fantasy TTRPG I'd kill three separate hobos to be able to play. But I don't begin to have the time or resources to do that thing, so I'm stuck picking my (actual) poison.
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
Hey, it's someone else who doesn't seem to get the root of the problem.
In older editions or say pathfinder subclasses could do what you are describing but not in 5e. In 5e you couldn't just reflavor druids, warlocks, or clerics to be witches because the core class doesn't modify to that extent. You literally are left with a druid of the land or stars, a nature cleric, and a warlock (don't get bogged down playing gotchas with definitions.) Those aren't the same as a witch class, which as far as I understand are Int based casters, or the ones I have played are and that's just core mechanics.
The closest you could possibly get right now would be a warlock subclass that gets some cleric and druid spells on its spell list and took pact of the chain for a familiar. But that's not the same as the witch class people are describing.
The core rules of 5e dictate that the base class has a very strong and unavoidable influence on the subclass, not the other way around. The theme, flavor, mechanics all are dominated by it.
We clearly don't have all the main thematic niches filled. I don't know if reading is boring to you but it has been repeated a none zero number of times that there are both thematic and mechanical niches left wide open that are not covered by any of the core classes. arcane, martial focused half caster (magus), int based, martial, support class (warlord), divine, spell focused, half caster (oracle), nature, spell focused half caster (shaman). These are mechanical and thematic niches left unfilled or poorly filled by 5e's attempt to crowbar their roles into classes that cannot take them without major alterations, alterations that were not made. e.g. Eldritch knight is not a replacement for Magus, it's a fighter that can cast some spells, it can never get out from underneath the fighter class because it must always be balanced around having 4 attacks and action surge.
Am I being clear about this? is this so difficult to understand that it needs repeating again?
But the problem is, if you want something that fits your personal definition of 'witch,' how does that help with everyone else, who has their own personal definition?
What exactly makes it impossible to use any existing class to fit said definition?
Edit: And more importantly, it sounds like the complaint is that every definition should be covered. That is pretty much impossible in terms of core rules.
If we say that a witch class is an arcane, spell-focused, half-caster, with Int as it's casting stat. That would be the core class, that couldn't be covered by the wizard, which is a full caster.
You ask a question that is so easy to answer I'm staggered btw. how do we cover everyone's idea of what a witch is? Subclasses. nature witch, fey witch, crone, curses, cauldrons, brews? All work as subclasses. Every witch gets a familiar and the ability to cackle to make their spells work, you know, basic thematic witch stuff.
As has been repeated and was even in the comment you replied to but didn't read. What prevents current classes from becoming, say, a witch is that the core design of 5e means the base class supersedes the subclass. You cannot be a cleric without channel divinity, you cannot be a warlock without pack magic, you cannot be a druid without wildshape etc. That's the problem.
Are we on the same page yet? if not yet in agreement.
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
Too bad we cannot just chop them both in half and shuffle the good halves together like a deck of cards.
That would be just amazing. Pick out the bits which both systems get correct, glue them together, and end up with an amazing system.
Just imagine D&D5e's (relatively) fluid action resolution system and the benefits of bounded accuracy, but within the context of the Three-Action Turn and vastly improved character creation/advancement of PF2e. That game would be fantastic.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
Too bad we cannot just chop them both in half and shuffle the good halves together like a deck of cards.
That would be just amazing. Pick out the bits which both systems get correct, glue them together, and end up with an amazing system.
Just imagine D&D5e's (relatively) fluid action resolution system and the benefits of bounded accuracy, but within the context of the Three-Action Turn and vastly improved character creation/advancement of PF2e. That game would be fantastic.
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
Pathfinder is a game where any given single roll can have 20+ different, discrete floating modifiers affecting it, and a game in which your bonus from a skill can range from -2 or so to +85 or more. Pathfinder has resoundingly rejected the idea of eliminating number bloat and hews closely to a system wherein every last single little thing gets its own modifier. Which is an absolute crying shame, because the three-action turn economy is excellent and their character creation rules are among the best I've seen for a class-based fantasy RPG.
Like Sposta said, what I really want more than most anything is to chop PF2e and D&D5e into chunks, throw out the chunks that each game gets horribly wrong, and put the chunks each game gets delightfully right together into a blended fantasy TTRPG I'd kill three separate hobos to be able to play. But I don't begin to have the time or resources to do that thing, so I'm stuck picking my (actual) poison.
Blah.
The CRB lists 3 modifiers: item, status, circumstance. At least for 2e. The modifier hell is true for 1e, but 2e canceled that.
I'm not sure about the maximum values, but at 20 with legendary proficiency you get a +28 and probably something like 6 or maybe 8 for attributes. So it ranges to double the 20 point mark of 5e, but is that really such a horrible thing?
