Pathfinder vs 5e in the UK....


4th Edition


Shout out to all the Brits!! :))

Is it just me or have you found that 5e had exploded in the last 12 months?

There are regions where friends live where you just cant get a PF game to save your life!

What do you think is happening?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

New edition, new shiny phenomenon and all that.

D+D has been a thing in the UK for a long time. The original Fiend Folio was a product of TSR UK, the monsters were submissions in White Dwarf magazine. (Which wasn't a Warhamer-only publication at the time.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.

Adventurer's League is a thing though. But you're right. Dungeons and Dragons will never be more than a side thing to Hasbro-owned Wizards of the Coast. Pathfinder on the other hand is what keeps Paizo's doors open.

Sovereign Court Publisher, Raging Swan Press

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:

Shout out to all the Brits!! :))

Is it just me or have you found that 5e had exploded in the last 12 months?

There are regions where friends live where you just cant get a PF game to save your life!

What do you think is happening?

I live in Torquay, and I'm not aware of any 5e games down here. I am aware of several Pathfinder campaigns though! But to be fair, one of them is mine ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Harleequin wrote:

Shout out to all the Brits!! :))

Is it just me or have you found that 5e had exploded in the last 12 months?

There are regions where friends live where you just cant get a PF game to save your life!

What do you think is happening?

It's not just you, 5e has really taken off here and I suspect that goes for a lot of the rest of the world too. There are quite a few reasons that I can think of for this to be the case.

1) 5e is an intuitive and accessible game: wizards did a great job making 5e very simple and intuitive to play while retaining a good deal of depth. This makes it easy for new players to get in to it (alot of people were too intimidated by the complexity of 3.5 to even get started) and also makes it simple to run for experienced players.

2) 5e is dungeons and dragons: the name carries weight, even people who have never played a roleplaying game before know about D&D. Many people left D&D in favour of pathfinder when 4e was released because the game did not feel like D&D to them, now a new dungeons and dragons has been released that is reminiscent of 2e and really feels like D&D so alot of those players have returned to dungeons and dragons although many will continue playing pathfinder as well.

3) 5e is really fun: that's all I really have to say but I will elaborate. 5e is fast paced, intuitive and has a really fun combat system that has been greatly streamlined. It has a cool old school feel while incorporating some slightly more modern design ideas into it, it's pretty cool.

4) 5e has mechanised character personality: 5e has the inspiration mechanic which mechanically encourages players to think about who their character is and roleplay that out at the table. These kind of mechanics have been used in alot of popular games, like the beliefs and instincts in burning wheel/torchbearer, the bonds in many powered by the apocalypse games like sagas of the icelanders, the fates in tenra bansho zero and many more and for good reason. Having mechanics to encourage roleplay goes a long way at the table although the inspiration mechanic is a flawed example as it puts to much emphasis on the dm remembering the characters details and it is either on or off so once you have it you are no longer really incentivised by the system to roleplay (until you spend it again) it is still the first iteration of this kind of mechanic in D&D and a great step in the right direction (inspiration can be made into something amazing with a few house rules).

5) pathfinder is based off of a very clunky chassis (please dont kill me!): pathfinder is based off of 3.5 D&D as I'm sure you are aware. 3.5 is full of feat taxes, over-complicated statistics and numbers and has a big problem with the power balance between casters and martial characters. When writing the core rulebook for pathfinder paizo was limited in what they could do if they wanted to stick to 3.5 as a base so many of those design problems were transferred to pathfinder. While for some people the bloated chassis of 3.5 is a paradise of options, for new players and those who are not inclined to learn all of that the complexity of pathfinder can be a big turn off and feat taxes are a big black mark on the system along with other 3.5 legacy additions. This is a shame honestly because when you look at paizo's later work where they were building off of that system it is clear that the design team is full of talented people who have done great work! I love the alternate systems in pathfinder unchained (the new action economy was a really cool piece of design, unfortunately due to the size and complexity of pathfinder the new system isn't really compatible with pathfinder as a whole as it interacts wierdly with some things and breaks stuff but a new game based off of that action economy would probably work great) and many of the new classes paizo has implemented have been really cool. I would love to see paizo make a new game "unchained" from 3.5 because it would most likely be awesome!

