What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Cikomyr2]

So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

[J-H]

It's a lot like 3.5, crunchy with a lot of fiddly +1, +2, -1, -2, modifiers to keep track of. Slow and excessively detailed.

[Kane0]

Youd really have to ask those people, but i assume its something to do with the assumption that PF is 'just like D&D'. PF1 was just like 3.5, by design. PF2 is not just like 5e. They have branched somewhat drastically so those assuming they can easily convert from one to the other in short order will likely hit an unanticipated learning curve, and thus the urging to look around for something that fits the game you want to run rather than just going straight for the next 'default choice'

[Zhorn]

For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".
From what I've heard; both pathfinder 1e and 2e are solid games, but like J-H was getting at; they are far more involved and take more mental bandwidth to play efficiently. And that's just not for everyone.
For many, 5e just strikes that perfect balance of being simple to learn, with a little but not too much crunch.

Many of the pathfinder advocates are big fans of crunch, and to them the level of crunch in 5e is sorely lacking. So there's a lot of repetitive proselytizing along the lines of "5e just isn't as good at [x] as it should be. You should play pathfinder instead", and when you're actively enjoying 5e and not feeling a need to swap, it can get rather annoying. Sometimes to the point of poisoning your perception of pathfinder before you've ever played it because your only mental association with it is paired with some folks that have been regularly putting down a thing you like and pestering you to change over to their "superior ways".

No, not everyone is like this. But I've seen enough of it in the local tabletop club to know it does happen. And it doesn't take that many pathfinder fanatics to build up an annoyance in a larger number of people.
I've been curious about picking up pathfinder for a while, but so many of the folks I know are just so sick of the "play pathfinder instead" types that it's become a bit of a harder sell to get folks into a group.

Hopefully the recent events help a bit, but it would have been easier if the fanatics weren't pushing as hard as they did.

[Xihirli]

I played my first Pathfinder 2e game recently, and aside from it being a system I wasn't familiar with, I liked it very well. There's a bit of choice paralysis in making a character but I'm limiting myself to the simpler classes to start.

I was getting pretty frustrated with 5e even before the ORC migration though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's a lot like 3.5, crunchy with a lot of fiddly +1, +2, -1, -2, modifiers to keep track of. Slow and excessively detailed.

This. PF1e is the epitome of "things I didn't like about 3.5...taken to their logical extremes". PF2e isn't as bad about that, but is obsessed with mechanical balance to the point of creating the illusion of choice. Sure, you've got tons of choices. And either you build them right and they all end up about exactly the same...or you don't and you kinda limp along. Tons of choices, most of which don't really matter much.

For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".
From what I've heard; both pathfinder 1e and 2e are solid games, but like J-H was getting at; they are far more involved and take more mental bandwidth to play efficiently. And that's just not for everyone.
For many, 5e just strikes that perfect balance of being simple to learn, with a little but not too much crunch.

Many of the pathfinder advocates are big fans of crunch, and to them the level of crunch in 5e is sorely lacking. So there's a lot of repetitive proselytizing along the lines of "5e just isn't as good at [x] as it should be. You should play pathfinder instead", and when you're actively enjoying 5e and not feeling a need to swap, it can get rather annoying. Sometimes to the point of poisoning your perception of pathfinder before you've ever played it because your only mental association with it is paired with some folks that have been regularly putting down a thing you like and pestering you to change over to their "superior ways".

No, not everyone is like this. But I've seen enough of it in the local tabletop club to know it does happen. And it doesn't take that many pathfinder fanatics to build up an annoyance in a larger number of people.
I've been curious about picking up pathfinder for a while, but so many of the folks I know are just so sick of the "play pathfinder instead" types that it's become a bit of a harder sell to get folks into a group.

Hopefully the recent events help a bit, but it would have been easier if the fanatics weren't pushing as hard as they did.

And this. The constant proselyting and boosting in forums designated for other games is wearisome. And the constant "it's 5e, but better!" (when it caters to a different style than the 5e I play) is annoying.

[gomipile]

Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

[Draconi Redfir]

honestly i like the crunch in pathfinder.

in my short time playing 5E, my 3rd level character is hardly any different then they were at 1st level. They still have the same skill totals, the same attack bonus, the same saves, no feats, etc. The only major thing that changed is the addition of a subclass, which honestly probably should have been something you pick at 1st level.


