D&D 5E Character Advancement versus Pathfinder

[KahlessNestor]

Just had a look, it’s interesting. Our group doesn’t really use 3pp, so I try and stick to WOC stuff, so probably wouldn’t work for me. Which is cool because I find there is lots of flexibility baked into the system.

The other trope I’ve tried to work is the caster that can use a staff in combat and I’ve found a Druid of the Land with the Shillelagh spell is perfect for this (though it is almost impossible to replicate in Pathfinder)

That 3PP Bloodhunter class has probably seen more hours of playtestimg than anything in the PHB, and gets tweaked by the author. It is currently being played in Critical Role right now. Same with Mercer's Gunslinger class, which is included in D&D Beyond.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As far as i can remember you cannot even try to use lockpicks or trap disarm without rogue or other class Levels in 3.5 style Systems .

In 5e you can even try this unskilled.

Right, which is exactly my point. Training is virtually meaningless, because bounded accuracy is a thing, and anyone can try regardless. The only time when a background proficiency would really matter is when it convinces the DM that you should be allowed to attempt something that an untrained person cannot; which many DMs feel obligated to implement, since it stops the idiot fighter from identifying magic after the wizard fails; which is something that happens not-infrequently, because the game math is silly.

 

[Jester David]

Not quite. Due to Bounded Accuracy, the bonus from your ability score is more important than the bonus from proficiency, especially at low levels. A cleric or wizard with a Criminal background will still be garbage at picking locks or disarming traps, even given the +2 proficiency bonus. Compared to the +7 bonus of a level 1 rogue, your +2 or +3 isn't going to make a dent in the d20 roll.

True. But your argument assumes the cleric and wizard have a low Dex.
A trickster domain cleric might have a Dex that's their second or third highest Stat, rocking a total bonus of +4 vs the rogue's +5. (As the math of the game doesn't assume a 20 or an optimised rogue. A 16 is usually the highest you're assumed to have, as you can't get higher than 15 with point buy.)

So the difference isn't as large as you make it out to be. It's only a 5% to 10% lower success rate. Even an optimised rogue with a 20 at level one is only 15% better at picking locks.

And because of bounded accuracy, the DC of those locks doesn't get higher and higher, so your odds increase as you level up. It's a viable route if the player wanting to be the blaster is a warlock or fighter rather than a rogue and you still want to get passed doors.

Right, which is exactly my point. Training is virtually meaningless, because bounded accuracy is a thing, and anyone can try regardless. The only time when a background proficiency would really matter is when it convinces the DM that you should be allowed to attempt something that an untrained person cannot; which many DMs feel obligated to implement, since it stops the idiot fighter from identifying magic after the wizard fails; which is something that happens not-infrequently, because the game math is silly.

That's always been a quirk of D&D. Who didn't have a story of the fighter failing a bend bars/lift gates check followed by a wizard nailing their roll?

It's certainly more of a feature/bug in 5e.

It's arguably better than 3e or 4e where you either have a climb DC that challenges the fighter but the rest of the party cannot succeed or you have a climb DC that the wizard might be able to make but the fighter doesn't even have to roll for. Ditto sneaking where either half the party is auto-detected or the rogue rolls a 1 and still succeeds. Where all the numbers increased pretty much for the sake of higher numbers, and you always had to keep dumping skill ranks into a skill to stay competitive.
But if you blew the check, there was no way for the party to find another way because the DC was so high no one else had a chance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

True. But your argument assumes the cleric and wizard have a low Dex.

No, my argument is that if the cleric or wizard has a high Dex, then they succeed because of their Dex rather than because of their background. The background doesn't turn anyone from incompetent into competent; it's not that powerful.

It's arguably better than 3e or 4e where you either have a climb DC that challenges the fighter but the rest of the party cannot succeed or you have a climb DC that the wizard might be able to make but the fighter doesn't even have to roll for. Ditto sneaking where either half the party is auto-detected or the rogue rolls a 1 and still succeeds. Where all the numbers increased pretty much for the sake of higher numbers, and you always had to keep dumping skill ranks into a skill to stay competitive.

YMMV. I don't see anything wrong with a low-level specialist or high-level non-specialist always succeeding on easy tasks. If something is especially difficult for a particular level, then I would rather that the specialist is the only one who can attempt it (such that if they fail then you need to find an alternative), than for a non-specialist to out-perform the specialist within their own area of expertise.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] #31 #32 #33

As far as i do it when i DM as well as the DM when i Play does is taking that skilled / unskilled into account via context.

Example: A magical scroll is found, the wizard gets an arcana check as would some other arcane caster but surely not the idiot fighter.

Another Situation: Something magic is inscribed on the wall, it seems to be elvish. The wizard would again get an arcana check, but the idiot fighter being a half elf can take his chances also, eventually with disadvantage. Would he be a dwarf not speaking elvish then no way.

 

[TheSword]

That 3PP Bloodhunter class has probably seen more hours of playtestimg than anything in the PHB, and gets tweaked by the author. It is currently being played in Critical Role right now. Same with Mercer's Gunslinger class, which is included in D&D Beyond.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

It isn’t a question of play testing, more a question of design principles. Plus we don’t want to have to make a value judgement on every piece of 3pp ware we want to import to see if it will upset the apple cart or not. That’s where we’ve drawn our line in the sand.

It’s more about trust I guess. I find it hard to trust good looking Americans with long hair. There’s something about critical role that doesn’t sit well with me, though I couldn’t tell you want it is. Or maybe it’s because I’m a dice camera action fan. Those kids are crazy! That’s not to say critical role isn’t good, it just flicks off some of my switches.

 

[pming]

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

 

[TheSword]

YMMV. I don't see anything wrong with a low-level specialist or high-level non-specialist always succeeding on easy tasks. If something is especially difficult for a particular level, then I would rather that the specialist is the only one who can attempt it (such that if they fail then you need to find an alternative), than for a non-specialist to out-perform the specialist within their own area of expertise.

Totally with you on this one. It probably isn’t part of the rules but unlike 3e I assume all skills have a trained and untrained element, with maybe the exception of perception. I also don’t allow two rolls on most checks it instead choose a primary user and they have advantage.

for instance tracking, I only let people with survival track difficult tracks. If no one had the survival skill then I would allow them to track more obvious tracks - damp mud or snow in the last day for example with successful checks while I wouldn’t even make a survival proficient character roll in this instance. It probably isn’t ‘the rules’ but I certainly believe it fits the system better.

 

[CapnZapp]

The primary difference between Pathfinder and 5E is the amount of prepwork the DM needs to do.

If you are the DM, choose 5E.

If you are the player, choose Pathfinder... But wait for the PF2 playtest.

 

[Jester David]

No, my argument is that if the cleric or wizard has a high Dex, then they succeed because of their Dex rather than because of their background. The background doesn't turn anyone from incompetent into competent; it's not that powerful.

True. But neither does a skill gained from your class. In either case, you still need to tie it to an appropriate ability score.
The difference is you’re not worrying about cross class skills or having half the number of ranks. Backgrounds just let you get a different skill not normal on your list.

YMMV. I don't see anything wrong with a low-level specialist or high-level non-specialist always succeeding on easy tasks. If something is especially difficult for a particular level, then I would rather that the specialist is the only one who can attempt it (such that if they fail then you need to find an alternative), than for a non-specialist to out-perform the specialist within their own area of expertise.

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.