Yeah anyway tldr 5e is blowing up in the uk because it's pretty damn fun, it's easy to get into and it has the D&D name attatched to it. Hopefully people dont neglect other games too much because I want to play some burning wheel and world wide wrestling rpg :).

Greetings from cambridgeshire!
Adrastus

*Edited to correct grammar, will most likely edit 1000 more times because my grammar is awful especially when I'm tired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Gasp

Pathfinder has competition from the company that made pathfinder possible in the first place!

And shortly after 5e's rise, paizo announces Starfinder. It's almost like competition is a good thing that causes companies to take real risks to maintain their revenue streams.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.

I disagree - I've never played 5e but if its game mechanics are a lot smoother than PF then surely that makes the release of more material (eg classes, spells..) that much easier? If the basic fundamentals are easier to get into then that should make for a more stable platform going forward.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know some will disagree. Yet I don't think some understand or want to understand how many are unhappy with how Fighters were treated in third edition than PF. The 5E devs knew they could not compete with another rehash of 3.5. So went with both something new and familar. While trying to fix many problems of 3.5. I think many fans forgive some of the flaws of 5E. Simply because they fixed the Fighter as a class and other flaws of 3.5. I don't like that they removed DR and brought back needed certain weapons to affect certain creatures. As think DR is a much better method. I'm willing to ignore that as I can play a Fighter that does more than the PF version can.

captain yesterday wrote:
It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.

Possibly yet when their fans here who don't like it when new books are released. As it adds more bloat. i don't think it's that much of a issue. They do release new books. Just at a much slowere release rate than Paizo. As well their 3PP support as well. Green Ronin successfully kickstarted a 5E version of the Book of the Rightousness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Birmingham Central Role Players had two PF, three 5e and one AD&D (2e, I think) tables last time I was there and six playing other games, and the PF tables weren't as full as some of the others. I don't know if those numbers are still accurate though. One group I know regularly meeting where I live remain fanatically devoted to the d100 system (Runequest and Call of Cthulhu mostly). And my lot aren't interested in either PF or 5e, having tried and disliked both.

Liberty's Edge

Rhedyn wrote:

*Gasp

Pathfinder has competition from the company that made pathfinder possible in the first place!

And shortly after 5e's rise, paizo announces Starfinder. It's almost like competition is a good thing that causes companies to take real risks to maintain their revenue streams.

It all depends though if Paizo plans to actually address and fix the flaws of Pathfinder with Starfinder. Or simply do what they did with Pathfinder just rehash most of 3.5. with houserules. If it's the second they can call what they want it's still going to be considered just Pathfinder but in space. While offering little to no competition towards 5E.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I played a cleric to lv9, a ranger to lv5 and a bard at lv1. And all arguments about why 5e is great are actually what makes it terrible in the long run.

Inspiration? Becomes a tool to obtain rerolls.
Simple mechanics on advantage/disvantage? Combats focused on causing disvantage or obtaining advantage otherwise you are screwed. People will focus on tripping opponents or causing stuns so everyone can dogpile an enemy and drop it faster. Even flanking becomes bothersome to everyone at the table.
Personality? Its a tool to obtain more bonuses on skills that your class fails to grant you. Also extra gear at char creation.

As for simplicity, there is nothing simple if rules constantly contradict themselves (PHB vs DMG) and cause arguments at the table. Examples: How to make potions and magic items. Or how tracking works. The enemy is being flanked, grappled, tied up, cursed, but somehow has an advantage, nope, all cancelled and you must roll normally.

5e resolves itself around how many house rules will you make to better suit your table and your friends's playstyle.

Thats not a rule system, its a guide to make up your own rules.
I could do that without a new rpg book.

It isnt all bad, new players will love it, veterans will feel nolstagic, but it is far from being a solid game system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

I played a cleric to lv9, a ranger to lv5 and a bard at lv1. And all arguments about why 5e is great are actually what makes it terrible in the long run.

Inspiration? Becomes a tool to obtain rerolls.
Simple mechanics on advantage/disvantage? Combats focused on causing disvantage or obtaining advantage otherwise you are screwed. People will focus on tripping opponents or causing stuns so everyone can dogpile an enemy and drop it faster. Even flanking becomes bothersome to everyone at the table.
Personality? Its a tool to obtain more bonuses on skills that your class fails to grant you. Also extra gear at char creation.

