D&D 5E Character Advancement versus Pathfinder

[The Crimson Binome]

Then don’t ask for a check.

As the DM, you don’t have to ask for a roll. You can easily say training is an automatic minimum success and give the option of rolling for even better results.

That's not really my prerogative. When I volunteer to run a game, I'm signing up to deliver a certain experience. Even if I have house rules, there are certain core system mechanics that I'm not going to change, because they're too fundamental to what the game is. The rules for determining DC and making ability checks are of that variety. If I'm not willing to respect the core mechanical premise of the game, then I shouldn't be playing that game.

It's not like the entire system falls apart when you use the actual rules. It's still just some occasional weirdness, and every codified system is going to have some weirdness. Arbitrarily saying that a particular fighter can't even attempt a DC 12 check, because their bonus is only +1 instead of +3, feels like it's crossing a line into the realm of pure DM fiat.

 

[Jester David]

That's not really my prerogative. When I volunteer to run a game, I'm signing up to deliver a certain experience. Even if I have house rules, there are certain core system mechanics that I'm not going to change, because they're too fundamental to what the game is. The rules for determining DC and making ability checks are of that variety. If I'm not willing to respect the core mechanical premise of the game, then I shouldn't be playing that game.

It's not like the entire system falls apart when you use the actual rules. It's still just some occasional weirdness, and every codified system is going to have some weirdness. Arbitrarily saying that a particular fighter can't even attempt a DC 12 check, because their bonus is only +1 instead of +3, feels like it's crossing a line into the realm of pure DM fiat.

Unless you’re running AL, I think it’s expected that GMs make the game their own and bring their own style to the game. When you ask someone to GM, you’re asking them to GM. That’s part of the experience. No one asks someone to GM in the style of someone else.
As a DM you make checks automatic all the time. Mounting a horse, opening a stiff door, starting a camp fire, getting dressed, etc. By the rules, checks are only necessary at times of stress or where failure is interesting.

Unless you’re running a published adventure that the players have read, they have no idea you’re waiving a roll or making a check automatic. And generally players like their characters doing well. No one gets upset when their character kicks ass.

 

[Satyrn]

No one gets upset when their character kicks ass.

Well, there was this one time at bandcamp I was playing a character like Wormtongue. Not at all the ass kicking type.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless you’re running AL, I think it’s expected that GMs make the game their own and bring their own style to the game. When you ask someone to GM, you’re asking them to GM. That’s part of the experience. No one asks someone to GM in the style of someone else.

When I GM, I want to make sure that I'm staying within the spirit of the rules, at the very least. As a player, I can't stand when the GM makes a ruling which I could not have predicted in advance, based on the known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns. As a GM, I strive to be the type of GM that I would want to play under. (Some games leave a lot of room for interpretation, so the GM is expected to make rulings, and as I player I can expect that there's going to be some variance. I only object to arbitrarily changing things that are otherwise very straight-forward, in such a manner that there's no way I could predict it. House rules are fine, as long as they're declared up front, but I need to know what the rules of the game are if I'm going to try and play the game.)

As a DM you make checks automatic all the time. Mounting a horse, opening a stiff door, starting a camp fire, getting dressed, etc. By the rules, checks are only necessary at times of stress or where failure is interesting.

As a DM, my primary job (aside from describing the environment and playing NPCs) is to assign the DC of various tasks. By the rules, checks are only necessary when the outcome is uncertain. (Stress and drama are irrelevant, unless they would make the action more-difficult or less-difficult.) If something is absolutely certain, then that necessarily means the DC is low enough that no check is required, because a 1 would result in a success.

 

[Jester David]

As a DM, my primary job (aside from describing the environment and playing NPCs) is to assign the DC of various tasks. By the rules, checks are only necessary when the outcome is uncertain. (Stress and drama are irrelevant, unless they would make the action more-difficult or less-difficult.) If something is absolutely certain, then that necessarily means the DC is low enough that no check is required, because a 1 would result in a success.

I have tripped walking down the stairs before. Who hasn't stumbled on a staircase? So, by definition, someone's odds of successfully walking up a staircase are uncertain. Should that be a check?

As a DM, I view the primary job as managing the flow of the story and pacing of the adventure. Keep things moving, prevent people from being bored, help things flow organically. The rules are on part of that. As the DM, I only interact with the rules for a percentage of the game. The rest relies on storytelling and narrative control.

If a check is going to create a barrier or wall to the story, then that could be a problem. If the adventure grinds to a halt because the thief can't get passed the lock door, then that isn't fun. If I think it's an opportunity for the players to get creative or think of a lateral problem solving solution, then failure is a possibility. If we're on the clock and spending 30 minutes devising a creative solution just derails the adventure, then I'm saving people's fun by having the rogue succeed.
Another example is something like a knowledge check, which is not something you can as easily bypass. You can't kick in bit of lore like you can a locked door. If an adventure doesn't flow if no one recognises the holy symbol of Karkus the death god, then that check should be automatic for anyone trained in Religion. Akin to the "take 10" rule from 3e, only with the DM allowing that rule rather than players invoking it whenever they want. Ditto searching a room to find a clue or following the tracks leading to the orc encampment.
In those instances, when failing the check means failing the adventure, that shouldn't be a normal check. The penalty for failure should be something else. Remembering rumours or false information of Karkus. Getting lost and letting the bad guys rest before you catch up. Success at a cost.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have tripped walking down the stairs before. Who hasn't stumbled on a staircase? So, by definition, someone's odds of successfully walking up a staircase are uncertain. Should that be a check?

