D&D Adventurer's League vs. Pathfinder Society

Hi -

Since coming back to Tabletop RPGs in 2014, I've been playing Pathfinder, mostly at PFS sessions.

As I've created and played different characters and different scenarios in PFS, I've found that while combat is an obvious focus for most scenarios, many scenarios also require a number of other skill checks, most common being Social (mostly Diplomacy, then followed by Bluff and Intimidate) and Knowledge skill checks. That being my observation, I tend to create characters that have the potential to be effective not only in combat but also outside of combat, i.e. they have a rank in one social skill and also maybe an additional knowledge skill past what's granted by their class. That way, the character can participate and contribute both in and out of combat. I find this to be more fun than someone that can completely dominate in combat but is useless outside of combat.

So, my question is: How do D&D Adventurer's League scenarios compare to PFS scenarios? Do they have a good mix of social, knowledge, and combat? I notice in PFS that some are strictly a dungeon crawl (especially early seasons) while others are heavy on investigation with only a couple of options for combat and, if played right, can almost avoid combat entirely. Are AL scenarios similar?

Just trying to get a feel as I create a character for my first session this weekend. I like my characters to be well-rounded, and I favor concept over crunch, but I don't want to play with a gimped character just for the sake of role-playing, either. It's always a balance, but if I build a Barbarian with no social skills, am I going to find myself twiddling my thumbs outside of combat? While I know there are always ways to contribute from a role-playing aspect, mechanically this can get shunted depending on the build, so that's more of what I'm getting at.

Hope all that made sense...it was certainly longer-winded than I had planned.

Thanks for any input or advice you can throw my way.

KT

Most AL modules have a healthy balance of all three pillars: Combat, Exploration, Social. Although, some modules can tilt the scale more towards one pillar over the other two. However, expect to encounter all three pillars in every module.

Also, don't be afraid of being useless outside of combat if you play your hypothetical Barbarian. The Int 8 Barbarian was the one who figured out how puzzle worked in 3-13. Sometimes, it's the person you least expect who ends up being the one having the epiphany. It's moments like that which are memorable.

Hiya Kilgore! Welcome.

The best way to get the difference is to play both and decide for yourself. Or to read some of the D&DAL modules and draw your own conclusions. Obviously this is a topic that is HEAVILY influenced by each person's individual experience.

This is one woman's opinion on the subject, so take it for what it's worth.

I have played a lot of highly technical 3.5. Yeah, I was one of those people with two belts of battle, a +5 weapon, 200-400hp of damage per round, a 16th level character, and the stack of ARs to go with it all. I can powergame with the best of them. I'm no Eric Pelkey, but I can hold my own in his league. (And I say that with affection and respect for Eric. He's got a gift. There were few better number crunchers in all of Gran March.)

What broke me from 3.5 was running an APL 16 Sheldomar Valley metaregional. Some 20th level bad guy cleric, his succubus sorcerer girlfriend, a ghoul corpsechanter bard back up singer, and a whole Chippendales Revue of drowned. If that doesn't mean much to you, suffice to say it was a high level mod with some seriously high end technical stuff going on. Cleric was buffed to the gills. The party (who are 16th level badasses) open with the spell that lets them win initiative (+20 init) and a greater dispel, a reaving dispel, and an empowered dispel.

Half the cleric's buffs were gone. No big deal. I just have to recalculate his entire stat block on the fly. Drop a contingency, eagle's splendor, divine favor... what have you. I sent the players to get snacks, told them to get me something, and to come back in 10 minutes and we'd continue. Which they did and which we did. No big deal. But afterwards, all I could think was "that wasn't fun. Not for anyone." It was finally driven home that *for me* the moneyball approach to D&D was successful, it just wasn't fun. This is one reason I've embraced 5E with love - the sabermetrics are gone. We can just play make believe with as few rules as we have to in order to be fair.

To me PFS "feels" powergamery. It doesn't have to be, but it "feels" that way. And that's ONLY from secondhand information. I have dear friends who play. I have the base book and I've read it. But I don't play because I'm really over 3.5. Listening to my friends who play talk, it *seems* more focused on the numbers than the story, more about the +7 modifier at 2nd level than the character background. That's a fine way to play D&D. It works for a lot of people who really enjoy it and I can see why they enjoy it. It just doesn't do it for me at this point in my life.

5E (in comparison to 3.5/3.75) is a much simpler game and WotC has (thank goodness!) decided that splatbooks and powercreep aren't the way to go. So the rules set is dead simple in comparison. It's really easy for a new player to get involved. It's really easy to jump to a different character. And - and this is just my experience, your mileage may vary - when people aren't sweating the rules too much, they become more focused on the RP and the story. RP and story is where my delight is these days, so that's why it appeals to me.

"We've seen what happens when we do too much content, so the plan is to take things slow." - Mike Mearls
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/413uu7/dd_ama_with_mike_mearls_and_chris_lindsay_115/cyzhdyn

So that's a very long winded way of saying I think that 5E and 3.5x appeal to very different playstyles. 3.5x is more technical. 5E has more room for RP and story. Now, you can tell a very fine story and have great RP in 3.5x - and holy smokes is Paizo telling some good stories. And you can do some highly technical stuff in 5E as the charop forums will show you. But in general, that's the difference I've found.

p

Scorpienne said:

Hiya Kilgore! Welcome.