As for simplicity, there is nothing simple if rules constantly contradict themselves (PHB vs DMG) and cause arguments at the table. Examples: How to make potions and magic items. Or how tracking works. The enemy is being flanked, grappled, tied up, cursed, but somehow has an advantage, nope, all cancelled and you must roll normally.

5e resolves itself around how many house rules will you make to better suit your table and your friends's playstyle.

Thats not a rule system, its a guide to make up your own rules.
I could do that without a new rpg book.

It isnt all bad, new players will love it, veterans will feel nolstagic, but it is far from being a solid game system.

Fascinating insight thanks! I've never played so its very interesting to get the inside read.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was more of a bashful insight. Iv posted somewhere else what i believe are the problems with 5ed, things that damage the game.

But its enough to say that we house ruled out a bunch of stuff to make things better at our table at that time, such as: No passive perception, no inspiration, can't flank, takes a disvantage to remove an advantage (two advantages and one disvantage means you will have an advantage), you cannot make any magical item (even potions), you can only track something that has been there for no longer than a few hours, there are no free strikes (attacks of opportunities) at all, you cannot make short rests without making camp or in dungeons unless it's safe enough to make camp, and a few others.

Feats also caused a lot of trouble, because they are often unbalanced, but we left them in with gm permission on a case by case basis.

I dont agree with all of them, but it was better than all the discussions caused by the rules.

I will make a full list of what we played, if that helps:

One campaign had cleric 9, barbarian 9, paladin 9, we had a rogue for the first 3 levels too. It was a homebrew campaign.
The other party had ranger 5, druid 5, warlock 5, monk 5. We played the mines of phandelver.

The one with the bard 1 was a one shot and there were no major issues.

It seems 5ed is better played at first level, as things go up higher than 3, it starts to get messy. But thats my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
It'll wear off when they realize there aren't any more books coming out.

I don't think that's true. I think that D+D is going back to the older better days when the majority of books were written for DM's than the players. i.e. hopefully more of a focus on cranking out settings and modules than a new players option book every month the way Paizo is working Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have an average of 4 to 5 players to every DM in a game, so printing a lot more player books than DM books just makes good sense.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

5E is new and tighter then the previous few editions. I think its relative ease of use will give it long legs. Dont worry though, soon forums will cry in agony under the weight of whats broken about it once the hardcores have had their way with it. For now enjoy the buzz!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
You have an average of 4 to 5 players to every DM in a game, so printing a lot more player books than DM books just makes good sense.

Although that seems sensible, paizo have demonstrated that focusing on DM-centred materials can work (and I think WotC are now openly copying that strategy).

It's also worth noting that the release of new 5E books isn't nil. It seems to be about three a year (plus licensed products and 3PP).

I find the existence of both to be terrific. If you like games with significant DM empowerment and deliberate gaps in the rules for groups to fill or ignore as suits - 5E is great. If you prefer to have more player empowerment and a larger body of objectively codified rules then i think PF is awesome for that.

Two years into 5E's life and I'm really glad both games seem to be doing well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think 5E and Pathfinder separately cater to groups with different playstyles and game preferences. It's probably good for both games that they exist, rather than one group trying to adapt a game to a different approach or championing for corrections in the game to lend it to their GM style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The UK biggest rpg con was a few weeks back, I wonder what the player count for each was.

At most shops etc to play Pf you need today pfs which has plummeted in its interest level in my area

5th is mostly not an organised game in these areas

My 2 groups haven't played pfs for more than 4 years, and none have played AL.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
I think 5E and Pathfinder separately cater to groups with different playstyles and game preferences. It's probably good for both games that they exist, rather than one group trying to adapt a game to a different approach or championing for corrections in the game to lend it to their GM style.

Yeap, 5E is what I want to run as a GM. PF is what I want to be a player in... Either way I win!


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


I don't think that's true. I think that D+D is going back to the older better days when the majority of books were written for DM's than the players. i.e. hopefully more of a focus on cranking out settings and modules than a new players option book every month the way Paizo is working Pathfinder.

I agree... from what I've heard, the complaints about system mechanics only came in with 3.5.

5e seems to be trying to get back to that D&D 2-3e type feel....it could well work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:
5e is a guide to make up your own rules.

