So far our group has discovered one thing that is really annoying with 5E that Pathfinder does better. Well several things. THe spell section chapter in 5E blows the big one. I think even 3.5 got this right.
1. In the spell list section in PF gives you a summary of what the spell does.
2. It also tells you what school the spell is in. Useful for things like the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster.
3. In the spell description it tells you what classes have access to the spell including things like domains.
4. Somatic components of spells. You can use your shield hand to cast spells or take a hand off two handed weapons. It is actually hard to cast spells as a cleric or Eldritch Knight and hold a weapon at the same time and there is no quickdraw as such. If you want to cast spells as a EK you have to put your weapon away which is annoying with the Polearm master feat and being able to make attacks of opportunity in general. It is actually quite fiddly to amke it work and as far as I can tell you cannot drop objects as a free action.
And if anyone knows what the 5th level Paladin spell Destructive Smite does please let me know as it is listed in the spell lists but not in the spell descriptions.
Destructive smite is a mistake. It's actually distructive wave (which doesn't appear on any other spell-lists, and is thematically appropriate to the Paladin, and a direct evolution, in fact, of a smite spell from the Alpha document).
As for the spell categories, this doesn't appologize for the poor formatting of spells in the PHB (my one major gripe with the 5e PHB), but this helps immensely with the issue:
http://salty-ridge-7989.herokuapp.com/
It's a great resource for casters and DMs in 5e.
Yes the way they listed spells in 5th is really annoying as I found out while making a couple classed Npc. Really slows down the creation process in the end.
Zardnaar wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I find Pathfinder to be a house-ruled (unsatisfactorily) 3rd Ed, not sure what the hype is about. For some reason Pathfinder and 4th Ed leave a bad taste in my mouth (all the warring, etc).
Wait, so why are we still complaining about this when the chief issue has been remedied with an online (and offline spreadsheet equivalent) searchable, organizable database?
This was a PRESENTATION issue in the PHB, not a fundamental issue with 5e's design.
As for Gishes, Zardnaar, I would suggest checking out Valor Bard, Tempest or War Cleric, Eldritch Knight Fighter, Arcane Trickster Rogue, Pact of Blade Warlock, all Paladins, all Rangers, and even Elemental and Shadow Monks.
Or you can check out some of the great homebrew stuff that's already arisen on the forums! I believe Kalani's sig has a complete list linked.
For DMs, running monsters, the alphabetic action is perfect.
I happen to agree with the OP. There is something wrong with at least the presentation of the game if you need a spreadsheet to sort the spells in the PHB alone, especially when there has been another version of the game that had the spells nicely sorted by class, together with all the other information about that class in a book. Also, the sorting of spells in 3.x or Pathfinder is hardly groundbreaking in that regard and equally off-putting in my opinion.
I also agree with the OP that it is a nuisance that I have to think about questions like #4. My solution (YVMV) is to laugh about "somatic" - or any other components for that matter - and consider this mechanic as useful as my grandfather's used underpants. Oh, and when I DM, I would like to have the spell-information readily available in the monster description and NOT have to look through the PHB to find the specific spell. Too much work. What I do not get is that D&D has done better than this in the past and still here we are. Then again: 5th, the "traditional" version. Pffft.
I'm not converting to Pathfinder.
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
All I have to say about pathfinder is I already bought two versions of 3rd edition, I dont need another one.
Brock_Landers wrote:
I thought sheathing and drawing a weapon was completely free in 5e. I thought you could tuck your weapon away, cast the spell and re-arm on your turn.
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
OP is not wrong, although it's not a "Pathfinder got it right" thing.
Whoever is responsible for spell layout in 5th Edition needs a good whopping. :P
Brock_Landers wrote:
Everyone essentially has QuickDraw now. You can draw or sheath a weapon as a free action as part of your move or your action
Zyph wrote:
The War Caster feat solves the problem of somantic components while holding weapons, but then we get right into a problem they were trying to avoid--it makes the feat non-optional for the build to be functional. Feats should be nice, not required.
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Zardnaar wrote:
Uskglass wrote:
You can carry a bow easily in one hand so without the warcaster feat I would be inclined to use a bow or two handed weapon as it seems easier to cast a spell while not having to put the weapon away.
Snot-Elemental wrote:
viper5 wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
I wonder if this problem is something they could address in an update to the Basic rules, providing more detailed spell lists or lists of spells by school.
It's the kind of thing that would have made an excellent Web Enhancement back in the day.
That said, I imagine DungeonScape will make this handy.
Plus there's all the online stuff peope make to help. Like Ari Marmell spell sorter:
http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/news/august-8-2014-a-special-gift-for-my-fellow-dd-fans/
Zardnaar wrote:
DaleMcCoy wrote:
Reading the casting rules, you only need one hand free in order to cast a spell with somantic components, and if you have an arcane focus, you don't need material components, so in theory you could have a weapon in one hand and an arcane focus in the other and do alright. In theory.
In practice, unelss you have the War Caster feat, the only useful Fighting Style for an Eldritch Knight is Dueling. And the Concentration bonus is pretty much in the "gotta have" range. So the War Caster is still a feat tax. Boo!
viper5 wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I'm not getting this. This is what the basic rules say about M components (p 79):
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Uskglass wrote:
Fundin_Strongarm wrote:
Fundin_Strongarm wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Stray wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
First of all I agree with the OP, the spell list presentation is horrible, which makes it difficult to choose spells because you have to look up each one individually instead of having a short description of what it does, what school it even is (many of them are different from what they used to be, color spray for instance).