On the other hand every action is nicely tagged, and the rules are (to me) extremely clear in their language. Action management seems more streamlined and the character system actually sounds like the first system that manages multiclassing without having to beg the DM to allow it without writing a 4 page essay on why it fits the story. :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course. Experience in the game does not make one a grognard. Grognardism only arises when one develops a singular hatred of and obstinate resistance to any form of progress beyond, being charitable, whatever was in the 2e core books. If it wasn't around by the time the 2e core books were printed, they don't want it - and that extends to mechanics, classes, species, worlds, concepts, subconcepts, ideas, dreams, hopes, and desires. It really is just immensely frustrating.
Please do not contact or message me.
You were not around for it, but simply dismiss the reasons why players with vastly more experience than you might think all this is nonsense. Sorry, that is not gatekeeping. That is simply experience being the basis for wisdom.
Just to get the discussion back to classes. I saw a playtest from Paizo for a Magus class if anybody is interested.
https://www.enworld.org/threads/playtest-pathfinders-new-magus-summoner-classes.674679/
I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if someone thinks that there are already enough classes, I'll respect their opinion. However, if someone says that my opinion does not matter because I haven't been playing since AD&D, that is gatekeeping. Sure experience is a thing, but it is not everything.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is for Pathfinder, not D&D. Still worth looking at for inspiration.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
It shows that pathfinder clearly still cares about people who want a larger variety of playstyles and themes.
Pity the pathfinder core rules are so much of a mess, as their character design and class system is amazing. I love 5e for the core rules, but the class and character system is downright depressing.
Too bad we cannot just chop them both in half and shuffle the good halves together like a deck of cards.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I keep reading this again and again, but I still don't understand what's so messy about the PF rules?
From reading the CRB it sounds super straight-forward, even more than 5e with all its corner cases (e.g. Shield Master Shove can only be done after the attack and the extra rule about Bonus Action Spells only allowing for Cantrips as Actions...)
I second this. There is a significant difference between someone with experience in the older editions having a polite debate on why they think the current classes are plenty and showcasing a health argument of different opinions of game philosophies with a newer player while still listening and respecting their opinion.....and stating that because someone has been here longer, that they are the only ones allowed to have their opinions matter or be listened to by Wizards and all the newer players either have to deal with it or leave. That is Gatekeeping.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8zGJ1gHTpc
this explains it quite well.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Pathfinder is a game where any given single roll can have 20+ different, discrete floating modifiers affecting it, and a game in which your bonus from a skill can range from -2 or so to +85 or more. Pathfinder has resoundingly rejected the idea of eliminating number bloat and hews closely to a system wherein every last single little thing gets its own modifier. Which is an absolute crying shame, because the three-action turn economy is excellent and their character creation rules are among the best I've seen for a class-based fantasy RPG.
Like Sposta said, what I really want more than most anything is to chop PF2e and D&D5e into chunks, throw out the chunks that each game gets horribly wrong, and put the chunks each game gets delightfully right together into a blended fantasy TTRPG I'd kill three separate hobos to be able to play. But I don't begin to have the time or resources to do that thing, so I'm stuck picking my (actual) poison.
Blah.
Please do not contact or message me.
If we say that a witch class is an arcane, spell-focused, half-caster, with Int as it's casting stat. That would be the core class, that couldn't be covered by the wizard, which is a full caster.
You ask a question that is so easy to answer I'm staggered btw. how do we cover everyone's idea of what a witch is? Subclasses. nature witch, fey witch, crone, curses, cauldrons, brews? All work as subclasses. Every witch gets a familiar and the ability to cackle to make their spells work, you know, basic thematic witch stuff.
As has been repeated and was even in the comment you replied to but didn't read. What prevents current classes from becoming, say, a witch is that the core design of 5e means the base class supersedes the subclass. You cannot be a cleric without channel divinity, you cannot be a warlock without pack magic, you cannot be a druid without wildshape etc. That's the problem.
Are we on the same page yet? if not yet in agreement.
I was around for it and I agree with Yurei.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That would be just amazing. Pick out the bits which both systems get correct, glue them together, and end up with an amazing system.
Seriously.
Just imagine D&D5e's (relatively) fluid action resolution system and the benefits of bounded accuracy, but within the context of the Three-Action Turn and vastly improved character creation/advancement of PF2e. That game would be fantastic.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’m just that damned good. 😜
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
So go write the rules for that game. That way we can all play it and bask in your goodness. :P
Please do not contact or message me.
😂😂
Pay me and I will.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How much? (Side note, how much food can someone survive on? You don't need that much, right?)
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The CRB lists 3 modifiers: item, status, circumstance. At least for 2e. The modifier hell is true for 1e, but 2e canceled that.
I'm not sure about the maximum values, but at 20 with legendary proficiency you get a +28 and probably something like 6 or maybe 8 for attributes. So it ranges to double the 20 point mark of 5e, but is that really such a horrible thing?
On the other hand every action is nicely tagged, and the rules are (to me) extremely clear in their language. Action management seems more streamlined and the character system actually sounds like the first system that manages multiclassing without having to beg the DM to allow it without writing a 4 page essay on why it fits the story. :D