Pathfinder VS DnD 5e

[Bezula]

Our group started off in 3.5, moved to Pathfinder because our DM fell in love with it, and since then 5.e has come out with all its tantalising whimsical ways, and a few of us are tempted by her wiles, although our DM is still a Pathfinder stoic.

What are your thoughts?

Gotta say, a big pull for us is the lack of critical confirms...seems badly weighted against the players when one has to roll again to confirm a critical hit, but one doesn't have to roll to confirm a critical fail.

That and, well, a couple of our group struggle with all the minutiae of rules and text.

And Pathfinder does boast a whole load of those.

I remember when our DM explained the rules for crafting poisons to us one time. It was like listening to a spreadsheet.

Thoughts?

[MeimuHakurei]

How about you take up running 5th Edition on days where your DM isn't running Pathfinder? You're not limited to playing just one or the other. That said, while I think 5e has some good ideas to make the rules a bit more simple, it offers only a very minimal amount of character customization and the high level content doesn't have much care behind it, if any. To my understanding, 5e is very suitable for beginners and people struggling with complex rules, but to experienced players, it really doesn't offer much of anything.

[Snowbluff]

5e is a big departure from PF.
PF is like 4e if 4e was made in d20.
hm...

Well, it's pretty clear if the players are more comfortable, that that is probably the way to go. I'm a big 3.5 guy, but my IRL group plays 5e, so I play 5e.

However, if he really buys into that PF is more "balanced," 5e is actually really well balanced in a lot of ways that aren't immediately obvious.

[Pelle]

Gotta say, a big pull for us is the lack of critical confirms...seems badly weighted against the players when one has to roll again to confirm a critical hit, but one doesn't have to roll to confirm a critical fail.


That's not a very substantial reason for changing, though ok if it is very important for you. No, it's not weighted against the players, because the same applies for monsters. And there's no point in confirming critical fails, since a 1 is usually a miss anyway and nothing special happens.



That and, well, a couple of our group struggle with all the minutiae of rules and text.


This is a much better reason. Up to you to decide.

[Kurald Galain]

There's a few fundamental differences in design philosophy between PF and 5E, which become apparent in e.g. the skill system.

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.

[AnimeTheCat]

Our group started off in 3.5, moved to Pathfinder because our DM fell in love with it, and since then 5.e has come out with all its tantalising whimsical ways, and a few of us are tempted by her wiles, although our DM is still a Pathfinder stoic.

What are your thoughts?

Gotta say, a big pull for us is the lack of critical confirms...seems badly weighted against the players when one has to roll again to confirm a critical hit, but one doesn't have to roll to confirm a critical fail.

That and, well, a couple of our group struggle with all the minutiae of rules and text.

And Pathfinder does boast a whole load of those.

I remember when our DM explained the rules for crafting poisons to us one time. It was like listening to a spreadsheet.

Thoughts?

Does pathfinder actually have critical failure rules? I know they're commonly used, but to my knowledge 3.5 doesn't actually have Critical Failures as a rule, a 1 is just an automatical failure when talking about attack roles. Even with skill checks, a 1 isn't a failure, since skills are on a sliding scale of roll vs DC. The only rule that I know of where a 1 is bad is on attack rolls, where a 1 is always a failure and a 20 is always a hit. 20's carry the addition that you may deal additional damage if you can succeed in hitting the target AC again. Regardless, a 20 is always a hit and a hit will always deal at least 1 damage (unless reduced by DR or Resistance). No rolling to confirm a critical failure is a good thing, it means that you aren't actively negatively impacting yourself, you just didn't succeed whereas a 20 is you deffinitely succeeded, now how awesomely did you succeed?

That's my 2cp worth at least.

[Seto]

Does pathfinder actually have critical failure rules? I know they're commonly used, but to my knowledge 3.5 doesn't actually have Critical Failures as a rule, a 1 is just an automatical failure when talking about attack roles. Even with skill checks, a 1 isn't a failure, since skills are on a sliding scale of roll vs DC. The only rule that I know of where a 1 is bad is on attack rolls, where a 1 is always a failure and a 20 is always a hit. 20's carry the addition that you may deal additional damage if you can succeed in hitting the target AC again. Regardless, a 20 is always a hit and a hit will always deal at least 1 damage (unless reduced by DR or Resistance). No rolling to confirm a critical failure is a good thing, it means that you aren't actively negatively impacting yourself, you just didn't succeed whereas a 20 is you deffinitely succeeded, now how awesomely did you succeed?

That's my 2cp worth at least.

AFAIK, PF works like you described. Also, saving throws. 1 is an automatic failure and 20 an automatic success on both attack rolls and saving throws (plus, for attack rolls, 20 threatens a crit). Critical failures are a houserule.

[Kish]

Why would critical rules which apply to PCs and enemies alike be weighted against the players? This is sounding like you're negatively comparing some of the house rules you've been playing with to 5ed.

[ComaVision]

Just get your DM to try the PF2 playtest in August and try that.

[Psyren]

Gotta say, a big pull for us is the lack of critical confirms...seems badly weighted against the players when one has to roll again to confirm a critical hit, but one doesn't have to roll to confirm a critical fail.

As others have said, this is purely a houserule your GM is using. I suggest talking to them about that specifically if you all don't find it fun. (Personally, you should be required to confirm fumbles even if you do use them.)



That and, well, a couple of our group struggle with all the minutiae of rules and text.

5e definitely has less of that. Me, I like it when the rules are clear about what I can and can't do rather than having to play "mother may I" with the GM, but if yours is permissive then 5e gets out of the way more readily and is easier to grasp. But for me, heavier rules also spark my imagination more and make the minigame of building a character more fun.

[Gnaeus]

For players who enjoy system mastery and the chargen mini game. PF.

For more casual players 5e.

I have a 5e group and a PF group and based on the players involved I wouldn’t dream of moving the PF group to 5e or the 5e group to pf.

[Rynjin]

I'll also point out that crits are basically meaningless in 5e, is why they don't need to confirm. When something has 200 HP that extra 1d6 damage barely even factors in.

I'd stick with PF. Both have their flaws, but I prefer PFs approach of "You can make a character like this if you can figure a way to build to it" over 5e's approach of "You build your character how we tell you to".

There's criticisms to be had on the former side to the tune of "Why do I need a Feat for this, I should just be able to DO it", which is frustrating, but at least there are concrete rues for it so half the game doesn't come down to GM calls every session.

[Knaight]

If you don't like dealing with rules minutia, 5e is probably going to be an improvement for you. There's a reason the Mathfinder nickname exists, and it's mostly because of numerous people who dislike the level of minutia in its focus. That said, if you're jumping ship and learning a new system anyways there's no real reason to stick to D&D. Finish up the current campaign in Pathfinder, then run something else in something else.

As for the idea the 5e is for casual players in particular, there are a few major methods of engagement. People with a focus on nonmechanical aspects of the game aren't necessarily casual, and a preference for rules light system can show up in very involved people with any of these foci. There are entire podcasts made by people who favor light systems (far lighter than 5e), and around the time you're recording hundreds of hours of RPG theory any claim you might have had to being a casual player is long gone.

[Falontani]

I'll be upfront. I don't like 5th edition. Some of the rules that do exist bug me to no end. Some of the statblocks on enemies make no sense, and there isn't enough content for my personal tastes. However I know that 5th edition is better for a narrative. 3.5/pathfinder can do a narrative, but it will take longer due to the sheer math of it all.

As others have said, if you enjoy system mastery you will enjoy pathfinder/3.P more. If you enjoy a rules lite system where bad luck will have a commoner beat you then try 5th edition. If you like getting together with some friends with drinks and food, and playing a game while also talking about random other stuff then DND is your game.

[Troacctid]

I generally recommend 5e to people because it is much more accessible. The rules are simpler and more streamlined, and you don't need to constantly recalculate situational bonuses. I've found that new players tend to have a pretty easy time jumping into 5e, whereas PF and 3.5e feel overwhelming.

5e also has a thriving organized play program, if you like that sort of thing. Bringing your character to conventions to play in multi-table Epics and the like can be a lot of fun. Yeah, there's PFS, I suppose, but it's not as big.

On the other hand, if you're just looking to try new systems, there's more out there than D&D! You could try Dungeon World, or FATE, or 13th Age, or Star Wars, or Ellipses, any number of other systems!

[AnimeTheCat]

I generally recommend 5e to people because it is much more accessible. The rules are simpler and more streamlined, and you don't need to constantly recalculate situational bonuses. I've found that new players tend to have a pretty easy time jumping into 5e, whereas PF and 3.5e feel overwhelming.

5e also has a thriving organized play program, if you like that sort of thing. Bringing your character to conventions to play in multi-table Epics and the like can be a lot of fun. Yeah, there's PFS, I suppose, but it's not as big.

On the other hand, if you're just looking to try new systems, there's more out there than D&D! You could try Dungeon World, or FATE, or 13th Age, or Star Wars, or Ellipses, any number of other systems!

G.U.R.P.S. "There's a table for that"

[Kurald Galain]

However I know that 5th edition is better for a narrative

...

system where bad luck will have a commoner beat you then try 5th edition.

If your narrative is about heroic fantasy, then it strikes me as problematic to use a system where a commoner can beat you...

