| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK so I have been finding myself making up various house-rules for pathfinder. I decided to branch out and read up on various systems. This includes D&D 5e. I just want ramble on for a bit on the differences I noticed.
5e and Pathfinder treat the rules very differently. In Pathfinder the rules attempt to simulate what is going on, while the 5e rules attempt to abstract what is going on. The difference manifest itself as such. Pathfinder rules attempt to immerse you into the game through it's mechanics. The mechanics are a route to immersion and are suppose to help you immerse yourself. In 5e the rules are treated as a barrier to immersion, so it attempts to make the rules the thinnest most efficient barrier as possible. Both rule sets exist to facilitate role-playing.
This leads 5e to use unifying mechanics whenever possible. Characters gain a proficiency bonus which enhances the saves, skills, weapon to-hit, spell to-hit, and spell DCs. So your character sheet will list your proficiency bonus and then what saves, skills, and weapons you are proficient in. There is no DR in 5e. Creatures instead may have resistance or immunity to non-magical weapon damage. If a creature is resistant to a damage type it takes half damage from that damage type. Multiclass spellcasters progress the same spell-slot table but prepare/know spells as individual classes (so a cleric 9/ wizard 8 gets one 9th level spell slot). Spells were compressed when possible. Some spells have added effects when cast in higher levels. 5e has very few general rules and is not afraid to repeat itself in monster stat blocks, spells and character abilities. Mass suggestion does not say "as suggestion but more people" it instead lays out exactly what it does even though it is the same as suggestion.
Martials, skills, and spellcasting works very differently.
Spellcasting has been rebalanced. Casting a spell does not generate an AoO. You can cast spells in any armor that you are proficient in. Maintaining concentration on a spell does not cost actions, but you can only maintain concentration on one spell effect at a time. When you take damage you make a constitution save (which serves as the concentration check). Spell slots have been reduce, but spells themselves are generally stronger. Many spells require concentration, thus many classic spell combos are impossible. A (ritual) tag is added to spells that can be ritually cast without expending spell slots.
Martials are rebalanced. Individual attacks do less damage. Feats are an optional rule. You may select feats instead of an ability score increase. Ability score increases are tied to your class and are not a natural part of leveling. Movement is not an action. You can just move X amount during your turn. Attacking is an action. Certain class features allow you to attack more than once with the attack action. You may move as much as you can between attacks.
Skills are more or less handwaved. There are only 18 skills. They are important. But only your DM really knows what a skill can do. There are skill contest (one skill vs another) or fixed DCs of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. They represent very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. If your DM thinks balancing on clouds is nearly impossible then the DC for that is 30 and a rogue could have +17 on that skill check. If you DM thinks balancing on clouds is just impossible then you could not do that.
Archetypes are not just options, they are mandatory. You will pick one. Things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster are archetypes of the fighter and rogue. That means their other archetypes are balanced to 1/3 (rounded up) spellcasting. Only 3/12 classes can avoid spellcasting of any kind. Only 5/42 class/archetype combos are devoid of spell effects.
Misc tid-bits:
Flight is hard to have as a constant effect.
Mounted combat is nice
Monks are geared towards dex based
Rogues are very good
Warlocks are back, the only thing I am missing from 3.5 is a constant flight invocation.
Sorcerers have their own spell list
Paladins and Rangers are 1/2 casters
Bards are fullcasters
Druids can't get "natural spell" until level 18
There is no "falling" as a Paladin. If you "fall" you either get the boss Oathbreaker class features or you become a different class. Losing class features is pure houserules.
No spell is at a different level for a different class.
There are other things I could go on and on about, but the main take away is that Pathfinder and 5e are not like kinds. They are fundamentally different kinds of rule sets. I don't see much competition between the two. It also seems like 5e is more a tribute to D&D's legacy, than WotC's attempt to retake the market.
There's competition only in the sense that most fans think that in order to love something you've gotta hate on everything else that's competing for the niche.
I do wonder if they actually compete for the same niche in any other sense than both require time to do?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's competition only in the sense that most fans think that in order to love something you've gotta hate on everything else that's competing for the niche.I do wonder if they actually compete for the same niche in any other sense than both require time to do?
