What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[PhoenixPhyre]

IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

Disagree. I strongly disliked Pathfinder because of all the pointless number juggling. Yet have no issues with 5e and have DM'd and played it for decades at this point.

PF1e is especially rife with subtle numbers issues. PF2e has fewer and most are pushed to build time.

Both force you to think in a build-centric way, with lots of attention to "operating the mechanics" rather than playing the game. Heavy emphasis on the Game UI layer, with very little concern toward the underlying fiction. In fact, the fiction ends up getting hammered into the mold forced by the mechanical superstructure, rather than the mechanics being a way to express the underlying fiction.

[kyoryu]

Or beer.

Beer and whiskey are assumed.

IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

I know a lot of people that prefer 5e to 3.5e/PF1e.

I don't think that framing preferences as a personality flaw is really good for conversations.

[Rynjin]

Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

Note: what you're doing here is basically calling people stupid for not having the same preferences as you do. That's not very nice.

"Simple addition and subtraction" isn't the actual issue. It's that you have to do it conditionally, on a turn-by-turn basis, with an enormous range of things that could impose stacking penalties and bonuses. Sometimes. Under certain circumstances. There's an enormous difference between

* All the important +X/-Y are written on your character sheet and only change at level up (if even then).
* Some modifiers can be written down in advance. Others may be attached to buffs, debuffs, conditions, feats (conditional on a bunch of other things), items, etc. All of which come and go at different rates under different circumstances. Then there are all the interaction terms--this buff counters that debuff, except when...

[JNAProductions]

Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

[Rynjin]

Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

Genuinely, yes. Core to core anyway.

The main difference and hurdle in learning the system is the amount of options bloat that occurred in 3.5 and Pathfinder over their spans.

5e is REALLY not that different as a baseline system.

[JNAProductions]

Genuinely, yes. Core to core anyway.

The main difference and hurdle in learning the system is the amount of options bloat that occurred in 3.5 and Pathfinder over their spans.

I strenuously disagree, if you want to have a group that works well together.

3.5 is full of trap options. On one hand, you have a Druid who takes Natural Spell. On the other hand, you have a Monk who takes Toughness and Diehard. Both are thematic choices-a Druid who prefers animal forms to their own, and a Monk who's hard to kill.
One of those builds can go to 20 and be fine, against reasonable CR foes.
One of those builds won't do nearly as well.

Even ignoring character-building, as Phoenix mentioned, there's a hell of a lot more conditional things-all of which add to mental overhead.

[Rynjin]

All of that is detail, more than anything. There are plenty of "trap" options in 5e as well, it's just that the highs are lower and lows don't stick out as much.

And it doesn't really reflect the baseline of learning the system either.

[JNAProductions]

All of that is detail, more than anything. There are plenty of "trap" options in 5e as well, it's just that the highs are lower and lows don't stick out as much.

And it doesn't really reflect the baseline of learning the system either.

A badly built PC in 5E is not as good as a highly-optimized one. Outside of a few specific tricks (such as Wish-Sim chaining, available at 17th level or higher only) you can put a weak PC of level X in 5E next to a strong PC of level X and they'll both contribute just fine.
A switch-hitter Champion Fighter who took the Defensive style, never switched it, and evenly spread their ASIs between Strength and Dexterity is not as good as a focused build. But they can adventure alongside a Sharpshooter Samurai and still contribute just fine.
In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

[LibraryOgre]

Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

I've been hearing that about ThAC0 for decades, now.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A badly built PC in 5E is not as good as a highly-optimized one. Outside of a few specific tricks (such as Wish-Sim chaining, available at 17th level or higher only) you can put a weak PC of level X in 5E next to a strong PC of level X and they'll both contribute just fine.
A switch-hitter Champion Fighter who took the Defensive style, never switched it, and evenly spread their ASIs between Strength and Dexterity is not as good as a focused build. But they can adventure alongside a Sharpshooter Samurai and still contribute just fine.
In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

All of this.

In addition, the presentation of 3e/PF1e is horrible for learning. Stuff is scattered hither and yon, rules contradict, override, and interact with each other in literally insane ways. As evidenced by the interminable arguments on this forum. I remember my PF1e DM having to flip back and forth between 3 different books + an online resource to figure out exactly how a monster worked in one of the well-regarded Paizo adventure paths (Rise of the Runelords). And it still came down to "screw it, it's gonna work this way because it's too much of a mess".

