Bringing 5e elements into Pathfinder to deconfuse players

[blargney the second]

We've got a couple of campaigns with weekly gaming sessions right now: one is Pathfinder and the other is 5e. I'm super happy with this arrangement, but there are a couple of players who are getting really confused with switching rulesets. They're at the point where the confusion is actually detracting from their ability to enjoy playing.

They both watch a fair amount of Critical Role, so 5e seems to be their brains' native system now. One of them has asked if we can straight up switch from PF to 5e because it's messing with his head so badly. While I don't want to go that far, I want to explore some options to ease the mental burden they're experiencing.

The main alteration I'm contemplating is adopting 5e movement and AoO rules in the Pathfinder game for monsters and PCs alike. We're running a fairly freewheeling, fast-and-loose style of play already, so I think less restrictive movement should play nicely at this table.

Is this a reasonable solution? Are there any weird interactions we're likely to encounter? (The PF game is basically core-only btw.) Should I find a story reason to deploy a house rule change like this to the entire setting, or just bam and go? How should I best prepare myself for seeing the monk player's o-face?

 

[ccs]

Overall you won't have any problems.
Just make the rules mods. You don't need any story justification.
You might run into some interaction feat-wise. If you do, just come up with something that works for that particular issue & play on.
And, after awhile, if you find these changes haven't helped your game? Switch back.

 

[S'mon]

My guess would be you'll confuse them even more!

My recommendation would be to go over to all 5e, or split your group.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

Yeah, it sounds like your group wants to just convert over to 5E in this case. My guess would be what's confusing them is the fact that ACs are going to be up to 10 points higher and attack/skill bonuses are going to be at least 15 points higher across the boards. Personally, I'd rather play Pathfinder, assuming that I was playing with people whose brains were not overwhelmed by Pathfinder.

However:

The main alteration I'm contemplating is adopting 5e movement and AoO rules in the Pathfinder game for monsters and PCs alike. We're running a fairly freewheeling, fast-and-loose style of play already, so I think less restrictive movement should play nicely at this table.

The way 5E handles movement is pretty damn great; it's the 3.X equivalent of giving everyone Spring Attack and turning things like opening and moving through doors and windows into part of movement rather than having a turn end because you need to use an attack action to open a door or whatever. I think it's very empowering and freeing and I do think that splicing it into PF might help the game run faster; I don't think it will make anyone any more confused. Just be aware that there are entire feat chains (i.e. Spring Attack) that are made worthless by using 5E movement rules, and any PCs with those should be given an opportunity to respec.

I actually didn't know that AoO WERE different in any meaningful way in 5E than in 3.PF. How so?

 

[Henry]

We did this for our PF1 game and it went pretty well, but I would recommend to keep it low-level (cap the campaign to max 10th level or so) so that feat and spell interactions don’t get complex enough to cause major headaches.

In fact, numbers fatigue caused my entire PF1 group to switch to D&D5. I suspect that lack of mechanical customization compared to PF will cause us to switch back eventually (especially come August when PF2 hits the streets) but right now, they are having a ball with the change of pace of 5e.

 

[Immortal Sun]

I do agree with changing how movement works, though I haven't implemented it yet.

Not sure I'd restrict AoO's though.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't really care for PF these days, so my suggestions would be to go all 5e. I don't think that is what you are looking for though.

Perhaps a better way is to go all Beginner box with Pathfinder. Scale back most of the rules to use the rules utilized in the Pathfinder Beginner Box. For those who have classes that are not found in the BB, use the Pathfinder Strategy Guide. Utilizing this and letting players browse through it can help them understand their options and what they can do with their class.

I don't think just changing AoO and movement will do the trick if they are truly feeling the strain of changing between 5e and PF.

Another option could be to change it up only once every one or two weeks. Instead of switching between each in the week, only run one ruleset each week, or run it straight for two weeks. Then make it clear you are changing it up and run the other one. This lets the players get somewhat comfortable with the ruleset you are running that week and can reset to get their minds clear for the other one when you run it.

 

[billd91]

I actually didn't know that AoO WERE different in any meaningful way in 5E than in 3.PF. How so?

There are roughly a ton more ways to trigger an AoO in PF than in 5e, and a lot more ways to exploit them/modify them. In 5e, you really only provoke one for trying to move out of reach without taking the Disengage action. In PF, you can trigger them by doing quite a few things within the reach of an enemy - cast a spell, make a ranged attack, move out of a location even if not actually trying to move out of reach, stand up from being prone, drink a potion, dig an item out of a pack, etc. Basically, doing anything that draws the character's focus away from direct melee weapon vs melee weapon combat within reach probably draws an AoO.

 

[Ratskinner]

You didn't really express and reason to keep going with Pathfinder...because, to me, it sounds like you should just shift to 5e for both the campaigns.

 

[blargney the second]

Thanks for the replies, everybody!

The 5e campaign is running the Tomb of Annihilation, which would be a giant PITA to convert out of 5e. Likewise, the PF game's primary source material has four years of play in Golarion with the Kingmaker path, so it would experience similar conversion pains. On the whole, our group finds 5e a fun but rather simplistic system, and there are complexities that we quite enjoy in PF. I think we're better off attempting an undoable tweak to simplify the complex system than to go the other direction.

The two players that are experiencing trouble are mostly stumbling on the differences in the action system, most commonly the interaction between full attacks and movement. We're 9th level at this point, and I'd thought they'd be able to get it sorted by now. So if the mountain won't come to Mohammed, Mohammed must be okay with raiding the foothills for compatible mechanics subsystems.

I've talked to 3 of the 5 players, and they're cool with giving it a whirl. I haven't had a chance to talk with the monk player yet, and I'm still scared of seeing his o-face.
-blarg