For a long time there was only one big dog in the TTRPG fight. Sure there are many games but their support is pale in comparison of D&D. Just look at all the threads that try and force D&D to be an any setting or any time period system. Its because any day of the week you can get people lined up to join a D&D game. Try a Mad Max themed game using some lesser popular system and you will have to scour your local scene or rely on the internet to get a game going. TTRPG is just not that huge a deal and cant support a variety of real popular titles.
Now couple that with a change in traditional gamneplay with some new innovations and suddenly you have a division. These are basically the E.wars and they facilitate the huge hate mentioned above. Its not just a system you don't prefer, its a fight for the dominate system in a sea where there is only one whale. So yeah the time required to play is a factor but its only one in a series of variables.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love 5e. It's so easy.
I understand why Pathfinder is so popular. I just prefer the simplicity of 5e.
I started playing D&D in the early 80's. I stopped for 10 years, and just started playing again in January of 2015.
Being new to both systems makes my choice easy. I have made a friend who is brand new to RPGs. She has only played Pathfinder, and is overwhelmed at times. I have tried to get her to try 5e, because I think the mechanics are a lot friendlier.
I don't think rules have anything to do with roleplaying. But I do enjoy how 5e D&D forces a player to choose a background, and forces a player to choose a fault.
It's a starting point for players who often show up with a character sheet that is nothing more than numbers. For the record: that is NOT an attack on Pathfinder. D&D has been like that since it's inception, until now.
One thing I'm not a fan of in D&D is the Paladin class. Maybe I haven't seen them in action enough yet, but losing the alignment restriction bothers me. That's not the only thing that bothers me about the class, but I can't really put my finger on what it is. :/
For what it is 5th is useful for generic D&D adventures but even comparing the three books that are out to the core rulebook I feel like Pathfinder is more gonzo and less abstract. Its not bad, its better than other 'simplified D&D' systems I've played, but I couldn't help but keep thinking about how I'm so restricted. I also keep thinking about how a lot of rules happen for no rhyme or reason, where Pathfinder is more simulationist, so options are going to vary wildly based on how gamist the player is.
Some stuff I think could be ported over to Pathfinder if there was another edition. Like how much sense does it make for Sorcerers to get exclusive access to metamagic? Or readjusting the logic of how rare or expensive things are.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'm not a fan of in D&D is the Paladin class. Maybe I haven't seen them in action enough yet, but losing the alignment restriction bothers me. That's not the only thing that bothers me about the class, but I can't really put my finger on what it is. :/
I've been playing alongside one recently. Have any questions? It's definitely felt (from my secondhand perspective, at least) like a divine warrior. I haven't looked too closely at the mechanics, but I bet they left it open to also serve the same role for other alignments than LG (sort of filling the paladin/warpriest/inquisitor/battlecleric role all in one class instead of bloating into a bunch of very similar ones).
|
|
One thing I'm not a fan of in D&D is the Paladin class. Maybe I haven't seen them in action enough yet, but losing the alignment restriction bothers me. That's not the only thing that bothers me about the class, but I can't really put my finger on what it is. :/I've been playing alongside one recently. Have any questions? It's definitely felt (from my secondhand perspective, at least) like a divine warrior. I haven't looked too closely at the mechanics, but I bet they left it open to also serve the same role for other alignments than LG (sort of filling the paladin/warpriest/inquisitor/battlecleric role all in one class instead of bloating into a bunch of very similar ones).
I'm not sure. But if I do have any questions, I'll bring them to you.
Thank you.
|
|
I understand why Pathfinder is so popular.
It took a good D&D 3.5 edition. It made it better.
It's actively supported. When D&D tried to compete and released 4e, which was a complete dud (from what I've been told, I never actually played 3.5 or 4 e), it only strengthened Pathfinder.
And now, Pathfinder has a HUGE following. Now, WotC releases a new edition of D&D.
Is it that much of a stretch to say that people who absolutely love their Pathfinder, and have for years, aren't going to give it up?
the automatic full healing overnight is likely to be one of the first things I house rule away when I start running a game
No need for that. There are variate rules in the DMG to both accelerate or lower the healing based on the tone you want for your campaign. Something else to remember is that since 5e rules abstract what is going on and rather than simulate, HP is not meat. The books even go so far to say that a creature may only be visibly wounded at half HP or lower.
