D&D 5E I'm playing both! - 5e vs Pathfinder 1e, a comparison

[Stalker0]

So I've been very fortunate that while Covid has created a rough outdoor social life, my remote gaming life has gotten better. For the first time I've gotten to play a 5e campaign and a pathfinder 1e campaign at the same time. Its been a fun and interesting experience playing both, and of course you inevitably want to compare and contrast them to ask...who did it better? So here are a few notes:

Pathfinder Strengths

1) Skills: I think Pathfinder hit a good middle ground between 3.5's sometimes clunky class/cross class system and 5e's "fire and forget" skill design. In Pathfinder skills are pretty straightforward but you still get more of a progression and a sense of evolution compared to 5e. It also helps to make Int less of a dump stat.

2) Monster Design: My notes here also stem from my long dming experience running 3.5 and 5e games. In general, 5e monsters suffer two main issues:

a) Easy Mode: Monsters at base simply do not have enough offense... I routinely have to upgrade my own monsters to be even remotely threatening to a party, or I have to use lots of monsters which slows down the game. But in general, I find most monsters in 5e are hilariously under CRed once your working with level 5 or higher parties.

b) No big "punch" abilities: So I had an interesting direct comparison on this one, as I fought a vampire in each campaign. For the 5e party...it was just another monster. In pathfinder, we were terrified. We planned special tactics, special buffs spells, the works. It wasn't a fight, it was survival. In other words, I miss negative levels. Now, pathfinder improved on 3.5 in this manner, Negative levels for example can for multiple days depending on roles, but are never permanent. This creates the horror factor for the party without the risk of permanently screwing them.

Funny enough the closest equivalent I have seen in 5e is fatigue, and that comes up in monsters very rarely (if at all). 5e ability are short lived, and don't have the same bite. Consequently, while not all fights are the same, the monster design doesn't shake up combats in the same way they do in pathfinder.


3) Gold: Simply put, as a player, finding ways to spend your loot is a lot of fun. There is a fun "metagame" where between sessions you dream of what badass items your character is going to buy, its just a good, fun experience. Gold has very little value in 5e, and I have never really cared much about its acquisition.

4) Spells: Sometimes going on a buff fest of spells is just a lot of fun. I understand 5e's desire to curbtail this, especially at high levels.... but you know it feels so powerful and cool to get 3 or 4 buffs through on your character and feel like superman for a few minutes. I think 5e lost that a bit with an overly restrictive concentration mechanic.

5) Archetypes: Something Pathfinder introduced was the Archetype concept, which basically is almost like a sub sub class. Effectively you trade a few class abilities for a few other abilities, otherwise the core class chassis remains the same. Several of my fellow players have archetypes, and I think its a great way to shake up the core classes in a way that doesn't break the bank.

5e Strengths

1) Feats: My god, does Pathfinder have a lot of crappy feats. So...many....crappy feats. There are feats in there that are so watered down and specific that I wouldn't give them to my most niche one off NPCs, let alone a PC. 5e feats are generally meatier and more interesting.

2) Combat Flow: Its amazing to me how 2 little rules changes can make such a big impact:

a) A player can take their action at some point in their move, and then continue the move.
b) A player can do 1 object interaction for free every round.

5e combats feel like more of a dance than pathfinder's. The players just "do things", and they happen. I have watched so many pathfinder arguments about X square, and this position, and can I open the door and run out and attack, and xyz. Those two little rules changes fixed at least half of the rules arguments I have seen at the pathfinder table. I feel like this is an area where 5e's "rule" removes so many other rules, and really for the improvement of the game.

3) Magic Items: I do think Pathfinder still suffers the 3.5 legacy of "you get a belt for this, and a hat for that, and shoes for X", that even by 5-6th level you already look like a christmas tree, with a bag full of scrolls along with it. 5e magic items are intentionally rarer and often more interesting, and I think the game is better for it.

4) Spells: While I don't like concentration, I do think 5e improved spells in a number of ways over pathfinder. I think removing caster level from range and duration was a good move. Pathfinder is a little more dynamic with this at the beginning (going from a 1 round duration to a 3 round is a big deal)...but in the long run, I like that in 5e, I cast my spell, it lasts 1 minute (aka a combat). Simple, fire and forget, let me return to what I care about. Same with spell DCs and ranges... our poor pathfinder DM keeps having to remind people "now remember that's a second level spell not your third one, so the DC is 1 lower". The mechanics of spellcaster in 5e are just smoother.

