Should I run it with PF or 5e?

[WalkingTheShade]

OBLIGATORY PRELIMINARY WARNING: Not trying to start an edition war here. Please stay on the topic. I don't care which edition is subjectively anybody's favorite or "objectively" better. I only care about what fits my current needs.


Hi everyone,

I'm thinking of starting a live game, with a homemade story and setting. Sandbox and exploration in a fantasy world. The setting will be at somewhat of dark ages technologically; no big cities, no wizards, few clerics; bronze age level tech, with some iron and magic items scavenged from previous civilizations.

Characters will start at level 1.

I'm hesitating about what system to use.

I have a strong experience of 3.5, as do all of my players. I have some experience of Pathfinder, but none of my players have any. None of us has any experience of 5e.

What I know is I want out of 3.5.

I have skimmed over the OGL 5e rules and here's how I see it.

Pathfinder
Lots of stuff available for free online. It'll be easier for players who can't pay for books to make their characters outside a gaming session, without having their choices too restricted.
Seemingly easiest to migrate to from 3.5. Seemingly, because I know I'll have to triple check stuff time and again because of details not being exactly the same. However, players will probably be more comfortable with it, as base classes are mostly the same as in 3.5.
Campaign traits are a good incentive for players to think up a background that organically fits the campaign. Since the fluff's homemade, I'll be able to both provide and tailor them to specific player wants if needed.
5e
Overall simpler system. May make migration easier. However, my group is used to 3.5 tactical play (lots of action readying, positioning, AoO, maneuvers, group combos, etc.) and 5e seems to drastically tone down that aspect.
It seems Backgrounds can replace PF traits (see above).
Since I'll restrict access to caster classes at the beginning of the campaign, we'll have some more time to learn the magic system rules.
It's the future!
Gotta get books to get content.
I'm mostly interested in opinions from people having some experience of both systems, either as a player or a DM.

What interests me most regarding player experience is how difference in mechanics did (or did not) engender a difference in how the game is approached. Are there actions you'd try in one system or not the other? Did you feel that one system limited your possibilities more than the other?

Regarding DM experience, I'm mostly curious as which system did imply more homework. Do you feel it's easier to balance encounters in one rather than the other? Why? Did one system make planning and/or improvising easier?

Also, since I haven't read all 5e rules, nor play-tested it yet, I'm wondering about a few more specific things:
In 5e, what does the power level feel like as characters progress? I liked the fact 3.X characters start as barely stronger than an orc and that things stay gritty and dangerous all the way up to level 6. (That's why I never moved to 4e where, I've heard, characters soon take on hordes of mooks.)
In 5e, how easy is it easy to customize monsters? Let's say I want to make a goblin sergeant with a few barbarian levels riding a zombie worg. Is it as straightforward as in 3.X, or do I need to figure the math on my own?
In 5e, are there any wilderness exploration rules published?
EDIT: A few interesting links
Stackexchange 1 (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53766/differences-between-5th-edition-dd-and-pathfinder)
Stackexchange 2 (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/29367/how-has-dd-changed-over-time-in-its-guidance-to-dms-as-to-when-to-extrapolate-f/29371#29371)
Lifehacker (http://lifehacker.com/tabletop-rpg-showdown-dungeons-dragons-5e-vs-pathfi-1785545326) (I didn't expect to find an RPG related article on lifehacker, but what do I know?)

[CharonsHelper]

If there is zero magic - why use either system? I'd think that a non-D&D RPG system would be a better option as both Pathfinder & 5e are pretty heavily invested in having lots of magic to work properly. Pathfinder explicitly has the WBL like 3.5 did (without it character defenses will SUCK) and while 5e officially doesn't, it still starts to assume a certain level of magic stuff going on.

I will say that Pathfinder is a very small jump from 3.5. It's about the same # of changes as from 3.0 to 3.5 for core rules, though with a few changes of design philosophy make the extra rules more noticeably different. (archetypes out the wazoo, multiclassing is usually sub-par as classes are less front-loaded, prestige classes are meh etc.)

[khadgar567]

my gut says 5e due edition basicly your setting right know

[Kurald Galain]

I'm thinking of starting a live game, with a homemade story and setting. Sandbox and exploration in a fantasy world. The setting will be at somewhat of dark ages technologically; no big cities, no wizards, few clerics; bronze age level tech, with some iron and magic items scavenged from previous civilizations.

Ok, this ties in to an important design difference between PF and 5E, namely the skill system. The fact that you mention sandbox and exploration suggests to me that it is important to you how the skill system works.

The skill system in PF is specialist. Characters are clearly good at skills they've trained in, and bad at skills they haven't. Trained characters can routinely perform tasks that ordinary characters struggle with. It is good to have a diverse party, since other PCs are trained in different things, and the country needs adventurers because they markedly possess skill levels that the average people don't.

The skill system in 5E is generalist. Characters are more-or-less equally skilled at every skill, and the deciding factor is more the roll of the die than how much training the character had. On the one hand, everybody can contribute more-or-less equally to any skill-based situation. On the other hand, untrained characters frequently beat trained characters at opposed skills, and almost all checks can also be made by a group of commoners. I'm sure someone will now bring up an 20th-level rogue as the counterexample, but during most of your campaign the PCs won't be 20th-ish level rogues.
So the question is simply, do you like bounded accuracy or not. There are good arguments either way, so if you like BA you should try 5E and if you dislike BA you should go with Pathfinder.

