D&D Adventurer's League vs. Pathfinder Society

[NeverLucky]

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.

5e's DCs are drastically different from 3.x/PF's, due to the flat math in 5e. In 5e, DC 10 = easy, DC 15 = average, and DC 20 = hard, and that doesn't really change at higher levels. So a high level rogue who focuses on skills in 5e will find a lot of checks very easy to accomplish, rather than see DCs rising to match bonuses, and the high level fighter who doesn't focus on skills still has a chance of succeeding, rather than having no chance at all. The low bonuses also mean that ability modifiers are much more important in 5e than 3.x/PF, so characters who want to be good at certain skills need to have good ability modifiers too.

 

[KahlessNestor]

Actually I think 5 is easy and 10 is average.

 

[Cascade]

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:



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

It has been my experience, especially with pick-up expedition play (at cons and game days), that if a group doesn't have 1 or 2 prime damage dealers, combats simply take too long. I've been at a few tier 2 games fighting giants with groups where you have a bard, a non archer rogue, a S&B fighter, a cleric and maybe some multi class MADD toon...who struggle to put out damage. Without that SS or HWM feats or some good AoE...the ability to deal damage takes too many rounds which really extends real time. That then overly compresses role play time which was the purpose of the characters originally. Yes, you can say the judge needs to adjudicate time better and if we're having a good time, skip the combats...but it rarely works out that way.

Please don't let this come off as the system is bad. I always wait for the party make up to be "haggled" over prior to selecting my character, but it usually works out better if I have a few high DPR builds in my folder for just tables.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Appreciate the additional notes - thank you!

Just wanted to let you guys know that I played my first session today and really loved the system! We played DDEX 2-??? (Breath of the Yellow Rose or something like that...)

I enjoyed the lite rules and the simplicity of the system...really kept things flowing, especially in combat (not having to think about diagonal movement, flanking, modifier after modifier after modifier....). Found some of the comments above to be true, especially around the role-playing, although I'm guessing that's always table variation no matter the system...

I did find combat to be especially deadly, especially for a Level 1 character. Having an enemy rogue come out of hiding, crit on a sneak attack, and do 4d6 points of damage (1d6+1d6 for crit+2d6 for sneak attack) on my Level 1 Monk was devastating! He ultimately survived, but I think the DM helped us out. Also, we spent too much time role-playing, and so never really got to the boss encounter. Which was OK, but I am just wondering how that scenario could have been played in 4 hours as we took 5!

Also, seems like it might be better to focus skills where there are ability modifiers...I tried to spread out, having proficiency in at least 1 skill in every category, and that +2 didn't really seem to help. Seems like it might be better to concentrate, so skills are +4 or +5, and then hope others in the party can complement the group. I know it's not possible to be everything to every situation, but I'm not sure spreading skills into abilities with 0 or -1 modifiers is worth the spend. Would be curious to hear opinions on this (although I know it's not the purpose of the thread...would be happy to start another!).

Have already started thinking of a couple of characters for Ravenloft (posted some thoughts on a build in that section of the forum if anyone cares to comment...might try a Diviner Wizard, too) and honestly can't wait to play again. D&D5e will definitely be pushing Pathfinder out (at least for some time in the near future) of the hours I allot per month for gaming!

Appreciate you guys being here in the forums to listen and assist!

KT

 

[Pauper]

It has been my experience, especially with pick-up expedition play (at cons and game days), that if a group doesn't have 1 or 2 prime damage dealers, combats simply take too long.

I'll disagree, but I'll accept that everyone has a different threshold for what constitutes 'too long'.

My question is, if you're going to have a damage-dealer character to play for these kinds of scenarios, why is a great-axe-wielding Barbarian not sufficient? Why does it have to be the human variant great-axe-wielding Barbarian with Great Weapon Fighter with a dip into Fighter for Action Surge?

You can play a damage-dealing character and contribute to the success of the party without playing a heavily-optimized damage-dealing character that makes the other characters' contributions irrelevant. I'd argue that, by playing an optimized damage-dealer on a table with no other damage-dealing characters, you're harming the game far more than you're helping by speeding up the combats.

--
Pauper

 

[Pauper]

Just wanted to let you guys know that I played my first session today and really loved the system! We played DDEX 2-??? (Breath of the Yellow Rose or something like that...)

One of my favorite mods -- it can cater to many different styles. If you like the 'kick in the door' style of play, you get an appropriately high challenge to give your characters a run for your money. If you prefer a more RP-focused game, you can spend a lot of time in the investigation phase interacting with the various characters and meeting the alternate goals in the adventure's introduction.

