The Gaming Den

Medicine does have actual mechanics. They are not satisfying mechanics, but they do exist. Here's the skill's description from the PHB:

Medicine. A Wisdom (Medicine) check lets you try to stabilize a dying companion or diagnose an illness.

Stabilizing a dying person is a DC 10 check detailed later in the book. Diagnosing an illness is a DC Whater-DM-Wants check and has no mechanics.

People have already acknowledged all of that, they're just using a half pinch of hyperbole because you can use starting equipment to stabilize people without any form of proficiency. It's not literally useless, just practically useless.

CapnTthePirateG wrote: Literally half the classes and the archetype system are adapted from Pathfinder, but that's a whole different rant.

I'm not following this, at all. All of the classes are from earlier D&D. All of them. The archetypes are 2nd edition kits (or 2nd edition magic specialities) with level restrictions for abilities.

There frankly isn't enough word salad and needless verbiage to show much pathfinder influence. Instead it's the minimal incompleteness that characterizes 2nd and 4th edition, where you pretty much have to fill all the holes on your own, rather than just copypasta 3rd wholesale and then add more needless layers on top, which is paizo's signature. If there was PF influence instead of almost no decisions in character creation and level up, you'd be treated to dozens of relatively meaningless decisions with little mechanical benefit, grossly inferior to 'have spells.'

Also I enjoy the little fuckups:

By critical hits only doubling the DICE you roll and not your damage, it removed crit building as a viable choice for non-spellcasters, whilst making critical hits matter more ONLY for spellcasters.

Voss wrote: I'm not following this, at all. All of the classes are from earlier D&D. All of them. The archetypes are 2nd edition kits (or 2nd edition magic specialities) with level restrictions for abilities.

There frankly isn't enough word salad and needless verbiage to show much pathfinder influence. Instead it's the minimal incompleteness that characterizes 2nd and 4th edition, where you pretty much have to fill all the holes on your own, rather than just copypasta 3rd wholesale and then add more needless layers on top, which is paizo's signature. If there was PF influence instead of almost no decisions in character creation and level up, you'd be treated to dozens of relatively meaningless decisions with little mechanical benefit, grossly inferior to 'have spells.'

For some reason I cannot help but see things like the wizard specialization schools, domains, etc as Pathfinder archetypes that made it over to 5e. 2e magic specializations were an extra slot and a save penalty, both the Pathfinder and 5e wizard get various arbitrary bonuses for school specialization (command undead for an easy example). The broad idea of "lets have some archetypes for class features" seems taken from pathfinder in that you have the decisions at every X level and you get the features of that archetype, but you're right that these things could be more easily mapped to 2e kits.

Granted, I never played any 2e and gave up on 4e with the unanimous consent of my group at the time, so I can't make any argument there.

Shrieking Banshee wrote:Also I enjoy the little fuckups:

By critical hits only doubling the DICE you roll and not your damage, it removed crit building as a viable choice for non-spellcasters, whilst making critical hits matter more ONLY for spellcasters.

Our group's assassin seemed to be quite happy with rolling a huge handful of dice every time he critted, which was every time he attacked from stealth during the surprise round, which was every time we could arrange it.

My cleric and the group's wizard had a couple of cantrips that required attack rolls and could potentially crit, but potentially doing 6d8 damage with Searing Light (or whatever it was) at 9th level is pretty lame compared to routinely doing 10d6 + bonuses. Chasing after crits as a spellcaster seems lame compared to finding ways to improve your save or suck/save or die spells which you cast more often.

mlangsdorf wrote:

Shrieking Banshee wrote:Also I enjoy the little fuckups:

By critical hits only doubling the DICE you roll and not your damage, it removed crit building as a viable choice for non-spellcasters, whilst making critical hits matter more ONLY for spellcasters.

Our group's assassin seemed to be quite happy with rolling a huge handful of dice every time he critted, which was every time he attacked from stealth during the surprise round, which was every time we could arrange it.

My cleric and the group's wizard had a couple of cantrips that required attack rolls and could potentially crit, but potentially doing 6d8 damage with Searing Light (or whatever it was) at 9th level is pretty lame compared to routinely doing 10d6 + bonuses. Chasing after crits as a spellcaster seems lame compared to finding ways to improve your save or suck/save or die spells which you cast more often.