[ComaVision]

Based on the fact that you said you want to get away from 3.5 D&D, you should go with 5. Pathfinder is really not getting away from 3.5 D&D lol

[Knaight]

I'd agree with Kurald Galain that the skill system has an impact here, but it's not the only thing that does. A few major things:

Prep Work: Sandboxes are often pretty prep heavy, and the difference in mechanical prep time between 5e and PF will be more prominent than in other types of games. Advantage: 5e
Character Power: You described liking how in 3.x characters start out roughly comparable to orcs, and how you disliked characters routinely handling hordes. 5e has a substantially flatter power curve then PF*. Advantage: 5e
Mechanical Background Incentives: PF has traits, but 5e has the Ideal-Bond-Flaw system, plus backgrounds. While I'd give 5e the advantage here it's pretty marginal - this sort of stuff is easy to import, and other games** do it better.
You want out of 3.5. PF is a change, but it's pretty minor. 5e is a bit more dramatic. Advantage: 5e
Wilderness Exploration Rules: 5e is pretty minimal here, and while PF isn't great it does have more. Advantage: PF
Monster Customization: 5e is a bit less systematized here - whether that makes it better or worse depends on personal preference. Advantage: ???


Between the two systems, I'd consider 5e a better fit for you, particularly because you're actively looking for a flatter power curve and want out of 3.5. Plus, if you're willing to buy a new system anyways there's lots of non D&D options that are much cheaper than D&D, as the format of having three core books is pretty D&D specific. I suspect you'd like Savage Worlds - lighter, still heavily tactics focused, no need for magic, handles large groups well, and the softcover version of Savage Worlds Deluxe is $10, and if you like it you can get the Fantasy Companion for another $20 (although you really don't need to). I suspect you'd like REIGN, both because REIGN is an excellent game and because it handles organizational conflict really well and is practically built for characters who eventually end up in a position of authority in an organization, which fits a lot of sandboxes and the bronze age aesthetic. I wouldn't call Savage Worlds gritty, but I wouldn't call low level 3.x gritty either and both of these stay dangerous regardless of how tough characters get.


*It's still D&D, and it still has a pretty dramatic power curve compared to almost every other system, but it's toned down significantly.
**Take a look at the Beliefs-Instincts-Trait system from Burning Wheel, which is in the free .pdf that covers the basic system without getting into the subsystems.

[Joe the Rat]

If you want "out" of 3.5, Pathfinder isn't going to help much, being about 80% 3.5. Unless there was something really specific you were trying to get away from (Like Incarnum or Dragon Shamans), PF will put you right back where you started. You will get a somewhat cleaned up system, with a ton of new and "wotc serial numbers filed off" options.

The strengths:

Familiarity: Class skills, Racial preferences, and CMB are the big changes. CMB is awesome.
Detailed movement and control
"verisimilitude" - small things are harder to hit, hit less hard, but are easier to hold on to, lots of +/- factors
Combat reflexes (multiple AoO)
With a low magic start, caster/martial disparity will be diminished-to-irrelevant.
Specialization: Your experts are seriously expert.



Weaknesses:

Whatever it was you don't like about 3.5 mechanically
Stick-and-play (full attacks and five foot steps)
Build dependence - you have a very specific set of feats and features you need to pull off specific tactics well
WBL requirement - a certain amount of magic is expected by the rules.
Long downtime: No magic = natural recovery rules



5e is going to be a mix of dumbing down and opening up. There is an assumption of competence - your characters are capable, and improve in their areas of focus, not work to keep up on the difficulty treadmill and become a useless boob otherwise. At the same time, the lower limits on bonuses (this is where you stat hearing "bounded accuracy") puts the space between the unskilled and the proficient within reach of a d20 roll. A lot of the "build foundation" combat tricks (spring attack, weapon finesse, grabbing / tripping someone, actually hitting anything with two weapons) are standard options. "Non-proficiency" generally means you aren't as good at something, not that you can't do it, with one special case: Spellcasting in armor (if you are proficient in the armor, you can cast in it).

Strengths:

High floor, low ceiling: You have to work pretty hard to not have a playable character. "Optimized" and "pretty decent" represents at most a 2-point difference on builds
Dumpable: Dex-based characters can dump strength (finesse and missile weapons get Dex to hit and damage), heavy armor tanks can dump dex (a dex penalty doesn't hurt Heavy Armor AC), anyone not a Wizard can dump Int (your number of proficiencies aren't affected by attributes).
Maneuverable: movement isn't limited by attacking - you can move before, after, and between attacks freely.
Low-magic friendly health: The Short Rest* lets you spend Hit Die to recover HP, Long Rests* give you all your HP, and half your spent HD back. There are also feats that can provide healing (Healer) or mitigate damage (Inspiring Leader can grant temp HP).
Happier Rogues: Sneak attack has fewer setup requirements, one of the best being that you can get sneak attack if you have an "ally" within 5 feet of your target (not flanking - you can literally stand next to your fighter buddy, or be on the other side of the battlefield with a bow, and still get it). You can sneak attack undead and constructs without feats or alt features.