On the somatic components, the act of taking a hand off of a weapon and placing it back on the weapon is in no way comparable to drawing and sheathing the weapon, and I find it completely unreasonable for any DM to force this act to require your object interaction for the round. Two handed weapons should not be an issue for this reason. But even if that was how it is intended, it in no way makes the Eldritch Knight unplayable or requiring the warcaster feat. Just take the dueling fighting style and wield a one handed weapon.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Uskglass wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
The games people play are their own preferance and thats that.
Some people prefer Pathfinder, its got a larger fan base and is a larger game at this moment.
Some people prefer D&D, its newer and has some neat things going for it. It could potentially take the crown, though we'll need more time to see if that is the case.
This forumn, entirly expectedly, is a pro-5e forum and I'd expect that. There is nothing wrong with a place being very pro a certain game.
That said, Pathfinder is currently the more popular game and when people who play Pathfinder poke into this area, them finding the game that they think is perfectly good and reasonable being utterly trashed is going to provoke a negative response. Especially considering most of the issues raised in this forum about Pathfinder end up being non-issues for most Pathfinder player's in my experience. You do not need to negativly present Pathfinder to make your point. You can do a good comparison as to what in 5e is better than Pathfinder and that will present your argument in a much more effective manner.
That said, I do think the layout of the 5e spells could have stood to be improved. Even discounting the easily serachable Pathfinder SRD that is on the internet. I can hope the online product has the spells layed out in a better manner, or if they release PDFs or whatnot those come out with more searchable indexes. Part of me enjoys reading through all the spells to find out just which ones I want to take, however I have a suspicion that its going to be a handful of must haves and a few situational spells for pretty much every build. For example, I can't see a Cleric not taking cure wounds in any possible situation just because its entirely too useful. I feel that 2 pages worth of a quick index spelling out in one line per spell NAme, school, quick description (dx heal per spell level), range and the like would have been more useful.
More or less this. Pathfinder does some things better than 5E and 5E does some things better than Pathfinder. Both can be frustrating at times.
Zardnaar wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
To be fair I have yet to find Zardnaar shilling for Pathfinder, can't say I agree with everything he posts but they at least seem to be his sincere and honest opinions on topics relating to the game. It's not unusual to compare something new in light of its predecessors or peers. I can be quite guilty of doing it with 2e.
I do not much care for Pathfinder personally ( I am a 4th, 1st, and 2nd ed fan) but I wouldnt compare the 2 games at this point. Pathfinder has alot more material out. I will say for basic rulebooks, the PHB is a major letdown compared to what Pathfinder gives for the same price. It is an ok product with a huge pricetag. I like the new edition, and thats the problem. I only "like" it. It didnt do anything particularly impressive and seemed a big step backwards(not a detractor necessarily, but I dont want my new edition to feel like 2 or more editions ago either) . Love it or hate it, 4th at least shook things up, and I was expecting similar with 5th. The playtest material made me very excited to see the final product. Right now, I am very underwhelmed. I am hoping the MM and DMG fix that, or a great campaign setting book. I want to love you 5th ed, but so far you are just too dull. I really like you. but not enough for $150 for the 3 core books. I can see it being compared to its nemisis/competition, thats only natural, we all had the 3rd vs 4th wars a while back, so nothing new. The D&D name still carries weight, but this product has a way to go to even be competitive with an established game like Pathfinder. This edition looks like a decent product that if it was priced more reasonably would do really well. I think a prioduct should try to wow its customer, if you are competing for limited gaming dollars, give me a reason to choose you. I cant say anything bad about 5th as a game. but I also cant point to anything in it and say "this is the wow factor that makes it the way to go forward" either.
The_Jester wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Pathfinder does alot of things right. They cater to an extreme builder culture for players that want lots of options for modifying and customizing characters. They balance magic items into the power of characters and have effective wealth by level rules. These reasons are why Pathfinder does well, and why I am not back at D&D, I don't want those things, they are not my playstyle.
I completely agree that Pathfinder spell blocks are much nicer to read. There Pathfinder Society is great, and their adventure paths are great. D&D can learn or relearn these things from Pathfinder.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Folks I didn't mean to imply that I though Pathfinder only has one redeeming trait. I think it has a ton of things it does right along with a few it doesn't. I'd play it before 4e in a heartbeat. I probably prefer my games a little bit more DM empowered and less magic mart but I consider the system a good one.
I was just pointing out that Zard is no Pathfinder apologist. Jester of course did a far far better job of it so I will leave you to ponder what he has written.
Pathfinder is OK, its not brillaint and in some ways I like 3.5 more. It has some pros and cons. All things being relative I liked 3.0 more in 2001 than PF in 2010.
The method to organize spells in the 5E PHB is bad. As to a free hand, somatic components and focus, I would just add a feat or address it through item creation (combined focus/shield/weapon). That way you have a couple avenues since feats are optional.
The_Jester wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I think the worst thing pathfinder done was archetypes and feat bloat. I think the biggest mistake of 3.x was prestige classes. the 5E archetypes are a vast improvement on both, I hope they don't get carried away with them and overdo them in the future.
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
For some reason I get the urge to play Pathfinder tonight and I am not sure why? 
Gizmoduck_5000 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Please remember to keep your comments positive, productive, and on topic. Remember we are trying to create a
mutually beneficial and productive community for everyone to take part in.
At the end of the day we are all in this thing together, and if we don't work together we will never get anywhere!
If you have any questions or would like to read the CoC you can find it here:
http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Remember, Keep it clean, Keep it nice, and of course Keep it fun!
Thank you for your understanding!
Shasarak wrote:
Marandahir wrote:
I totally agree. The PHB is not a functional game manual. Each page should have a footer and a header that helps to clearly identify the page you are on. In addition, the book should contain spell lists sorted by school, class, and level.
Marandahir wrote: