What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Rynjin]

The big thing that convinced me that PF2e is not for me was seeing a story on Reddit about someone whose character was somehow rendered 'non-viable' because the GM told them that magic handwraps would only work on attacks with their fists, but "climbing a tree is athletics expert" is probably one of the worst things I've heard tbh.

That sounds about right. By the time we had finally bullied Paizo into making a handwraps item they STILL made sure to specify they only worked with unarmed attacks made with your hands.

Fun? Never heard of it. - The Paizo Design team (probably).

Though TBF, the 2e Handwraps only IMPLY that (by repeated mention of "fists", "claws", etc.) instead of outright stating it.

[Zuras]

It's not the math itself-it's the conditionals behind it.

I mean, sometimes it’s the math. Adding 30 different +/- modifiers that could be 1, 0, or -1 is the very definition of complicated. It’s not complex, but that doesn’t make it easy.

[JNAProductions]

I mean, sometimes it’s the math. Adding 30 different +/- modifiers that could be 1, 0, or -1 is the very definition of complicated. It’s not complex, but that doesn’t make it easy.

Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

[Amidus Drexel]

The alternatives are twofold.
1) Don't let skills eclipse the die, and therefore the die is more important than character skill.
2) Let the skills eclipse the die, and also provide no support for characters who are not specializing in some skills. Then you end up either with generalists who cannot reliably beat any on-level challenges, specialists who are quite bad at everything beyond their specialization and cannot even attempt on-level challenges at all, or challenges that are far less potent than whatever specialists can achieve.

The longer I type up my response, the less I agree with this in general. Not only do I think it's possible to do all of the above in a single skill system, but I also think you're missing the space in-between where neither die rolls nor skill investment fully eclipse the other.

My personal preferences for a skill system (all of these things make intuitive sense to me as modeling the fiction, and work fine from a gameplay perspective as well):
1. Random chance or circumstantial bonuses should be the deciding factor in peer vs. peer contests, or when someone is pushing the edge of their ability (regardless of how skilled they are).
2. Specialists should have a distinct, genuine advantage over generalists, who should have a distinct, genuine advantage over someone with no investment whatsoever, regardless of level.
3. Specialists should almost always succeed at things that are only moderately difficult or easier.
4. Generalists should basically always have a chance in things they've invested in, unless they're trying something unreasonably hard.
5. There should be things that are too hard for an untrained character to even attempt.

There's a skill system that I quite like that accomplishes all of those things (I'm sure there are more than one). It's 3.5's (and to a large extent, PF1's). We don't have to choose between "everyone scales up everything as they level", "the dice decide everything", and "the dice are useless".

As I've said before (and others have), it's not the literal process of adding the numbers that's complicated. It's deciding what numbers to add to what numbers and keeping track of all the various sources and durations and conditionals.

Agreed. As a DM, I've found the conditionals are a lot easier to track (I'm usually in charge of those conditionals, after all) than durations. Fortunately my party only has one spellcaster right now, but once there are more than two or three different duration spell effects happening simultaneously I start to lose track.

This conversation has definitely given me some appreciation for 5e's implementation of concentration, even though as a player I still find it a little annoying that you can't stack up spell effects easily.

Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

In my 3.5 game, I think the most conditional modifiers we've had simultaneously were flanking (+2 to hit) + charge modifiers (+2 to hit, -2 AC), or the one time the party fighter got hit by a ray of enfeeblement and went from a light load to a heavy load and had to recalculate some stuff between turns. It's rare we have anything crazier than a single +2 or -2.

[Kane0]

My favourite example is 'I hit it with my sword'

3.PF: Miss Chance, AC (the correct type), damage resistance, damage reduction, critial confirmation, crit range and multiplier.
Potentially dozens of features/items/spells/feats/conditions apply modifiers.

5e: AC, damage resistance, rolling a 20 double your dice.
Total number of features/items/spells/feats can usually be counted on one hand but at most two, everything else is advantage or disadvantage

Not sure what PF2 is exactly like, so can't comment.

[Willie the Duck]

I get that your real complaint about the sword is that it creates a weird special case in the AC calculation, and I know that there are plenty of other things like it (caltrops ignore deflection bonuses, for example). But you're still essentially presenting "you can have a magic sword that phases through armour" as if it's exclusively a bad thing. I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, but I feel like there has to be more to it.