Also, seems like it might be better to focus skills where there are ability modifiers...I tried to spread out, having proficiency in at least 1 skill in every category, and that +2 didn't really seem to help. Seems like it might be better to concentrate, so skills are +4 or +5, and then hope others in the party can complement the group.

One thing to keep in mind -- in Fifth Edition, Aiding an ally with a skill check does not itself require a skill check, and grants Advantage to the character making the check. While you may have to justify the Aid action to the DM for more off-the-wall Aid attempts (which can sometimes lead to...interesting role-playing opportunities), this is an effective way to contribute to a skill-based encounter even if your character might not have high ratings in the skills required.

In short, don't fall into the 3.5/Pathfinder trap of 'oh, I don't have a good stat/skill/number for this challenge, so I'll sit out'. While you should look to share the spotlight with the other players at your table, you can generally always find some way to contribute to the party's success in 5E.

Appreciate you guys being here in the forums to listen and assist!

Glad you're enjoying Adventurers League thus far!

--
Pauper

 

[rooneg]

I did find combat to be especially deadly, especially for a Level 1 character. Having an enemy rogue come out of hiding, crit on a sneak attack, and do 4d6 points of damage (1d6+1d6 for crit+2d6 for sneak attack) on my Level 1 Monk was devastating! He ultimately survived, but I think the DM helped us out.

Combat can definitely be a bit swingy at first level. On the bright side, there's a lot of healing built in to the system, so assuming you avoid a TPK and your DM isn't putting you up against something that can literally one-shot your PC you should get through it, partially because level 1 (and 2 for that matter) goes by REALLY fast. You can make a strong argument that levels 1 and 2 are just "training wheels" and for experienced players starting at level 3 makes more sense. Your PCs have more hit points and the classes really fill out their options. This isn't legal for AL play though, so for AL you're going to need to dodge a few bullets on your way through level 1 (or DM some games so you can burn DM rewards XP to skip those levels).

 

[RCanine]

I'll disagree, but I'll accept that everyone has a different threshold for what constitutes 'too long'.

My question is, if you're going to have a damage-dealer character to play for these kinds of scenarios, why is a great-axe-wielding Barbarian not sufficient? Why does it have to be the human variant great-axe-wielding Barbarian with Great Weapon Fighter with a dip into Fighter for Action Surge?

You can play a damage-dealing character and contribute to the success of the party without playing a heavily-optimized damage-dealing character that makes the other characters' contributions irrelevant. I'd argue that, by playing an optimized damage-dealer on a table with no other damage-dealing characters, you're harming the game far more than you're helping by speeding up the combats.

This varies quite a bit by the type of AL content you're playing. A party of whatever can generally muddle through adventures-formerly-known-as-expeditions, but if your party can't chew to double its size in monster HP in an hour, you're not going to complete an Epic. And I don't have personal experience, but I've heard the hardcover stuff is a bit undertuned.

 

[RCanine]

I did find combat to be especially deadly, especially for a Level 1 character.

The math a level 1 is straight up broken. A 10-con rogue gains more HP (percentage wise) between levels 1 and 3 than he does between levels 10 and 20.

Luckily, AL has a really nice solution for this, which is adventures designed for level 1 & 2 players only, and all of the ones I've played have been pretty fun. If I could give only one piece of advice to new AL players, it would be to only either play the level 1-2 adventures or use DM rewards to skip straight to level 2.

Jumping into any adventure that doesn't hold your hand--especially with a group of otherwise level 3-4 characters--is just not going to be fun for you.

 

[Pauper]

This varies quite a bit by the type of AL content you're playing. A party of whatever can generally muddle through adventures-formerly-known-as-expeditions, but if your party can't chew to double its size in monster HP in an hour, you're not going to complete an Epic.

Absolutely disagree -- played both Season 2 and Season 3 epics at GenCon last year, one with an unoptimized second-level character, and our tables had no trouble getting through the entire adventures.

If anything, I'd say having numerous optimized characters tends to slow down the game, because they take longer to play through their own combat turns (both for having been built to do more during the turn, as well as having to back-up and re-do portions of turns when the player isn't satisfied with the tactical situation he's been presented with), and because they're more likely to interact with other player's turns. (This was worse in prior editions -- I can recall that generally there would be one turn per module in Paragon tier and higher LFR games where the DM would announce my turn and, ten minutes later, I'd actually get to start it.)

So while you might think you're speeding up the combat by making it take fewer rounds, if each of those rounds is five times longer than it needs to be, you're not actually speeding up the game.

--
Pauper