Stat blocks require you to have the entire structure of the game in working memory, while also often being just flat wrong. In meaningful ways. Spells require interpolating lots of run-time variables to even begin to parse, not even counting all the potential interactions. Abilities that do nothing...or shatter the game, placed alongside others.

[Amnestic]

Not to turn this into an edition war or anything but I am afraid I also have to disagree with the idea that 3.5/PF are equal in "learning required" compared to 5e, both "pre-game" (generating/updating the character) and "in-game" (i.e. turn to turn effects).

Looking at just the character sheets between 3.5/PF and 5e shows that one has a lot more calculations and things to track going into it. Yes, ultimately knowing that how to calculate AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC aren't all that complex, but it is objectively more to learn and think about both before and during a game than 5e's equivalent. Knowing about all the different non-stacking types of modifiers is extra knowledge, and having to recalculate stuff on the fly is much more prevalent in 3.5/PF than it is on 5e. The notorious grapple mechanics!

My background with D&D was primarily 3.5 - I started with Baldur's Gate, my tabletop foray started and stuck with 3.5, dipped into 4e (it had a lot of good ideas! and some not so good ones!) and then moved onto 5e. I definitely believe, personally, that 3.5/PF require more learning and brainspace to play actively than 5e does.

That in itself is not a comment on its quality - people clearly still love the games, and I myself very much enjoy Owlcat's Kingmaker/WotR games (primarily because all that crunchy calculation is done by a computer for me) - just that one requires more learning and maths to play than the other.

[Rynjin]

Rise of the Runelords is a pretty cherry-picked example IMO because it's a 3.5 adventure that was converted to Pathfinder, of course it's not going to map 1:1. That's not really an issue in Pathfinder-only APs, barring a few notable typos and outright mistakes.

I also feel like you're describing problems that are precisely as much of an issue in 5e. It's not like 5e is a one-page document or something, all the rules are scattered across multiple books as well. You need at minimum the PHB and DMG to run a game and are going to have to flip back and forth between them and jump between hundreds of pages to get the rules you need.

Same as you need the Core Rulebook and...actually that's it to run a game of Pathfinder.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

?

I genuinely have no clue what you're trying to say here.

[JNAProductions]

Not to turn this into an edition war or anything but I am afraid I also have to disagree with the idea that 3.5/PF are equal in "learning required" compared to 5e, both "pre-game" (generating/updating the character) and "in-game" (i.e. turn to turn effects).

Looking at just the character sheets between 3.5/PF and 5e shows that one has a lot more calculations and things to track going into it. Yes, ultimately knowing that how to calculate AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC aren't all that complex, but it is objectively more to learn and think about both before and during a game than 5e's equivalent. Knowing about all the different non-stacking types of modifiers is extra knowledge, and having to recalculate stuff on the fly is much more prevalent in 3.5/PF than it is on 5e. The notorious grapple mechanics!

My background with D&D was primarily 3.5 - I started with Baldur's Gate, my tabletop foray started and stuck with 3.5, dipped into 4e (it had a lot of good ideas! and some not so good ones!) and then moved onto 5e. I definitely believe, personally, that 3.5/PF require more learning and brainspace to play actively than 5e does.

That in itself is not a comment on its quality - people clearly still love the games, and I myself very much enjoy Owlcat's Kingmaker/WotR games (primarily because all that crunchy calculation is done by a computer for me) - just that one requires more learning and maths to play than the other.

Yeah. I prefer 5E to 3.5 and Pathfinder, since it's much easier to play and run. It has less rules covering everything, and that's okay with me-preferred, even.

Rynjin, you are not wrong to prefer 3.P to 5E. I don't, but these are games we play for fun. If Pathfinder is more fun for you and your table, then have fun! But I think you might overestimate how easy it is to play and learn 3.P, since you're so well-versed in it.

[Rynjin]

Yeah. I prefer 5E to 3.5 and Pathfinder, since it's much easier to play and run. It has less rules covering everything, and that's okay with me-preferred, even.