Weaknesses:

Fewer character options: 13 classes (+2 1/2 with Unearthed Arcana) with multiple archetypes (at least 2 in base rules; supplements and UA adds more) is still a lot less than what PF can bring to bear, especially with prestige classes. Only a dozenish races (more counting the subraces). Most of your starting choices are in-class; feats are fewer, but have a bigger punch (taking the place of some chains)
Less fiddly means less bits: there are a lot fewer stackable bonuses. Most of your combat will focus on cover (a flat AC adjustment), and trying to create or negate Advantage or Disadvantage. Once you've got it, more doesn't help. At default flanking does not provide a bonus (and the suggested optional rule makes the side with the most people the winner), a single reaction and looser movement rules makes lockdown harder, charging doesn't do anything; One AC type.
Simpler weapons and armor: Since criticals are only on a Natural 20** (no confirm to crit rolls), having 5 different one-handed swords (this one has a wider range, that one has a larger multiplier, the other one has both, with a smaller die, and the one over there is blue) isn't necessary when one longsword covers it well enough. No compound bows (but you add dex to damage, or throw using strength to hit). Also, no spiked chain. Armor has three types, the more expensive ones are better, and they only slow you down if it's chain mail+ and you're a weakling. One shield.


Good or Bad (tastes vary):

No such thing as untouchable: With bounded accuracy, your party won't get to the point where an army of orcs is never a threat. Your chances of winning can increase to "all but guaranteed," but they still have a chance of hitting you.
Proficiency: All or none. You either are proficient (a +2-+6 bonus that incraeses with level), or not. It's your attributes which give you the "dabbler" bonus. Bards and Champion Fighters bend this.
Rogues are awesome wrestlers: Skill monkeys (Rogues and Bards) get Expertise - double proficiency bonuses in a few skills. While a rogue probably has lower strength compared to a fighter, expertise in athletics may make the scrawny guy much better at grabbing and pushing people around.
Multiclassing: Attribute requirements. If you want to multiclass, you need at least a 13 in the primary stat(s) of the class you are in, and you are adding. Also, feat/ability increase is tied to class levels, not character levels.
Infinite firebolts. Caster cantrips are at-will.



* - Short rest is about an hour, long rest is 8 hours by default; there are variants that can shorten or extend that time to suit your group's tastes.
** - The champion fighter gets an extended critical range.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Pathfinder is functionally identical to 3.5. It's impossible to distinguish the two without special training. If you already have 3.5 material, there's no reason to switch to PF unless you're specifically looking to keep playing the same game with a lot of minor mechanical changes (and new feats/classes/etc, all of which can be back-ported with about 30 seconds of thought)

5th Edition feels similar in terms of game flow, but everything has been simplified and power levels significantly cut back. As Joe the Rat noted, a lot of things that 3.5/PF made you suffer through feat chains to unlock are part of the default rules; classes and feats tend to offer actual new abilities, thankfully. I find the classes to be generally well-designed and fun to play, though the scarcity of both published options and build choices makes the character creation game much less fun. A useful side note is that magic stat-boosting items aren't assumed in the math, meaning My biggest gripe is that the Proficiency system isn't generous enough-- as others have said, being trained in a thing is only a marginal advantage over not being trained in it, and pretty much never better than just having a good ability modifier.

I ran 5e for a while, and I had one major complaint that hasn't been touched on yet: the monsters. 5e edition monsters are, on the whole, friggin terrible. They're almost never more than sacks of hit points with basic melee attacks. The writers rarely bothered to include so much as skill proficiencies, much less special abilities that make them interesting to fight. I found I had to put a lot more work into modifying monsters and planning terrain than 3.5 made me do.

[Calthropstu]

Just a stickler here: in PF you can also sneak attack undead and constructs without a feat.

One of the bigger but unnotticed changes PF made (I STILL have to correct some GMs on this point) was what is immune to sneak attack. VERY few creatures, most notably elementals, are immune to sneak attack in PF. Elemental and incorporeal are the only types that grant sneak attack immunity. Otherwise it needs a specific entry declaring it.

[CharonsHelper]

Elemental and incorporeal are the only types that grant sneak attack immunity.

And oozes.

[Slipperychicken]

Go for 5e and don't look back. My group played both PF and 5e for years each, and it's not even close. 5e was actually playtested as an improvement from the 3.x era, and it shows: it's far easier to learn and use, has better balance, and is in every way more sensibly designed. Switching to 5e gave me my time back, since I no longer had to spend every free moment obsessing over which poorly-written rule to cram into my character build.



Also, since I haven't read all 5e rules, nor play-tested it yet, I'm wondering about a few more specific things:
In 5e, what does the power level feel like as characters progress? I liked the fact 3.X characters start as barely stronger than an orc and that things stay gritty and dangerous all the way up to level 6. (That's why I never moved to 4e where, I've heard, characters soon take on hordes of mooks.)
In 5e, how easy is it easy to customize monsters? Let's say I want to make a goblin sergeant with a few barbarian levels riding a zombie worg. Is it as straightforward as in 3.X, or do I need to figure the math on my own?
In 5e, are there any wilderness exploration rules published?

1. The power level feels like that 3.PF.X.etc was supposed to be. You're never truly invulnerable, so increasingly large groups of little guys can bring down mid-level parties eventually. You don't stack as many buffs, or get free +1s for breathing; the few bonuses you do get are meaningful and relatively easy to track.
2. You just add numbers or give monsters the abilities you want them to have. It's a far more straightforward and simple approach. If you care about CR, check the end result against the guidelines. Or look up the CR you want and assign values that add up to the CR.
3. It depends on what you mean. Are you just looking for overland travel rates, or full encounter rates for every kind of terrain? Either way I suggest cribbing wilderness exploration rules from an OSR game.

[daemonaetea]

To respond a bit more specifically with your question on monster customization:

3.5 and PF uses the same system to generate monsters as it does to generate player characters. Thus making a barbarian orc or gnoll is as simple as layering as many levels of you want of the appropriate class on top of the monster.

