# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Possible Paizo/PF2 could pull another fast one on WotC?

## Schwann145

We're slowly going through the beginning of "5.5" so who's to say just how changed/re-balanced/etc the edition actually ends up, but so far it seems like there won't be any major shakeups, even if they're kinda needed. Just a general polishing, akin to what 3.5 did to 3rd Edition (as well as, IMO, making the game's mechanics easier to program into coded language; prepping for VT integration, but that's speculation).

Which means, I don't think fundamental issues a lot of people have with the game will be addressed or fixed.
Caster superiority will remain.
Mundanes/Martials will continue to lack interesting options outside of combat (and maybe even inside combat).
High level play will continue to go minimally supported (unsupported, let's be honest).
Etc.

PF2 is a much crunchier game than 5e, and that likely turns a lot of people off, but most of the biggest issues people seem to have with D&D are actually addressed by Paizo.
Martials have lots of interesting decisions to make turn-by-turn.
Casters are not significantly superior to non-casters.
Spells are not so imbalanced that they can single-handedly end encounters.
All levels of play are supported, all the way through 20.
Etc.

I read a lot of the threads and so many of the issues people in the community have with 5e just... don't really exist in PF2. Is the "simplicity" of D&D really enough to maintain, despite WotC never solving it's most glaring issues, or going down a design path that people often say they don't like (pre vs post Tashas, for instance)?
I imagine that yes, people will stick to 5e out of sheer stubbornness if nothing else. But we've seen PF take over the market before, so I wonder.

----------


## Anymage

There have been other games written to address supposed flaws in D&D, and very few of them have been able to mount successful challenges.  PF1 was only able to do so by being a continuation of a beloved property, which WotC dropped to go in a completely different direction.  5.5 looks to be mostly the same as 5.0, with a few balance changes and popular houserules added.  Plus some lore and tone changes that are sparking controversy, but I don't see those triggering a mass migration in the way that a complete game overhaul did.

Plus, even if 5.5 happened to flub hard enough to trigger a mass exodous, I don't see why PF2 would be where they all went.  It made sense when PF1 was basically 3.75, but there's enough distance between 5e and PF2 that the latter wouldn't be such an obvious fit.

----------


## Kane0

Agreed with Anymage, I doubt the lightning will be bottled a second time.

----------


## Leon

Anything is possible, hopefully its enough to get many people out of the D&D bottleneck and into the wide range of RPGs available.

----------


## Rukelnikov

> There have been other games written to address supposed flaws in D&D, and very few of them have been able to mount successful challenges.  PF1 was only able to do so by being a continuation of a beloved property, which WotC dropped to go in a completely different direction.  5.5 looks to be mostly the same as 5.0, with a few balance changes and popular houserules added.  Plus some lore and tone changes that are sparking controversy, but I don't see those triggering a mass migration in the way that a complete game overhaul did.
> 
> Plus, even if 5.5 happened to flub hard enough to trigger a mass exodous, I don't see why PF2 would be where they all went.  It made sense when PF1 was basically 3.75, but there's enough distance between 5e and PF2 that the latter wouldn't be such an obvious fit.


Yeah, this.

PF2 is nothing like 5e, so if people kept looking for new 5e stuff, PF2 wouldn't be the place to go looking for it.

----------


## Eldariel

The principal issue is, D&D as a brand is too iconic and the game accessibility (in terms of games/players available) is just so far above any other game that it's very hard to see anything else become mainstream unless WotC not only drops the ball but shoots it out of the window with a howitzer (like with 4e). Even PF1e was basically just 3.75 and marketed as such; nothing has actually come close to challenging the *brand* and *name* of D&D and that has about four decades of build-up that's impossible to match anywhere else. Niche groups can move onto other games and D&D can serve as a gateway game but to vast majority of the 5e playerbase, tabletop IS D&D; everything else is niche and lacks the playerbase and marketing needed to compete and thus doesn't enter into an average player's consciousness.

----------


## Saintheart

> There have been other games written to address supposed flaws in D&D, and very few of them have been able to mount successful challenges.  PF1 was only able to do so by being a continuation of a beloved property, which WotC dropped to go in a completely different direction.  5.5 looks to be mostly the same as 5.0, with a few balance changes and popular houserules added.  Plus some lore and tone changes that are sparking controversy, but I don't see those triggering a mass migration in the way that a complete game overhaul did.


You _might_ see a mass migration, or mass preservation perhaps, _if_ the circumstances of 3.5, Paizo, and fourth edition repeat themselves with the shift from fifth edition to DBox One ... and in particular, _if_ and _only_ if fifth edition's OGL is as cockroach-indestructible as third edition's was.

Justin Alexander's webpage has a good history on Open Gaming Licences (OGL) and editions generally, and paraphrasing the rough history of how Paizo outran the fireball of 3.5: in the year 2005, the treacherous Decepticons had retaken Cyberton Hasbro split its various brands into those making $50 million and more, and those that didn't.  D&D was in the didn't column.  Which meant it was on the block to be mothballed and its development, marketing, and licensing budgets pulled or at least curtailed.  In the face of impending massive job losses, the D&D team came up with a plan for a new marketing campaign that would all but compel people to Buy StuffTM and thus keep D&D alive in the revenues from Sold Stuff TM.  That marketing campaign was fourth edition.

But you can't get people to Buy StuffTM if they can Make Their Own StuffTM, especially when they've been freely given a big bunch of tools for Making Their Own StuffTM, also known as third edition's OGL.  And the OGL couldn't be revoked.  Which therefore means the very existence of the OGL was a big factor in the actual creation of Fourth Edition - WOTC/Hasbro wanted, needed, lusted over getting full creative (and more importantly, copyright) control of their product.  WOTC first played coy about whether fourth edition would have its own OGL, and when finally pressed to it, announced a GSL similar to the much-maligned d20 trademark from early in third edition which could be - and was - pulled without warning thus forcing producers to pulp their own product.  The GSL's more draconian aspects were dropped, but the right to pull authorisation at any time remained in place, and still is.  This and a number of other anti-fanbase moves by WOTC (as well as making a good tactical wargame but appallingly bad D&D RPG product) helped make the case for people to keep playing third edition, in part because the mountain of third edition product was still there and still freely available.

Paizo's advantage was also due to an own-goal by WOTC: Wizards didn't kill Dragon and Dungeon magazine, they licensed them to Paizo in 2002.  But when WOTC ordered the death of both physical magazines, they couldn't do anything about the fact Paizo's subscriber lists were still entirely intact and wholly in the big P's hands.  This then became the natural, substantial, and fertile base for Paizo to first keep publishing third edition adventure paths, but then to publish Pathfinder - which was, essentially, 3.75.

Had WOTC not decided to go with a no-OGL fourth edition, maybe the story would have been different.  But even then, it was Paizo's massive competitive advantage, its existing userbase, that gave it a big leg up on creating Pathfinder and now PF2.  That set of circumstances is perhaps repeatable, because Corporate Stupidity is evergreen and eternal, but it would be hilarious if it _did_ end up that way again.  Not to mention that as I understand it the fifth edition OGL is much more vulnerable to a kink in the feeding tube from the Corporate Mind Flayers running Hasbro.  Justin Alexander actually holds out some despairing, cynical hope on that, since it looks like with DBox One, WOTC is once again trying desperately to monetise the hell out of its product like it tried to do with fourth edition.  If so, it creates the possibility of a similar situation to that which existed around the end point of third edition and the faceplant of fourth.

----------


## Kane0

> -Snip-


Neat insight, thanks!

----------


## MrStabby

I am very appreciative for a lot of what 5e has done.  It has pulled together a lot of refinements and the best of previous editions/other games and pulled it together into a streamlined whole.  5e has certainly earned its spot.

The edition has somewhat degraded through time as patches have rendered core elements of the game obsolete or redundant.    I think things like Tasha's guide gave me a lot of hope - a profound misstep in some ways but a sign of wanting to move in the right direction.

I was excited to see a lot of D&D one stuff and I thought the idea of a big coherent step forward as the next thing was sound.  The piecemeal adding of things without adjusting the underlying framework to accommodate was proving problematic.

As it happens I am now a lot less confident about the direction of One. The desire for backwards compatibility and the choices of which things to leave untouched as well as some signs of moving away from what I thought were pretty good mechanics (things like grappling needing skills not attacks and armour).

Now I am left with the impression that One isn't the desired successor to 5e that Iight have hoped.  I don't know that I need something crunchier, but I do want something that supports more diversity, a broader range of characters that would interest me, 

I wont claim to know anything about PF2, but based on PF1's ability to build on a popular d&d edition and add to it, I could hope PF2 has maybe solves some of the 5e issues and has some good content.

Now if appropriate licences help this, I am all for it (though WotC understandably won't be so thrilled).  I think that PF2 has an advantage that it is building on a PF1 base whereas PF1 was the first in the brand.  On the other hand, PF1 was set against 4e as the competitor and the size of the transition between 3.5 and 4e being big enough to leave a lot of people looking for a new home.  The less radical shift between 5e and One (coupled with the whole backwards compatibility thing) is probably going to displace a lot fewer people.

Unless One is a total screw up (and is about as playable as FATAL), I just don't see a revolution.  As a consumer I would love to have a product on the market of such quality that it is able to compete,  but I think that's optimistic.

----------


## EggKookoo

Paizo released PF2 not too long ago. While it's not inconceivable that they could whip up a PF3 that plays like pre-1D&D 5e, I don't think it's too likely. One of PF's biggest selling points is that it doesn't play like (the current edition of) D&D, and 1D&D will probably play a lot like stock 5e, at least for most people.

I just don't see what's in it for Paizo at this point. Who else could jump in? Chaosium, maybe?

----------


## Unoriginal

Yeah, Paizo didn't "pull a fast one", it just grabbed what it could from the pile WotC was throwing awayin anticipation of a new meal ticket.

It's entirely possible they kill 5e in 2024 and smaller companies attempt to capitalize on that, but Paizo is in 0 position to do so. They can't redirect the time, money and employees into a new game that continues 5e without hurting Pathfinder 2, and Pathfinder 2 isn't going to appeal to people who want to continue 5e.

Plus with the modifications to the OGL and Hasbro's statements about monetizing D&D, it's likely anyone who want to try making money on the parts WotC discarded will be much shyer this time around, by fear of getting lawyered up in costly court carousing.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Plus with the modifications to the OGL and Hasbro's statements about monetizing D&D, it's likely anyone who want to try making money on the parts WotC discarded will be much shyer this time around, by fear of getting lawyered up in costly court carousing.


Just some clarity. There is no modifying the original OGL. OGL 1.1 is a completely new agreement. This won't stop WotC from playing lawyer-tag, of course.

Edit: One thing I'm having trouble finding information on is the irrevocability of the SRD itself. It seems the OGL is perpetual, but that does not in and of itself specify what content is open. It just defines how open content works. What's actually open is in the SRD. Am I misunderstanding?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Just some clarity. There is no modifying the original OGL. OGL 1.1 is a completely new agreement. This won't stop WotC from playing lawyer-tag, of course.


Fair, though this still is modifying the situation regarding which licence applies (since before there was one and now there is the original and the shiny new one).

----------


## EggKookoo

> Fair, though this still is modifying the situation regarding which licence applies (since before there was one and now there is the original and the shiny new one).


It muddies the waters for sure, since OGL 1 applies to 3.5/5e and OGL 1.1 applies to... something? They've told us this new version of the game isn't a new edition. So WotC sees 1D&D as some form of 5e. But 5e already has an OGL, so I'm not clear on what OGL 1.1 can restrict.

----------


## Frogreaver

> Just some clarity. There is no modifying the original OGL. OGL 1.1 is a completely new agreement. This won't stop WotC from playing lawyer-tag, of course.
> 
> Edit: One thing I'm having trouble finding information on is the irrevocability of the SRD itself. It seems the OGL is perpetual, but that does not in and of itself specify what content is open. It just defines how open content works. What's actually open is in the SRD. Am I misunderstanding?


OGL is revocable and it spells out when in the termination clause.

OGL states that OGC must be specified. 

It being perpetual, stating itÂs terms cannot be changed, the original explanations around how it was intended to work, an explicit termination/removability clause - all of that is potentially legally important and in favor of it not being revocable on WOTCs whim.

Further since WOTC explicitly mandates user of OGC under OGL 1.0/a to include the OGL license and WOTC writing that license to include their offer to use OGC content under OGL 1.0/a then legally there seems to be a strong case that they are currently making the OGL 1.0/a offer anytime someone uses OGC in a product under the OGL 1.0/a license. Essentially they have no legal way to stop offering OGC content under OGL 1.0/an other than finding a way to obtain and destroy all products using their OGC.

----------


## Snowbluff

> I read a lot of the threads and so many of the issues people in the community have with 5e just... don't really exist in PF2. Is the "simplicity" of D&D really enough to maintain, despite WotC never solving it's most glaring issues, or going down a design path that people often say they don't like (pre vs post Tashas, for instance)?


This operates under the assumption that if PF2 ever became as popular as 5e that it wouldn't also be picked apart for being similarly buggy or otherwise just being stiff compared to its parent or 5e. It always amuses me that people try to paint one game or another as too buggy to play or chock full of issues, then push a game that has a lot of issues or doesn't incorporate innovations that the first system does to great effect. 

Also myself and just about everyone else I've mentioned to hate jumping being an action in ODD. PF2 breaks away from the tradition of jumping being part of a move action as well, which really exemplifies a lot of issues people might take with it.

----------


## Saintheart

All I'd add on this is, and take this in the spirit it is offered from a third edition guy who had admittedly never shifted to fifth: we've been here before.  3.5 was promised to be fully backward compatible with 3.0.  A number of third party publishers and indeed some game stores went bankrupt when that promise was broken and the 3.0 book line basically reduced to pulp value. 

And we've been here before with promises about an OGL too. Specifically, fourth edition.   If Wizards is not being straight with the fans about whether Dbox one will have an OGL, I would give good odds that someone or lots of corporate someones are heavily opposed to the idea, or that the OGL being planned is much tighter than was available under third,  let alone fifth. 

And to be fair to the mind flayers, that opposition is understandable.  OGL was a godsend to the hobby in third edition but it doesn't make financial sense from a medium term perspective, which is one reason the 5e OGL doesn't contain anything unique to 5e, which makes it harder for a Paizo situation to come up again.

----------


## EggKookoo

> OGL is revocable and it spells out when in the termination clause.
> 
> OGL states that OGC must be specified. 
> 
> It being perpetual, stating itÂs terms cannot be changed, the original explanations around how it was intended to work, an explicit termination/removability clause - all of that is potentially legally important and in favor of it not being revocable on WOTCs whim.
> 
> Further since WOTC explicitly mandates user of OGC under OGL 1.0/a to include the OGL license and WOTC writing that license to include their offer to use OGC content under OGL 1.0/a then legally there seems to be a strong case that they are currently making the OGL 1.0/a offer anytime someone uses OGC in a product under the OGL 1.0/a license. Essentially they have no legal way to stop offering OGC content under OGL 1.0/an other than finding a way to obtain and destroy all products using their OGC.


Thank you for this explanation.

So if I'm following, at least one reason we can consider SRD 5 safe is because it's OGC, and OGC is safe because there's existing art out there that uses it as part of the OGL. It's gone viral, so to speak?

----------


## Frogreaver

> Thank you for this explanation.
> 
> So if I'm following, at least one reason we can consider SRD 5 safe is because it's OGC, and OGC is safe because there's existing art out there that uses it as part of the OGL. It's gone viral, so to speak?