To me PFS "feels" powergamery. It doesn't have to be, but it "feels" that way. And that's ONLY from secondhand information. I have dear friends who play. I have the base book and I've read it. But I don't play because I'm really over 3.5. Listening to my friends who play talk, it *seems* more focused on the numbers than the story, more about the +7 modifier at 2nd level than the character background.
p

Click to expand...

PFS and 3.5 is hard to GM at higher level tables. It is a grind. Low level through maybe 7th, is quite entertaining. It's also fun to play as you have almost limit-less options and can build pretty much any concept. Rules creep is horrendous.

I personally think 5e is growing the same way, just slower. Some players still work to have an archer at the table at level 1 with a +7 to hit. That hasn't changed.

The one think that is very different in 5e is GM flexibility in OP. It "can" really make the game more fun. Picture PFS as an MMO where you play strictly by the rules and combats are governed by "calculated" effectiveness. 5e is a bit different, it relies on the GM to gauge the difficulty and adjust the encounter to make it challenging and fun. CRs are a guideline but not so fixed.

Both systems have fun role play if you choose to do it.

I also think the GM pool runs to the same strengths for both...as an experienced player in both.

I alternate PFS and AL weekends, so I play both. While I read charop guides to give me a sense of direction in character creation and advancement, I'm not a powergamer. I own almost all the PF hardcovers but have never played outside of Core.

Both are fun, but 5e and bounded acurracy make characters a bit more naturally well-rounded. The numbers just don't get insane. Then there's the fact that there are no "lockouts" in 5e. Not trained in the applicable knowledge? In PFS, sit around and watch everyone else roll dice. 5e: go ahead and roll. Even with 8 Int you might toll well. Same with picking locks. All you need is thieves tools. Tje Advantage mechanic also makes it easier to contribute in a social situation. You may not even have to roll to grant the face Advantage. Just roleplay it.

Cascade said:

I personally think 5e is growing the same way, just slower. Some players still work to have an archer at the table at level 1 with a +7 to hit. That hasn't changed.

Click to expand...

That's... not really an example of powergaming. Archery is just designed that way in 5e. All you have to do is pick the Archery combat style as a fighter at level 1, and have a high Dex, and you automatically have +7 to hit. It's difficult not having such a high attack if you're playing an archer fighter. That's very different from the "Skill Focus + Masterwork Tools + Binder dip + etc = +19 Diplomacy at level 2" type of thing you can do in 3.5.

NeverLucky said:

That's... not really an example of powergaming. Archery is just designed that way in 5e. All you have to do is pick the Archery combat style as a fighter at level 1, and have a high Dex, and you automatically have +7 to hit. It's difficult not having such a high attack if you're playing an archer fighter. That's very different from the "Skill Focus + Masterwork Tools + Binder dip + etc = +19 Diplomacy at level 2" type of thing you can do in 3.5.

Click to expand...

correct...an archer that doesn't at least dip 2 levels of fighter and take sharpshooter is giving a lot of combat efficiency up. There's really no alternative.

Its certainly harder to power game in 5e at a low level because you're already gifted some of the best options early, i.e. the archer build above.
I see fighters just entering tier 3 at +13 to hit against AC 14 targets so sharpshooter is mandatory...3 attacks, action surge...it gets pretty out of hand quickly. A rogue, ranger or paladin is no where near that for output...and yes, other players feel "less important".

Now I do agree, 5e allows the DM to cope better; add some reinforcements, limit rests, etc...but power game builds in 5e at times are just as unbalanced as in 3.5 and PF. To the OP, I've found more role play, less pressure and "fun" in 5e provided the judge works with everyone. PFS is more tactical, both during the game and before it starts. A standard judge just provides the stat blocks and combat begins.

Just want to let you all know how much I appreciate the responses. Supposed to play a session tomorrow (assuming enough people sign up) so am looking forward to how it plays out. Someone, somewhere, suggested I leaf through a scenario to see how it plays out and that was helpful as well.

Part of what I'm getting used to is the difference in bonuses and not letting that trip me up. For a class skill in Pathfinder, prior to any modifiers, you're looking at a +4 with 1 rank vs. +2 in D&D for a level 1 character. I was wondering how this might play into DCs...guessing there is some adjustment there (knowing that they are different systems and all of course). Also seems like there is less focus on specific skills and more focus on the ability attached which was throwing me off as well.

To paraphrase one of the first repliers, best way for me to find out is to dig in. So I am hoping to do that tomorrow!

Once again, appreciate all the responses!

KT

I’m currently playing a bard in AL, and yes, social abilities come in very useful.

But that being said, playing a strong-arm barbarian has its uses outside of combat, too.

One thing I haven’t seen too much of in the AL, skill wise (and this could just be my experience), is situations that call for the classic thieves' abilities. I’ve rarely seen traps or locked doors/chests (that didn’t have another means of opening).

Glad you found the thread useful! I largely stayed out of it out of fear that it would degrade into a system war, but it looks like we managed to avoid that! Yay, us!

I do want to comment on something Cascade said, though:

Its certainly harder to power game in 5e at a low level because you're already gifted some of the best options early, i.e. the archer build above.
I see fighters just entering tier 3 at +13 to hit against AC 14 targets so sharpshooter is mandatory...

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-s-League-vs-Pathfinder-Society#ixzz41JEQVALu

Click to expand...

Why is it mandatory? Heck, why do you need a +13 to hit against 14 AC to begin with? Why can't you let up a bit on the attack bonus and take stuff that would be fun?

When all you've got is a +13 attack bonus, everything looks like a 14 AC, after all.

--
Pauper