Where to start? (Pathfinder or 5th Edition D&D?)

[Mock26]

Earlier today I received a phone call from my brother. It turns out that is 8-year old son has expressed an interest in playing D&D. Well, my brother knows that I have been playing pretty much non-stop since 1981, when he introduced me to the game, and he wants me to put together some sort of a list of items for a "starter set." Of course, my first thought was to go with 2nd Edition AD&D, which is my preferred version of the game. But, I do not think that that would be fair to the boy as there is no guarantee that he would have anyone to play with. I do not live close enough and my brother has not played since 1982-83. So, I need some advice.

What version and/or variant would be best for a beginner? I am thinking either Pathfinder or 5th Edition. But, I have not played either enough times to know which would be best, both from a learning perspective as well as from a "market share" perspective. I really do not know which is the better game nor which is the more popular. I am aware that both values are subjective. So, if you are willing to help bring someone new into the world of RPGs, what are your suggestions on which game to play? Also, is there some sort of "starter set" that would be helpful as an introduction? This can be either a boxed set or a list of products.

Thank you in advance for your help and suggestions!

 

[Saxon1974]

Playing in a pathfinder game and it feels pretty rules heavy especially for an 8 year old. 5E I have only played a little but it seems easier for a beginner to me. The 5e starter set had an intro adventure called Lost Mine of Phandelver that i have heard people say is a fun intro mod.

If you want to go further back maybe try BECMI, its less rules heavy than AD&D.

Also, since your playing with your 8 year old have you heard of Hero Kids? Its an RPG system including pre made adventures specifically made for 4 to 10 year olds. My son likes it but he is only 5.

 

[Wik]

I've played both. And the answer is, without a doubt, 5e. Allow me to explain:

1. Pathfinder is a game with a lot of rules. They cover EVERYTHING. 5e is a game that has much fewer rules, much like 2e did, and it expects the GM to be making things up. 8 year olds are going to be doing that anyways. Why not have the game that's made for that sort of play?

2. Pathfinder's rules are balanced with the framework that all the rules will be followed. This means that when someone isn't following them due to a misunderstanding, things get wonky fast. We mostly know how sneak attack works, but what happens if you have a player (say, an 8 year old), who doesn't know that "surprise" is a rules term, and not actually being "surprised" that a combat is happening? In short, now the rogue is always landing sneak attack. 5e, with fewer rules, has therefore fewer rules interactions. This means that misunderstandings are handled better.

3. Pathfinder probably has better support, and a better fanbase. But it also means there's a huge glut of material out there. If we're just using 5e materials, there's a much better chance that high quality materials will wind up in the kid's hands, as opposed to one of the many, MANY "this product exists just to fill a hole in our production cycle" products of PF.

4. 5e is free. At its basic level, at least - the basic rules exist with enough to go on that the child can play with absolutely no investment! Now, this is technically also true of Pathfinder... but not really. Trying to run a game off the SRD is hard... probably out of the reach of a child. I mean, even the basic rules would be pretty hard for an eight year old...

5. 5e has all the cool D&D monsters that were never made available to the OGL. Trust me, it's a LOT of fun to fight a mimic, displacer beast, umber hulk, beholder...

6. 5e has fewer moving parts. In PF, everything is customizable, even pretty much just in the core rulebook. This leads to a lot of decisions... and many of them are bad. (Imagine a fighter taking iron will as a feat at first level. It seems cool at first, but in reality, it's a sub-par entry level feat). 5e, by contrast, has fewer choices, which allows new players to focus on playing the actual game.



Obviously, I'm in favour of 5th. I've run a few pathfinder games, and I've had huge problems every time. The nature of buff spells, save or die effects, and the all-or-nothing damage game aren't what I love. I also hate how monsters are tied to character level fairly strongly (orcs cease to be a threat completely, for example - whereas in 5th, they can still scare PCs when encountered in groups). And I strongly disliked the power disparity between PCs in the same party, and the "buildiness" that seem to almost be required. So, that's where my own bias lay; make of it what you will.

