What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Mastikator]

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

So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?

As long as you pick up all the required ability scores, feats, and items. And are facing on-level monsters. PF2e is, from what I understand, balanced on a roughly cubic fashion--if you're facing monsters more than a couple levels above you, you're in for a really really rough time. If you're facing monsters more than a couple levels below you, you're in for a really really easy time.

To contrast, 5e has a really flat hit rate. If you assume CR = Level and a reasonable starting stat/growth rate[1] and go either by published monsters OR the DMG guidance, the hit chance is 65% hit + 5% crit at all levels except level 9, where it's 70% + 5%. Calculating against CR = level + 3 (your guideline for "boss fight") gives a band of either 60% or 65% hit change (+ 5% crit) except for level 3, where it drops to 55% (due to a tier bump for CR 6). If you go by the usual "minion" guidelines (works out to CR = ~ level/2), the hit chance is 65-70% below level 5 and then climbs to either 75 or 80% for all other levels. And that's with no magic items whatsoever.

[1] assuming a +3 in attack stat at level 1, rising to +4 at level 4 and +5 at level 8+. You can speed things up by starting higher or slow them down, but all it does is change where the breakpoints are.

[Mastikator]

As long as you pick up all the required ability scores, feats, and items. And are facing on-level monsters. PF2e is, from what I understand, balanced on a roughly cubic fashion--if you're facing monsters more than a couple levels above you, you're in for a really really rough time. If you're facing monsters more than a couple levels below you, you're in for a really really easy time.

To contrast, 5e has a really flat hit rate. If you assume CR = Level and a reasonable starting stat/growth rate[1] and go either by published monsters OR the DMG guidance, the hit chance is 65% hit + 5% crit at all levels except level 9, where it's 70% + 5%. Calculating against CR = level + 3 (your guideline for "boss fight") gives a band of either 60% or 65% hit change (+ 5% crit) except for level 3, where it drops to 55% (due to a tier bump for CR 6). If you go by the usual "minion" guidelines (works out to CR = ~ level/2), the hit chance is 65-70% below level 5 and then climbs to either 75 or 80% for all other levels. And that's with no magic items whatsoever.

[1] assuming a +3 in attack stat at level 1, rising to +4 at level 4 and +5 at level 8+. You can speed things up by starting higher or slow them down, but all it does is change where the breakpoints are.

So, the pro of pathfinder is player feels like there's more progression (the importance of player feels can't be understated). But the pro of dnd5e is that monsters take longer to become obsolete as the game progresses. (or con, if you like, but I think it's a pro)

Still, never going to give pathfinder a chance as long as Vancian casting is the system of choice. I'd try a table that uses spell points instead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, the pro of pathfinder is player feels like there's more progression (the importance of player feels can't be understated). But the pro of dnd5e is that monsters take longer to become obsolete as the game progresses. (or con, if you like, but I think it's a pro)

Still, never going to give pathfinder a chance as long as Vancian casting is the system of choice. I'd try a table that uses spell points instead.

Yeah, sorta. Definitely if your mind is a "need tons of small +numbers to feel like there's progress", PF (1 and 2) does that way better than 5e. In that limited sense it's closer to a MMO/video game--it gives you immediate (or short-loop) feedback on "numbers go up!".

Sadly, many groups play 5e like it was PF--focusing on making the numbers go up. Which vitiates the whole bounded accuracy "pro" (as far as monsters are concerned)--not because accuracy is a problem (it never was), but because monsters just vanish under the firepower. So monsters become obsolete really darn fast. A case of where using it out of spec causes issues.

[stoutstien]

So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?

Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain. It doesn't support changing directions after you start down a path. Mostly due to the action system

You want to be good at blocking with a shield then you better make sure you take these 3-9 feats or it will quickly fall off.

[ngilop]

I am not 'triggered' by pathfinder when I tell people that other RPGs, that also include fantasy exist.


I just want people to step outside of their d20-based experiences and play some other games.

I think it is insulting to others that offering the idea that other RPGs exist is some kinda of 'anti-pathfinder' hate or other such.

[Stonehead]

Honestly, I think it's mostly because everyone keeps spamming recommendations. Imagine if you got fired from your dream job, and instead of trying to console you, all your friends instead tried to convince you to join some other job instead. I think most people would understandably be a bit upset, and end up with a negative opinion of that other job.