It is. The only spells that scale in a semi-sane (if slow) fashion are cantrips. Damage spells usually get worse as they go up in level and/or if you cast with a higher slot.

Oh for sure, I just mean that its such a stupid change for no reason.

CapnTthePirateG wrote: For some reason I cannot help but see things like the wizard specialization schools, domains, etc as Pathfinder archetypes that made it over to 5e. 2e magic specializations were an extra slot and a save penalty, both the Pathfinder and 5e wizard get various arbitrary bonuses for school specialization (command undead for an easy example).

As mentioned, kits have been around for a long time, and people have been dissatisfied with "Specialise, cut two schools of magic out, and get an extra spell slot per level" for so long that I believe there's a house rule to expand on it in the Magna Carta. A lot of these are based on older ideas, though often it was left up to expansions like Unearthed Arcana/Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved/Complete ___.

That said, I would totally expect them to, staggering out of the house fire that is 4E, look at Pathfinder to scrounge up some ideas. So I can imagine a scenario where the designers actually got the inspiration from Pathfinder despite the ideas predating PF.

While the backgrounds in 5e are suspiciously similar to the Backgrounds K & I wrote in Tome (what with them providing you 2 skills), I'm pretty sure they are originally inspired by Pathfinder. The various paths are clearly derived from 2nd edition AD&D kits, but pushed back to 2nd level as a concession to people complaining that character generation is too much work.

That being said, most of the class paths in 5th edition are just made out of the regular stuff classes gave out to everyone in 3rd edition. For Druids, for example, you have to "choose" Circle of the Land to get Woodland Stride and Resist Nature's Lure. That indicates to me that the writing was simply extremely half assed. That in order to make sure all these paths were "filled" they just dumped in whatever class features they had lying around for the normal class from the notes they had on the desk.

Now this does mean that any late-cycle path additions end up working a whole lot like Pathfinder archetypes with alternate class features, but that looks like convergeance to me. Once you've assigned normal Rogue features to the normal Rogue path (or whatever), then any new paths you write up are by definition going to trade out all the normal leveling shit for new shit. But honestly, the extent of these tradeouts are more extensive than Pathfinder Archetypes or even AD&D kits. And that's because of the assumption of inheritance. With Archetypes or Kits, the assumption is that you get everything from the base class unless otherwise stated, while the paths in 5e assume you lose everything in the default path unless it is restated. So in Pathfinder, the Kraken Caller archetype specifically mentions that you lose Woodland Stride, but any archetype that doesn't mention the ability would have it carry over. In 5th edition the base path includes Woodland Stride so if anyone ever bothered to write any new paths they'd all default to losing Woodland Stride. In that sense, it's more like Prestige Classes from 3e or Paragon Paths from 4e. The connection to Kits is obvious from what the options are, but mechanically it's baically a half-assed retread of 4th edition Paragon Paths.

Ideals and Bonds are more similar to 13th Age than anything in Pathfinder. Considering that Mearls was working in the same office as Tweet and Heinsoo when they were putting those proposals together, he probably just repurposed their early drafts like he did with Book of Nine Swords.

TL;DR: 5e mostly takes from Pathfinder the idea that there should be a lot of fiddly choices. The actual mechanics behind those choices are cribbed from a variety of sources, but are mostly from the work of people that Mike Mearls personally used to share an office with at some point.

-Username17

5e doesn't allow for many character decisions though, especially when compared to the constant dumpster diving that characterizes pathfinder.

You choose race and class, at 1st, specialization and 2nd or 3rd, then feat or ability score increase at 4 or 5 points across 20 levels. There are a couple of exceptions (warlock being the most significant), but really you're only allowed about 8 'significant' choices over the entire lifespan of the character. Which is part of the reason they feel pretty hollow and lifeless- the game seriously does not want inputs from the players. Just take your +5 starting bonus and apply it mechanicanically to monsters while it gradually improves in a fairly set fashion and the monsters don't.

Voss wrote:5e doesn't allow for many character decisions though, especially when compared to the constant dumpster diving that characterizes pathfinder.