Kind of. Not all of 5e is OGC. The SRD 5.1 is (search for it to see the content it contains). Im not sure what if any other 5e content is OGC. 

But the rest seems like a fair way to characterize it. Maybe not a full picture but directionally it matches.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Kind of. Not all of 5e is OGC. The SRD 5.1 is (search for it to see the content it contains). Im not sure what if any other 5e content is OGC. 
> 
> But the rest seems like a fair way to characterize it. Maybe not a full picture but directionally it matches.


Right, that's what I meant with "SRD 5" rather than saying 5e. I could have been less vague there.

So at this point I imagine OGL 1.1 pertains to anything that isn't already covered by OGL 1.

----------


## Frogreaver

> Right, that's what I meant with "SRD 5" rather than saying 5e. I could have been less vague there.
> 
> So at this point I imagine OGL 1.1 pertains to anything that isn't already covered by OGL 1.


Maybe. Maybe not. 

So if OGL 1.1 is a version of OGL 1.0 then section 9 allows for OGL 1.0 content to be licensed under OGL 1.1. 

If OGL 1.1 includes a section 9 as OGL 1.0 then OGC content released under OGL 1.1 can be released by any licensee under OGL 1.0 as well. 

I speculate OGL 1.1 wont include a section 9.

Theres also the outstanding question of whether OGL 1.1 would legally be a version of OGL 1.0, but I doubt anyone takes it to court to find out for sure. So more than likely it will be whatever WOTC describes it as.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Maybe. Maybe not. 
> 
> So if OGL 1.1 is a version of OGL 1.0 then section 9 allows for OGL 1.0 content to be licensed under OGL 1.1. 
> 
> If OGL 1.1 includes a section 9 as OGL 1.0 then OGC content released under OGL 1.1 can be released by any licensee under OGL 1.0 as well. 
> 
> I speculate OGL 1.1 wont include a section 9.


I agree with that speculation. I don't see WotC wanting to allow new content to get backfilled into the old OGL.




> Theres also the outstanding question of whether OGL 1.1 would legally be a version of OGL 1.0, but I doubt anyone takes it to court to find out for sure. So more than likely it will be whatever WOTC describes it as.


I feel like Paizo would have a pretty solid interest in keeping them separate. Unless PF2 doesn't use the OGL?

----------


## Psyren

> ).
> Which means, I don't think fundamental issues a lot of people have with the game will be addressed or fixed.
> Caster superiority will remain.
> Mundanes/Martials will continue to lack interesting options outside of combat (and maybe even inside combat).
> High level play will continue to go minimally supported (unsupported, let's be honest).
> Etc.
> ...
> I read a lot of the threads and so many of the issues people in the community have with 5e just... don't really exist in PF2.


I'd say its highly arguable how "fundamental" this list of "issues" is, especially if you're basing their prevalence in the community on "threads."




> I imagine that yes, people will stick to 5e out of sheer stubbornness if nothing else. But we've seen PF take over the market before, so I wonder.


PF was well positioned to take over the market as it was continuing/polishing the most popular design of the game (at the time) with some tweaks and updates, while its owners were abandoning it completely. Now OneD&D is the one continuing/polishing the most popular design of the game (currently) while _Paizo_ is the one who moved on to a totally different foundation. Even if Paizo wanted to use the 5.0 SRD to continue the current game's basic design, they would do so at PF2's expense, and the expense of its fanbase, which presumably includes you.

If OneD&D _were_ different enough from 5e, I wouldn't be surprised to see a third player arise to continue the latter in some form using the current SRD. But based on what I've seen in the playtests so far, I don't think 1DnD will be different enough from 5e for someone else to succeed doing that.

----------


## Catullus64

As someone who just acquired 2e Pathfinder and has been trying to learn the system, let me say that I don't think it's likely to seize the throne from 5e anytime soon. Put aside the massive cultural power that Dungeons & Dragons gets from simply being called 'Dungeons & Dragons', although that is a massive part of it. Pathfinder, to me, still feels like it is first and foremost a reaction to complaints about D&D, and thus is unlikely to eclipse it. 

Also, I think that 5e's simplicity, much of which is actually being doubled down upon by OneD&D, really is that big of a draw in its own right, and not just for catching new players. As a Dungeon Master, 5e's philosophy of "rulings, not rules" makes it an endlessly flexible and easy system in which to create worlds and smoothly run games. Pathfinder lacks that kind of elegant simplicity, and is frankly overdesigned. I had hoped that in the First Edition that was mainly a product of being a 3.5e retroclone, but Second Edition seems to be coming out and saying, "nope, that really is what we want to be." For me, at least, Pathfinder will remain a system that I occasionally return to to run fun encounters and for a change of pace from 5e, but it won't hold my interest long-term. (Ironically, most of the stuff I do like about PF2e is stuff it cribbed from 4th Edition D&D, the very thing that sparked the First Edition's rebellion.)

In brief, if another game ever does displace the market dominance of 5e, it's not going to be a system with four different 'Hidden' conditions.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> As someone who just acquired 2e Pathfinder and has been trying to learn the system, let me say that I don't think it's likely to seize the throne from 5e anytime soon. Put aside the massive cultural power that Dungeons & Dragons gets from simply being called 'Dungeons & Dragons', although that is a massive part of it. Pathfinder, to me, still feels like it is first and foremost a reaction to complaints about D&D, and thus is unlikely to eclipse it. 
> 
> Also, I think that 5e's simplicity, much of which is actually being doubled down upon by OneD&D, really is that big of a draw in its own right, and not just for catching new players. As a Dungeon Master, 5e's philosophy of "rulings, not rules" makes it an endlessly flexible and easy system in which to create worlds and smoothly run games. Pathfinder lacks that kind of elegant simplicity, and is frankly overdesigned. I had hoped that in the First Edition that was mainly a product of being a 3.5e retroclone, but Second Edition seems to be coming out and saying, "nope, that really is what we want to be." For me, at least, Pathfinder will remain a system that I occasionally return to to run fun encounters and for a change of pace from 5e, but it won't hold my interest long-term. (Ironically, most of the stuff I do like about PF2e is stuff it cribbed from 4th Edition D&D, the very thing that sparked the First Edition's rebellion.)
> 
> In brief, if another game ever does displace the market dominance of 5e, it's not going to be a system with four different 'Hidden' conditions.


I agree with this. PF2e (and Paizo generally) are in love with phantom depth. Complexity for the sake of complexity that doesn't really increase the number of viable options--it just hides them in a morass of things that are (at best) good for someone else or (at worst) just all around bad. Creating a sea of traps. Overdesigned is a good word for it.

So if anyone bottles lightning, it won't be Paizo. Especially since it seems that OneD&D is stealing a lot of their ideas (and half-baking them, as usual for WotC).

----------


## Snowbluff

> I agree with this. PF2e (and Paizo generally) are in love with phantom depth. Complexity for the sake of complexity that doesn't really increase the number of viable options--it just hides them in a morass of things that are (at best) good for someone else or (at worst) just all around bad. Creating a sea of traps. Overdesigned is a good word for it.
> 
> So if anyone bottles lightning, it won't be Paizo. Especially since it seems that OneD&D is stealing a lot of their ideas (and half-baking them, as usual for WotC).


To torture this analogy, PF2 is half baked to begin with. The outside is fire, but the dough on the inside has deflated into goo. It looks big, but it's hollow. ODD's use of some of the same ideas is half baking something that is half baked. A biscuit where the outside is burnt and the inside is still gooey.  :Small Tongue: 

There's probably a separate discussion that could be had on PF2's weirdness. Even as someone loves complex systems like 3.5, it definitely feels like those had a lot grown organically, where as PF2 forced a lot out to pad it at first. It is weird that it makes a lot of similar choices to 4e while also not having the changes in 4e that justified those changes too.