No I am not presenting that, essentially or otherwise. I didn't even focus specifically on the brilliant energy weapon attack moreso than the flat-footed one or the touch-attack one (or the monk one that I apparently got full-on wrong). I am not presenting having a magic sword that phases through armour as a bad thing*, I am presenting the instance of weird special cases in the AC calculation, of which brilliant energy weapons are a singular example, as a reason why individuals might find PF to have a bunch of fiddly numbers (as was germane to the conversation when I put it forward). Of course there is 'more to [magic sword that phases through armor],' but if I were to have brought them up, that would be when I would be making this about brilliant energy weapons, instead of special cases in AC calculations. Now, if you are done mischaracterizing what I said, my positions, and my focus, can we please rejoin the discussion with everyone else?
*the character in-game would obviously love it, and the player would love it but potentially not love the implementation of the mechanics. Something we can lovingly discuss in a thread focused on favorite or least-favorite magic items

Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

It seems like perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include multiple levels, with expert only being needed for those Greasebark trees. That or 'Expert' is simply a misplaced moniker (kind of like 5e's "deadly" encounters). There are some activities I can see having a 'must be this [skilled] to ride' sign, but I think it'd be mostly along the lines of 'must be an expert alchemist before being able to distill extract-of-prismatic-lotus-blossom potions' or 'must be a triple grand master weaponsmith before you can make a Mirasmunamcguffin sword.' Gating climbing behind expertise I'd only want for something like the 3e Epic Level Handbook's shenanigans (run up a waterfall, or something).

[aimlessPolymath]

Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action, and:

Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface

Going by the Simple DCs table, it'd be DC 10 or 15 to climb a tree.

Untrained 10
Trained 15
Expert 20
Master 30
Legendary 40

The only Athletics action that requires training to attempt is Disarm. I'm not sure where the "climbing a tree requires you to be Expert in Athletics' idea is coming from.

[lesser_minion]

Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action.

OK, so when a "sample task" lists something as trained, they mean in terms of the DC, not the minimum proficiency to attempt. That makes sense, but I still feel like I should dock them some points over this.

I still haven't figured out what the game does to mitigate potentially needing 3 checks/round to climb or swim, although I see they do both list conditions that don't require a check.

[Luccan]

Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action, and:


Going by the Simple DCs table, it'd be DC 10 or 15 to climb a tree.


The only Athletics action that requires training to attempt is Disarm. I'm not sure where the "climbing a tree requires you to be Expert in Athletics' idea is coming from.

So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

[aimlessPolymath]

I still haven't figured out what the game does to mitigate potentially needing 3 checks/round to climb or swim, although I see they do both list conditions that don't require a check.

To be fair, here's the comparable line from 3.5.

Action

Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action (and may be combined with other types of movement in a move action). Each move action that includes any climbing requires a separate Climb check. Catching yourself or another falling character doesn’t take an action.

3.5 does let you bucket together move actions using the Run action to make one check, I guess?

[Zuras]

Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

The big issue to me is that it’s not really optional fiddly bits that you can just ditch if they get too cumbersome. Star Fleet Battles has a lot of fiddly math (especially in the electronic warfare/sensor jamming rules) that you can just completely skip. Even players who like the complexity may drop the rules for larger fleet engagements.

Most highly detailed RPGs don’t just let you abstract whole levels of detail away like that without disrupting balance or leaning hard on the GM for adjudication.

[lesser_minion]

To be fair, here's the comparable line from 3.5.

3e's system for athletics isn't amazing, but you can often take 10. For climbing and swimming, the effect is that you either succeed without rolling or you're in serious trouble (depending on how far you have to travel).

It looks like PF2e makes it impossible to fall off of a ladder unless you have a strength penalty?

Regardless, while from what I've seen the rules don't have as much of the 4e "what the hell even is this?" feel, there are still hints of the paragon tier lockpicking issue (in 4e, locks were listed as "Heroic", "Paragon", and "Epic". People read this to mean that the DC depended on the tier of the character picking the lock).

[Kurald Galain]

OK, so when a "sample task" lists something as trained, they mean in terms of the DC, not the minimum proficiency to attempt. That makes sense, but I still feel like I should dock them some points over this.

The weird thing is that a "master" only gets a +2 higher bonus than the "expert"; so the master isn't noticeably better at expert-level tasks, and neither is the expert noticeably worse at master-level tasks.

PF2 uses a lot of wordcount to rule that (aside from gatekeeping certain traps/obstacles, and the largely-useless skill feats) there's no particular benefit to becoming an expert or master; in terms of passing skill DCs, you're at the mercy of the random number gods.

[RandomPeasant]

As I've said before (and others have), it's not the literal process of adding the numbers that's complicated. It's deciding what numbers to add to what numbers and keeping track of all the various sources and durations and conditionals.