5E does not work that way. The monsters work from the same rule set - they utilize a lot of the same systems and language as a PC - but they are not built the same way. For instance, a PC will generally not get access to two attacks until 5th level, outside two weapon fighting, but a CR 1/2 thug may have two attacks.

As such, customizing monsters in 5E is more of an art than a science. To make an orc captain who is a barbarian, I would not add X levels of barbarian to the creature, but instead choose which features of a barbarian I wish it to have, add those to the base creature, and bump up some of it's stats and HP. The DMG has guidelines for this, if you want to try to determine the CR of the custom creature.

Another note on monsters - in my experience, the monsters are not capable of standing up to a DPS focused party, and any battle or plot that relies upon a single boss creature is going to go very badly. A party can easily deal 100+ damage per round, and with few monsters rising over even 200 HP that means your boss creature is going to be gone very quickly. This seems to be a design choice, and the system really wants you to have group focused battles rather than a single powerful foe. In fact, there are very few higher CR monsters, and at higher levels you'll need to pay a lot more attention to battle composition, terrain, and other factors to actually present your party with any challenge - even if you do customize to make more powerful villains.

[theasl]

As a player, I feel that 5e is a lot simpler than PF but has less options in just about every aspect, from character creation/advancement to what you can mechanically do in-game, and especially if you're not willing to pay a lot. (Though PDFs for 5e can be found online for free if you look hard enough and don't care about the morals, like me.) The players will definitely be more comfortable with PF, since as mentioned before it's basically the same as 3.5e, but streamlined a bit. That said, many of the basics are also the same in 5e (the magic system, for example, is almost identical to PF AFAICT).

I think the deciding factor for you should be this: what do you (and your players, if they feel the same way) not like the most about 3.5e, and just how much are you willing to leave behind the good parts?

[Slipperychicken]

Another note on monsters - in my experience, the monsters are not capable of standing up to a DPS focused party, and any battle or plot that relies upon a single boss creature is going to go very badly. A party can easily deal 100+ damage per round, and with few monsters rising over even 200 HP that means your boss creature is going to be gone very quickly. This seems to be a design choice, and the system really wants you to have group focused battles rather than a single powerful foe. In fact, there are very few higher CR monsters, and at higher levels you'll need to pay a lot more attention to battle composition, terrain, and other factors to actually present your party with any challenge - even if you do customize to make more powerful villains.

3.x has that too, only with crowd control and save-or-lose rather than damage.

[theasl]

3.x has that too, only with crowd control and save-or-lose rather than damage.

Except not everyone has those options, or chooses to take them. Direct damage? Everyone can do that whether they want to or not.

[2D8HP]

For whatever it's worth, more former players of old TSR era D&D (like me) seem better able to adapt to 5e than 3.P.


. 5e brought me back. I had sold my 3 and 3.5 books at second hand books, still have my OD&D and 1e stuff and my 2e stuff in the closet.


5e does feel more like old school D&D, doesn't it?

It's also supposed to have bits of 4e in it as well.

I find 5e to be a very fun game, but Pathfinder has rockin' illustrations, and way more adventures!

[Bohandas]

Pathfinder if you want to customize monsters simply

[Slipperychicken]

Except not everyone has those options, or chooses to take them. Direct damage? Everyone can do that whether they want to or not.
And not every 5e party has the power to end a boss in one round with just hp damage, especially when you start considering things like chance to miss.

And now that I think of it, I recall several times in 3rd edition and PF where my party used damage to blast down a boss-enemy in just one round. It depends on what you build for and what combos you can pull off.

[Psikerlord]

OBLIGATORY PRELIMINARY WARNING: Not trying to start an edition war here. Please stay on the topic. I don't care which edition is subjectively anybody's favorite or "objectively" better. I only care about what fits my current needs.


Hi everyone,

I'm thinking of starting a live game, with a homemade story and setting. Sandbox and exploration in a fantasy world. The setting will be at somewhat of dark ages technologically; no big cities, no wizards, few clerics; bronze age level tech, with some iron and magic items scavenged from previous civilizations.

Characters will start at level 1.

I'm hesitating about what system to use.

I have a strong experience of 3.5, as do all of my players. I have some experience of Pathfinder, but none of my players have any. None of us has any experience of 5e.

What I know is I want out of 3.5.

I have skimmed over the OGL 5e rules and here's how I see it.

Pathfinder
Lots of stuff available for free online. It'll be easier for players who can't pay for books to make their characters outside a gaming session, without having their choices too restricted.
Seemingly easiest to migrate to from 3.5. Seemingly, because I know I'll have to triple check stuff time and again because of details not being exactly the same. However, players will probably be more comfortable with it, as base classes are mostly the same as in 3.5.
Campaign traits are a good incentive for players to think up a background that organically fits the campaign. Since the fluff's homemade, I'll be able to both provide and tailor them to specific player wants if needed.
5e
Overall simpler system. May make migration easier. However, my group is used to 3.5 tactical play (lots of action readying, positioning, AoO, maneuvers, group combos, etc.) and 5e seems to drastically tone down that aspect.
It seems Backgrounds can replace PF traits (see above).
Since I'll restrict access to caster classes at the beginning of the campaign, we'll have some more time to learn the magic system rules.
It's the future!
Gotta get books to get content.
I'm mostly interested in opinions from people having some experience of both systems, either as a player or a DM.

What interests me most regarding player experience is how difference in mechanics did (or did not) engender a difference in how the game is approached. Are there actions you'd try in one system or not the other? Did you feel that one system limited your possibilities more than the other?