----------


## Psyren

> As someone who just acquired 2e Pathfinder and has been trying to learn the system, let me say that I don't think it's likely to seize the throne from 5e anytime soon. Put aside the massive cultural power that Dungeons & Dragons gets from simply being called 'Dungeons & Dragons', although that is a massive part of it. Pathfinder, to me, still feels like it is first and foremost a reaction to complaints about D&D, and thus is unlikely to eclipse it. 
> 
> Also, I think that 5e's simplicity, much of which is actually being doubled down upon by OneD&D, really is that big of a draw in its own right, and not just for catching new players. As a Dungeon Master, 5e's philosophy of "rulings, not rules" makes it an endlessly flexible and easy system in which to create worlds and smoothly run games. Pathfinder lacks that kind of elegant simplicity, and is frankly overdesigned. I had hoped that in the First Edition that was mainly a product of being a 3.5e retroclone, but Second Edition seems to be coming out and saying, "nope, that really is what we want to be." For me, at least, Pathfinder will remain a system that I occasionally return to to run fun encounters and for a change of pace from 5e, but it won't hold my interest long-term. (Ironically, most of the stuff I do like about PF2e is stuff it cribbed from 4th Edition D&D, the very thing that sparked the First Edition's rebellion.)
> 
> In brief, if another game ever does displace the market dominance of 5e, it's not going to be a system with four different 'Hidden' conditions.





> I agree with this. PF2e (and Paizo generally) are in love with phantom depth. Complexity for the sake of complexity that doesn't really increase the number of viable options--it just hides them in a morass of things that are (at best) good for someone else or (at worst) just all around bad. Creating a sea of traps. Overdesigned is a good word for it.


+2. These are among the main reasons I've bounced off PF2 repeatedly.




> ODD's use of some of the same ideas is half baking something that is half baked.


As someone less versed with PF2, which of its ideas is 1DnD using specifically?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> To torture this analogy, PF2 is half baked to begin with. The outside is fire, but the dough on the inside has deflated into goo. It looks big, but it's hollow. ODD's use of some of the same ideas is half baking something that is half baked. A biscuit where the outside is burnt and the inside is still gooey. 
> 
> There's probably a separate discussion that could be had on PF2's weirdness. Even as someone loves complex systems like 3.5, it definitely feels like those had a lot grown organically, where as PF2 forced a lot out to pad it at first. It is weird that it makes a lot of similar choices to 4e while also not having the changes in 4e that justified those changes too.


There's a design temptation that I've been prey to a lot of times. Basically, it's looking at the surface rather than the core. Designing complexity _for its own sake_ rather than accepting complexity as a necessary consequence sometimes but fighting it other times. Designers copy the surface elements of something that worked (at least in principle), thinking that's the important stuff. But really it's the core that gives life to that surface.

Basically it's cargo cult design. And it's a nasty nasty temptation. Because lots of times we don't understand what the core is. Even the ones who built it.




> As someone less versed with PF2, which of its ideas is 1DnD using specifically?


Off the top of my head, a couple of examples:

1. The idea of consolidated spell lists rather than class-specific ones.
2. Shoving more things that were class features (such as fighting styles) into feats.

----------


## Unoriginal

Given that the devs outright daid they were altering things to "prevent the DM from making mistakes" and the odd over-explaining some of the playtest docs have, I'm fairly certain D&Done will attempt to do away with the "rulings, not rules" philosophy. 

The results of that attempt will likely be a big factor on who will accept D&Done and who won't.

----------


## Snowbluff

> As someone less versed with PF2, which of its ideas is 1DnD using specifically?


In addition to what PhoenixPhyre said (holy crap I forgot how much the spell lists annoy me), Everything is an Action(tm). Making Jumping (PF2 has no way to blend movement, unlike 3.5/PF1/4e) and Knowledge specifically an action is kinda bad and oft-complained about in PF2. It's even worse in ODD since there's no 3 Action System. ODD would be losing the ability to jump like a normal person, but then on top of that doesn't have a way to mitigate the action cost.



> There's a design temptation that I've been prey to a lot of times. Basically, it's looking at the surface rather than the core. Designing complexity _for its own sake_ rather than accepting complexity as a necessary consequence sometimes but fighting it other times. Designers copy the surface elements of something that worked (at least in principle), thinking that's the important stuff. But really it's the core that gives life to that surface.
> 
> Basically it's cargo cult design. And it's a nasty nasty temptation. Because lots of times we don't understand what the core is. Even the ones who built it.


This is a fairly good point. And on the other hand, something only superficially has to accomplish a goal to be marketed on it. Not everyone will have the mindfulness or experience with previous editions to realize when a certain feature is being leveraged properly. 

For example, the 3 Action System. I've heard to argued as a point for PF2 with the same amount of critical thinking as "It goes to 11." Any complaints about how Everything is an Action (tm) are typically handwaved by stating that you can do more per turn because there are 3 actions. However, 5e character can easily do more than 3 PF2 actions worth of stuff in a turn. It a lot of ways, 5e's action system is more complex and nuanced, and takes a lot of lessons and features from previous editions. If there is a benefit to how PF2 handles actions, it's that its hypothetically easier to learn.

----------


## EggKookoo

> 2. Shoving more things that were class features (such as fighting styles) into feats.


An idea that, if properly baked, I would welcome. One issue I have with 5e is that classes feel too predestined for my tastes. I like the focus on role that a class-based system has, but I want to play around inside those roles more than 5e wants me to.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> An idea that, if properly baked, I would welcome. One issue I have with 5e is that classes feel too predestined for my tastes. I like the focus on role that a class-based system has, but I want to play around inside those roles more than 5e wants me to.


I dislike it on principle, at least as the fighting styles are right now--no direct power boost should be hidden inside of optional, _missable_ things. The numbers the class/system expects you to have should be hard-baked into the class. Having it be a choice is fine. But even better--make the fighting styles _actually change how you play_. Instead of being mostly boring, but strong power boosts. Things that encourage different choices, not just "pick a weapon type to be better at."

Things like
* an ability that encourages you to play aggressively and charge into combat.
* an ability that encourages you to avoid focus firing (gives bonuses for attacking non-engaged creatures).
* an ability that encourages you to (and enables you to) protect others.
* Etc.

Things applicable whatever weapon you wield. Things that really are _fighting styles_, not just "extended weapon proficiencies".

----------


## OvisCaedo

I joined in on the PF2 playtest with a few friends briefly way back before it released. I had expected it to be their off-brand 5e, and instead it reminded me way more strongly of 4e. Which was... very confusing. I really don't think it's going to suddenly overtake DnD or anything; it's already out, and 5.5 is barely changing from the current popular thing. (though some of the changes previewed DO strike me as bad ones)

----------


## Psyren

> Off the top of my head, a couple of examples:
> 
> 1. The idea of consolidated spell lists rather than class-specific ones.
> 2. Shoving more things that were class features (such as fighting styles) into feats.


Good point on #1, but I think #2 is a reach. They have a loooooot further to go with the feat thing to get anywhere near PF2. On top of which, fighting styles were made feats in 5e (Fighting Initiate), prior to 1DnD.




> In addition to what PhoenixPhyre said (holy crap I forgot how much the spell lists annoy me), Everything is an Action(tm). Making Jumping (PF2 has no way to blend movement, unlike 3.5/PF1/4e) and Knowledge specifically an action is kinda bad and oft-complained about in PF2. It's even worse in ODD since there's no 3 Action System. ODD would be losing the ability to jump like a normal person, but then on top of that doesn't have a way to mitigate the action cost.


Good point and this is definitely something I oppose too. 3-Action could work if they keep things like Object Interactions out of it, or keep multiple attacks in one Action, but if they're going to keep the Move/Minor/Standard model then Jump cannot be Standard. I'm confident that will be borne out in their next survey results video.

----------


## stoutstien

> Given that the devs outright daid they were altering things to "prevent the DM from making mistakes" and the odd over-explaining some of the playtest docs have, I'm fairly certain D&Done will attempt to do away with the "rulings, not rules" philosophy. 
> 
> The results of that attempt will likely be a big factor on who will accept D&Done and who won't.


Which is a big red flag for me because they have never been good at writing rules that were clear or even logical. The rulings not rules is a soft copout but it works.

----------


## Psyren

I think 5e _could_ stand to codify a _few_ more things, such as how stealth works. I think it can include a bit more guidance on such things without dispensing with  "rulings not rules."

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Good point on #1, but I think #2 is a reach. They have a loooooot further to go with the feat thing to get anywhere near PF2. On top of which, fighting styles were made feats in 5e (Fighting Initiate), prior to 1DnD.


Sure. But it's a step down the path they've been going for a while now. This isn't new to the OneD&D "playtest", this "kife from PF2e" thing has been going for a while. And makes sense (outside of the game context)--professional TTRPG game design is a tiny, very closely-involved community. Everyone steals from everyone. IIRC (and I could be completely wrong about this), but didn't someone at WotC most recently work at Paizo? In a major design capacity? That'd be enough to "cross-pollinate" ideas.




> Which is a big red flag for me because they have never been good at writing rules that were clear or even logical. The rulings not rules is a soft copout but it works.


Agreed. Personally though, I don't see it as a copout, but a recognition of reality. Writing "idiot proof" (or even idiot _resistant_) rules while keeping the system open and flexible is, if not outright impossible, at least very very difficult. Especially for a mass-market game. Something niche like any one of the PbtA games (each of which are individually very constrained in thematic intent and playstyle, even if the whole subgenre isn't) can do more...but D&D, designed to be played by everyone and their kid brother? Not really.

----------


## stoutstien

> Agreed. Personally though, I don't see it as a copout, but a recognition of reality. Writing "idiot proof" (or even idiot _resistant_) rules while keeping the system open and flexible is, if not outright impossible, at least very very difficult. Especially for a mass-market game. Something niche like any one of the PbtA games (each of which are individually very constrained in thematic intent and playstyle, even if the whole subgenre isn't) can do more...but D&D, designed to be played by everyone and their kid brother? Not really.


I only call it a copout because occasionally when they do try to write codified rules and inevitably make a mess of it they just shout out "rulings not rules" and then never go back and address it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I only call it a copout because occasionally when they do try to write codified rules and inevitably make a mess of it they just shout out "rulings not rules" and then never go back and address it.


Ok, that I can agree with. While there are things that could, in a perfect world, be more codified...I don't trust WotC as it is right now to do so. At the point of first publication, WotC themselves seemed to recognize this as well. Now? Not so sure.

----------


## Sigreid

> There have been other games written to address supposed flaws in D&D, and very few of them have been able to mount successful challenges.  PF1 was only able to do so by being a continuation of a beloved property, which WotC dropped to go in a completely different direction.  5.5 looks to be mostly the same as 5.0, with a few balance changes and popular houserules added.  Plus some lore and tone changes that are sparking controversy, but I don't see those triggering a mass migration in the way that a complete game overhaul did.
> 
> Plus, even if 5.5 happened to flub hard enough to trigger a mass exodous, I don't see why PF2 would be where they all went.  It made sense when PF1 was basically 3.75, but there's enough distance between 5e and PF2 that the latter wouldn't be such an obvious fit.


Well, I don't see a need for me to migrate away from 5e.  I just also don't see the need to buy any of the newer content they've been putting out.  Every edition has people who, when the company tries to change things up just goes "Nah, I'm good."  That's where I am.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Well, I don't see a need for me to migrate away from 5e.  I just also don't see the need to buy any of the newer content they've been putting out.  Every edition has people who, when the company tries to change things up just goes "Nah, I'm good."  That's where I am.


Me too. Very much me too.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I think 5e _could_ stand to codify a _few_ more things, such as how stealth works. I think it can include a bit more guidance on such things without dispensing with  "rulings not rules."


Not to derail things, but what's the issue with stealth? I agree that they didn't describe it very well, but once deciphered it's a pretty straightforward mechanism.

Gain obscurement of some kind. This could be from darkness, ducking behind an object, blinding opponents, etc.Take the Hide action and make a stealth check.A creature must make a perception check that beats the result of your stealth roll in order to perceive your location.You can lose stealth other ways as well (attacking, making noise, moving too fast, losing obscurement, etc.).However, you don't automatically lose the benefits of obscurement if you lose stealth so it's still disadvantage to target you, or your obscurement may still provide some degree of cover, etc.

And it's not _too_ clunky given the range of circumstances it has to cover.

----------


## Kane0

> But even better--make the fighting styles _actually change how you play_. Instead of being mostly boring, but strong power boosts. Things that encourage different choices, not just "pick a weapon type to be better at."
> 
> Things like
> * an ability that encourages you to play aggressively and charge into combat.
> * an ability that encourages you to avoid focus firing (gives bonuses for attacking non-engaged creatures).
> * an ability that encourages you to (and enables you to) protect others.
> * Etc.
> 
> Things applicable whatever weapon you wield. Things that really are _fighting styles_, not just "extended weapon proficiencies".


This +10. Blind fighting is a good example, actually informing how you fight rather than what you hold in a fight. By contrast Dueling should be about 1v1 combat, not about holding a one handed weapon. In some ways, the hunter ranger follows this idea better than fighting styles do.

----------


## Psyren

> I only call it a copout because occasionally when they do try to write codified rules and inevitably make a mess of it they just shout out "rulings not rules" and then never go back and address it.


I mean... they are addressing it, by making a new edition. Just because they were reluctant to take a scalpel (or hatchet) to several of the design elements in 5e, doesn't mean they weren't keeping a running tally to revisit later, i.e. now.




> Sure. But it's a step down the path they've been going for a while now. This isn't new to the OneD&D "playtest", this "kife from PF2e" thing has been going for a while. And makes sense (outside of the game context)--professional TTRPG game design is a tiny, very closely-involved community. Everyone steals from everyone. IIRC (and I could be completely wrong about this), but didn't someone at WotC most recently work at Paizo? In a major design capacity? That'd be enough to "cross-pollinate" ideas.


Eh, if the "path" leads to a game people enjoy, they can tapdance down it for all I care. I've acknowledged 2/3 of the things you and Snowbluff brought up as correctly being PF2 items first, but one I find largely inoffensive (spell lists) and the one I hate seems unlikely to stick (Jump action).




> Not to derail things, but what's the issue with stealth? I agree that they didn't describe it very well, but once deciphered it's a pretty straightforward mechanism.
> 
> Gain obscurement of some kind. This could be from darkness, ducking behind an object, blinding opponents, etc.Take the Hide action and make a stealth check.A creature must make a perception check that beats the result of your stealth roll in order to perceive your location.You can lose stealth other ways as well (attacking, making noise, moving too fast, losing obscurement, etc.).However, you don't automatically lose the benefits of obscurement if you lose stealth so it's still disadvantage to target you, or your obscurement may still provide some degree of cover, etc.
> 
> And it's not _too_ clunky given the range of circumstances it has to cover.


Tabletop Builds has an article that lays out all the hidden complexities to 5e stealth: https://tabletopbuilds.com/hiding-surprise-and-more/. It includes things such as how far out of cover you can move before you're perceived, how often you need to roll stealth in a scene, the weird wording of the Invisible condition and more. I don't think any of it is game-ending, but I can understand them wanting to clarify at least some of it in a new edition, which is what they appear to be attempting in the playtest rules glossaries for Hidden and Invisible, so clearly they too see some issues here.




> Well, I don't see a need for me to migrate away from 5e.  I just also don't see the need to buy any of the newer content they've been putting out.  Every edition has people who, when the company tries to change things up just goes "Nah, I'm good."  That's where I am.