Compare with the same character in pathfinder, and the difference between levels 1 and 3 is huge. Attack bonus is higher, my skills increase and i can add new ones any time I'd like, my saves are better, my armour is better, I've got feats to let me customize further, everything.

One thing pathfinder did right i feel is that there are no "Dead levels". you always get SOMETHING new every level, be that spell slots, abilities, feats, or otherwise. With 5th edition though, the only real thing i noticed changing between levels is that my HP got higher, that's about it.

[Pauly]

Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

Back in the days when 3.5 came out all TTGs - boardgames, wargames, RPGs - where much crunchier than modern games. The trend in gaming is to more streamlined resolution systems.

What happens in simulations when you use too many variables is that outcomes diverge from reality. Some effects get double counted, whilst others get cancelled by things that shouldn’t cancel them, some effects are multiplied when they should be added and vice versa.

In the 80s and 90s game designers thought they had to add more detail to simulate things accurately. Wargames, in particular, have real world outcomes that games can be measured against and the ‘simplistic’ games often provide better correlation to real world outcomes than highly complex games.

[Tectorman]

There's a lot that P2E does right, but a lot that comes along with it that just doesn't work for me in execution (to the point that I wouldn't want to participate in the game mechanic in question just on principle). 5E does the same, but because there's less to keep track of in play, ignoring what doesn't suit me is much easier.

Here's a few examples:
Assurance: In P1E, taking 10 replaced the d20 of a skill check with a flat 10. Everything else stayed the same. The P2E equivalent is Assurance, except it's 10 plus your proficiency and nothing else. A high Strength character and a low Strength character with the same level and training in a skill will have the exact same Assurance. Yes, you're negating penalties along with bonuses when using it, but the penalties in question aren't likely to always be there, unlike your ability mod. What would you call it when you're always paying a price to maybe-sometimes negate another cost? The game, especially using Athletics in combat, especially using Assurance on your second or third action (because the MAP also goes away), assumes you want to use Assurance but I never would. It just strikes me as conniving and dishonest.

Hero Points: You start with one in a session and have a max of three. It costs one to reroll a check. It costs whatever you have left (at least one) to avoid death. So, you're incentivized to spend all but one to make the most use of these. Anything else is wasteful. You're not rewarded for being prudent, so you have to engineer and scheme to only have one. No thanks, I'd rather my character just die, because at least that's honest.

Shields: During the playtest, all shields could take three dents before breaking (Sturdy shields had a max of four dents). They could take one or two per hit. I don't know what exactly everyone's issue was, but for me, it didn't make sense that the Tarrasque couldn't destroy the dinky wooden shield I got at level 1 in one hit. Regardless of whether that was everyone else's issue or not, they changed when P2E came out to have hit points. Many threads were made showing how the math didn't add up. How low-level shields have the damage threshold and hit points to last the same two-maybe-three hits before breaking against appropriate level enemies as they did back when it was dents, but less and less so as you go up in level (Sturdy shields being the exception).
There had to be a happy medium between "One Punch Man needs to hit my shield twice to break it" and "An on-level enemy blinked in my general direction and there goes my shield again". Defenders of the new system try to say that only some shields are meant to block (and some, like the Spellguard, have features so allegedly good that they have to be bad at blocking). Except, I remember the playtest and every shield, including the Spellguard, had the same minimum ability to block.
This is where the paradigm of "I'll block the attack with my face to keep my shield intact" comes from. If I'm playing a character in P2E, I have a player character by necessity (there's no way to be playing without one). But there's less guarantee that I'll have a shield, making the shield a more precious resource than the character I'm playing as. That is the calculus this particular ruleset evokes.

Bulk: You can carry 5 plus your Str mod before being encumbered and your max is 10 plus Str mod. I've done the math, using character artwork they provide and you can easily be borderline maxed out, just on what's shown plus basic necessities, before you even get to the dungeon. You almost need to Scry inside and see if the loot you would be taking out is small enough that you actually can. Long gone are the days of the "Golf bag of weapons", and this game, failing to realize this, wants you to be picking up collectibles (even going out of its way to make consumables and even traps a supported part of gameplay).
And this is before we even get to how bulk is calculated. It's a combination of weight, volume, and shape. It comes in negligible, light, and whole numbers. So there's nothing that might be 3 light bulk or 1.5 bulk (which I don't doubt does a lot to contribute to P2E characters running low on carrying capacity before starting their first adventure). Also, the conversion factor in terms of weight is 5 to 10 pounds, and Medium characters are 6 bulk. That's right; you are 60 lbs soaking wet.

