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

[billd91]

Victim-blaming? There's no victim here. 3e/PF is victimizing nobody. This is just your standard, run of the mill, edition warring naughty word.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Victim-blaming? There's no victim here. 3e/PF is victimizing nobody. This is just your standard, run of the mill, edition warring naughty word.

You're the one talking about people having self-inflicted problems because they actually try to play 3e/PF as written and as intended. Yes, that defense you presented was "just your standard, run of the mill, edition warring naughty word".

 

[Neonchameleon]

For me, simply put, Pathfinder is more fun as a player, but 5e is more fun as a DM. The thing that I think makes PF more fun is the ability to customize your character to be whatever you want in terms of multi-classing and feats. I know you said Pathfinder has a lot of feats, and I agree some are crappy ... so for me, I just ignore the crappy ones and choose the ones that fit the character the best. And I do agree about the Skills in PF being more of a nice middle ground, although I also think there should be fewer, but not as few as 5e.

For me Pathfinder is more fun if I am playing a spellcaster. 5e is far more fun if I'm playing a non-caster, whether fighter, monk, rogue, barbarian, or any other sort. There's just more interesting stuff and less fiddly stuff there. But both have enough classes I can enjoy; as a player in a class based game I only need there to be one class pitching to me (more is better admittedly) to have a good time with the right group.

For DMing I refuse point blank to DM Pathfinder. If I can't look at the statblock and get almost a complete sense of the NPC's mechanics I'm not doing it (thank you feats!) as it really inhibits improvising for me. 5e is kinda meh to DM - out of combat it's nothing special and in combat tactics have been savagely limited because spellcasters can cast freely in combat as long as they stick to spells requiring saving throws and there's almost no point harassing the archers or forcing archers into combat or warriors out of it because most characters use the same stat for melee as for ranged.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A lot of people will direct these criticism at the 3e/PF family of D&D editions, but a lot of it is self-inflicted. Yes, the game allows this sort of mechanical frankensteining of bonuses and powers - but it's a style of play you have to pursue to do it. And it's a style of play not required by the game itself. It just won't stop you or limit you from engaging in it - that's up to the gamer group to decide.

To a certain extent I agree... but it is also admittedly part and parcel with its design. The Feats section is designed specifically to give you one (or maybe two) exceedingly small bonuses, under the expectation you will then follow down the "feat tree" to get more and more of these tiny bonuses. Then if you're lucky, the complete suite of feats will create a certain playstyle totality for your character and will have been fluffed out as a cohesive theme. But more often than not because so many useful things are gated behind lamer initial feats and prerequisites... nobody actually goes down those trees and they just pick and choose at the time they level up "What's going to be useful for me right now?" And that's when you get all of these isolated bits and bobs that don't cohere (from what I've experienced.) And the same thing is true with the selection of multiclasses and prestige classes... you try and find a mechanical throughway to a playstyle you think might be fun, but the fluff and story of these disparate things make no sense.

But believe me... that in itself is not a 3E/PF isolated thing, 5E definitely has its own share. I can't tell you how many times I see "Take 2 levels of Warlock for Devil's Sight!" in some 5E leveling "build" that makes me want to claw my eyes out. Quite possibly the most fluff-heavy class in the game is seen by so many as nothing more than a "Be able to see in a Darkness spell when no one else can!" delivery system and the story of making a pact with an extra-dimensional being to gain ultimate power is completely ignored. All of this stuff drives me nuts.

 

[raysosher]

Thank you for doing this. You have experienced something which is really hard for any true gamer. If I talk about me then I would say I have never played two games at the same time. I did not want to as it disturbs my focus and once I play a certain game I do not turn my eyes until I finishes it. You have experienced both and also left us with an amazing review. Thanks for that.

 

[MNblockhead]

The more I read about PF1 / DD3/3.5 the less interested I am in it. But I didn't get this feeling with the PF 2e games I played at conventions. Has 2e curbed some 1e's excesses successfully? I haven't bought 2e because there are enough games to play that I don't need another D&D-style fantasy game. If want D&D with more crunch, I can add more crunch to my 5e game without having to buy a new library of books.

My experience is with 1e, 5e, and a bunch of games in other genres. I'm not sure I am buying into some of the criticisms of 5e that I'm reading in this thread, but I'm not sure if thats because the weakness isn't in the rules OR if my group has just found ways around, or just living with, those weaknesses that work for us.

INT as a dump stat. Obviously if you are an INT-based caster, that's not true. But even beyond that, the exploration pillar is probably the biggest pillar in most of my games. All five of the INT skills see heavy use in my games. Especially investigation. Arcana, Nature, History, and Religion get more or less use depending upon the campaign and session, but rarely is there a sessions that goes buy without one or more rolls with these skills. I can only see INT as a dump stat in combat, if you are not an INT-based caster. Which is a feature, not a flaw.

Concentration. Love it. Without it I don't think I don't know that I would like running games past Tier 1. You want multiple buffs and want to control the battlefield while still making attacks, get multiple casters in your party. Concentration makes the game better for me.

The "gold problem." I kinda get this. Many tables just want to play the adventure. The characters' motivations, especially at higher levels, just isn't getting loot. But if you want gold to mean something to players at higher levels, the DMG and Xanathars give you plenty of ways to spend it. Including buying magic if you want to play a more high-magic game. I do think, however, allowing players to just buy magic items can quickly unbalance the game in the party's favor. From what I'm reading, PF1 handles this better by working this into the rules, assuming a high-magic style of play. I prefer GP to be spent on strongholds, supporting villages, strengthening or weakening factions, etc.