Regarding DM experience, I'm mostly curious as which system did imply more homework. Do you feel it's easier to balance encounters in one rather than the other? Why? Did one system make planning and/or improvising easier?

Also, since I haven't read all 5e rules, nor play-tested it yet, I'm wondering about a few more specific things:
In 5e, what does the power level feel like as characters progress? I liked the fact 3.X characters start as barely stronger than an orc and that things stay gritty and dangerous all the way up to level 6. (That's why I never moved to 4e where, I've heard, characters soon take on hordes of mooks.)
In 5e, how easy is it easy to customize monsters? Let's say I want to make a goblin sergeant with a few barbarian levels riding a zombie worg. Is it as straightforward as in 3.X, or do I need to figure the math on my own?
In 5e, are there any wilderness exploration rules published?
You might consider Low Fantasy Gaming rpg. It's a d20 variant designed with a low magic base, martial exploits, gritty, etc.

Free PDF or print on demand: https://lowfantasygaming.com/

I dont think 5e works for low magic - almost every class has magic baked into it, and cantrips are essential to caster balance, assuming you allow a caster in the party.

If you want to get away from 3.5, Pathfinder is probably too similar.

[CharonsHelper]

You might consider Low Fantasy Gaming rpg. It's a d20 variant designed with a low magic base, martial exploits, gritty, etc.

Free PDF or print on demand: https://lowfantasygaming.com/

I dont think 5e works for low magic - almost every class has magic baked into it, and cantrips are essential to caster balance, assuming you allow a caster in the party.

If you want to get away from 3.5, Pathfinder is probably too similar.

Not that you're biased or anything. :smallwink:

[Calthropstu]

And oozes.

Oh, yes. And oozes. Apparently, giant blobs of goo without anatomy can't be sneak attacked.

[AvatarVecna]

Meanwhile, 5e Rogue can SA anything provided conditions allow for it.

[Kurald Galain]

As a player, I feel that 5e is a lot simpler than PF but has less options in just about every aspect, from character creation/advancement to what you can mechanically do in-game, and especially if you're not willing to pay a lot.
Yes. It's also worth noting that other than for spellcasters, pretty much every ability you gain from class levels is a numerical bonus to something you can already do, instead of something new. As opposed to PF or for that matter 4E, where you commonly unlock a completely new ability as you level up.


I think the deciding factor for you should be this: what do you (and your players, if they feel the same way) not like the most about 3.5e, and just how much are you willing to leave behind the good parts?
Yes. As PF fans like to point out, PF fixed a lot of complaints about 3E. As non-PF fans like to point out, PF also didn't fix a lot of other complaints about 3E. So what, specifically, are your complaints about 3E?

[Psikerlord]

Not that you're biased or anything. :smallwink:

Er, LOL, yeah!

[Joe the Rat]

Just a stickler here: in PF you can also sneak attack undead and constructs without a feat.

One of the bigger but unnotticed changes PF made (I STILL have to correct some GMs on this point) was what is immune to sneak attack. VERY few creatures, most notably elementals, are immune to sneak attack in PF. Elemental and incorporeal are the only types that grant sneak attack immunity. Otherwise it needs a specific entry declaring it.
That's a detail I missed - thanks for noting.

[Zalabim]

The strengths:
CMB is awesome.
In my experience building a character who uses CMB and a character who does not use CMB, it's supposed to be awesome, but it feels more like mAGI. That's not a spellcaster, that's a tax term: Modified Adjusted Gross Income. You have this number that you use to calculate what you do all the time, like how much money you made last year or your BAB, but then for certain purposes you have to add and subtract different values so you really don't have a universal number at all. Like CMD. Is it CMB+10? Heck no. Calculate that score entirely separately. You end up with a separate CMB and CMD for several different maneuvers. And Flat-footed CMD. CMB is awful.

But maybe that's just my tastes.


Good or Bad (tastes vary):

Infinite firebolts. Caster cantrips are at-will.

PF cantrips are at-will too, just the firebolt ones aren't useful.

[WalkingTheShade]

First of all, thank you all for these answers. Some of them really helped push my reflection forward.

I also found a few interesting links around the web. I added them to the OP.

I won't answer to everyone in detail, but I'll try to summarize what is of higher interest in all the replies. Sorry for mixing and matching your replies.

Out of 3.5?

Since the question has been asked more than once, I do like 3.5's system. I don't really care much about classes being balanced against each other. However, I don't like the trap options, I don't like dead levels, I think CMB is a good improvement, I like PF's advanced/hybrid classes. Most of all, I hated how later books were either very poorly playtested or made some older parts of the game entirely obsolete.

So, if PF is 80% 3.5, it's the 80% I liked and it does a good effort fixing the 20% I didn't like.

Specialist vs. Generalist

Thanks Kurald for that point (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21865170&postcount=4), I hadn't noticed it at all while skimming 5e rules.

I actually see arguments for both sides. With a specialist skill system, PC have to rely on each other, as they have markedly different specialties. For example, this forces the party to go exploring wilderness as a group, not spread too much appart, as those without ranks in Survival may easily get lost.

With a more generalist approach, players may (or not) want to take risks splitting up. It gives more freedom to each individual player. Also, I saw that 5e plans for group skill checks (half the party has to succeed for the check to succeed). That's an interesting mechanic too. Any opinions about it?

On this aspect, I guess it's 50/50, I'm not leaning one way or the other yet. I have to think more about how I envision the game to decide which one is better.