And that's completely fine too. I wasn't a 5e convert on launch myself.

----------


## Spriteless

No. Pathfinder has little to no marketing. I have not heard of it outside of D&D comparisons. Haven't seen it sitting on a shelf in Target like D&D, and the video games? Kingmaker was free on Epic awhile ago. People asked how to play this complex game, and were told to look up builds online. It didn't spark interest in the normal game, it just confused people.

Do you know who does have marketing better than letting the Kickstarter/DriveThru/itch.io algorithm throw ye work at their audience? It's a podcast, as easy to share as telling the name, as easy to play as listening, with charismatic performers who mostly don't know the rules of the game. Why should they let Hasbro have a piece of their pie, when they can move to another system they don't really know the rules of?

OSR or Worlds Without Number would be the easiest, but Mercer is an overachiever. I'd like to see him crank out a Something in the Dark setting/system. Get the players involved and improvising flashbacks.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Do you know who does have marketing better than letting the Kickstarter/DriveThru/itch.io algorithm throw ye work at their audience? It's a podcast, as easy to share as telling the name, as easy to play as listening, with charismatic performers who mostly don't know the rules of the game. Why should they let Hasbro have a piece of their pie, when they can move to another system they don't really know the rules of?
> 
> OSR or Worlds Without Number would be the easiest, but Mercer is an overachiever.


Mercer and his cronies would get a pathetic fraction of the money they get from not knowing the D&D rules, if they tried to move to not knowing a less popular system.

Critical Role got several books about their campaign world published and the right to not have all years of content creation nuked by copyright claims (as CR argued when they nuked their own fans' made-for-money works, fan work existing depends on the franchise owner's wishes, and CR is 99.999% D&D fan work and 0.001% Pathfinder fan work), out of the deal. THAT is why they let Hasbro have a piece of the pie. 

In fact I'm rather expecting that Hasbro is going to put them to work promoting D&Done like crazy once the 2024 release is ready. Which is why I'm expecting their third campaign to last until around 2 months before D&Done's launch, then they'll do a short hiatus and start campaign 4 with the new&improved system.

----------


## EggKookoo

> In fact I'm rather expecting that Hasbro is going to put them to work promoting D&Done like crazy once the 2024 release is ready. Which is why I'm expecting their third campaign to last until around 2 months before D&Done's launch, then they'll do a short hiatus and start campaign 4 with the new&improved system.


Tonally, campaign 3 is halfway there already.

----------


## Brookshw

> Well, I don't see a need for me to migrate away from 5e.  I just also don't see the need to buy any of the newer content they've been putting out.  Every edition has people who, when the company tries to change things up just goes "Nah, I'm good."  That's where I am.


I'm with you, these days I'm far more likely to buy Kobold Press content than WoTC, if I'm buying D&D in the first place.

----------


## Particle_Man

I dont see PF2 drinking 5es milkshake.  If anything, PF2 might appeal to the fans of D&D 4th edition more.

----------


## Snowbluff

> Eh, if the "path" leads to a game people enjoy, they can tapdance down it for all I care. I've acknowledged 2/3 of the things you and Snowbluff brought up as correctly being PF2 items first, but one I find largely inoffensive (spell lists) and the one I hate seems unlikely to stick (Jump action).


To be entirely fair, I believe the Cleric ODD UA was released before the prior UA survery was concluded, so the action issues might already be on the chopping the block. The other things aren't nearly as much an issue to me, and ODD has its own share of unique problems for myself and my table.

----------


## Psyren

> To be entirely fair, I believe the Cleric ODD UA was released before the prior UA survery was concluded, so the action issues might already be on the chopping the block. The other things aren't nearly as much an issue to me, and ODD has its own share of unique problems for myself and my table.


Yeah I'm really excited for the next feedback video to see if Jump is sticking around

----------


## Person_Man

Its also likely that 4E dramatically outsold Pathfinder, even at the height of PFs popularity.  But D&D is owned by Hasbro which  only cares about brands that make $100 million+ per year (at least according to ex-employees) whereas PF is owned by an indie company owned by three people where a few million in sales translates into a huge income (for those three people).   

I hope Paizo has a rebound.  But the default tabletop RPG is going to continue to be D&D, unless something crazy bad happens with the movie and Hasbro goes under.  (Which could happen if they financed the movie in an attempt to replicate Marvels success. Though Im assuming they just licensed the rights for a set dollar amount and a cut of any profits).

----------


## Sigreid

> An idea that, if properly baked, I would welcome. One issue I have with 5e is that classes feel too predestined for my tastes. I like the focus on role that a class-based system has, but I want to play around inside those roles more than 5e wants me to.


Classes are kind of a defining feature of D&D.  There are other games that are much better for build a bear characters.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Classes are kind of a defining feature of D&D.  There are other games that are much better for build a bear characters.


Amen to that. I'd rather they double-down on classes--make them all have tight narrative-mechanical coherence...and then make a lot more of them. With the _strong_ expectation that tables are supposed to pick a subset that works for the setting/campaign they're running.

----------


## Anymage

> Its also likely that 4E dramatically outsold Pathfinder, even at the height of PFs popularity.  But D&D is owned by Hasbro which  only cares about brands that make $100 million+ per year (at least according to ex-employees) whereas PF is owned by an indie company owned by three people where a few million in sales translates into a huge income (for those three people).   
> 
> I hope Paizo has a rebound.  But the default tabletop RPG is going to continue to be D&D, unless something crazy bad happens with the movie and Hasbro goes under.  (Which could happen if they financed the movie in an attempt to replicate Marvels success. Though Im assuming they just licensed the rights for a set dollar amount and a cut of any profits).


Your two paragraphs are at odds with each other.  Hasbro as a corporation is unlikely to go under, but if D&D's broader cultural appeal starts to wane a bit I could see it getting some serious scrutiny from people who care more about continued growth than about the RPG hobby overall.  I don't see that happening in the next couple of years or so, but a few years down the line who's to say which direction cultural trends go in.

----------


## Psyren

> Its also likely that 4E dramatically outsold Pathfinder, even at the height of PFs popularity.


I agree with the rest of your post, but at the height of PF's popularity it indeed took 1st place - at least for a short while. ICv2's data is likely the best we're going to be able to get.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Classes are kind of a defining feature of D&D.  There are other games that are much better for build a bear characters.


Earlier editions didn't have the same issue. I don't know about 4th, but 3.5 and prior felt more open with how classes worked.

----------


## Sigreid

> Earlier editions didn't have the same issue. I don't know about 4th, but 3.5 and prior felt more open with how classes worked.


I started with AD&D where there were basically no choices.  3.5 had what I'd call false choices.  It was fairly easy to make a mistake and have a permanently nerfed character.

----------


## Dienekes

> Classes are kind of a defining feature of D&D.  There are other games that are much better for build a bear characters.


I mean, yeah, I do think the strength of classes is creating a coherent structured support for a specific fantasy. But, I do kinda think there are classes that could have used a bit more build decisions beyond picking your subclass at 3. Especially since certain caster classes pick new abilities every level with their spells, and Warlock as their invocations. So the idea of opening up classes a little isn't outside of what WotC has considered appropriate for 5e.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I started with AD&D where there were basically no choices.  3.5 had what I'd call false choices.  It was fairly easy to make a mistake and have a permanently nerfed character.


Yeah. And PF2e has continued that chain of false choices. Sure, you've got choices. But they're basically dictated for the large part by your main character concept. Want to go sword and shield? Here are the 5 fears you need. And you need weapon runes A and B. Anything else? Yeah, that may be good for someone else, but it's a trap for you. All sword and board fighters end up looking and acting very similar. Etc. Tons of options, very few of which actually are useful for any given character. So mostly phantom choices.