How many sources and durations and conditionals does a character actually have? Like, what is the specific class or character concept that you think produces something that is substantially more complicated in 3e than in 5e.

There's a skill system that I quite like that accomplishes all of those things (I'm sure there are more than one). It's 3.5's (and to a large extent, PF1's). We don't have to choose between "everyone scales up everything as they level", "the dice decide everything", and "the dice are useless".

I largely agree, but it is worth pointing out that if you do this type of scaling you end up pushing out people who don't actively invest. And that can be good (it is not, I think, particularly desirable or necessary for everyone to be able to roll Knowledge-type checks effectively), but it also has issues. The big one is stealth, where a lot of stealth-type encounters really rely on the whole party having numbers that are at least in a ballpark.

3.PF: Miss Chance, AC (the correct type), damage resistance, damage reduction, critial confirmation, crit range and multiplier.

It seems somewhat dishonest to count "damage resistance" and "damage reduction" as different things.

Potentially dozens of features/items/spells/feats/conditions apply modifiers.

This is just saying "the system has more content in it". There's nothing stopping 5e from having lots of class features or items or spells or feats that can add modifiers to your attack, it simply has less stuff in it. But, to get back to the actual objection, it doesn't have that much stuff for an individual character, or for a low-level character, or for the types of characters new players are likely to play. It is absolutely true that you can build a Duskblade/Warblade/Crusader with a whole mess of random feats that will have a lot going on in 3e. It is absolutely not true that you need to do that or that you will inevitably do that or anything like that. You can also just play a Fighter that does not have any contingent bonuses to speak of and simply makes attacks. Indeed, that is the character that far more new players will make.

[animorte]

How many sources and durations and conditionals does a character actually have? Like, what is the specific class or character concept that you think produces something that is substantially more complicated in 3e than in 5e.

I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Not to mention the skills. Skill rank (possible half point, round down if cross-class) + relevant ability mod + 2 if you have 5 ranks in other specific skill + 2 aid another (but only if the one helping has ranks in said skill as well).

I mean, I've had plenty of fun hunting down the numbers as making sure I put them all in the right place and adding it up for massive amounts of bonus, etc. Sometimes it can be a bit time consuming though, even if you have them all added up ready to go at a glance, there's plenty of specific circumstances in which this +2 or that +1 is not applicable. I mean, it really depends on how strict the DM is and how much system mastery is prevalent at the table, I guess.

[Pex]

If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

Look at it from the other view as it is in 5E. People complain a barbarian can succeed a Knowledge Arcana check when the wizard fails. The DM has to arbitrarily say the barbarian can't roll, with some people criticizing the DM does that wanting the barbarian to get the roll. Having it both ways doesn't work. Pathfinder made its decision. You need to be this high to ride on skills. You don't have to like it, but at least there is an official rule on the matter, and Pathfinder is not stingy on the number of skills players may have. No character can do everything, and no character is supposed to be able to do everything, except perhaps bards as a class feature jack of all trades.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Not to mention the skills. Skill rank (possible half point, round down if cross-class) + relevant ability mod + 2 if you have 5 ranks in other specific skill + 2 aid another (but only if the one helping has ranks in said skill as well).

I mean, I've had plenty of fun hunting down the numbers as making sure I put them all in the right place and adding it up for massive amounts of bonus, etc. Sometimes it can be a bit time consuming though, even if you have them all added up ready to go at a glance, there's plenty of specific circumstances in which this +2 or that +1 is not applicable. I mean, it really depends on how strict the DM is and how much system mastery is prevalent at the table, I guess.

Yeah. And 5e has a strong policy of not doing stacking numeric bonuses. So even if you add more possible sources, they don't generally stack. Literally the only ones that aren't completely static are
* Shield (the spell), which lasts for 1 round and bumps your AC by +5.
* GWM/SS, which are 1 turn toggles (-5 to attack, +10 to damage).
* Shield of Faith, a +2 AC bonus
* Cover (+2/+5 bonus to AC)
* Heavy Armor Master (-3 to specific types of incoming damage).

And those are considered disfavored and are being reworked for OneD&D.

Everything else is one of
* completely static (fighting styles, ability modifiers, armor, weapons) and thus rolled into your base modifier
* advantage/disadvantage (which doesn't stack)
* resistance/vulnerability/immunity...which not only don't stack but are 1/2x, 2x, or 0x modifiers, not static numbers.
* or bonus dice (which you have to use consciously)

So basically you have 1 thing that applies to everyone (cover), two spells (one of which is concentration), and two feats that can actually provide stacking modifiers. And those are on the chopping block (for good reason). And note those are not actually conditional other than "active/not active" (ok, cover is kinda conditional, but also often ignored). They're either on for an entire turn worth of attacks or they're not.