Also, I see no big issue in patching 5e with PF's skill system if need be.

Flatter power curve and bounded accuracy

Putting aside skill checks for now, that's a strong argument for 5e.

Monsters

Here's a point that may well push me towards PF in the end.

5e edition monsters are, on the whole, friggin terrible. They're almost never more than sacks of hit points with basic melee attacks. The writers rarely bothered to include so much as skill proficiencies, much less special abilities that make them interesting to fight. I found I had to put a lot more work into modifying monsters and planning terrain than 3.5 made me do.
First, that's quite annoying. I also noticed that while skimming over the OGL monsters, but somehow hoped I just hadn't looked at the good monsters. I like each monster to have its own mechanics, special attacks, obscure vulnerabilities, etc. And I really can't put in the work to customize every monster by myself. I'm happier if each encounter can be special, as if it was a specific minigame. It keeps things fresh as player need to figure out new things at each encounter, and it doesn't necessarily turn into "surround it and beat it to death".

Moreover, if you add the fact that consensus seems to be that "customizing monsters in 5e is more art than science (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21866412&postcount=12)", then it does make the situation even harder on the DM.

Contrary to the skill situation above, I don't see an easy way to keep PF monsters while moving the rest into 5e.

More questions

Mechanical Background Incentives: PF has traits, but 5e has the Ideal-Bond-Flaw system, plus backgrounds. While I'd give 5e the advantage here it's pretty marginal - this sort of stuff is easy to import, and other games** do it better.
Can someone tell me about Ideal-Bond-Flaw system? I don't remember seeing such a thing in the OGL rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Another note on monsters - in my experience, the monsters are not capable of standing up to a DPS focused party, and any battle or plot that relies upon a single boss creature is going to go very badly. A party can easily deal 100+ damage per round, and with few monsters rising over even 200 HP that means your boss creature is going to be gone very quickly. This seems to be a design choice, and the system really wants you to have group focused battles rather than a single powerful foe. In fact, there are very few higher CR monsters, and at higher levels you'll need to pay a lot more attention to battle composition, terrain, and other factors to actually present your party with any challenge - even if you do customize to make more powerful villains.
To be fair, I've found that to be true in just about every system I've played-- sheer action economy means that bosses tend to either go down in moments or are strong enough to one-shot players. 5e at least has


Also, I see no big issue in patching 5e with PF's skill system if need be.
My recommendation is usually to grant free Expertise (double Proficiency bonus) to all trained skills, and give a replacement ability to anyone like the Rogue who would normally get Expertise. That helps maintain the skill differential without blowing anyone too far out of the water.


Monsters

Here's a point that may well push me towards PF in the end.

First, that's quite annoying. I also noticed that while skimming over the OGL monsters, but somehow hoped I just hadn't looked at the good monsters. I like each monster to have its own mechanics, special attacks, obscure vulnerabilities, etc. And I really can't put in the work to customize every monster by myself. I'm happier if each encounter can be special, as if it was a specific minigame. It keeps things fresh as player need to figure out new things at each encounter, and it doesn't necessarily turn into "surround it and beat it to death".

Moreover, if you add the fact that consensus seems to be that "customizing monsters in 5e is more art than science (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21866412&postcount=12)", then it does make the situation even harder on the DM.

Contrary to the skill situation above, I don't see an easy way to keep PF monsters while moving the rest into 5e.
To be fair, the DMG does have pretty good guidelines for monster creation/modification, and I've certainly also spent a lot of time customizing 3.5 monsters. And 5e does have Legendary and Lair options, which are pretty neat ways of improving boss' action economy.


More questions

Can someone tell me about Ideal-Bond-Flaw system? I don't remember seeing such a thing in the OGL rules.
Meh, it's a pretty rudimentary personality brainstorming thing. "Hey, think of a few things your character cares about! We included a little table for each background if you want to roll for it!"

[Kurald Galain]

Also, I saw that 5e plans for group skill checks (half the party has to succeed for the check to succeed). That's an interesting mechanic too. Any opinions about it?
It's a good mechanic but hardly unique to 5E. "Five PCs roll, three must pass" is not exactly rocket science.


Can someone tell me about Ideal-Bond-Flaw system? I don't remember seeing such a thing in the OGL rules.
It means that characters have a goal, a person or place they care about, and a character flaw. That is literally all there is to it (and again, lots of RPGs have something like this; it's a stretch to even call it a "mechanic"). Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly a reason to recommend one RPG over another either.

[Calthropstu]

Meanwhile, 5e Rogue can SA anything provided conditions allow for it.

I refer you to my post above your:
There are thing where precision damage, such as sneak attack, simply doesn't make sense. I can take all the time in the world to set up my attack but how do I "slit an oozes throat?" How do I stab an elemental in its spleen? Undead you can justify, constructs have joints that can be popped... but some things simply don't make sense.

What you describe makes me feel they are still trying to make D&D like a video game, and I dislike that. I want my attacks, even my magic, to make sense.

[Calthropstu]

PF cantrips are at-will too, just the firebolt ones aren't useful.
Actually, they DO trigger sneak attack.

[Knaight]

Can someone tell me about Ideal-Bond-Flaw system? I don't remember seeing such a thing in the OGL rules.


Meh, it's a pretty rudimentary personality brainstorming thing. "Hey, think of a few things your character cares about! We included a little table for each background if you want to roll for it!"