I don't mind if classes have things like the hunter ranger choices (pick one of these two, later, pick one of those other two). But "pick N from big list, then later pick M from the same list, etc" is bad design, and tiering it by level creates oddities.

----------


## Schwann145

> Yeah. And PF2e has continued that chain of false choices. Sure, you've got choices. But they're basically dictated for the large part by your main character concept. Want to go sword and shield? Here are the 5 fears you need. And you need weapon runes A and B. Anything else? Yeah, that may be good for someone else, but it's a trap for you. All sword and board fighters end up looking and acting very similar. Etc. Tons of options, very few of which actually are useful for any given character. So mostly phantom choices.
> 
> I don't mind if classes have things like the hunter ranger choices (pick one of these two, later, pick one of those other two). But "pick N from big list, then later pick M from the same list, etc" is bad design, and tiering it by level creates oddities.


If you're in favor of much tighter classes, isn't this what you'd support though? Every "Class X" is very specific about what they do, and therefore all feel pretty much identical to one another.

Besides, the "illusion of choice" exists in most games. 5e is certainly very guilty of it too.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I started with AD&D where there were basically no choices.  3.5 had what I'd call false choices.  It was fairly easy to make a mistake and have a permanently nerfed character.


I decided a long time ago, regardless of the system, that if I'm running the game you can always respec your PC. There's no such thing as permanent, as far as I'm concerned. You're here to enjoy the game.

----------


## stoutstien

> If you're in favor of much tighter classes, isn't this what you'd support though? Every "Class X" is very specific about what they do, and therefore all feel pretty much identical to one another.
> 
> Besides, the "illusion of choice" exists in most games. 5e is certainly very guilty of it too.


Not necessarily. It's a lot easier to introduce 2-3 choices in isolation that are unique and relatively balanced than try to add in the same number of floating options. In other words adding in a new subclass is easier than adding a new feat(if you use them) or spell.

Having clear structure for a class doesn't mean they are stuck in a single pathway. The issues arise when they do something like tie the theme of weapon mastery to damage which its going to turn every option into carbon copies of more numbers with a few obvious standout picks.

----------


## EggKookoo

I mean spellcasters in D&D work in a very a la carte way and no one sees it as an inherent problem. I get that there are issues in 5e with spellcasters, but "I get to choose which spells I know/prepare, sometimes daily" usually isn't on the list.

But I'm not asking for full freeform selection. I played Call of Cthulhu for many years. Your PC in CoC is made up of a universal list of skills, from which you put points into as you see fit. It became clear that of those hundred or so skills, about 10 were functionally required if you wanted to be useful. The rest became ways to make your character distinctive.

What I really want -- and I'm not sure how to pull it off -- is to make PC progression flow out of gameplay. Like a result of choices you make as you play, rather than a roadmap laid out for you when you first make your PC. Right now I see a lot of anticipation, where the player knows Feature X will become available at Level Y. This encourages rushing through leveling. I have a very blurry mental idea of something where you gain class features really at any pace, but the potency of those features increases when you gain levels. Leveling up becomes an increase in power and survivability, but not a key to unlock more toys. I guess I mean leveling should mainly increase your numbers, but getting more interesting things to do should emerge from choices you make with your PC as part of playing the game. I feel like earlier editions did it that way (by which I mean mostly pre-3e, but 3e to some extent as well).

----------


## Anymage

> I mean spellcasters in D&D work in a very a la carte way and no one sees it as an inherent problem. I get that there are issues in 5e with spellcasters, but "I get to choose which spells I know/prepare, sometimes daily" usually isn't on the list.


Back in 3.5, being able to essentially have a complete respec every day was one of the defining features of tier 1.  A la carte spells for fixed list casters are less of an issue, although in practice it does turn into everything insufficiently flexible is a trap.




> What I really want -- and I'm not sure how to pull it off -- is to make PC progression flow out of gameplay. Like a result of choices you make as you play, rather than a roadmap laid out for you when you first make your PC. Right now I see a lot of anticipation, where the player knows Feature X will become available at Level Y. This encourages rushing through leveling. I have a very blurry mental idea of something where you gain class features really at any pace, but the potency of those features increases when you gain levels. Leveling up becomes an increase in power and survivability, but not a key to unlock more toys. I guess I mean leveling should mainly increase your numbers, but getting more interesting things to do should emerge from choices you make with your PC as part of playing the game. I feel like earlier editions did it that way (by which I mean mostly pre-3e, but 3e to some extent as well).


That sounds point buy.  Which is popular in a lot of games specifically because of weaknesses in the idea of class/level, but D&D in the popular consciousness is pretty closely tied to classes and levels.  Trying to remove that would get a lot of people insisting that your new game is no longer D&D.

A system where you get XP for skills by performing skills sounds interesting in theory.  In practice, though, either there'll be a hard cap of how many XP you can get in a session (thus encouraging people to focus on their initial skill paths and avoid doing things that might result in some of those learning points being spend elsewhere), or else there's no cap to how many skills you can get XP for and you'll have people trying their hands at everything in order to have the skill count.  Which since there's a limited amount of table time and trying to justify a skill use takes up some time, will have perverse incentives as far as spotlight goes.

----------


## Ignimortis

> Martials have lots of interesting decisions to make turn-by-turn.


No, not really. If you consider the decisions of "do I shove or attack" to be meaningful because shoving is now an action that is somewhat valuable instead of useless, we have very different definitions of "interesting".



> Casters are not significantly superior to non-casters.


At the cost of being about as interesting as non-casters, which is "not very".



> Spells are not so imbalanced that they can single-handedly end encounters.


Sure.



> All levels of play are supported, all the way through 20.
> Etc.


Also more true, simply because PF2 doubles down on how high-level adventuring is really low-level adventuring with bigger numbers.

All this is countermanded by PF2 being so tightly balanced that no good homebrew will manage to be both interesting and balanced inside the game's bounds, and the enemy numbers being so mathed out that you are forever underdogs unless fighting enemies of CR-1 and below or utilizing super synergetic party setups and tactics to bridge the gap.

So while I think that PF2 might siphon off a portion of D&D 5e's audience, I don't think it will pull another PF1. Which is...arguably good? Though I'd love for someone to put both D&D and PF on guard and thus force them to do better.

----------


## EggKookoo

> That sounds point buy.


I think what I mean when I say earlier editions did it a certain way, I'm mostly thinking about power-through-gear. The fighter got more HP and maybe a better basic AC as he leveled, but it was that magic sword he found at 4th level that allows him to pull off a cleave maneuver and a once-per-day self-heal that feels really cool and has memories attached to it.

I know why gear like this got deprecated. People would show up at conventions with their +17 Eternal Blade of Kill All the Things ("My home town DM gave it to me!") and drama would happen when the con DMs would disallow it. And fans don't seem to like building in level-based per-PC gear limits, although it seems like attunement slots are a step in that direction. So those cool features got baked into the classes themselves.

I agree, though. What I'm looking for might not be D&D, at least in this aspect.

----------


## paladinn

> 5.5 looks to be mostly the same as 5.0, with a few balance changes and popular houserules added.


Sorry I'm late to this thread.  I've been following the "5.5" playtest and I'm curious: what are the "popular houserules" that have been added to 5e for this?  I've seen a number of "streamlining" or "homogenizing" of mechanics and features, but not so much "houserules."

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Gratzi!

----------


## Anymage

> Sorry I'm late to this thread.  I've been following the "5.5" playtest and I'm curious: what are the "popular houserules" that have been added to 5e for this?  I've seen a number of "streamlining" or "homogenizing" of mechanics and features, but not so much "houserules."
> 
> Anyone care to enlighten me?
> 
> Gratzi!


I was mostly thinking of the free first level feat and freeform racial ASIs.  I'll admit I haven't been paying super close attention to the playtests.

----------


## paladinn

From what I've seen of PF2, I don't think there's much chance of this.  PF2 is Paizo's equivalent of 4e.  It might vaguely resemble The Game, but it plays very differently and under the hood it's Very different.