Some things I can say in favour of pathfinder, to play devil's advocate to my own arguments:

1. Pathfinder is better supported, and the Paizo guys are much more communicative with the fanbase than wotc these days.
2. Pathfinder has a much better "core world" than any edition of D&D. Golarian trumps the vagueness of Greyhawk we see presented in the core books, the small scale of the Nentir Vale, or the blandness of 5e's sword coast.
3. Pathfinder Adventure Paths are centred around (usually) awesome ideas, and there are enough out there these days that you can find one that is exciting.
4. Once you get the core book, pathfinder has a lot of different directions you can go, using the (free!) SRD... whereas in 5e, to do that requires kitbashing rules yourself or going through blog after blog after forumpost.
5. Pathfinder adventuring days are smaller than 5e adventuring days, which some players find more "realistic". Granted, that's no 8 year old I've ever encountered, but still.


Honestly, though? 5e is closer to 2e than pathfinder is. I mean, does Pathfinder have THAC0 in the index? Nope! But 5e does... And since you stress you're a 2e player, why not stick closer to something you love?

 

[steenan]

Have you considered Dungeon World?

It's "D&D" to a similar extent as Pathfinder (that is, does not share the name, but shares similar setting and playstyle assumptions). It's also rules-light and presents its rules in very clear, easy to understand fashion.

All the rules a player needs are on four pages - half of that being their character sheet. No book reference needed during character creation nor during play.

And the paladin feels more paladinish than in any version of D&D.

 

[GMMichael]

Start here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07... board game&qid=1443981175&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2

It's possible that another game, like steenan mentioned, might be more popular or easier to find where your nephew lives. So if that's a criterion, don't think only in terms of PF or 5e.

That being said: do not inflict Pathfinder on an 8 year old. I don't hesitate to deny Pathfinder's attempt at streamlining 3.5, with its clutter negating its innovations. Great art, though.

 

[Wicht]

My niece and nephew started with the Pathfinder Beginner box at age 8 and had no problems. It comes with "minis," dice, basic rules and an adventure. I can easily recommend it for young players.

As an aside, I honestly think the worry about rules-heavy games with younger players is too overblown. At that age, the mind is a veritable sponge. I remember devouring and memorizing the AD&D monster manual by the time I was 12, and my own children have behaved similarly with the Pathfinder Bestiaries. As we get older, we lose that ability to an extent, and then we convince ourselves that the young'uns want a more streamlined game, when in truth, I think its the reverse - its us older players who need it simpler because the mind is just a little slower to learn than it used to be.

 

[Campbell]

I'd take a look at Beyond The Wall. It's an OSR clone focused on playing a group of young villagers who set out for adventure. There are a number of resources to begin play with zero prep and it does a good job of teaching play along the way.

 

[delericho]

My initial advice would indeed be to check if there's an existing group somewhere he can join. If there is, best for him to start with the game that they play.

If there's no group he can join, or things are otherwise equal, I would say start with the 5e Starter Set. It's a good one. (The Pathfinder Beginner Box is also very good, but the jump from that to the 'real' game is much larger than with D&D.)

 

[Jhaelen]

As we get older, we lose that ability to an extent, and then we convince ourselves that the young'uns want a more streamlined game, when in truth, I think its the reverse - its us older players who need it simpler because the mind is just a little slower to learn than it used to be.

There's definitely some truth in this. At age 8 I've been memorizing all facts from several books at a time without problems.

_I'd_ hate to play Pathfinder with 8-years old, though, because _I_ hate playing with such a bloated system. I'd probably get tripped up by its rules with the 8-year olds constantly reminding me about inconsistencies in my rulings - no thanks!

 

[qstor]

The Pathfinder beginners box is probably a good idea.

Monte Cook games is making a RPG for kids but I don't know when its out.