5) Range: The problem with range has traditionally been... it makes half of your party feel weak/useless (unless you have a party of archers). Now when your ranges are in the 150-200 ish level, well then your melee guys can rush in and combats still are dynamic. 5e recognizes this, and attempts to keep most ranges within the 100-150 range (bows are the exception and honestly I really wish they were shorter, 300 would be fine... ask any professional archer, they will tell you that 600 feet hit ranges are just ridiculous).

But in pathfinder you can still get long range spells from 400-500 feet away which creates a lot more weirdness and sometimes boredom in the combat.



Overall

In general, I think 5e is the more polished system, its cleaner and smoother. However, 5e also tossed a bit of baby with its bathwater, and there is a wonderous variety of options in Pathfinder that as a player you do start to miss. From a DM standpoint, I think 5e is the easier system to run, and I think its the harder system to keep it fresh and engaging for veteran players (with pathfinder you can simply find a new monster or item to create a radically different combat or experience).

All in all...they are both good, it just depends on what you are looking for. If I was going for the "perfect version"... I think I would take Pathfinder as the base (with its loads of options already provided)...and then start systematically swapping out components for 5e rules (such as the combat rules I mentioned, those could be easily adapted to the pathfinder chassis). You could probably keep most of what makes Pathfinder fun, but easily remove its biggest blemishes with a few key 5e inspired rules changes.

 

[prabe]

I don't exactly disagree with what you're saying here, but I have a few thoughts.

I am running a couple 5E campaigns, and playing in a couple others, and playing in a couple Pathfinder 1E campaigns (intermittent with one of the 5E campaigns--it's about who's GMing a given string of sessions and what they feel comfortable GMing). The biggest thing I like about 5E isn't in your list: I can run characters pencil-and-paper, so I don't need to use a crappy computer program to simulate a character sheet. Pathfinder characters are much more complicated to play than 5E characters, especially at higher levels with expected magic.

Also, the variance between the PCs--what they're good at and what they aren't--is vastly reduced in 5E relative to Pathfinder. In the one Pathfinder campaign we have two characters who can regularly top 40 in Perception, and another character who has a minor Wisdom bonus and no ranks in it. The numbers in 5E are ... less likely to get that out of hand without a lot of effort on the part of the PCs.

At this point I play Pathfinder 1E because my friends are running it; I run 5E because I actually enjoy doing so.

 

[Retreater]

@Stalker0 have you looked at Pathfinder 2e? It seems to address most of what you don't like about Pathfinder 1e while retaining the stuff you like.
My group is loving it, much more than PF1, D&D5e, or any similar game.

 

[Li Shenron]

I (moderately) agree on skills and monster.

I don't miss skill points (even though I liked them), but I do miss having a longer skills list, and Intelligence being useful to every character.

For monsters, too many 5e creatures have just a single special ability or two. But 3e/PF monsters had often too many, they were needlessly complicated and confusing, and always gave me the feeling that I was underusing them. Something in between would be ideal.

 

[Todd Roybark]

but I do miss having a longer skills list, and Intelligence being useful to every character.

Intelligence is useful to every character.
The 5e motto is ability checks Not skill checks.
Every memory check, ("wait was it the third or second door on the right, that is trapped?"),
every interaction involving knowing something or reasoning, and all investigating is an Intelligence Ability check in 5e.

In real life, typically, after you perceive something, you generally start investigating what you perceive.

If I hear a knocking sound coming from my car, listening to the same sound over and over again, yields nothing, unless I have some Intelligence to investigate with.

The 5e modules, rely too heavily and grant too much power to Perception.
Perception + Investigation= understanding.

5e monsters are fairly easy to run, so running a bunch of them is not a chore.
I often use Swarm or Legendary Actions to simulate a horde without having to run a legion of foes.

The nice thing about 5e monsters, especially MM creatures being on the low side of CR, is when you do ad-lib an action like a dragon grappling a player with their bite attack, or buff a monster through equipment or spells, you rarely have to change the CR.

I agree though, the 5e monsters often need a little more oomph....but adjustments on the fly are easy to do in the 5e system.

 

[ZeshinX]

I very much enjoyed PF 1e, but once we started playing 5e, it hit most of the right notes for us. Initially, we found ourselves missing some elements, like character options (in terms of fleshing out a character concept) and a lack of skill progression. We also found we disliked magic item attunement and the way concentration works. However, over time and playing, we found we less and less missed those elements and our dislikes practically evaporated.

The one element we found we still missed was not so much skill progression, but lack of ability to learn (become proficient in) new skills as the game progressed (except perhaps a new skill or two learned when hitting your class' archetype/subclass). Oh sure, downtime can fill that gap, but we felt it should be part of the level-gaining process. We also felt the list of skill/tool proficiencies was too small. Of course, we found a suitable houserule and everyone gains a new skill/tool prof of their choice every 4 levels (character level, not class level)...and we just deal with the small number of actual skill profs (and we attach a LOT more uses for the tool profs as well).

I've found, in 30 years of playing D&D, that I vastly prefer the abstract approach to D&D (1e/2e, 5e), rather than the simulationist approach (3.x, PF). My group skipped 4e and PF 2e completely (neither were our cup of tea).

The flow and feel (for my group) of 5e, overall, just feels better and a long-needed, deep breath of fresh air for us after 3.x/PF 1e.

 

[RangerWickett]

The only game that has ever actually impressed me with its skill system is the new FFG Legends of the Five Rings.

D&D and PF just have a pretty minimalist "did you succeed" system, where even if you add more skills - or wonky stuff like skill feats to unlock special abilities - you don't get much story out of it.

But L5R fascinates me. Skills have up to five ranks, with 1 being competent, and 2 or higher being increasingly impressive. There are about 20 skills, split into five categories, and during character creation you're pretty much bound to get at least 1 rank in at least 2 skills from each category.

Artisan - Aesthetics (aka, visual media), Composition (aka, writing and music), Design (aka, fashion), Smithing
Martial - Fitness (aka, running/jumping/sneaking), Melee, Unarmed, Ranged, Meditation, Tactics
Scholar - Culture, Government, Medicine, Theology
Social - Command, Courtesy, Games, Performance, Sentiment
Trade - Commerce, Labor, Seafaring, Skulduggery, Survival

And whenever you attempt any skill, you don't simply rolling against a Target Number. You first announce your approach - which maps to the five different rings of the game.

Air - Cunning, graceful, or precise
Earth - Steady, grounded, or thorough
Fire - Direct, ferocious, and inventive
Water - Balanced, flexible, and cooperative
Void - Enlightened, serene, and mystical

And due to the way their dice system works, you roll a dice pool, with dice from your ability score (the ring you choose) and your skill ranks. You can get three main results: success, strife, and opportunity.

The more success you get, the better you do.
The more strife you get, the more the effort wears at your composure. (In L5R, if you run out of composure in a social setting, you embarrass yourself, and if you run out in a battle, you can no longer effectively defend against attacks.)
The more opportunity you get, the more novel stuff you can do aside from just accomplishing your main task.

For instance, you might be negotiating to convince a samurai from a different clan to let you pass through his patrolled area to pursue enemies from a third clan. This would probably be a Courtesy check, though you could try to make your point through a story (Performance) or even leverage some legal obligation (Government). And then you'd pick your approach. Based on what the GM knows of the samurai you're talking to, that might adjust the Target Number up or down.

Say you go for Courtesy (Water). You succeed, and even have some opportunities, which you use to make a friend, so the samurai sends some of his foot soldiers to help you.

Or Tactics (Earth), where you recount the precise details of a battle you had with your quarry, because you're dealing with a Lion clan samurai, and they love tactical talk, and you manage to impress him that your plan is the best way to deal with the threat the other guys pose. You can use some of your opportunity to say that the discussion actually helps you refine your plan, so that each member of your party gets a bonus die one time during the upcoming conflict.

Or Culture (Void) to simply have an idle conversation with the samurai, never stating your purpose, but opening your senses so that a kami - or perhaps one of the samurai's own ancestors - will guide your words to say the right thing. Some random turn of phrase will persuade the samurai to let you pass. And you can use your opportunity to gain good fortune: pick a different ring, and the next check you make with that ring has its Target Number reduced by 1.

It leads to some interesting roleplaying and storytelling through skill-based encounters. (And the similar system works in combat, so you might even fail to deal damage, but still use opportunity to change the nature of the fight.)

 

[Flamestrike]

My issue with PF (and its 3.5 source) is the real game itself isnt the Roleplaying game itself.

Char-Op and System mastery is the game. If you dont play the Char-Op/ System mastery game in 3.P you're screwed.

Everyone needs to be on the same level of System mastery, or else you wind up with a (disappointing and underwhelming) Monk, played alongside an actual 'Monk' (Sacred Fist Warpriest with Pounce abilities, dipping in a few other classes, certain feats, traits etc) that does what you wanted to do with your PC, just 10 times better.

