Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8045746" data-attributes="member: 5889">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 Strengths1) 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 Strengths1) 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.OverallIn 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.</blockquote>

Verification