It means that characters have a goal, a person or place they care about, and a character flaw. That is literally all there is to it (and again, lots of RPGs have something like this; it's a stretch to even call it a "mechanic"). Nothing wrong with that, but it's hardly a reason to recommend one RPG over another either.

These are more or less accurate - it's better than Traits, it's better than alignment, and if you look outside D&D it's not hard to find dozens of similar ideas that are implemented better. Just off the top of my head:
Aspects: FATE, Chronica Feudalis
Keys: The Shadow of Yesterday
Beliefs, Instincts, Traits: Burning Wheel, Torchbearer
Knightly Virtues: Pendragon
Circles: Burning Wheel, Mouseguard
Mission, Duty, Craving: REIGN
Character Psyche: Synapse

So on and so forth. 5e edges out 3.x here, but that has more to do with a low bar than 5e being particularly impressive.

On other notes: Your low magic setting is better supported by 5e than Pathfinder, 5e was made to function just fine with no magic items at all (or with them), Pathfinder has a pseudo-pointbuy system attached to the class system which they implemented as the WBL rules and the titanic list of magic items. I wouldn't use D&D at all for a low magic setting, but if you're sure you want to use D&D then that's another point in favor of 5e.

[Bogwoppit]

I know you (the OP) haven't asked for input outside of 5e and PF, but can I recommend The One Ring?
It fits the setting you've described, is low magic, and is a real departure from DnD 3.x.
It has some brilliant flavourful mechanics for exploration, for downtime, and so on - and it lends itself really well to sandbox play.

Back to 5e vs PF: I don't think either of them go far enough to get away from 3.x - they're both still built in silos. Each class and race is full of special moves that only this class or race can do - why? Why can only a barbarian get so angry she hits harder? Why can only rangers and druids have pets?
For sandbox DnD-ish gaming, with less silo-like separation of abilities, you might do better going back to the BECM / Rules Cyclopedia edition of DnD.

[Kane0]

I vote 5e

10Char

[Herobizkit]

Do your players enjoy tweaking their characters for every possible +1 via feats, races, traits, and prestige classes? Do they enjoy sweating over how they're going to maximize all of their actions and how they're going to qualify for their build?

Stick with Pathfinder.

Do they want to get out of the numbers crunch and play a system that lends itself back to "theater of the mind" and winging it?

Go for 5e.

[Calthropstu]

Do your players enjoy tweaking their characters for every possible +1 via feats, races, traits, and prestige classes? Do they enjoy sweating over how they're going to maximize all of their actions and how they're going to qualify for their build?

Stick with Pathfinder.

Do they want to get out of the numbers crunch and play a system that lends itself back to "theater of the mind" and winging it?

Go for 5e.

I actually feel the opposite is true.

The flavor of the classes for PF is actually fairly good. Pf's various options are well thought out and lend themselves well to fleshing out a character that will be fairly unique.

For example, a sorcerer bloodline, many of which have alternative selections, can be used to help flesh out your character's background quite well. The various choices for barbarians can mold a character to fit a particular theme. The sheer number of possible first level permutations is staggering.

[Kurald Galain]

Do they want to get out of the numbers crunch and play a system that lends itself back to "theater of the mind" and winging it?

Then you shouldn't be playing any edition of D&D. There are much better systems for that.

[GrayDeath]

Then you shouldn't be playing any edition of D&D. There are much better systems for that.


This.




More detailed: if you and your friends LIKE D&D, and merely want to try something new/rebalanced/still published stuff with some holes closed and a few new ones opened, go with Pathfinder.

If you want a rather well balanced (for D&D I`d even say EXCELLENTLY balanced) lower Power System, go with 5e.

But if you are not set on D&D per se, why not try to get recommendations for a system better befitting a low Fantasy setting?

After all, thats my point of discontent with 5th Ed: it tries to be D&D "down to earth".
But the reason I play D&D when I do is the insane amount of power Options. There are many many games that do lower Power/more "realism" much better than D&D, even IF 5th does it best "in system": :)

[Slipperychicken]

Has anyone mentioned how long combat takes in 3.x.PF.etc?

Because the average combat takes like 2+ hours in PF and less than half that in 5e. In terms of what you can get done in your limited session-time, that's a huge difference. Not to mention how easy it is to tune out and get bored when a one-sided 30 second filler-fight drags out for literal hours of real time.

When I went from PF to 5e, I was amazed at how quickly and smoothly the combats ran. It was like someone took a ball-and-chain off my leg.

[Knaight]

Then you shouldn't be playing any edition of D&D. There are much better systems for that.

Mostly because the idea that any edition of D&D is rules light is hilarious.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Mostly because the idea that any edition of D&D is rules light is hilarious.
5e isn't terrible-- I'd rank it with things like Savage Worlds and some older versions of Fate (Dresden Files, Legends of Anglerre, that sort of thing). "Rules medium," if you will-- takes a bit of effort to pick up, but is manageable for a casual player.

[Puh Laden]

I've ran and played in both. I enjoyed running both in different ways.

In PF, I personally enjoyed the depth of the combat system, and how the level five hobgoblin fighter managed to intimidate an adult red dragon. (Borderline not according to the rules, which say that using intimidate in the way she used it requires a minute of conversation, which I ruled to mean "can be used out-of-combat or if you spend ten actions in a row in combat.") I also enjoyed the variety of creatures ready-for-use in the PRD. I did not enjoy having to keep a tab open for what provoked an AoO and what did not. And, while this was admittedly in a gestalt game that went to level 10, I feel there's not enough space on the sheet to keep track of class features, because there are enough caveats in a lot of them that I did find myself having to write down a lot of the text of the ability down. I also did not like having to look-up what skills could do, but that's better than 5e not telling you what skills can do at all.