Alignment and anathema: Are in the game to an oppressive extent. At least in 5E, alignment barely exists and all I need to do is never take a Paladin above two levels (the whole "Druids just don't have the free will to decide to wear metal armor" is insufferable, though).

...

I could go on, but the point is that P2E's asks are just too big with too little reward.

[Snowbluff]

Youd really have to ask those people, but i assume its something to do with the assumption that PF is 'just like D&D'. PF1 was just like 3.5, by design. PF2 is not just like 5e. They have branched somewhat drastically so those assuming they can easily convert from one to the other in short order will likely hit an unanticipated learning curve, and thus the urging to look around for something that fits the game you want to run rather than just going straight for the next 'default choice'

Indeed. It has zagged where 5e zigged. However, I think it is not as good as PF1 as a result of this. I find it straddling a lot of design decisions between its parent and 4e, but also with enough of its own flaws that if given the options, I would always play PF1 or 4e over it. It's like an uncanny valley for me.

This. PF1e is the epitome of "things I didn't like about 3.5...taken to their logical extremes". PF2e isn't as bad about that, but is obsessed with mechanical balance to the point of creating the illusion of choice. Sure, you've got tons of choices. And either you build them right and they all end up about exactly the same...or you don't and you kinda limp along. Tons of choices, most of which don't really matter much.

I would argue that PF1 had better decision making than PF2, and in turn 3.5 had better decision making than PF1. Sure, these 2 older systems had their share of terribly designed options, but at the same time when certain designers got a handle on how to make better options it resulted in some cool stuff. I like the Devotion Feats and Dimensional Dervish!

PF2 just makes everything the mediocrity that is Prone Shooter and makes that the standard. You're doing the work of making a complex character, but have none of the payoff.

And this. The constant proselyting and boosting in forums designated for other games is wearisome. And the constant "it's 5e, but better!" (when it caters to a different style than the 5e I play) is annoying.

It is indeed troublesome and kinda amazing. I also find that when I criticize the like to state a negation and follow with the immediately obvious that doesn't really refute the point. If I were to pose "I don't like the jump being an action, PF1 and 5e handle jumping better as part of your move" they'll say its ok because it goes to 11 there are 3 actions, even though my problems with it still arose using said action system.

[Satinavian]

Basically D&D5 and Pathfinder 1 and 2 are very different games. If people have reasons to leave 5E, the Pathfinders are not more obvious alternative versions than many other games out there. All of them need o be learned, all are different.

Pathfinder 1 is basically D&D 3E. But 3E and 5E are very different as well.

Pathfinder 2 ... personally i like the chassis, how the skills work, how you build your character from ground off with feats. It is extremely flexible but doesn't go point buy and does not have the extreme archetype bloat of later pathfinder 1.

However, as said before, the balance is off. Most of the options are pretty useless and boring. And how challenges and monsters are scaled, you basically have to always max out your strong points as well. So in the end you don't really get varied, flexible or surprising characters. You get a couple of one-trick-ponies following the very old and stale class archetypes.

If that was intentionally the feel of play they were going for, they could have achieved it with far less rules.


However, for me that makes Pathfinder 2 a far superior starting point for homebrew than 5E. I basically only have to mess with progression and feats to get a very different game experience.

[JadedDM]

Personally, I have nothing against Pathfinder. I quite enjoyed the PC games, in fact, and I think I even have a couple of their novels.

I mostly stay away from the system because I find it far too crunchy and fiddly. I know that's some people's thing, and more power to them. But I prefer simpler stuff that relies less on rules mastery.

[Mastikator]

Vancian casting. For me it's a deal breaker. You'll never get me to play a game with Vancian casting.

[Amnestic]

I'm a huge fan of the Pathfinder Owlcat games, and I generally think Paizo's adventure modules/paths are a decent step above what WotC is delivering.