Rynjin, you are not wrong to prefer 3.P to 5E. I don't, but these are games we play for fun. If Pathfinder is more fun for you and your table, then have fun! But I think you might overestimate how easy it is to play and learn 3.P, since you're so well-versed in it.

It's an admittedly small sample size, but I really have observed a similar level of difficulty in people learning both systems. Pathfinder is what I started with, and I had no real issue transitioning to 5e since the only variation was in the details; you can still Grapple, Trip, and Disarm for instance, but the effects are slightly different.

Similarly, the newer players I've introduced to the hobby have struggled to the same degree when learning both systems, or ANY new system (having also introduced them to Final Fantasy d6 and Savage Worlds, the former of which is infinitely simpler than 5e).

The main difference I've observed is in character creation, not at the table. Pathfinder invokes a lot more options-paralysis than 5e (and FFd6; less than Savage Worlds) due to just having so much more stuff.

I will say partially the disconnect comes from my not considering "flipping through books" to be a valid complaint. There is a very good, official, searchable website with every single piece of mechanical content ever printed for Pathfinder which is something 5e lacks (as a free service available to all players in any case). That's a resource any player and GM should be availing themselves of instead of flipping through 9 different books worth of content.

Having to go back to flipping through books (well, PDFs) in 5e was the biggest hurdle I actually had to learning THAT system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's an admittedly small sample size, but I really have observed a similar level of difficulty in people learning both systems. Pathfinder is what I started with, and I had no real issue transitioning to 5e since the only variation was in the details; you can still Grapple, Trip, and Disarm for instance, but the effects are slightly different.

Similarly, the newer players I've introduced to the hobby have struggled to the same degree when learning both systems, or ANY new system (having also introduced them to Final Fantasy d6 and Savage Worlds, the former of which is infinitely simpler than 5e).

The main difference I've observed is in character creation, not at the table. Pathfinder invokes a lot more options-paralysis than 5e (and FFd6; less than Savage Worlds) due to just having so much more stuff.

Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand
* how they all behave in isolation
* how they interact with each other
* how they interact with the buffs, debuffs, and other modifiers in play
* how they interact with the monsters and their abilities

to decide which one to use, with each term being orders of magnitude larger (more content, with more interactions between content). Combine that with drastically larger differences in effectiveness between the "right" and "wrong" choices and the much more lethal/rocket-tag combat. It's not just about action resolution (although that's orders of magnitude slower and more involved and gets exponentially more so as you level). It's about having to know a much larger, much more deeply connected and interacting set of rules just to decide what to do. With a much larger chance despite that of not getting to do anything effective on your turn. While waiting at least an order of magnitude more time per turn.

I will say partially the disconnect comes from my not considering "flipping through books" to be a valid complaint. There is a very good, official, searchable website with every single piece of mechanical content ever printed for Pathfinder which is something 5e lacks (as a free service available to all players in any case). That's a resource any player and GM should be availing themselves of instead of flipping through 9 different books worth of content.

Having to go back to flipping through books (well, PDFs) in 5e was the biggest hurdle I actually had to learning THAT system.

This was a monster printed in the adventure path. Which are not on those sites. And even more so, it's the interactions that matter. Sure, you can look up each piece in isolation. If you know what to search for and how to drill down. But the interaction terms? Yeah, good luck there. And there are buckets more of them in PF1e, by design. Ranging from inconsequential to :wtf-owl: to absolutely vital. And then you have rules overriding other rules conditionally, so you still have to decide what rules do I even search for.

[Rynjin]

Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand
* how they all behave in isolation
* how they interact with each other
* how they interact with the buffs, debuffs, and other modifiers in play
* how they interact with the monsters and their abilities

This is typically what comes with playing a game, yes. You have to make moment to moment choices. This goes for 5e as well, though I suppose you CAN just make a character who does nothing but basic attack for the whole campaign if you want.

This was a monster printed in the adventure path. Which are not on those sites. And even more so, it's the interactions that matter. Sure, you can look up each piece in isolation. If you know what to search for and how to drill down. But the interaction terms? Yeah, good luck there. And there are buckets more of them in PF1e, by design. Ranging from inconsequential to :wtf-owl: to absolutely vital. And then you have rules overriding other rules conditionally, so you still have to decide what rules do I even search for.