NOTE: Also currently playing in 2 PF campaigns. Neither are switching over. I'm starting a bi-weekly 5e campaign with some friends.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've thought about making the plunge. I've been playing PFS for the last three years and generally enjoy it, but the ever increasing options can be paralyzingly at times. I'm going to be introducing a handful of folks to tabletop who have little to no experience....thoughts of 5e vs a CORE campaign?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing I can say about 5E is that if you are trying to teach kids (I have two 13/9) the game, it works better. Less rules, less to remember and a lot less reading.
I've thought about making the plunge. I've been playing PFS for the last three years and generally enjoy it, but the ever increasing options can be paralyzingly at times. I'm going to be introducing a handful of folks to tabletop who have little to no experience....thoughts of 5e vs a CORE campaign?
The PH has about 7 races each with on average 2 sub-races. There are 12 base classes with forced archetypes. So 42 possible "classes". I have not counted listed backgrounds but with custom backgrounds I estimate 306 options (not including tool and language proficiencies).
120 pages are devoted just to spells. The largest section in the DMG would be the magic item list (lots of sections in the DMG though, so more like a Canadian majority).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, hold on, let's refocus. What's the goal of this topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are some things I would call odd perceptions in the original post.
The rules are treated a lot less differently than you think. They're both abstractions that manage how things go on. They have different elements within them that offer some aspect of simulation. I think Pathfinder's may be a bit more specific in some areas such as weapon sizing and the use of certain modifiers in combat (strength vs dex builds and using feats to compensate) yet 5e includes some that accomplish similar simulative goals as well (versatile and finesse weapon properties, disadvantage on small characters using heavy weapons) but with, I think, a bit less overhead and fine detail.
I also wouldn't call skills handwaved. An important distinction between the two games is that the 5e is oriented around a "stat check" (d20+stat mod). That is the game's primary mechanical focus. PC wants to do something that the DM feels needs a check to determine success - he assigns a stat check. Even combat is fundamentally driven by the stat check, as are saving throws. But every situation in which a proficiency could apply (proficiency in a weapon, proficiency in a tool, proficiency in an area of skill/knowledge), the PC gets to add their level-based proficiency bonus. In many cases, particularly with skills and knowledge, the DM has a lot of discretion on which proficiencies may apply and what DC seems appropriate. But this really isn't that far a step from the d20-based PF. I'd even say it harkens nicely back to some of the skill/check guidelines that first came out with D&D 3.0 and drifted away when the content from the PH and DMG got combined and condensed into the single PF Core Rulebook.
I think there are some things I would call odd perceptions in the original post.
The rules are treated a lot less differently than you think. They're both abstractions that manage how things go on. They have different elements within them that offer some aspect of simulation. I think Pathfinder's may be a bit more specific in some areas such as weapon sizing and the use of certain modifiers in combat (strength vs dex builds and using feats to compensate) yet 5e includes some that accomplish similar simulative goals as well (versatile and finesse weapon properties, disadvantage on small characters using heavy weapons) but with, I think, a bit less overhead and fine detail.
I also wouldn't call skills handwaved. An important distinction between the two games is that the 5e is oriented around a "stat check" (d20+stat mod). That is the game's primary mechanical focus. PC wants to do something that the DM feels needs a check to determine success - he assigns a stat check. Even combat is fundamentally driven by the stat check, as are saving throws. But every situation in which a proficiency could apply (proficiency in a weapon, proficiency in a tool, proficiency in an area of skill/knowledge), the PC gets to add their level-based proficiency bonus. In many cases, particularly with skills and knowledge, the DM has a lot of discretion on which proficiencies may apply and what DC seems appropriate. But this really isn't that far a step from the d20-based PF. I'd even say it harkens nicely back to some of the skill/check guidelines that first came out with D&D 3.0 and drifted away when the content from the PH and DMG got combined and condensed into the single PF Core Rulebook.
I use simulation as in fixed math for all actions. I use abstraction as in the rules are just there to create some mechanical fairness without an emphasis on specific occurrences. You are encourage to fold complex actions into one roll as a DM because it is just not that import that the player make the needed jump check, attack rolls, and grapple check to leap over the air to trap a goblin in a barrel (just make a strength athletics check).
The skills do not have fixed rules. I know may GMs who only let PF skills do what they say in the book or do what the AP specifically says they can do in a situation. Given how the skills in 5e do not have specific rules what you can do with them is very fluid.