But there's so many fiddly numbers and bonuses here and there in PF1 (and seems to continue in PF2, from what I read of it?) that my brain just switches off if I don't have a computer to do all the calculations and checking for me. A decade and a half ago I might've cared about knowing which of all the different bonus types stack together and how to pull that into a decent character build, but these days it's just too much for me - I've got limited time and brainspace.

If Paizo ever drop a "Pathfinder Lite" option which strips back all the fiddly bits I'd probably give it a shot, but the current versions are just a bit too much for a tabletop for me. That's not to take it away from those who do like it but it ain't for me.

[stoutstien]

No agency. Plenty of choices but they are mostly hollow.

Great system for those who don't care about that otherwise and who also enjoy building a PC rather than letting them evolve.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was getting pretty frustrated with 5e even before the ORC migration though.

I have enough 5e material in the "pre we lost out focus" category (I found Tasha's very hit and miss, content wise, and too bloaty so a lot of it is not eligible in my campaigns) that I can run 5e for the next five years. When my son (who lives in another city) can get two more people together to commit to a schedule, I am going to run Storm King's Thunder for them on roll20. I am very much looking forward to it.

in my short time playing 5E, my 3rd level character is hardly any different then they were at 1st level.

Each level adds something new in tier 1, and I wonder at which class you played.
Take cleric for example.
Domain feature a 1.
Channel divinity at 2
Second level spells at 3
ASI/Stat increas at 4, or a feat.

I find your critique puzzling.

One thing pathfinder did right i feel is that there are no "Dead levels". you always get SOMETHING

They tried to do that in 5e as well. Again, I find your critique puzzling.

[Keltest]

Personally, 5e and Pathfinder (either edition) are different enough games that, even were I looking for a substitute for 5e, somebody recommending me pathfinder would be equivalent to being told to try golf when my baseball team disbanded because theyre both about hitting balls with clubs. And its really obvious to me that theyre different games, so such posts tend to come across as "let me take this excuse to talk about my favorite game instead of what youre actually trying to talk about."

[Zhorn]

When my son (who lives in another city) can get two more people together to commit to a schedule, I am going to run Storm King's Thunder for them on roll20. I am very much looking forward to it.

Aw yeah, love me some SKT.
Currently DMing it for my 4th time (foundry vtt this time for some internet friends).
Always different each playthrough.
Lots on on/off ramps for putting in custom character quests/arcs or visiting other modules for short stints; just include a giant here and there and it makes it very easy to transition back to the main story.
/sidetrack

But back on topic;
Yes, it's is a concern when folks are trying to market pathfinder as 'just like 5e
... don't do that.
If people want 5e, they can stick with 5e.
If people are honestly looking at pathfinder, be honest about how it's being its own thing.
I don't really care much for the system war narrative; "it like [x system] but better" , "[system y] is a real game, [system x] is not" etc. It drives people away with the elitist tone.

I was make a similar point to someone on discord the other day. If you want folks to join you in your system of choice; avoid the comparison game and just talk earnestly on the aspects of the system you enjoy. Less focus on getting them to drop one system for another, and just bring up the fun things that would make them want to play it even if they primarily stuck with the existing system of choice.

[Tectorman]

Vancian casting. For me it's a deal breaker. You'll never get me to play a game with Vancian casting.

Oh my, yes! Especially since even the spontaneous casters got more Vancian-like, too.

[Draconi Redfir]

Each level adds something new in tier 1, and I wonder at which class you played.
Take cleric for example.
Domain feature a 1.
Channel divinity at 2
Second level spells at 3
ASI/Stat increas at 4, or a feat.

I find your critique puzzling.
They tried to do that in 5e as well. Again, I find your critique puzzling.

fighter in both cases, was my first time in 5e so i wanted to keep it simple.

[J-H]

To expand on the crunch, I have some players who are like:
"Hey, are you going to use X class ability?" "What's X?"
"What are you attuned to?" "Hmm..." cue one minute of looking things up. This guy also DMs.

5e is about the limit of crunch some players can handle. Some don't read about D&D in their spare time or prep outside of sessions at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

fighter in both cases, was my first time in 5e so i wanted to keep it simple.