[Knaight]

If your narrative is about heroic fantasy, then it strikes me as problematic to use a system where a commoner can beat you...

In the context of combat your giant wall of hit points makes losing to a commoner incredibly unlikely. Plus, heroic fantasy routinely features great warriors taken out by large numbers of lesser foes. Hurin lost to a bunch of orcs, as just one example.

[martixy]

Ah... yet another case of "Bad DM makes the whole system look bad".


In the context of combat your giant wall of hit points makes losing to a commoner incredibly unlikely. Plus, heroic fantasy routinely features great warriors taken out by large numbers of lesser foes. Hurin lost to a bunch of orcs, as just one example.

And another case where your "great warrior" in system X departs from "great warrior" in narrative Y. In this case your narrative greatness probably completely falls within the first 5 levels of a d20 system.
As a L5 martial character in 3.5/PF it is quite reasonable to fall victim to a horde of orcs. Even higher level "great warriors" are susceptible low-level mooks of like optimization.

[Ignimortis]

Ah... yet another case of "Bad DM makes the whole system look bad".



And another case where your "great warrior" in system X departs from "great warrior" in narrative Y. In this case your narrative greatness probably completely falls within the first 5 levels of a d20 system.
As a L5 martial character in 3.5/PF it is quite reasonable to fall victim to a horde of orcs. Even higher level "great warriors" are susceptible low-level mooks of like optimization.

How much is a horde? Some martials can survive lots of orcs by that point. Some can even heal themselves for minor or not-so-minor amounts of HP while dealing with them, and orc mooks probably don't have means to do anything but HP damage.

[martixy]

How much is a horde? Some martials can survive lots of orcs by that point. Some can even heal themselves for minor or not-so-minor amounts of HP while dealing with them, and orc mooks probably don't have means to do anything but HP damage.

Glad you asked.

A horde is precisely between 50 and 99 orcs.

[Ignimortis]

Glad you asked.

A horde is precisely between 50 and 99 orcs.
A sublime reference. I suppose engaging lots of orcs is much easier than a horde.

Even so, I would assume that a warder, a crusader or some specific tanky builds can take that much orcs at once at level 5, if they don't get really unlucky.

[martixy]

In 50s and 100s you stop dealing with luck and become subject to simple statistical inevitability.

Also, optimizing for that specific situation is a poor point to make. It is better to talk about average joe fighter, who'd like to be useful in combat situations other than the very specific encounter of facing large groups of low-level mooks.

[Andor13]

If your narrative is about heroic fantasy, then it strikes me as problematic to use a system where a commoner can beat you...

Yeah, it's not like one of the bigger current fantasy series features the greatest swordsman in history getting beaten by a peasant with a quarterstaff... oh wait.

Anyway that could never happen in more historical fiction, it's not like Robin Hood ever lost to.... oh wait.

[Psyren]

Yeah, it's not like one of the bigger current fantasy series features the greatest swordsman in history getting beaten by a peasant with a quarterstaff... oh wait.

1) WoT features a fable about that happening, not the actual event.
2) "Peasant" in that context is a socioeconomic term, not the equivalent D&D class term "commoner" that implies a level of combat ability (or lack thereof). You could have a level 20 monk, brawler, warblade etc who could be considered a "peasant," simply because that's what you call anyone who isn't landed gentry, a knight, or otherwise similarly situated within the quasi-medieval hierarchy.


Anyway that could never happen in more historical fiction, it's not like Robin Hood ever lost to.... oh wait.

Right, because Little John is surely best represented by your average D&D commoner... oh wait.

[Talakeal]

Gotta say, a big pull for us is the lack of critical confirms...seems badly weighted against the players when one has to roll again to confirm a critical hit, but one doesn't have to roll to confirm a critical fail?

Could you please elaborate on this?

Iirc neither Pathfinder nor 5E have rules for critical failures.

Furthermore, don't the enemies follow the exact same rules for criticals as the PCs in both games? So how does it favor one over the other?


I have heard the theory that more randomness (such as crits) always favors the NPCs as the NPCs dont have to deal with longterm consequences of something unexpected happening, but I dont think that is what is being described here.

[Syll]

Me, I like it when the rules are clear about what I can and can't do rather than having to play "mother may I" with the GM, but if yours is permissive then 5e gets out of the way more readily and is easier to grasp. But for me, heavier rules also spark my imagination more and make the minigame of building a character more fun.

I agree with this sentiment 100%; additionally, I've found that 5e classes feel far more.... sterile. The dearth of options in 5e as compared to PF has made characters of the same class play very, very similar to each other. I don't see a lot of replay value in the classes because you have so few choices to make, and with bounded accuracy the choices you do make don't feel particularly meaningful.