If it's not something that happens at least 5% of the time, then it's not worth modeling. I'm happy with a world where you can't trip on stairs except under extreme circumstances.

As a DM, I view the primary job as managing the flow of the story and pacing of the adventure. Keep things moving, prevent people from being bored, help things flow organically. The rules are on part of that. As the DM, I only interact with the rules for a percentage of the game. The rest relies on storytelling and narrative control.

I'm not down with storytelling or narrative control. That's not what role-playing is about, IMO. YMMV.

 

[Jester David]

If it's not something that happens at least 5% of the time, then it's not worth modeling. I'm happy with a world where you can't trip on stairs except under extreme circumstances.

What about a 1% chance of failing something when you have advantage?
If you only miss on double 1s do you auto-succees?

I'm not down with storytelling or narrative control. That's not what role-playing is about, IMO. YMMV.

Storytelling is pretty much what every new RPG published in the last 10 years has focused on...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What about a 1% chance of failing something when you have advantage?
If you only miss on double 1s do you auto-succees?

If the outcome is uncertain, then that's why we have dice. The likelihood that someone would be rolling with a +11 bonus against DC 13 (or equivalent), with Advantage, is pretty small; but if that was the case, then I would ask for a roll. Likewise, if they were rolling with a +5 bonus against DC 25, and had Disadvantage, I would still allow them to roll instead of auto-fiat making them fail.

Storytelling is pretty much what every new RPG published in the last 10 years has focused on...

It's a fad. For a while, random tables were all the rage, but that has also largely passed. In the meantime, there are still plenty of games which haven't bought into that stuff. (D&D among them.)

 

[ShorelessSkies]

Hiya!

TL;DR the thread, but read the first OP.

Pathfinder will give your min/max/optimizer's a LOT to work with. Be prepared to do a LOT of game-work trying to challenge them!

D&D 5e will give your role-players/casuals a LOT to work with. Be prepared to do a LOT more background/story development to keep them involved!

That said...I've found that most of the time when there are mixes of the two strongest game styles (RP'er vs Optimizer), it doesn't work. Either the RP'ers will be annoyed about never getting to do much role-playing, or the min/maxers will be annoyed about how ineffective the RP'ers characters are.

If you have REASONABLE players all around (regardless of preference), then the game doesn't really matter; the optimizer's will find things to optimize and the RP'ers will find things to RP with.

If they are all REASONABLE, it's a good bet to go with the more "meaty" system; the min/maxers will do their thing, but they won't care if the RP'ers don't do any optimizing. (re: Pathfinder)

If you have UNREASONABLE players...well, you have bigger problems than what system to play.

My Suggestion: Go with either and see what happens. If it doesn't work, switch to the other system. They are similar enough in overall "style" that the specifics will all shake out in the end.

OPTIONAL SUGGESTION: Don't even play a D&D game. Go grab some other fantasy RPG you've had your eye on for a while (Runequest, HARP, Dungeon World, Rolemaster, Hackmaster, Dominion Rules, Fantasy AGE, etc). Shake things up a bit! Life is too short to only play one type of RPG!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I don't really understand the secondary conversation here, so thanks for putting things back on track.

My players are quite reasonable, so I'm not too worried about it. The optimizers are also RPers, and perhaps that will go vice versa. I am concerned about folks feeling overwhelmed with a system like Pathfinder, but we'll ease into it. We'll be playing on Roll20 so hopefully that will ease some of the math. Looking into Pathfinder a bit more, I feel both excited and intimidated. And interested.

Before we commit to a new game we will be doing some one-shots to mix things up. I really prefer Fate and PBTA games to d20 at present, so it will be fun to run Dungeon World et al.

Cheers!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Well, [MENTION=6845966]ShorelessSkies[/MENTION], what I would do with Pathfinder if I was "new" to it, would be to distill it down to it's absolute bare minimums in terms of "modifiers during game". What I mean is rather than go to some specific section and spending 10 minutes reading the rules that tells you how to handle, say, Missile Fire while riding downhill on a horse...just make a quick simple ruling like "Ok, I'm sure there is more to it, but lets go with -2 to hit for now. Minus one for being on a moving animal and another minus one for going downhill or otherwise changing elevation". Don't worry about all the "little details". There are FAR too many of them in PF...and yes, this includes character options/choices.

A good rule of thumb is "If you can't find it in 20 seconds, ignore it or make a quick ruling". After the game, everyone can review the rules that would have been used. Eventually everyone will know a little bit about everything, and a lot about whatever their character "does" often. Pathfinder is a rather cumbersome game, at least in terms of potential rules and "stuff" to use. But, if everyone understands that as part of the game session, everyone should have fun. I know that when I DM'ed PF, I had a lot of fun...but then again, I did keep it to "core only...plus Advanced Players Guide on an as-needed basis" (e.g., I pretty much ignored 99% of the extra books you could buy).

So...enjoy the complexity of PF. Embrace it. Make notes about where to find stuff, or what situations you can dream up for your players that will make use of those rules...the complexity of the rules in PF is half the fun, after all.

If/when you all get "rule-minutia fatigue", then switch over to 5th Edition. You'll find the "rulings, not rules" and the simpler system a breath of fresh air. Hell, even your optimizer's will likely appreciate the break!

^_^

Paul L. Ming