OK; at level 1, second wind. At level 2 action surge. Level 3 Archetype feature. (Which for Champion is 'more crits') ASI or feat at level 4, second attack at level 5, ASI or feat at level 6.

What dead level?

@ J-H

Some don't read about D&D in their spare time or prep outside of sessions at all.

That would be about 3/4ths of the players I play with, except for the ones in Phoenix's campaign.

[Cikomyr2]

Thanks for everyone who replied to my inquiry!!

[Draconi Redfir]

OK; at level 1, second wind. At level 2 action surge. Level 3 Archetype feature. (Which for Champion is 'more crits') ASI or feat at level 4, second attack at level 5, ASI or feat at level 6.

What dead level?

5th ed:
1st lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
2nd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
3rd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats

Pathfinder:
1st lvl: AB+3, Swim +3, Climb +3, Intimidation +2, Profession (cook) -1. Two feats
2nd lvl: AB+4, Swim +7, Climb +7, Intimidation +2, Profession (Cook) +3. Three feats
3rd lvl: AB +5, Swim +7, Climb +8, Intimidation +7, Profession (cook) +4. Four feats

There's just more feeling of progression, like I'm moving forwards and getting stronger with each level. Every level my character can cook better, can intimidate better, can fight better. If i want too, i can pick up entirely new skills to invest into. I started the game having trouble putting bread on top of bread to make a bread sandwich. now I'm the best cook in the party.

in 5th edition, I'm no better at hitting enemies then when i started. I'm no better at seeing things then when i started, i couldn't learn how to climb even if i wanted too. I can't even get better at resisting poisons or the like because saving throws aren't a thing, so i don't improve in those either.

I can heal myself a bit and take an extra action, but otherwise I'm still exactly the same as when i started.

[Zuras]

Pathfinder, more than any other non-5e system, represents something very similar to 5e with precisely the flaws that 5e fans dislike about class, level and feat systems magnified. As a system, Pathfinder 1e just had too much build-a-bear functionality for many people. 5e got the balance right for most people (feats, but no need for long feat chains to get to your payoffs, the most common tropes are supported by specific well-done class & subclass combinations), and thus the annoyances in Pathfinder are very much in sharp focus.

Basically, it’s like Coke and Pepsi. They are more similar to each other than lemonade, but you are more likely to get an offended response if someone asks for a Coke and you say “will Pepsi be okay?” than if you offer them a lemonade.

[Amidus Drexel]

Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

Yeah, it's wild seeing people in here complaining about the crunch in PF, because I refused to switch off of 3.5 because of the perception that PF1 was too simple. (With the benefit of a decade+ of hindsight, I can confidently say that it's more-or-less a side-grade in complexity). The uncanny-valley effect of some spells/feats/etc. having the same name but slightly different effects was enough to put me off it entirely, even if that wasn't a mechanical fault of the system at all.

I can understand people that cut their teeth on 5e or less crunch-heavy systems balking at that sort of thing.

[Mastikator]

5th ed:
1st lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
2nd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
3rd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats

Pathfinder:
1st lvl: AB+3, Swim +3, Climb +3, Intimidation +2, Profession (cook) -1. Two feats
2nd lvl: AB+4, Swim +7, Climb +7, Intimidation +2, Profession (Cook) +3. Three feats
3rd lvl: AB +5, Swim +7, Climb +8, Intimidation +7, Profession (cook) +4. Four feats

There's just more feeling of progression, like I'm moving forwards and getting stronger with each level. Every level my character can cook better, can intimidate better, can fight better. If i want too, i can pick up entirely new skills to invest into. I started the game having trouble putting bread on top of bread to make a bread sandwich. now I'm the best cook in the party.

in 5th edition, I'm no better at hitting enemies then when i started. I'm no better at seeing things then when i started, i couldn't learn how to climb even if i wanted too. I can't even get better at resisting poisons or the like because saving throws aren't a thing, so i don't improve in those either.

I can heal myself a bit and take an extra action, but otherwise I'm still exactly the same as when i started.

I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

[stoutstien]

I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

IMO It's like running in place if you take off the facade.

[Draconi Redfir]

I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

not sure, talking about pathfinder 1st ed here, I've never actually tried PF2.

though to be fair, don't know for 1st ed either. seems to just depend on what you're facing.