There are a lot of legitimate differences between Pathfinder, P2E, and DnD 5E. There are a lot of valid reasons to prefer a whole host of other systems over it. I don't think those differences are fueling the backlash though. I doubt @firstName673 on Twitter has enough experience with other systems to even have an opinion on crunch-level vs customization.

It's important to keep in mind that your average DnD player has probably only played in one or two campaigns, both of which were likely in the same system. They don't have strong opinions on the minutia of game design like us crazies posting on forumms.

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.

This is so true. P2E is fun to play, the action economy is great, but it's not very fun to build. Nothing is exciting, and nothing feels impactful.

Still though, the majority of the pushback (at least, the pushback that I've seen, I could be wrong) hasn't come from people who looked through the book and/or built a character, then decided it wasn't for them. It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game.

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.

I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong.

[Snowbluff]

Still though, the majority of the pushback (at least, the pushback that I've seen, I could be wrong) hasn't come from people who looked through the book and/or built a character, then decided it wasn't for them. It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game.

How do you mean that? I think the "proselyiz"ing of PF2 has been happening for a long while. DO you mean that 5e players are just more agitated with it at this point, or do think you the promotion of PF2 has just hit a peak here?

My main group has been pretty turned away already by PF2's systems. I just happen to know about it, or have played it enough to spot when PF2 promotion is incongruous with the play experience. Maybe it's because of my willingness and ability to respond to such statements with criticism that they stuck out to me before now.

[KorvinStarmast]

it's closer to a MMO/video game--it gives you immediate (or short-loop) feedback on "numbers go up!".

That's a good way to capture the "ding!" feeling that one sees in a variety of CRPGs.

Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain.

Which is a feature I don't care for, and which is something the D&D 5e does not do. (I also didn't like the ability pre req chains in Diablo II CRPG)

Honestly, I think it's mostly because everyone keeps spamming recommendations. Imagine if you got fired from your dream job, and instead of trying to console you, all your friends instead tried to convince you to join some other job instead.

Last time I got fired, the thing most on my mind was getting another job.

It's important to keep in mind that your average DnD player has probably only played in one or two campaigns, both of which were likely in the same system. They don't have strong opinions on the minutia of game design like us crazies posting on forumms.

Aye.

It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game.

Almost like the PF evangelists are taking a Forgite stace of "X game is bad for you, come to the correct play style over here" (Might be a slight exaggeration)

I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong.

Thanks for sharing that. I am not PF experienced.

[Segev]

I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong.

Yeah, for many years, "3.PF" was what my game groups considered the standard. That is, either 3.5 or PF1 or some mishmash of both for base rules, and then open up classes and feats and spells and stuff from the other one to play in the game. So, if you were running PF1 base rules, you still drew on the feats and classes and other stuff from 3.5.

You cannot do this with PF2 and 5e, and that's why I think "switch to PF2!" calls are landing on deaf or even irritated ears.

If the company that made it keeps making material, "Level-Up 5e" is the more likely "new Pathfinder" if D&D 5.1 bombs as hard with the fans as 4e did.

[Cikomyr2]

I am not 'triggered' by pathfinder when I tell people that other RPGs, that also include fantasy exist.


I just want people to step outside of their d20-based experiences and play some other games.

I think it is insulting to others that offering the idea that other RPGs exist is some kinda of 'anti-pathfinder' hate or other such.

You are inferring that all reactions I've seen were all anti-pathfinder.

It's not the case, but I have seen a lot of virulent anti-pathfinder sentiments, or even reaction to anti-pathfinder sentiments, and I wanted to understand the rationale behind this, since I am outside the community where this discussion must have been going on for years now.

I don't play Pathfinder myself, I just kind of know some things about it, and I have no real opinion on the matter.

[warty goblin]

So I'm considering trying to set up an RPG group with my GF and a couple friends. I really cannot imagine inflicting Pathfinder 2E on them. Like, I read that rulebook, and it is both insanely over-fiddly, and extremely closed off in terms of player options. Yes there's a lot of options in the rules, but those options are so specific and fiddly they create a strong impression that unless you took the feat, you can't do it. As a general action resolution tool it seems severely hemmed in.

Like, my GF and the other likely participants are not going to have patience for tracking their multi-attack penalty, which abilities can only be used with a multi-attack penalty, and which strikes can only be used once a turn. I get that there are people who really love having a bunch of rules to learn and levers to pull, but they will not find this sort of minutia fun or engaging. This will lead to annoyance and loss of engagement because either they can't remember how to do something, van only remember how to do like one thing, or have to constantly ask how to do stuff.