This is actually what I love about 5e. It's so freeing.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

There is an abundance of celebrities playing and online live games being played right now that mostly use 5e. That will be a draw towards 5e

Acquisitions Incorporated the Series, Critical Role, etc.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thenovalord wrote:

The UK biggest rpg con was a few weeks back, I wonder what the player count for each was.

UK Games Expo is certainly the biggest tabletop gaming event in the UK (hell, according to their post-con press release, the numbers put it 3rd or 4th in the world), but I'd argue that there are cons that have more tables of RPGs. (Conception had 365 tables this year, down from 450 last year due to unexpected space restrictions.)

Can't comment about home-games (obviously), but from what I see, Pathfinder still has more Con' tables than 5e in the UK, especially when it comes to organised play. Though the numbers do appear to be closing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My local gaming shop has an rpg night. Three to five games run at once. Last rotation there were two 5e games, the one before one 5e and one PF. Next rotation... I don't know, but I don't remember anyone mentioning PF. No proof, but I think 5e is more popular.

I can see why. 5e is a fun and simple game. It's easy to explain, it's pretty solid, and it doesn't need guides, massive system mastery, and knowledge of thousands of feats (I know technically that's part of system mastery, but it seemed important enough to mention twice). I built an L8 character and didn't get it wrong even though I hadn't memorised the magic item list and the feats list. That was nice.

Personally, I wouldn't run 5e because it's not my style. But I probably wouldn't run PF either - maybe if a friend asked and I felt up to it, and then only a session or two, like PFS.

As a player, I found 5e combat quick and simple, yet also with tactics. The finesse stuff just works. Combat manoeuvres just work. Cheeky Eldar-style move-shoot-move dirty rogue tactics just work. It's functional out of the box and if you just follow the advice built into the class description you get an effective character immediately. Nice! Whereas I need to do research before building a PF character.

From my perspective, though, the problem with 5e is that it's like The Force Awakens - it does a lot of things right, but ultimately it's the same old story told again with slightly better special effects and less sexism and racism. So it's definitely an improvement, but TFA was for kids. I'm not quite going to say 5e is, because I had fun and I'm in my thirties, but I will say that from a campaign macro perspective 5e seems to do exactly one thing - it tells the D&D story. You know, the one where you start off as an almost-helpless mook of a stereotype, and end up as a demigoddess of the same stereotype. If you want to do that, it's a fine and fun system.

PF has the advantage that you don't start off as an almost-helpless mook, you can at least be competent at a couple of things. And the system's complexity does at least allow you to step outside the usual D&D stereotypes, if you want to.

PF also has a weird attraction that isn't really a good thing from a design perspective, but does engage some people - the attraction of pointless complexity. Exploring the rule system and the frankly ludicrous numbers of options can be entertaining in and of itself, for the right sort of mind. Which I have.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've found 5th Edition is more fun at the table, and PF is more fun during downtime.

As it stands, there isn't a lot of theorycrafting in 5Ed. I get to game about once a month, so we play 5Ed, which is great since it's so elegant. But the other 29 days of the month, I have to get my gaming jollies by theorycrafting. And there's just so much more moving parts with PF to think about. It can be a bit overwhelming, since there are now literally hundreds of feats and traits, thousands of spells, dozens of classes and races, and hundreds of archetypes and racial variants.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We get bursts of 5E (DnD light). Here and there our table will grow from 4 plus GM to 6 or at worse 8, catching the GM off guard. Next night, back to 4. Goes on like that till it happens again a month or two later. We keep thinking well get a second table, but it never happens.

PFS, a roster of around 6 to 8 whom come up in and out ever other weekend generally. We usually always have 4 players plus GM. Any noobs whom come in tend to stay and frequent the place.

Be at mind, pretty much the same four whom are a constant presence in DnD 5E, are also in PFS. We don't really care, we just play games. I like Pathfinder better overall however.


shadowkras wrote:
Inspiration? Becomes a tool to obtain rerolls.

That's a variant rule, the default rule is that you can spend inspiration before the roll to get advantage.

shadowkras wrote:
Simple mechanics on advantage/disvantage? Combats focused on causing disvantage or obtaining advantage otherwise you are screwed.

I still find it fun after two years to come up with creative or new ways to get advantage; and you also have the inspiration as an alternative route.

shadowkras wrote:
People will focus on tripping opponents or causing stuns so everyone can dogpile an enemy and drop it faster.