Yes, monsters printed in APs are on the sites. Specifically, the SRD has them, like this monster from Carrion Crown. As are most NPC statblocks for that matter. And everything you need to search for is in the statblock...just like in 5e. The statblock itself doesn't tell you how AC and saves work, for instance. You need to do the legwork on that yourself.

[Keltest]

For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

[Rynjin]

The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.

"Click on the thing that says X, it will perform Y function, now close the window"

"I don't get it"

*puts random rectangles around the three bits of that literal single sentence separated by commas*

"Oh yeah now I get it"

Edit: All right, when the conversation starts making me think about work I should probably just bow out of it.

[Keltest]

The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.

"Click on the thing that says X, it will perform Y function, now close the window"

"I don't get it"

*puts random rectangles around the three bits of that literal single sentence separated by commas*

"Oh yeah now I get it"

Ok, but Pathfinder is complicated enough to warrant it. If I was invested enough in the argument, I could put together a pretty elaborate one just for resolving a fighter's attempt to hit something with his sword. 5e is nothing like that.

[Segev]

I say this as a fan of PF1 and 3.5: both are far more complicated in execution than 5e. You can do some complex builds in 5e. But PF1 is going to have far more complexity to both the build and the moment-to-moment gameplay unless you very carefully design your build to NOT be complicated in moment-to-moment gameplay. And where's the fun in that?

[lesser_minion]

I did not put much time into thinking these specific examples, so this isn't surprising. Still, brilliant energy toggles whether physical armor matters. Flat footed toggles Dex and dodge-based ACs. Touch toggles armor and NA and a few other things. Combining the situations means more numbers to have pre-calculated (or not, and which case that's 'people not bothering to add their modifiers beforehand,' apparently).

I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.

The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.

[JNAProductions]

I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.

The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.

Spoiler: Attack Mods

Show

Dazzled
-1 to attacks

Entangled
-2 to attacks, plus -4 to Dexterity which may affect your hit rolls

Flanking
+2 to attacks, melee only

Invisible
+2 to attacks, plus defender loses their Dex bonus to AC

On Higher Ground
+1 to attacks, melee only

Prone
-4 to attacks, melee only
Cannot perform ranged attacks with most weapons

Shaken or Frightened
-2 to attacks

Squeezing Through A Space
-4 to attacks

Spoiler: Defense Mod

Show

Cover
+4 to AC

Blinded
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Concealed or Invisible
Has a percent chance of missing regardless of attack roll result

Cowering
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Entangled
No modifiers directly, but -4 penalty to Dex which may apply modifiers

Flat Footed
Lose Dex bonus

Grappling
No modifiers

Helpless
-4 to AC against melee, no modifiers to ranged. Also, denied Dex to AC, but listed with a different superscript from other lose Dex bonuses for some reason?

Kneeling or Sitting
-2 to AC against melee, +2 to AC against ranged

Pinned
-4 to AC against melee, no modifier against ranged. But has the same "lose Dex bonus" as Helpless.

Prone
-4 to AC against melee, +4 to AC against ranged

Squeezing
-4 to AC

Stunned
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

That's for Pathfinder, straight from the SRD.

For 5E...

Spoiler: Attack Bonuses

Show

Target is Blinded, Restrained, or Stunned
Advantage

Target is Prone
Advantage within 5', disadvantage further away.

Target is Paralyzed or Unconscious
Advantage, and attacks within 5' automatically crit.

Invisible
Advantage

Blinded, Frightened, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Squeezing Through A Small Space
Disadvantage

Spoiler: Defender Bonuses

Show

Half Cover
+2 AC and Dex Saves

3/4ths Cover
+5 AC and Dex Saves

Invisible
Inflict disadvantage on attacks

5E still has a decent amount of things. But, with the exception of Cover, it all boils down to (dis)advantage.