I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

It's not that I'm sold on D&D either. Frankly that's also more complex than I'd like for this purpose. But at least with that I can imagine how to explain the thing. and having explained it, I think it's plausible that they actually feel empowered to try to do stuff in the game, both because know how things work, and they aren't so drowned in rules they get paralyzed.

[Kane0]

So I'm considering trying to set up an RPG group with my GF and a couple friends. I really cannot imagine inflicting Pathfinder 2E on them. Like, I read that rulebook, and it is both insanely over-fiddly, and extremely closed off in terms of player options. Yes there's a lot of options in the rules, but those options are so specific and fiddly they create a strong impression that unless you took the feat, you can't do it. As a general action resolution tool it seems severely hemmed in.

Like, my GF and the other likely participants are not going to have patience for tracking their multi-attack penalty, which abilities can only be used with a multi-attack penalty, and which strikes can only be used once a turn. I get that there are people who really love having a bunch of rules to learn and levers to pull, but they will not find this sort of minutia fun or engaging. This will lead to annoyance and loss of engagement because either they can't remember how to do something, van only remember how to do like one thing, or have to constantly ask how to do stuff.

I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

It's not that I'm sold on D&D either. Frankly that's also more complex than I'd like for this purpose. But at least with that I can imagine how to explain the thing. and having explained it, I think it's plausible that they actually feel empowered to try to do stuff in the game, both because know how things work, and they aren't so drowned in rules they get paralyzed.

I've been reading Five Torches Deep this week, take a look at that?

[Stonehead]

How do you mean that? I think the "proselyiz"ing of PF2 has been happening for a long while. DO you mean that 5e players are just more agitated with it at this point, or do think you the promotion of PF2 has just hit a peak here?

Both probably. I agree "Hey, you should try this thing I like" is a constant phenomenon. I might even go so far as to argue that it's basically harmless.

But, people usually offer advice or suggestions when someone is complaining about something. As much of a meme as "You should try Pathfinder" has become, you rarely see it in positive, optimistic discussions of DnD. Now that everyone's complaining about the license, there are lots of opportunities to make suggestions.

On top of that, DnD players are more agitated in general because of the leaked changes. Being in a bad mood already, combined with the sharp increase in something that already bothered them a little bit, and getting agitated seems inevitable.

Yeah, for many years, "3.PF" was what my game groups considered the standard. That is, either 3.5 or PF1 or some mishmash of both for base rules, and then open up classes and feats and spells and stuff from the other one to play in the game. So, if you were running PF1 base rules, you still drew on the feats and classes and other stuff from 3.5.

You cannot do this with PF2 and 5e, and that's why I think "switch to PF2!" calls are landing on deaf or even irritated ears.

Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.

I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

Pathfinder is a decent substitute for DnD, but it sounds like your group doesn't want a substitute for DnD. There are a lot of rules-lite, battlefield-of-the-mind systems out there. I'm not super knowledgeable about the options, it's not really my thing, but I'm sure you could find something you like a lot better than DnD if you ask around here.

[Keltest]

Both probably. I agree "Hey, you should try this thing I like" is a constant phenomenon. I might even go so far as to argue that it's basically harmless.

But, people usually offer advice or suggestions when someone is complaining about something. As much of a meme as "You should try Pathfinder" has become, you rarely see it in positive, optimistic discussions of DnD. Now that everyone's complaining about the license, there are lots of opportunities to make suggestions.

On top of that, DnD players are more agitated in general because of the leaked changes. Being in a bad mood already, combined with the sharp increase in something that already bothered them a little bit, and getting agitated seems inevitable.



Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.



Pathfinder is a decent substitute for DnD, but it sounds like your group doesn't want a substitute for DnD. There are a lot of rules-lite, battlefield-of-the-mind systems out there. I'm not super knowledgeable about the options, it's not really my thing, but I'm sure you could find something you like a lot better than DnD if you ask around here.

I would argue that the Pathfinder/3.5 crowd probably care a great deal about the specifics of the rules, because PF was created specifically for that crowd to address the ending of any sort of ongoing support or quality of life improvements. That particular market is defined by caring about the specifics.