Anyone who's ever played either game, and had a table with a Human Fighter, next to a Ruby Knight Vindicator/ Warblade/ Crusader with Divine metamagic/ Persistent spells, spamming martial manouvers with Wraithstrike, or a simple CODzilla etc has seen this phenomenon clearly.

3.P requires equal levels of System mastery from everyone at the table, to know what trap options there are (and there are literally thousands of them) what feats/ PrCs/ combos work (from among literally thousands more options) and to make sure everyone is on roughly the same playing field.

5E lacks those trap options, and doesnt require any System mastery to create a perfectly viable character to adventure with other characters of the same level, regardless of the years of your life you've spent trawling through a billion splatbooks/ feats/ traits/ alternate class features/ PrCs and slapping together 'builds' etc etc.

I used to love that system mastery/ char-op element to 3.P. Now I cant stand it. It basically WAS the game after a point, and we all forgot what DnD actually was meant to be somewhere in the middle of all that nonsense.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

My issue with PF (and its 3.5 source) is the real game itself isnt the Roleplaying game itself.

Char-Op and System mastery is the game. If you dont play the Char-Op/ System mastery game in 3.P you're screwed.

Everyone needs to be on the same level of System mastery, or else you wind up with a (disappointing and underwhelming) Monk, played alongside an actual 'Monk' (Sacred Fist Warpriest with Pounce abilities, dipping in a few other classes, certain feats, traits etc) that does what you wanted to do with your PC, just 10 times better.

Anyone who's ever played either game, and had a table with a Human Fighter, next to a Ruby Knight Vindicator/ Warblade/ Crusader with Divine metamagic/ Persistent spells, spamming martial manouvers with Wraithstrike, or a simple CODzilla etc has seen this phenomenon clearly.

3.P requires equal levels of System mastery from everyone at the table, to know what trap options there are (and there are literally thousands of them) what feats/ PrCs/ combos work (from among literally thousands more options) and to make sure everyone is on roughly the same playing field.

5E lacks those trap options, and doesnt require any System mastery to create a perfectly viable character to adventure with other characters of the same level, regardless of the years of your life you've spent trawling through a billion splatbooks/ feats/ traits/ alternate class features/ PrCs and slapping together 'builds' etc etc.

I used to love that system mastery/ char-op element to 3.P. Now I cant stand it. It basically WAS the game after a point, and we all forgot what DnD actually was meant to be somewhere in the middle of all that nonsense.

This, combined with with the post regarding needing computers to run it are the main reasons why I prefer D&D 5e over Pathfinder. There are certainly elements that I miss (god I miss channel energy, animal companion rules, and some of the fine tuning for characters), and as a player I sort of prefer pathfinder to an extent.

But as a DM the difference is night and day, Pathfinder is a freaking nightmare to run compared to dnd 5e, particularly at higher levels where monsters will have a dozen or so different abilities that must be kept track of and fall apart if you forget even a single one, something especially annoying as they don't list what the damned feats do in their statblocks. I do NOT miss having to not only learn and remember the rules of the game, but effectively learn how to play basically HUNDREDS of different builds just to run the damned game. I still enjoyed pathfinder for sure, but my list of house rules to make the game run smoother and faster was FAR longer than the one I've accrued for 5e despite playing the game now for just as long.

On a note related to smoothness of play, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the two changes to 5e that makes things so much faster to run: bounded accuracy (combined with removing 7+ different bonus/penalty types to keep track of), and the almost wholesale removal of opportunity attacks. Yes, they still happen with certain feats and when moving out of range, but I've always found the REAL time killer for all our games in pathfinder/3.5 was "oh, that provokes an attack of opportunity" to practically EVERY damned thing in the game!

 

[ccs]

I like both 5e & PF1 about equally. From either side of the screen.

In an ideal world? I'd make a hybrid game of the parts I like. But I know I'm not going to get around to doing that....

The main thing I dislike about virtually every RPG overall? The skill system. I've just never found one that I like.
Although as a player I more prefer the 5e version of only adjust the #s now & then. In PF? I'm always forgetting to spend skill points. My sheet is almost never accurate. It's a running joke in my group.

Feats, I like feats.
But 5e has too few.
And PF has too many. More annoying is the fact that there's entire chapters of cool sounding PF feats - that are locked behind pre-reqs. Sometimes senseless pre-reqs. WHY??? And that's not even counting the nigh useless ones....