In 5e, I enjoy the simpler rules that require keeping track of fewer bonuses, and types of bonuses. You don't have to worry about whether or not you already have a deflection bonus or a size bonus, etc. Numerical bonuses from different named sources stack, advantage doesn't. I also like how there are only three kinds of actions: action, bonus action, and reaction, and every turn only gets one of each and none are interchangeable. Combat in 5e is still fun and still pretty deep but usually much shorter. But if you and your players are experts in 3.5's combat, and you find that combat system to be the main thing you like playing, you're probably better off trying out PF first. If you want to try 5e later, get those books later. As you know, with the PRD, a lot of the stuff for PF is free. There's really no reason not to try that first between the two.

Back to 5e though, on the one hand I like the skills and I don't. I kind of wish that what you could do with social skills were more defined or maybe removed. I mean regarding how to use social skills, Deception versus Insight is intuitive enough, but what do you roll versus Persuasion or Intimidate? On the other hand, I do like how the lack of mechanics highlights the core rule that the DM only asks for a roll if the DM decides there's a chance of meaningful failure between 0% and 100%.

As for 5e exploration rules, there are some in the PHB and the DMG. The PHB has the basic exploration rules of overland travel distance and basic travel activities (you can assign someone to find food, to keep lookout, to draw a map, to navigate, etc.), and the DMG has the environment rules and answers what effects extreme climates can have on characters. The 5e SRD has the ones found in the PHB.

Overall, I felt PF was simpler to plan for, 5e was easier to improvise. 5e monsters are easy enough to improvise, because the player's don't expect them to follow the rules of the PCs. As for myself, I mostly DM 5e now because I DM for people who either have no experience with RPGs, or only have experience with 5e, and 5e is simpler to learn. I like both systems, and wish I had time and people to play both systems.

[WalkingTheShade]

Do your players enjoy tweaking their characters for every possible +1 via feats, races, traits, and prestige classes? Do they enjoy sweating over how they're going to maximize all of their actions and how they're going to qualify for their build?

Stick with Pathfinder.
That's an interesting point. Actually, most of my regular players do enjoy that. A couple don't. The ones who don't get help for building their characters, but I sometimes feel it comes at the cost of less involvement. Going for a lighter system may empower a couple players to come up with their own build.


I actually feel the opposite is true.

The flavor of the classes for PF is actually fairly good. Pf's various options are well thought out and lend themselves well to fleshing out a character that will be fairly unique.

For example, a sorcerer bloodline, many of which have alternative selections, can be used to help flesh out your character's background quite well. The various choices for barbarians can mold a character to fit a particular theme. The sheer number of possible first level permutations is staggering.
I agree with that. But you need to have either some beforehand knowledge of the system (which all of my regular players have by now) or invest time in learning it to compare your options. It entails to trust your players to invest time outside of game sessions, which some can and other can't. It's not so great to rely on that.


More detailed: if you and your friends LIKE D&D, and merely want to try something new/rebalanced/still published stuff with some holes closed and a few new ones opened, go with Pathfinder.

If you want a rather well balanced (for D&D I`d even say EXCELLENTLY balanced) lower Power System, go with 5e.
Yup, we do like D&D.


Has anyone mentioned how long combat takes in 3.x.PF.etc?
That one is a very good point too.


I've ran and played in both. I enjoyed running both in different ways.
Thank you very much for taking the time to write this. It's the kind of contribution that thread was created for. I'll meditate on the wisdom of your words :smallwink:

But, now you have picked my curiosity. Did the mentioned fighter spend 10 consecutive standard actions on that intimidation attempt? If so, that opens a lot of questions I'm now very curious about!

(Or how to derail your own thread...)

[2D8HP]

...I suspect you'd like Savage Worlds - lighter, still heavily tactics focused, no need for magic, handles large groups well, and the softcover version of Savage Worlds Deluxe is $10, and if you like it you can get the Fantasy Companion for another $20 (although you really don't need to). I suspect you'd like REIGN...


@Knaight,

I remember in a different thread that you suggested, that based on my tastes, I'd like Savage Worlds (which I have picked up), but I don't know anything about REIGN, so I'm curious about it.

Also what rules do you usually play?

For whatever it's worth I've enjoyed playing old (TSR) D&D the most, with 5e D&D and Traveller close behind (but I remember few Traveller rules only "fluff"), have found Call of Cthullu by far the easiest to GM or "Keeper", and really, really like the Pendragon rules, and the 7th Sea, and Castle Falkenstein settings, but have never played the last three games.

[Knaight]

@Knaight,

I remember in a different thread that you suggested, that based on my tastes, I'd like Savage Worlds (which I have picked up), but I don't know anything about REIGN, so I'm curious about it.

Also what rules do you usually play?

For whatever it's worth I've enjoyed playing old (TSR) D&D the most, with 5e D&D and Traveller close behind (but I remember few Traveller rules only "fluff"), have found Call of Cthullu by far the easiest to GM or "Keeper", and really, really like the Pendragon rules, and the 7th Sea, and Castle Falkenstein settings, but have never played the last three games.

I GM a lot of Fudge, and then smaller amounts of a decent collection of games (REIGN, Warbirds, WR&M*, etc.), and then there's a bigger collection of games that have either been tried once or which I keep meaning to try but haven't gotten around to.

*On the rare occasion that the group feels like dungeon crawling