Likewise, the 5e crowd is probably in the same boat for their edition, which is a contributing reason for why theyre reacting negatively to being told to try Pathfinder. Its just straight up not the game they want to be playing, otherwise they would be playing it already.

[Segev]

Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.

I always heard it as "3.75" rather than "3.5.5," but the sentiment is the same.

And in my experience, players of D&D who aren't already steeped in an idea of trying many different systems tend to be very hard to convince to try a different system for the same sort of game. Moving from PF1 to 5e is a big jump, but doable because 5e is in many ways easier to grasp, so if they were the sort of player that isn't huge on digging into and memorizing rules in the first place, it was easier on them. The shift to PF2 is a much bigger paradigm shift in how the rule assumptions work, and is also a shift to far more fiddly mechanics than 5e. It also, speaking as a PF1 fan, strikes me as sucking a lot of the fun out of the game in favor of locking down number ranges (one of 4e's problems, though not the biggest one), and having tons of choices that...don't do much. And choices that are traps, because you really need to make ONE choice early on that you're going to stick with, and choosing anything but the next thing in the line is a much bigger nerf to your character than, say, multiclassing in 5e is.

Now, I'm sure PF2 is actually better than I'm giving it credit for, but it is a difficult sell to me, which means I fully buy that it's an even harder sell to people less likely to immerse themselves in rules than I am, who already are at least reasonably familiar with 5e, and who will look at PF2 as "this is unfamiliar, so it sucks." Thus, making the change involves getting ALL of your already somewhat disgruntled players (who are bitter over the current kerfluffle, if you've got the need/want to change to PF2 over this, anyway) to sign on to learning a system that is NOT as familiar as it seems to be being advertised as, and which has a very different paradigm of what choices to make and how meaningful they are.

[sithlordnergal]

For me, its because I started in 3.5 DnD. PF1 was basically so close to 3.5 that they were essentially one and the same...heck, for a while I didn't even realize the two were different systems. I just figured it was just another, bigger splatbook. XD

Then I moved to 5e, and ended up loving the simplified systems. You no longer needed Strength and Dexterity in order to make a competent Archer, no more feat chains to deal with, no more need to worry about getting a +25 to hit by carrying a dragon hoard's worth of magic items. I haven't ever gone back to 3.5, and the few times I've thought about it I just try to make a new character and I'm instantly reminded why I swapped. As such, I haven't had a need to change systems.

[Chauncymancer]

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.

An ongoing problem in talking about games is the idea that current edition of D&D is definitionally crunch medium, when some editions have been objectively speaking light or heavy.

[warty goblin]

Mostly I think things have just gotten much less crunchy. Or at least much less crunchy in terms of simulationism/representationalism. Something like Pathfinder 2E is, in some ways, really crunchy, but most of its rules are clearly there to give the players some levers to pull with some fluff bolted on top. But that's very different from some of the older, weirder RPGs on my shelf, with their various rules for blood loss, de-limbing, how fast your character can accelerate, their turning radius, and so on.

[Stonehead]

I would argue that the Pathfinder/3.5 crowd probably care a great deal about the specifics of the rules, because PF was created specifically for that crowd to address the ending of any sort of ongoing support or quality of life improvements. That particular market is defined by caring about the specifics.

Likewise, the 5e crowd is probably in the same boat for their edition, which is a contributing reason for why theyre reacting negatively to being told to try Pathfinder. Its just straight up not the game they want to be playing, otherwise they would be playing it already.

The PF1/3.5 crowd care for sure. The subset of the 5e crowd who are active forum posters probably care a lot about the fiddly mechanics as well. But DnD 5E is currently the "default" rpg. Being the current edition of the most popular brand means that if anyone doesn't care about the minutia of rules differences, 5E is the system they'll end up playing.

For someone who's played a dozen different systems with dedicated groups for the past decade, it can be hard to see how much the player base has exploded into the casual market. A lot of 5e players aren't super passionate about rules, not because there aren't many 5e players who are. There are a lot of 5e superfans, but 5e is the default system, so if you have no opinions, it's what you'll end up playing.

[Segev]

The PF1/3.5 crowd care for sure. The subset of the 5e crowd who are active forum posters probably care a lot about the fiddly mechanics as well. But DnD 5E is currently the "default" rpg. Being the current edition of the most popular brand means that if anyone doesn't care about the minutia of rules differences, 5E is the system they'll end up playing.