But what if there are many opponents?

shadowkras wrote:
Even flanking becomes bothersome to everyone at the table.

Flanking is an optional rule.

shadowkras wrote:
Personality? Its a tool to obtain more bonuses on skills that your class fails to grant you. Also extra gear at char creation.

And one exploration feature, two traits, an ideal, a bond and a flaw. Those traits and flaws can be very fun to play out, to go insp-fishing. Well, I still like it, a lot. To me this is the core and the best part of 5e, the one thing that drives play the most.

shadowkras wrote:

As for simplicity, there is nothing simple if rules constantly contradict themselves (PHB vs DMG) and cause arguments at the table. Examples: How to make potions and magic items. Or how tracking works. The enemy is being flanked, grappled, tied up, cursed, but somehow has an advantage, nope, all cancelled and you must roll normally.

5e resolves itself around how many house rules will you make to better suit your table and your friends's playstyle.

Thats not a rule system, its a guide to make up your own rules.
I could do that without a new rpg book.

It isnt all bad, new players will love it, veterans will feel nolstagic, but it is far from being a solid game system.

All of this, the rest of the post, here there is a lot of merit and I agree with it. These are some of the problems with 5e. But the first part, well, that hasn't been my experience at all and I suspect there's some house rules in play (rerolls? flanking?).

Also there's something else that I love about 5e; it's easy to find a sandboxy culture of players around it rather than path-focused. (Think "Kingmaker" style gameplay, only all the time.)

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a series of posts. Folks, using the phrase "Paizo Defense Force" is ultimately unhelpful and divisive. Please refrain from using it on our site.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
That's a variant rule, the default rule is that you can spend inspiration before the roll to get advantage.

I was actually talking about "roleplaying" our characters in order to obtain inspiration at the start of the game, or before the end of the previous game, so we can have a free "reroll card" during situations where it matters (like avoiding being petrified). Maybe i just wasnt clear, but an advantage isn't much different than a reroll, you just have to announce it before the check.

The inspiration rule can be resumed to: if you roleplay, you get free advantages.

Quote:
But what if there are many opponents?

Yes, the GM realized that and started to drop a dozen of opponents at once, which regularly was overboard or dragged the session for too long without necessarily improving the game.

Even when we were outnumbered, it was a better option to attempt to go 2 on 1 (sometimes 3 on 1) than each one handle an enemy.
Even if we were outnumbered in those situations, its better to declare "full defense" while the others are finishing off their enemy so you avoid their flanking advantage.

Quote:
Flanking is an optional rule.

It's a rule noneless, its in the book. After a bunch of combats attempting to use it, we decided to drop it because it was way too ridiculous to obtain advantage with it.

Even in pathfinder, we never use all the rules, sometimes a rule is simply discarded in favor of gameplay, or their severity is toned down (carrying capacity, living costs, travel times, etc). But those rules are still in the books, calling it a "variant rule" doesn't change the fact that they are part of the rules system.

Quote:
To me this is the core and the best part of 5e,

You are correct and i share the same opinion. Backgrounds are the best part of 5ed (it just doesn't mean that 5e is a great game system because of that). I make my PF players roll or create their backgrounds using the ultimate campaign rules every time and we get a similar feeling to our characters.

The ideal, bond and flaw, are, as you said, tools for inspiration-fishing. We could do all that without an actual rule for it.
Sometimes we felt actually being dragged down by our ideals and flaws.

5e does have it's merit, it is a suitable replacement for 3.x and 4.x, but overall the game system didn't work that well. We had to read the devs twitter's account a dozen of times when the rules were vague or contradictory, and that's a valid and reliable source of information about the system. Sometimes those tweets werent even explaining how something works, but simply saying "no, that rule isnt good, try this new one instead".

Quote:
Also there's something else that I love about 5e; it's easy to find a sandboxy culture of players around it rather than path-focused. (Think "Kingmaker" style gameplay, only all the time.)

Nearly all my PF games have a sandboxy feel, the ultimate campaign is always at the table and we use all the rules if the players are up to it, and their characters arent running against the clock.


shadowkras wrote:


Quote:
But what if there are many opponents?

Yes, the GM realized that and started to drop a dozen of opponents at once, which regularly was overboard or dragged the session for too long without necessarily improving the game.