So even if the total content of 5e grows, the basic philosophy means you'll rarely get more stacking bonuses.

On the other hand, everything in 3e is a stacking (or sometimes not, read the individual effect and probably the errata and several FAQs) numeric modifier. Most of which are conditional on a lot of things. Without advantage and without the streamlined resistance/vulnerability, that's the only tool feats have. And there are lots that stack in...interesting ways. Or conflict with each other (if you do X, you lose the bonus from Y) or are variable (compare 3e's power attack to 5e's GWM equivalent).

[aimlessPolymath]

Look at it from the other view as it is in 5E. People complain a barbarian can succeed a Knowledge Arcana check when the wizard fails. The DM has to arbitrarily say the barbarian can't roll, with some people criticizing the DM does that wanting the barbarian to get the roll. Having it both ways doesn't work. Pathfinder made its decision. You need to be this high to ride on skills. You don't have to like it, but at least there is an official rule on the matter, and Pathfinder is not stingy on the number of skills players may have. No character can do everything, and no character is supposed to be able to do everything, except perhaps bards as a class feature jack of all trades.

The only thing you really take a penalty on for is not getting to add your level to untrained skills, and some actions (for Athletics, Disarm) you need at minimum training- Recall Knowledge is not one of them, and it uses simple DCs. If a task is described as Expert in the 'sample tasks' in the skill section, that's generally a reference to the Simple DCs

If you're referring to the 'minimum proficiency' rules-

Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a character to have a specific proficiency rank in addition to a success on the check. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device actions of Thievery. A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants—after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!

For checks that require a minimum proficiency, keep the following guidelines in mind. A 2nd-level or lower task should almost never require expert proficiency, a 6th-level or lower task should almost never require master proficiency, and a 14th-level or lower task should almost never require legendary proficiency. If they did, no character of the appropriate level could succeed.

In the case of locks/traps, that sort of thing usually gets rolled into the defined DC of a hazard, for example:
Disable Religion DC 29 (master) to exorcise the spirit or Diplomacy DC 31 (expert) to talk it down
Everything else in the book is just a regular DC, no requirements.

Proficiency requirements are not meant to apply to general skill checks without a specific reason.

[Pex]

Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

For sure. I don't like that it's Expert either, but I like it better than in 5E having to play Mother May I with the DM to climb a tree.

Correction noted. It's easier than Expert.

[aimlessPolymath]

For sure. I don't like that it's Expert either, but I like it better than in 5E having to play Mother May I with the DM to climb a tree.

Where are you reading that it's expert? From AoN, Climb is an 'untrained' action, and even the sample tasks for Climb say:

Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface

It's DC 10-15, going by Simple DCs.

[Pex]

So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

Yes, but they tell you what the difficulty of asks are instead of DM make it up. Players know how hard it is to climb a tree. It doesn't matter who is DM that day.

Where are you reading that it's expert? From AoN, Climb is an 'untrained' action, and even the sample tasks for Climb say:

It's DC 10-15, going by Simple DCs.

It's possible I remembered it wrong.

Just checked my own copy.

Yep, I did. Mea culpa. Feel better now. Error on specific example. Point stands on general point. The game tells you the difficulty of tasks. It provides examples, which is all I wanted from 5E.

[aimlessPolymath]

So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

Sorta. There's basically two types of checks:
-Level-based or opposed checks where you might be making a check against a foe, or a hazard or trap with level-equivalency. DC is either level-based or based on the character (ex. make a diplomacy check against someone's Will DC)

Other than that, yes, tasks are labeled as Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary, in rough 'tiers' of difficulty. Examples given in the book, for what difficulty different examples might be, etc. it's less a labeling of 'how hard is this for your average bounded-accuracy character' and more 'you must be roughly this tall to ride'- note that those labels correspond to proficiency categories.

[Pex]

The only thing you really take a penalty on for is not getting to add your level to untrained skills, and some actions (for Athletics, Disarm) you need at minimum training- Recall Knowledge is not one of them, and it uses simple DCs. If a task is described as Expert in the 'sample tasks' in the skill section, that's generally a reference to the Simple DCs

If you're referring to the 'minimum proficiency' rules-

In the case of locks/traps, that sort of thing usually gets rolled into the defined DC of a hazard, for example:
Disable Religion DC 29 (master) to exorcise the spirit or Diplomacy DC 31 (expert) to talk it down
Everything else in the book is just a regular DC, no requirements.

Proficiency requirements are not meant to apply to general skill checks without a specific reason.