You choose race and class, at 1st, specialization and 2nd or 3rd, then feat or ability score increase at 4 or 5 points across 20 levels. There are a couple of exceptions (warlock being the most significant), but really you're only allowed about 8 'significant' choices over the entire lifespan of the character. Which is part of the reason they feel pretty hollow and lifeless- the game seriously does not want inputs from the players. Just take your +5 starting bonus and apply it mechanicanically to monsters while it gradually improves in a fairly set fashion and the monsters don't.

From the standpoint of someone mechanics oriented players, there really aren't a lot of choices to make at 1st level or any level. But if you are a ROLEplayer, there are lots of choices to make. Flaws, Ideals, and Bonds don't make much practical mechanical difference, but there are a lot of choices involved.

You make a Ranger and you decide to be a Hermit. Well, for some reason that requires you to be a religious nut (because almost all the backgrounds are heavily tied to specific class concepts and the Hermit is the "Cleric Background" just as the Criminal is the "Rogue Background"), and you have to choose some reason to have gone into religious seclusion. Then the Hermit background gives you a discovery of some kind that you have to pick. Then you pick your Personality Traits. Then you pick your Ideal. Then you pick your Bond. Then you pick your Flaw. And none of those are short choices like "Do you want to add +2 to Constitution or Dexterity?" or something. You're choosing shit like "My isolation gives me great insight into a great evil that only I can destroy" vs "I’m still seeking the enlightenment I pursued in my
seclusion, and it still eludes me" and aside from the fact that you can tell it's well written and competently edited because it constantly repeats adverbs rather than look at a fucking thesaurus for twenty seconds, these choices aren't brief to even describe.

Now when you get down to brass tacks and say "Fuck all that, what choices actually affect my ability to track and slay Manticores?" then most of that evaporates. But without the system mastery to go into the machinery and realize that almost all of that is empty ritual rather than consequential choices, you're basically presented with a list of choices every bit as long when making a 5e character as you are making a Pathfinder character. And I do think that's deliberate. Mike Mearls said "Gosh, in Pathfinder you have half a dozen extra choices to make, I need to add six more choices to chargen for my edition." Those choices are pretty much meaningless, but they are very definitely there.

-Username17

Except most of those are presented as random rolls, not choices, even if they have any effect on roleplaying. But I've yet to meet people who choose a background rather than choose the skills they want and end up with a 'background.' And then write their own real background for roleplaying purposes, same as they always have.

Well, except for weekly 'Encounters' bullshit.

Voss wrote:Except most of those are presented as random rolls, not choices, even if they have any effect on roleplaying. But I've yet to meet people who choose a background rather than choose the skills they want and end up with a 'background.' And then write their own real background for roleplaying purposes, same as they always have.

If you acknowledge that people select the background that fits their character concept and gives them the skills/equipment that they want, your claim that people will take the "roll" part of the "roll or choose" bit for their personality traits, flaws, ideals, and bonds is a a pretty weak claim. People only ever roll on "roll or choose" tables if they are playing one-shots (for this purpose, table top wargames where choosing on the "roll or choose" tables is universally acknowledged to be unbalanced are considered "one shots").

But there is exactly the issue. It's not that Background is a particularly meaningful choice. In fact, it's a largely forced choice because most of the backgrounds are "you are a member of X class" which is a surprisingly strong choice for people who actually are members of the specified class. It's that after you have done that you are then subjected to a bunch of other choices. And those choices don't matter very much, but they are also organized in a really awful way where finding out what your choices even are involves a shit tonne of page flipping and no index support.

Yes, it doesn't actually matter what you choose as your ideal or your bond. But it's supposed to. And deciding those things is neither easy nor fast.

-Username17

But since it doesn't matter, it _is_ easy and fast. The shit in the tables are garbage, so picking one each at random takes all of 30 seconds. If you can admit it doesn't matter I have no idea at all why you'd spend actual time on it.

Picking skills has shit all to do with class- it is explicitly better not to match up things like Cleric-Acolyte or Fighter-Soldier, and instead take things you can't get in your class skills like Perception or lock picks, so Sailor and Urchin are pretty much on the short list and fuck everything else (maybe also Outlander if your DM thinks Survival might do things).