For someone who's played a dozen different systems with dedicated groups for the past decade, it can be hard to see how much the player base has exploded into the casual market. A lot of 5e players aren't super passionate about rules, not because there aren't many 5e players who are. There are a lot of 5e superfans, but 5e is the default system, so if you have no opinions, it's what you'll end up playing.

And if suddenly options explode because everyone who published for 5e now has to scramble to find new things to publish for....

[Jervis]

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?

Pathfinder is crunchier than 5e and most people that want crunchier 5e already found PF or some other game. Most 5e only players in my experience don’t want that complexity. That’s just my take on the matter as someone who’s preferred edition is 3.5/PF1

[Snowbluff]

I always heard it as "3.75" rather than "3.5.5," but the sentiment is the same.

And in my experience, players of D&D who aren't already steeped in an idea of trying many different systems tend to be very hard to convince to try a different system for the same sort of game. Moving from PF1 to 5e is a big jump, but doable because 5e is in many ways easier to grasp, so if they were the sort of player that isn't huge on digging into and memorizing rules in the first place, it was easier on them. The shift to PF2 is a much bigger paradigm shift in how the rule assumptions work, and is also a shift to far more fiddly mechanics than 5e. It also, speaking as a PF1 fan, strikes me as sucking a lot of the fun out of the game in favor of locking down number ranges (one of 4e's problems, though not the biggest one), and having tons of choices that...don't do much. And choices that are traps, because you really need to make ONE choice early on that you're going to stick with, and choosing anything but the next thing in the line is a much bigger nerf to your character than, say, multiclassing in 5e is.

Now, I'm sure PF2 is actually better than I'm giving it credit for, but it is a difficult sell to me, which means I fully buy that it's an even harder sell to people less likely to immerse themselves in rules than I am, who already are at least reasonably familiar with 5e, and who will look at PF2 as "this is unfamiliar, so it sucks." Thus, making the change involves getting ALL of your already somewhat disgruntled players (who are bitter over the current kerfluffle, if you've got the need/want to change to PF2 over this, anyway) to sign on to learning a system that is NOT as familiar as it seems to be being advertised as, and which has a very different paradigm of what choices to make and how meaningful they are.

You're being more than fair to PF2. It's been kinda panned by all of the PF1 players in my group. There are more problems with how all of this is implemented that became more evident as we played, and some of lost patience with it. I'm still finding out things that people don't like as from people who still do, and at least one of them is thinking of just making an overhaul for the system.

[Samayu]

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?

Some guys in my current D&D group play Pathfinder, and it sounds more complicated. I don't like class/level based systems to begin with, so I prefer a more streamlined game.

Plus, I think the systems are probably too similar for me to remember the rules of either properly if I'm going back and forth. So I'll only play PF once I've totally given up D&D.

[Segev]

Some guys in my current D&D group play Pathfinder, and it sounds more complicated. I don't like class/level based systems to begin with, so I prefer a more streamlined game.

Plus, I think the systems are probably too similar for me to remember the rules of either properly if I'm going back and forth. So I'll only play PF once I've totally given up D&D.

Just because you mentioned not liking class/level-based systems, I thought I'd mention BESM (3e is probably the best edition) or TriStat dX (which is a freely-available version of the core system BESM operates on). They're points-based build systems, and I find them more direct and less annoyingly fiddly than GURPS while still having a lot of ways you can engage in system mastery during the game and during the chargen minigame that most of us on gaming forums seem to really enjoy.

[Corvus]

I have nothing against it but if isnt for me. I don't like 3e, and given pf is based on that then it doesn't work for me.

[raipartygirl]

Re: What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Ignimortis]

PF1e took the worst parts about 3.5 and, for the most part, didn't do anything about them. Specific spell nerfs and small class changes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - 1PP content for Pathfinder follows a very samey scheme that mixes and matches the 3.5 PHB concepts, but very rarely goes beyond. The myriad bonus types, the focus on "you either do X at-will and it kinda sucks or just provides basic numbers, or you do it Y times per day, and it's either broken or useless" design, the idea that only dedicated builds should be good at things, etc. About the only semi-unique class that Paizo made is, I believe, the Kineticist, which is horribly overdesigned and not very good anyway.

Most of the good stuff for PF1 that I've seen in play came from Dreamscarred Press, who were nice enough to put their things on the d20pfsrd for free (my hat's off to you, people).