Even when we were outnumbered, it was a better option to attempt to go 2 on 1 (sometimes 3 on 1) than each one handle an enemy.
Even if we were outnumbered in those situations, its better to declare "full defense" while the others are finishing off their enemy so you avoid their flanking advantage.

This is pretty much the same as every other version of D&D/PF. Focus-fire is far more effective than spreading out your attacks because of the way HPs work. It's hardly unique to 5E.

Quote:
Quote:
Flanking is an optional rule.

It's a rule noneless, its in the book. After a bunch of combats attempting to use it, we decided to drop it because it was way too ridiculous to obtain advantage with it.

Even in pathfinder, we never use all the rules, sometimes a rule is simply discarded in favor of gameplay, or their severity is toned down (carrying capacity, living costs, travel times, etc). But those rules are still in the books, calling it a "variant rule" doesn't change the fact that they are part of the rules system.

There's a bunch of optional rules, such as flanking, in the DMG (many of them mutually-exclusive). Saying that they're in the book and therefore the entire system should be judged based on their existence is rather unfair. The optional rules in the DMG are there as sort of "official" house rules, to give the DM opportunity to tweak the game how he wants. Using them changes the way the game plays, which may or not improve it, from the point of view of the players.


Kalshane wrote:
shadowkras wrote:


Quote:
But what if there are many opponents?

Yes, the GM realized that and started to drop a dozen of opponents at once, which regularly was overboard or dragged the session for too long without necessarily improving the game.

Even when we were outnumbered, it was a better option to attempt to go 2 on 1 (sometimes 3 on 1) than each one handle an enemy.
Even if we were outnumbered in those situations, its better to declare "full defense" while the others are finishing off their enemy so you avoid their flanking advantage.

This is pretty much the same as every other version of D&D/PF. Focus-fire is far more effective than spreading out your attacks because of the way HPs work. It's hardly unique to 5E.

Focus fire has been a part of how my group played D&D as far back as 1st edition, and it's how we play pretty much every game that doesn't take enemies from full to down in one hit - no matter the system. "Dead Men Make No To-Hit Rolls" has long been a maxim.


shadowkras wrote:
Quote:
That's a variant rule, the default rule is that you can spend inspiration before the roll to get advantage.
I was actually talking about "roleplaying" our characters in order to obtain inspiration at the start of the game, or before the end of the previous game, so we can have a free "reroll card" during situations where it matters (like avoiding being petrified). Maybe i just wasnt clear, but an advantage isn't much different than a reroll, you just have to announce it before the check.

OK, then I misunderstood. I think the "announce it before the check" part is huge.

shadowkras wrote:
The inspiration rule can be resumed to: if you roleplay, you get free advantages.

Yeah, if you engage with the elements in the shared imagined space, or your own characters traits, that's the way to get advantages.

You can do it in the scene "I jump over the table and attack down on them with my spear! Do I get advantage?" or you can do it in another scene before hand by playing to your traits to get inspiration. I like it, I think it's a good mix of engaging with scene elements and engaging with decisions on a larger scale.
It's similar to Fate how there are aspects in the scene you can invoke along with aspects of your character.
I usually like that it doesn't scale because it still makes the dice matter and it is relaxing, once you've found advantage you can stop looking if you want to.

shadowkras wrote:
It's a rule noneless, its in the book. After a bunch of combats attempting to use it, we decided to drop it because it was way too ridiculous to obtain advantage with it.

Yeah, it's not a very good rule. It sucks that it makes all other forms of advantage meaningless. But... the heading for it is "Optional Rule: Flanking".

I agree that the rules that make it too easy or mechanical to get advantage (the spell Faerie Fire comes to close to this also) are threatening the dynamic of the rest of the advantage/disadvantage system.

shadowkras wrote:
Sometimes we felt actually being dragged down by our ideals and flaws.

That can be a good feeling, though; to feel like your characters personality has a very big impact on their outlook and their life decisions.

But, I do like that unlike Fate, it's optional to fish for insp. (In Fate, if you decline a moment of insp fishing you have to pay.)

shadowkras wrote:
Nearly all my PF games have a sandboxy feel, the ultimate campaign is always at the table and we use all the rules if the players are up to it, and their characters arent running against the clock.

Sounds like my kind of table!