I won't say that it's better because of that-because that's down to preference.
I will say it's simpler because of that. Whether or not that is desirable is up to the individual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

Strong agreement with all of this. Responding to "it feels really complex and finicky" with "It's not really that complex unless you're too lazy or dumb to do a little simple stuff" says a lot about the community of that game. And this isn't the only case of this--this behavior is stereotypical for online PF pushers in my experience. And utterly repellant, even as someone who does have the capacity but does not have the desire to wade through a sea of stuff and does not appreciate being called either dumb or lazy.

Spoiler: Attack Mods

Show

Dazzled
-1 to attacks

Entangled
-2 to attacks, plus -4 to Dexterity which may affect your hit rolls

Flanking
+2 to attacks, melee only

Invisible
+2 to attacks, plus defender loses their Dex bonus to AC

On Higher Ground
+1 to attacks, melee only

Prone
-4 to attacks, melee only
Cannot perform ranged attacks with most weapons

Shaken or Frightened
-2 to attacks

Squeezing Through A Space
-4 to attacks

Spoiler: Defense Mod

Show

Cover
+4 to AC

Blinded
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Concealed or Invisible
Has a percent chance of missing regardless of attack roll result

Cowering
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Entangled
No modifiers directly, but -4 penalty to Dex which may apply modifiers

Flat Footed
Lose Dex bonus

Grappling
No modifiers

Helpless
-4 to AC against melee, no modifiers to ranged. Also, denied Dex to AC, but listed with a different superscript from other lose Dex bonuses for some reason?

Kneeling or Sitting
-2 to AC against melee, +2 to AC against ranged

Pinned
-4 to AC against melee, no modifier against ranged. But has the same "lose Dex bonus" as Helpless.

Prone
-4 to AC against melee, +4 to AC against ranged

Squeezing
-4 to AC

Stunned
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

That's for Pathfinder, straight from the SRD.

For 5E...

Spoiler: Attack Bonuses

Show

Target is Blinded, Restrained, or Stunned
Advantage

Target is Prone
Advantage within 5', disadvantage further away.

Target is Paralyzed or Unconscious
Advantage, and attacks within 5' automatically crit.

Invisible
Advantage

Blinded, Frightened, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Squeezing Through A Small Space
Disadvantage

Spoiler: Defender Bonuses

Show

Half Cover
+2 AC and Dex Saves

3/4ths Cover
+5 AC and Dex Saves

Invisible
Inflict disadvantage on attacks

5E still has a decent amount of things. But, with the exception of Cover, it all boils down to (dis)advantage.

I won't say that it's better because of that-because that's down to preference.
I will say it's simpler because of that. Whether or not that is desirable is up to the individual.

And this doesn't include all the feats, spells, and abilities that add their own modifiers not covered under the general ones. Or their interaction terms.

[aimlessPolymath]

When I played PF2e (as a hobgoblin fighter), the things that bothered me fell into two main categories:

-Being given a large number of low-impact choices (skill feats being the greatest offender here). To a lesser extent, this was present in PF1e as well, whey gave characters significantly more feats, plus (for many classes) a talent system to pick up special abilities and customize capabilities- but then split abilities up into ever-longer feat chains. In PF2e, this was most present in the form of highly situational skill/racial feats- gaining increased resistance to poison/disease, protection from specific casting traditions, or the ability to take less damage from falls are all situationally useful to have, but they're unlikely to come up on any given adventure, and aren't particularly exciting.

-Hands/item juggling, interact actions, other assorted action taxes. The three-action system is really cool! I like the idea of (in theory) being able to move, attack, and do something else that complements my main action. However, a number of things continuously taxed my actions.. Throwing a weapon or using a consumable takes two actions; one to draw and one to throw. Switching from one to two hands on a weapon? An action. Playing a flexible fighting style (I was trying to use a versatile weapon, fighting either two-handed with my or leaving a hand free to use items or cast spells from my free caster archetype) felt heavily taxed. As a fighter, a lot of my combat options would be granted by feats, but I didn't have enough feats (at least at low level) to have real flexibility- it felt like I had a very limited action rotation.

I can see both of those causing a backlash- heavily regimented / restricted actions in particular seem like they could cause frustration to someone coming from 5e where, in contrast, the action to pick something up is brushed over as a free interaction.

[Psyren]

Yeah, what I like in 5e is that you don't have a "move action." You just have a certain amount of movement, and you can expend it at any point during and throughout your turn. Do you have Extra Attack and a pair of light weapons? You can move ten feet up to attack somebody, and, if you drop them, move another ten feet over to a second somebody to use your extra attack, and, if you drop THEM, move to a third somebody another 10 feet away and attack them with your off-hand attack. All with 30 feet of movement, an action (for attacking and extra attacking), and a bonus action (for the off-hand attack).

I'm sure there's a feat coupon for this somewhere

And lest we forget, you're eating fat penalties on those subsequent attacks unless you have... yet more feat coupons?

IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

I have no problem paying attention. I mastered PF1, which is orders of magnitude more complex than PF2. I just don't see a reason to do so any longer when I don't need to.

[Pex]

Isn't awarding large numbers of +2s and -2s literally given in the 3e DMG as an example of what not to do? I always thought that complaints about "fiddly maths" were to do with mostly-static things like adding up your AC.

The problem wasn't adding +1 or +2. The problem was there were many different sources each providing their own +1s and +2s they add up to +10 or whatever you needed to remember. Eventually someone would forget a bonus here and there. Even in 5E now I still see players forget to roll the 1d4 from bless.

The one benefit VTT has to play Pathfinder is they can calculate all the math for you. I'm playing a Pathfinder 1E game on Foundry. There is a Buffs section on my character sheet. I can click as many buffs on I get and all the math necessary is done for me I just hit the roll button on whatever thing I'm doing. I don't know how it works on the DM side to create it, but it appears to me a combination of just adding on the ability from the game library and the DM creating a macro of a math function depending on the class ability/buff. There is that initial set up work that needs to be done, but once it's done it's calculated for you. For a DM who likes the game that initial set-up would be part of the fun. Even if you play in person use it for your character sheet. I remember the pencil and paper days playing Pathfinder. Score one for today's technology.

[Kane0]

For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

Seconded. As having played Carrion Crown and Kingmaker and then Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Princes of the Apocalypse with the same group of people I prefer 5e.

[RandomPeasant]

Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.

In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Aren't you switching your goalposts a little there? "Outclassed by" isn't the same as "not contributing". The Monk can still do stuff. They may be less good than the Druid, but that doesn't make them worthless. Indeed, the difficulty with which the "is the Monk bad" debate proceeded in the time of 3e suggests, at least to me, that the subjectively lived experience of new players is very much not that the Monk is completely worthless.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

Sure. But while there's a lot more content in 3e overall, the amount you need to learn to play any given character, particularly any given low-level character, is about the same. It is true that 3e contains Warlocks and Crusaders and Psions and Binders and Incarnates and whatever the hell else. But none of that matters to the guy who is building his first character that is a Dwarf Barbarian or whatever. It is true that you could theoretically go out and look through the entire universe of 1st level spells to decide which ones your Sorcerer is going to know, but I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that. Even completely unsupported people just pick a couple of core spells that they think are cool.

Honestly, it's weird that when you talk about 3e in isolation, it's all "forumites aren't typical, most people don't think about it", but the second we're talking about 3e in comparison to anything else everyone is getting a degree in CharOp theory before they build their first character. It's just not actually that hard to make a guy in 3e even if you've never played D&D before.

Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand

This is simply objectively false. How complex something is to build has very little to do with how complex it is to play. A Sorcerer is enormously complicated to build, because you have to narrow down the entire universe of Sorcerer/Wizard spells to ~4 options at each level and schedule your progression in such a way that things come into and out of your set of relevant options in a way that never leaves you with anything important uncovered. But in play you have like half a dozen options that matter maybe. Compare that to a Druid, where there's like three build choices that matter to any meaningful degree (do you know what Natural Spell is? do you know what Greenbound Summoning is? do you know what Planar Shepherd is? -- and note that the class itself involves no build choices!) but in play you can change your character almost unrecognizably from day to day and each of your prepared spells can be cashed out for a different spell that allows you to choose between many different allies to add to a fight which you can then command.

[Kane0]

Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.

Sunless Citadel made it into 5e, coincidentally. Lost Mines of Phandelver is the older, more common starter adventure but you can find the Sunless Citadel in the Tales from the Yawning Portal book.