Voss wrote:But since it doesn't matter, it _is_ easy and fast. The shit in the tables are garbage, so picking one each at random takes all of 30 seconds. If you can admit it doesn't matter I have no idea at all why you'd spend actual time on it.

Picking skills has shit all to do with class- it is explicitly better not to match up things like Cleric-Acolyte or Fighter-Soldier, and instead take things you can't get in your class skills like Perception or lock picks, so Sailor and Urchin are pretty much on the short list and fuck everything else (maybe also Outlander if your DM thinks Survival might do things).

Why do you care about skills? I mean you can grab the maybe 3 that have rules, maybe go for the social skills if you know about the secret DCs in the DMG, but most of skills are arbitrary and you're better off grabbing the broadest tool possible (sonic screwdriver) and sonically screwdrivering your way through the adventurer.

I legitimately don't see why people think getting more skills is an advantage in this edition, except for it being slightly easier to bullshit stuff.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:I legitimately don't see why people think getting more skills is an advantage in this edition, except for it being slightly easier to bullshit stuff.

Because a lot of gaming tables spend a lot of time bullshitting their way through skill checks. D&D basically has three mechanisms to overcome any and all obstacles: bash it in the face, cast a spell, or use a skill/tool. There are a wide variety of problems not amenable to face-bashing and at least for the early levels spellcasting is limited in the types of problems it can solve and the frequency with which it can solve them. So that leaves skills.

Plenty of tables spend upwards of 50% of their play time not in combat and doing skill related stuff. Having more skills means more people can participate in more of that stuff.

Now, D&D is a bad system for this kind of thing and pretty much always has been, but people persist in trying to run socially oriented or intrigue-based or all kinds of non-murderhobo approaches using D&D and the skills system is an important gloss to allow groups to convince themselves that they aren't just MTPing their way through all those interactions even though they pretty much are.

Game rules that are conducive to bullshit are actually valued by a lot of players and GMs for reasons that are entirely different than rules that are conducive to rigor. Pretty much the entire oWoD was built that way after all.

The only way Ive seen skills matter is that the DM asks if you are trained (that is not a concept that exists in 5e) and that lets you do stuff without a roll and vice versa.

Especially at low levels the difference in having proficiency or not does not matter mechanically at all. I especially like seeing the DMs face when he asks for a roll and the proficient characters fail but nonproficient succeed.

Ghremdal wrote:The only way Ive seen skills matter is that the DM asks if you are trained (that is not a concept that exists in 5e) and that lets you do stuff without a roll and vice versa.

Especially at low levels the difference in having proficiency or not does not matter mechanically at all. I especially like seeing the DMs face when he asks for a roll and the proficient characters fail but nonproficient succeed.

Any DM who gets "surprised" that the level 1 Wizard made a spot check that the level 1 Ranger failed to make. Doesn't understand how their own game works; and will be unable to gauge the actual difficulty that the PCs are at in any encounter.

The RNG becomes more "character" stereotypical for their roles, as the characters fulfill more & more of their stereotypes.

The whole 5e thing gives me greater appreciation for the work that went into 3E. Despite all its screw ups, 3E's was an ambitious attempt to make a comprehensive RPG engine for running fantasy games. And it was a fun game that really sucked in a lot of people. Whereas 5e seems like they didn't even try. They just had a public playtest to justify the shittiness of their their shitty half-assed system where important things are completely left out or done really badly. 5e is the worst RPG of all time.

infected slut princess wrote:The whole 5e thing gives me greater appreciation for the work that went into 3E. Despite all its screw ups, 3E's was an ambitious attempt to make a comprehensive RPG engine for running fantasy games. And it was a fun game that really sucked in a lot of people. Whereas 5e seems like they didn't even try. They just had a public playtest to justify the shittiness of their their shitty half-assed system where important things are completely left out or done really badly.

Very true, but...

5e is the worst RPG of all time.

this isn't remotely so. And no, I don't mean RaHoWa, the competition for last place is actually really stiff. It might be the most disappointing one, though.

Plus as we all know there is plenty of time to make a even worse game to hold the D&D title.

5e isn't even the worst edition of D&D. It's better than 4e and giving 2e some pretty fierce competition.

What's wrong with 4e?

What, seriously?