PF2 goes a step beyond PF1 - while it does cut some of PF1's crust and reins in the caster supremacy, the end result is somewhere between the bad parts of 4e (unpleasantly tight math, excessive focus on teamwork to the detriment of personal capability, the idea that any class a role they need to fulfill and not much else besides that role) and the bad parts of low-level PF1 (uninspired classes and abilities, high resistance to anything that isn't at-will or X/day, with Focus spells being rather lame, making a lot of things only function for dedicated builds). The end result feels a lot less like a TTRPG and a lot more like a wargame with in-depth unit customization.

I'm currently DMing a PF1 game and playing in a PF2 game. If it weren't for factors unrelated to the actual rulesets, I'd drop both right now. They aren't really good games (the rulesets, the games themselves are good), and while PF1 is workable as a player, I do not envy PF1 GMs. I've also heard that PF2 is extremely easy to DM, and I can hazard a guess why - it's because the players can't surprise you much, and the numbers are tight enough that you can just plop down a couple monsters and be sure it's a balanced fight.

I might be up to play PF1 with DSP content at some point in the future, but that's about it - I don't want to interact with either edition all that much anymore.

[Segev]

PF1e took the worst parts about 3.5 and, for the most part, didn't do anything about them. Specific spell nerfs and small class changes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - 1PP content for Pathfinder follows a very samey scheme that mixes and matches the 3.5 PHB concepts, but very rarely goes beyond. The myriad bonus types, the focus on "you either do X at-will and it kinda sucks or just provides basic numbers, or you do it Y times per day, and it's either broken or useless" design, the idea that only dedicated builds should be good at things, etc. About the only semi-unique class that Paizo made is, I believe, the Kineticist, which is horribly overdesigned and not very good anyway.

Most of the good stuff for PF1 that I've seen in play came from Dreamscarred Press, who were nice enough to put their things on the d20pfsrd for free (my hat's off to you, people).

PF2 goes a step beyond PF1 - while it does cut some of PF1's crust and reins in the caster supremacy, the end result is somewhere between the bad parts of 4e (unpleasantly tight math, excessive focus on teamwork to the detriment of personal capability, the idea that any class a role they need to fulfill and ) and the bad parts of low-level PF1 (uninspired classes and abilities, high resistance to anything that isn't at-will or X/day, with Focus spells being rather lame, making a lot of things only function for dedicated builds). The end result feels a lot less like a TTRPG and a lot more like a wargame with in-depth unit customization.

I'm currently DMing a PF1 game and playing in a PF2 game. If it weren't for factors unrelated to the actual rulesets, I'd drop both right now. They aren't really good games, and while PF1 is workable as a player, I do not envy PF1 GMs. I've also heard that PF2 is extremely easy to DM, and I can hazard a guess why - it's because the players can't surprise you much, and the numbers are tight enough that you can just plop down a couple monsters and be sure it's a balanced fight.

I might be up to play PF1 with DSP content at some point in the future, but that's about it - I don't want to interact with either edition all that much anymore.

I like PF1 a lot. DSP does great work in it, but the game works just fine in general, in my opinion. Of course, I don't share the dim view some take on 3.5's "rougher" mechanics. I think they're largely fine in real play, not having seen caster supremacy be a problem except when either the caster player was cheating about how his powers actually work, or the non-caster was deliberately refusing to engage in the game. (And I have seen non-caster PCs be as big problems when the player is the same kind of cheater.)

There are problems, yes. They're not, to me, so big as to ruin the game. They also can be house ruled much more easily than they can be fixed overall, if only because house rules can work for a particular table or game where the problems they would introduce just don't come up for table- or game-specific reasons.

[Pex]

Pathfinder is crunchy. There's no denying it, but Pathfinder doesn't have to apologize for it. It's fine some people don't like it, just like some people don't like 5E not having rules for stuff the DM has to make it up. I'm playing a Pathfinder 1E game, and I do notice a lot of game pauses to figure out a rule. I've also noticed the same thing happens in 5E games. Some players/DMs get absolutely irritated by that. Others don't. The discussions happen because even though the DM is the person to make the ruling the players abide, while it is the DM's campaign it is everyone's game. Everyone has equal value in the fun and play of the game. Ignoring donkey cavities, everyone wants a fair game.

Game mechanics are a matter of taste. You are not wrong for liking one system and not the other.