I agree that you've found some of the weak spots of 5e. It's still my favorite game though :D

Sovereign Court

We ran the Pathfinder hall at UK Games Expo and it was a good barometer of the Pathfinder / D&D 5E state of play. We have far more Pathfinder games running at conventions than 5E but they are growing in number especially where they run a Special. They ran one at UK Games Expo and it sold out almost immediately. We have a very good VO Team in the UK and I think we do a good job of organising our players and making it very easy for them to sit down and play Pathfinder. We also make a point of making friends with the sign-up desk and recruiting new players directly. This year Richard Pett gave us his "Taste of the Blight" to run and that set us even with the D&D Special. We had the extra attraction of Ben Loomes Syrinscape sound effects.

But D&D5E is certainly growing in the UK. It is such a strong brand and all the mums and dads know the name and buy it for their kids. Pathfinder only has word-of-mouth publicity. "Strahd" is also a strong selling point for old timers of D&D. Wizards of the Coast are considering a big splash here in the UK next year at UK Games Expo. This year Paizo didn't have a single logo credit on site, or on website. Their two stockists had brought very little Pathfinder product.

We remain good friends with D&D5e. Generally we think the competition is healthy and keeps us on our toes. It is also a great recruitment field for players who would like a more tactical games with more choices for their characters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You're certainly right about how little Pathfinder there was in the trade hall boss. :(


Quote:
"I jump over the table and attack down on them with my spear! Do I get advantage?"

I bolded with part where i have a problem with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Kalshane wrote:
shadowkras wrote:


Quote:
But what if there are many opponents?

Yes, the GM realized that and started to drop a dozen of opponents at once, which regularly was overboard or dragged the session for too long without necessarily improving the game.

Even when we were outnumbered, it was a better option to attempt to go 2 on 1 (sometimes 3 on 1) than each one handle an enemy.
Even if we were outnumbered in those situations, its better to declare "full defense" while the others are finishing off their enemy so you avoid their flanking advantage.

This is pretty much the same as every other version of D&D/PF. Focus-fire is far more effective than spreading out your attacks because of the way HPs work. It's hardly unique to 5E.

Focus fire has been a part of how my group played D&D as far back as 1st edition, and it's how we play pretty much every game that doesn't take enemies from full to down in one hit - no matter the system. "Dead Men Make No To-Hit Rolls" has long been a maxim.

"Concentrate all firepower on that Super Star Destroyer!"

See, even Mon Calamari know that in a boss fight, you take out the boss.


Angel Gabriel wrote:
We remain good friends with D&D5e. Generally we think the competition is healthy and keeps us on our toes. It is also a great recruitment field for players who would like a more tactical games with more choices for their characters.

Yes, I think this is good. 5e and Pathfinder can work together, learn from each other and just be awesome.

shadowkras wrote:
I bolded with part where i have a problem with.

It's certainly different from what I understand from traditional D&D. I switched to 5e from games like Fate (with the aspects) and Burning Wheel (with the wises) so for me it's a continuation or refinement, even improvement on that. I appreciate having a simple, consistent, mechanical reward for various engagement with the elements in the scene.

But I can see that it's a facet of the game that has its issues, too. It's something I overall like and appreciate, though.


Organised play is a somewhat flawed way at looking at how popular a game is, pathfinder has significantly more emphasis on organised play than 5e and has had time to build up a larger community in it's organised play events so naturally pathfinder is going to appear more popular when you only look at organised play.

The majority of games are home games so home games would be the ideal metric to measure popularity by. Unfortunately it is also really difficult to measure how many home games of each game are taking place as opposed to counting tables at conventions which is relatively easy. I have seen more 5e home games recently than pathfinder but bear in mind that I play significantly more 5e than pathfinder so that may just be the circles that I run in. In terms of organised play (while I do not participate in any organized play I do see it in various game stores from time to time) I see both 5e and pathfinder in close to equal amounts, in cambridgeshire it's mostly 5e but I see abit more pathfinder elsewhere.

It is important to note that there is more than enough room for both and many people will play both games.

Adrastus


I was thinking the other day and I don't know how true this is, but this was my thinking:
OP is about Forgotten Realms vs Golarion with a significant network externality cost for switching over in either direction.
Home play is about 5e rules vs Pathfinder rules with a small (but existent) network externality cost for switching over in either direction.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Pathfinder vs 5e in the UK.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition