Why Pathfinder is My Game of Choice

[Tacticslion]

Dot.

[Charon's Little Helper]

John Mechalas wrote:

On the other hand, I can see the point that HP as a mechanic is not really about wounds so much as fatigue until you drop to zero and below.

Of course, that interpretation is problematic for arrows, crossbows, and other ranged weapons...but that's not 5E's fault. HP in general are a legacy mechanic dating back to the original D&D. It's basically been broken since inception.

I always figured that HP was mostly your heroic awesomeness/skill/luck causing blows to just barely miss etc. (Ex: Some of those Stormtroopers were hitting the MCs' HP, they just weren't dealing enough damage to put any of them down. They were chewing through their heroic awesomeness/luck, which is why the MCs ran away from them.)

From that perspective, it kinda makes sense to recover all of it after a long rest. (Makes as much sense as a powerful barbarian who is barely wounded requiring far more magic to fully heal than a farmer who is on his deathbed. :P)

[kyrt-ryder]

John Mechalas wrote:

SmiloDan wrote:

The DMG has rules for grittier or more realistic games, such as spending Hit Dice to heal during a long rest, regaining them slower, etc.

There are also tables for wounds and critical hit wounds (like missing eye, severed hand, etc.). So that can be gritty too.

5th Edition is very flexible for different play styles.

Thank you! That is very helpful. I didn't get as far as the DMG, so I will revisit the system and give it a fresh look.

Raynulf wrote:

Or in fewer words: They traded out the magic-stick-ritual (aka wands) for improved natural recovery in an attempt to control hp recovery and balance the adventuring day... though in my experience it results in our 5E parties long-resting way more often than our PF parties, almost entirely due to hp loss.

Thank you for your insight on this. I suspected that this is what would happen in the game. It's already an issue with Vancian-based casters. On the other hand, I can see the point that HP as a mechanic is not really about wounds so much as fatigue until you drop to zero and below.

Of course, that interpretation is problematic for arrows, crossbows, and other ranged weapons...but that's not 5E's fault. HP in general are a legacy mechanic dating back to the original D&D. It's basically been broken since inception.

Many D&D/PF roleplayers LIKE having characters who can pull a Boromir [or a Kingdom of Heaven, fighting for 3 days with an arrow in the testicle or continuing to fight at 100% power for a while with an arrow sticking through the throat.]

Furthermore, in 5E with its Bounded Accuracy [and Bounded AC as a result] the only way a higher level martial gets to really feel superior is by their superior ability to endure damage.

Regarding Heroic Awesome that both comes in the form of these characters' ridiculous durability and their ridiculous ability to heal it off.

In my own games it's more like 1/2 max HP healed [hit dice are rolled as recovery during an overnight rest.]

[Philo Pharynx]

SmiloDan wrote:

I think (not 100% sure) that in 5th Edition, you don't show any visible wounds until you are below 50% of your normal hit point maximum.

So, as an abstraction of health as a resource to be managed, that's kind of cool.

This is an evolution of 4e's bloodied condition at 50% wounds. They use it to trigger all sorts of things. I even use that in pathfinder, as it's a good way to let players know that monsters are facing some damage without giving too much away or slowing down the game with heal checks.

[DrDeth]

Philo Pharynx wrote:

SmiloDan wrote:

I think (not 100% sure) that in 5th Edition, you don't show any visible wounds until you are below 50% of your normal hit point maximum.

So, as an abstraction of health as a resource to be managed, that's kind of cool.

This is an evolution of 4e's bloodied condition at 50% wounds. They use it to trigger all sorts of things. I even use that in pathfinder, as it's a good way to let players know that monsters are facing some damage without giving too much away or slowing down the game with heal checks.

Yes, and it comes from OD&D a comment by Gygax, that half your HP arent wounds at all, just you getting tired, etc.

We used to say "He's showing" which meant he was 50% or less, showing visible wounds, blood, etc.

[spectrevk]

Neal Litherland wrote:

So, this one might be preaching to the choir, but it seems like everywhere I go people are always asking, "How come you play Pathfinder? Why aren't you playing 5th ed?" The other game title changes, but the question stays the same. So this week I thought I would put down my reasons. The blog post is fairly long, but so far it's received some positive support. So I thought I'd share it here, and see if folks agree with my reasons.

Why Pathfinder is My Game of Choice.

Are there reasons I don't mention, or things that you prefer instead?

I'd say the quality of module writing (and editing) is much higher at Paizo than at WotC. Or really, any other company I've bought pre-written adventures from. Try running Curse of Strahd after running an Adventure Path; it's a harsh comedown from the logical book structure and masterful pacing that you find in, say, The Mummy's Mask.

I happen to enjoy both systems, but while I may give 5e a nod for some well-made modernizations to the system, Pathfinder is a superior product for an invested gamer, IMO. Regular publishing schedule, comprehensive supplements, and a setting that feels a bit more influenced by modern fantasy writers, while Faerun still feels a bit stodgy and old-fashioned to me.

[justaworm]

Because Paizo is good to its fans. Period.

[kyrt-ryder]

justaworm wrote:

Because Paizo is good to its fans. Period.

Mostly.

The FAQratta process is pretty cruel.

[DrDeth]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

justaworm wrote:

Because Paizo is good to its fans. Period.

Mostly.

The FAQratta process is pretty cruel.

The FAQ process is getting really slow. They need to focus more on what they have put out, what their fans have already bought, and a little less on what is next.

[CorvusMask]

I don't pick favourites really(I like different systems, different settings and different companies for different reasons. Everything has pluses and cons and in ideal world I would play and run a lot of different systems and alternate between them), but Pathfinder is my main game to run mainly because its easiest one to recruit players for :P And out of most popular system, D20 based systems are actually relatively simple. Like, I'm sure someone can explain me why World of Darkness books aren't that "complicated", but editing in those books is horrible enough that I sure don't really get how those are played. Like shadowrun is fun setting, but everyone just handwaves rules all the time because nobody can remember them for whole session.

And like, I really love Cypher System but its really hard to find players who want to try out something that isn't D&D deritive(or one of other popular-but-even-more-complex systems). And in case they do, they usually are only interested in Powered by Apocalypse or some other weirder indie hipster systems.

[TheFinish]

I'm with Corvus, it's not so much "liking" the system as the fact that after the explosion that was 3.0/3.5 with the OGL, everyone and their mom knows at leasts the basics of the d20 system. For some people, it's the only thing they know, and trying to get them to try something new is an excersise in futility.

Still, I like Golarion (well, most of it), I love the Adventure Paths and I do like the wealth of options available (even if the bloat is real by now. Oh so real.)

[ccs]

Pathfinder is my game of choice because..... It's Sunday.

The group of friends I play with on Sunday generally prefers PF.
Myself? As either player or DM 1e/2e, PF, or 5e - any are fine with me.

The last/current campaign (where I'm a player) - the DM specifically wanted to use the PF Mythic book. So PF it was.
The upcoming campaign (that I'll be running)is PF - because that's what the majority of the group voted for.

[Haladir]

At this point, the things I like most about Pathfinder are more system-neutral: the campaign world in general and the adventure paths. I just love the Golarion campaign world and the great detail and robustness. It's easily now my favorite fantasy setting, and I expect that I'll be setting the vast majority of my fantasy games in Golarion for the foreseeable future.

As I said upthread, I've long emphasized narrative over simulation in all of the RPGs I run. While the Pathfinder rules are excellent, they swing too far into simulationism for my ideal tastes. I can certainly run a Pathfinder game in a more narrativist style. While the available character options are PF's greatest strength, they're also a big weakness: there are so many options as to be completely overwhelming. I also think there are too many modifiers to the rolls to keep track of. And, honestly, so many of the available options could be easily hand-waved by a GM that was so inclined.

That said, PF works really, really well in PbP, and I'll be sticking to PF in that format for the foreseeable future as well. But in IRL games, I'm embracing more free-form systems like FATE and the games that use the Apocalypse World engine.