By coincidence I've been reading the rules for the first time as of this discussion. If the skill use rules are more efficient than what I understood all the better and furthers why I like it more than the 5E skill system.

[Psyren]

The whole point of touch AC was to make up for spellcasters (including many spellcasting monsters) having lower physical stats and lower proficiency with their attack rolls with magical attacks. If you instead base magic attacks on mental stats and full proficiency then there's no reason to have a different AC number for those.

[RandomPeasant]

I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Like half of those are static. You don't need to figure out if your weapon is masterwork on the fly, and unless you are specifically a Barbarian your strength is just whatever it is. So the comparison is that, in a 5e game, you would instead be rolling an extra 1d4 and have to track Advantage and Disadvantage instead of some +2s. That's just not any less complicated.

(or sometimes not, read the individual effect and probably the errata and several FAQs)

No. Not "probably". Almost never read the errata and several FAQs. Seriously, go open a 3.5 book. Pick a random feat or class feature in it. Does it require you to look at the errata? Does it require you to look at a FAQ? No! Most of them don't. You just remember the ones that do because those are the ones that people argue about on the internet. Lots of people have strong opinions about how polymorph does or does not work, because it genuinely involves like a dozen layers of rules. And that's a valid criticism. Nothing should be as complicated as polymorph is. But the modal feat is not like that. The modal feat is like Communicator from Complete Arcane which straightforwardly gives you a list of abilities with clearly defined usage limits. The abilities themselves are uncomplicated. You can just take it, and then you can do a couple of magic things. It's just that no one argues about what Communicator does because there's nothing to argue about.

Without advantage and without the streamlined resistance/vulnerability, that's the only tool feats have.

Other than, you know, the static bonuses that you have just admitted 5e also does and which plenty of feats operate by. Or giving people genuinely novel abilities, which many feats also do. Let's go back to Communicator for a moment, because it is surrounded by two other feats: Chain Spell and Cooperative Spell. Go take a look at them. They are, I will grant, much more complicated than Communicator is. But it does not seem to me that the complexity is incidental, so any ability of 5e to avoid it is accomplished by not having those feats, not being mechanically simpler in any fundamental sense.

[Keltest]

I would like to point out, again, that the overwhelming response from the pro-pathfinder crowd here has not been to try and highlight how the more complex system can be good, but rather to say that our (the people who dont care for 3.5/PF) perspective is wrong, our opinions are invalid and in some cases to insist that we are simply inventing criticisms.

So that would be why people asking if I would like to try Pathfinder actively drives me away from Pathfinder.

[warty goblin]

The whole point of touch AC was to make up for spellcasters (including many spellcasting monsters) having lower physical stats and lower proficiency with their attack rolls with magical attacks. If you instead base magic attacks on mental stats and full proficiency then there's no reason to have a different AC number for those.

I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

[Keltest]

I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

From my understanding, thats not entirely inaccurate. The point is youre coming in contact with them and then letting a rider do an effect rather than trying to actually physically damage them.

It doesnt have to be as undignified as a simple poke, but it can be.

[Psyren]

I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

I think you might be reading "melee touch attack" a bit too literally. Your hand is coming pretty close to the orc, but that doesn't mean you're physically poking it with your finger or weapon; the spell energy itself is what ultimately makes contact, which is why your armor and shield don't matter but dodge and deflection do. Your finger might even make contact after the energy does, which explain how you're able to do it (i.e. their shock allows you to "complete the circuit.")

For example, here is the art for the melee touch spell Belker Claws

Spoiler

Show

in which the caster brings their hand close to the target and then the energy reaches out to siphon the target's life force.

[Kane0]

It seems somewhat dishonest to count "damage resistance" and "damage reduction" as different things.

This is just saying "the system has more content in it". There's nothing stopping 5e from having lots of class features or items or spells or feats that can add modifiers to your attack, it simply has less stuff in it.

But, to get back to the actual objection, it doesn't have that much stuff for an individual character, or for a low-level character, or for the types of characters new players are likely to play.

Because they are. You could have one, or the other, or both. In 5e there is resistance (half damage), vulnerability (double damage) and immunity (no damage), and it applies per damage type.

Yes, but also no. 5e uses things like Concentration, Attunement and Advantage to deliberately cut down on what you can possibly have even if you say enabled Gestalting and handed out free feats in a monty haul campaign. 3.PF expects you to pick up all these whings with WBL, stacking long duration buffs, etc.

But fair point. Just because the extra complexity is possible doesnt mean its guaranteed to occur, or even negatively affect your experience if it does. It did for me, but your mileage may vary.