PF1 worked because it was 3.5 with a few tweaks, and WotC had dropped 3.5.  You don't have the scenario now.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> If you're in favor of much tighter classes, isn't this what you'd support though? Every "Class X" is very specific about what they do, and therefore all feel pretty much identical to one another.
> 
> Besides, the "illusion of choice" exists in most games. 5e is certainly very guilty of it too.


False choice is worse than no choice IMO. If they're clear that you make most of your mechanical choices by picking your species, class, and subclass, that's fine in my eyes. The important thing is that all system-expected capabilities (numbers and non-numerical things alike) are decided directly at the class level, not hidden in "missable" options. Leave things like feats for _optional, horizontal_ growth. Fleshing out the parts that don't really impact the system math. What I dislike is the "here are lots of choices...psych. You have to pick XYZ to stay relevant in your chosen role, but we're not going to tell you that. If you don't pick those, you're just gonna suck." 

As for spell-casting being a la carte--I *do* think that's one of the biggest issues with D&D's basic structure. It makes spell-casters hopelessly generic and exacerbates the underlying issues with balancing. I'd much prefer a model where spell lists were much more "personalized" or where you had spell _trees_[1]. Something more like either of

- You picked fire dragon sorcerer. Therefore, your spell list is the union of <universal sorcerer> (a small list of general spells covering the basic utility stuff anyone wants) and <fire dragon> (a deeper, highly thematic list dealing with both fire and dragons). You know all of them and can prepare X per day. But you might only have 30-ish spells on your total list and be able to prepare 10 of those per day. OR something like that.

- You picked fire dragon sorcerer, so you get <make flame> and <be dragon>. As you level, those capabilities grow. You might get the ability to make flame _in an aoe_. Or be dragon for longer. Or grow claws/armor/cause fear. Etc. Just not "you're a fire dragon sorcerer, but you can pick and choose from everything without ever really needing to consider fire _or_ dragons. That's vestigial and doesn't really affect much beyond giving you armor at 1st level and wings later."

[1] both of these require way more effort than I'm willing to put in, so this is a theoretical gripe. But a real annoyance I have.

----------


## Particle_Man

Yeah for thematics on spells it sometimes came down to the player voluntarily restricting themselves.  I once played a cleric/incarnate/sapphire Hierarch that would only use my cleric spells to summon axiomatic critters (dogs or bears).  But that was me choosing to do that.

In early editions, I think some of the it comes out in play stuff came from finding magic items (making your own was almost unheard of).  And 3.5 had a few feats you could only take after a spell was cast on you (different spells for different feats).  Maybe something could be done with something like that.

----------


## EggKookoo

> False choice is worse than no choice IMO. If they're clear that you make most of your mechanical choices by picking your species, class, and subclass, that's fine in my eyes. The important thing is that all system-expected capabilities (numbers and non-numerical things alike) are decided directly at the class level, not hidden in "missable" options. Leave things like feats for _optional, horizontal_ growth. Fleshing out the parts that don't really impact the system math. What I dislike is the "here are lots of choices...psych. You have to pick XYZ to stay relevant in your chosen role, but we're not going to tell you that. If you don't pick those, you're just gonna suck."


I wouldn't be advocating for something that open. More like how warlock invocations work. You get X choices per level as you go (or whatever the cadence is) from a list of class-related features. Each feature has a level prereq. You can swap out features when you take new ones, and you can still take earlier ones you passed by if that's what you're after. You get a small number of choices from your class, and more choices more frequently from perhaps a second list for your subclass. These features would be very thematic and to some degree unique to the class/subclass, although I imagine there might be crossover in some cases.

Players often forget about features. I think this is at least partly because the player doesn't choose that feature but instead just gets it by virtue of the PC's class. It's therefore not interesting enough to remember, despite being occasionally useful. If the player could say something like "Yeah, I keep forgetting I can do this thing. Next time I level I'm going to swap it out for that other thing I've been eyeing" it would increase engagement and retention. Even better if there were occasionally opportunities to increase or modify an existing feature rather than take a new one (maybe that's how something like Extra Attack would work), but I get how that could get complicated.

The point is, each PC feature is something the player specifically chose over another. I don't see this as false choice. Quite the opposite -- I think the current setup is loaded with, if not exactly _false_ choice, a kind of meaningless choice.




> You might get the ability to make flame _in an aoe_.


I agree with this kind of thinking. When they added upcasting as a general thing in 5e, they really should have rethought the spells. Upcasting should increase your flexibility and control with the magic as well as its numerical output (e.g. damage). I know that crowds metamagic but there are ways around that. The sorcerer could have used a little more time in the oven anway.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I wouldn't be advocating for something that open. More like how warlock invocations work. You get X choices per level as you go (or whatever the cadence is) from a list of class-related features. Each feature has a level prereq. You can swap out features when you take new ones, and you can still take earlier ones you passed by if that's what you're after. You get a small number of choices from your class, and more choices more frequently from perhaps a second list for your subclass. These features would be very thematic and to some degree unique to the class/subclass, although I imagine there might be crossover in some cases.
> 
> Players often forget about features. I think this is at least partly because the player doesn't choose that feature but instead just gets it by virtue of the PC's class. It's therefore not interesting enough to remember, despite being occasionally useful. If the player could say something like "Yeah, I keep forgetting I can do this thing. Next time I level I'm going to swap it out for that other thing I've been eyeing" it would increase engagement and retention. Even better if there were occasionally opportunities to increase or modify an existing feature rather than take a new one (maybe that's how something like Extra Attack would work), but I get how that could get complicated.
> 
> The point is, each PC feature is something the player specifically chose over another. I don't see this as false choice. Quite the opposite -- I think the current setup is loaded with, if not exactly _false_ choice, a kind of meaningless choice.


The complexity of such things grows combinatorially (faster than exponentially), but the value only grows linearly. Not a fan. It works for warlocks _because they're small little secondary features_ (for the most part[1]). It also lends itself mostly to just power-gaming--pick the most powerful one at each level, then trade it off when it doesn't scale. Neither of which I'm a fan of. And this is based on experience trying to homebrew lots of more adaptable subsystems.

Especially if those things actually are part of the class's power budget--being able to trade away the numbers and capabilities the system expects for other things makes for traps. And traps are _way_ worse than just an honest lack of options. Anything that the system expects from the class should be baked in and not missable.

[1] IMO, _agonizing blast_ was a mistake. The numbers should have just been baked straight into the class itself.

----------


## EggKookoo

> The complexity of such things grows combinatorially (faster than exponentially), but the value only grows linearly. Not a fan. It works for warlocks _because they're small little secondary features_ (for the most part[1]). It also lends itself mostly to just power-gaming--pick the most powerful one at each level, then trade it off when it doesn't scale. Neither of which I'm a fan of. And this is based on experience trying to homebrew lots of more adaptable subsystems.


Yeah, but I'm really just describing how prepared spellcasters work. Which I understand you don't like, but a lot of people do. My issue with spellcasters in 5e isn't the mechanism of how you pick/prepare spells and all that, but the lack of interesting variety _in_ spells. I love the idea that I can revamp my character's "powers" periodically.




> Especially if those things actually are part of the class's power budget--being able to trade away the numbers and capabilities the system expects for other things makes for traps. And traps are _way_ worse than just an honest lack of options. Anything that the system expects from the class should be baked in and not missable.


Traps, as I understand them, must hold you in place in order to function as traps. If you let the player swap out on some schedule, traps lose their... trappiness. There are bad patterns, for sure, but you're never locked into them. And there's always the potential for bad individual features, but D&D has that now (_witch bolt_, anyone?).

I'm not suggesting D&D would ever do what I'm describing. I mean it might, who can know? But I understand the position that it's "not D&D" to most people.

----------

