Lesser of Two Evils: Pathfinder or 5e?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

It's worth noting that while Frank Trollman's "tomes" and the rest of this board's D&D content was written for 3.5, Frank's most important book was never finished, and the books that do exist aren't even fully compatible with each other. The other content on the board has similarly spotty viability. "Tome D&D" isn't not really a game so much as a pre-fab kit for assembling games, and adapting your favorites parts to Pathfinder is probably almost as easy as adapting them to 3.5 I'm salty about Pathfinder because I've *already* patched together a version of 3.5 enhanced by Den material, but if you haven't got that sunk cost you may as well start from Pathfinder.

Yeah, tome stuff is good, but it has one of Pathfinder and 4e's issues: too many fiddly details and bonuses that come up so rarely that they basically never come up. Tome Armor is especially bad, nearly none of the bonuses you grant from BAB/Skills are even worth the space on your character sheet.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Red Rob has an alternate, less fiddly system for armor: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=53563

[Krusk]

No, 3.x isn't off the table, because obviously isn't PF considered 3.75?

Not even a little. Pathfinder is essentially "some guys shitty house rules for 3.5 that costs money."

Tome is "some guys less shitty house rules to 3.5 that is free"

Any group that plays 3.0 or 3.5 and has for 2-3 years probably has their own shitty house rules. Their quality is probably between tome and pathfinder. They are also probably free.

No one of those three groups has a better claim to the name 3.75 than the others. Pathfinder fans like to use it to trick noobs into thinking its the defacto choice for playing 3rd edition dnd.

My 5e dmg came in late last week.

[ACOS]

My 5e dmg came in late last week.

May you be not as forgiving as AngryDM.

[FatR]

If implementing significant houserules is out of the question I'd choose PF out of all version of DnD any day. Note that Tomes which people like to talk about here fail this criteria, they are not a complete game, the last time I checked vital parts are still missing. At the moment PF simply has more useable (i.e., in that sweet spot between broken and underpowered) content than either 3.0 or 3.5, this content is better organized and is presented online. Adventure and bestiary support is excellent, the setting is pretty shit but well, you can run any relatively genering DnD setting with PF, no problems.

3.0 is a slightly better base if you're prepared to write a lot of content for your game, and your group is onboard with severe houseruling.

[fectin]

FantasyCraft does better at reining in the crazy high-end stuff, and provides a decently playable game throughout, and has a decent swag at a social minigame. It's harder to make an overpowered or underpowered character by accident. It also mechanically demands that you consider some of your table features up front. You pay for this with significantly increased complexity.

3.5 is the sweet spot of dead tree content and playable game. It's flawed, but it's flaws are well described. You will probably not discover any new problems with 3.5.

Pathfinder's SRD is sexy. That's a very strong argument for it, and they are also pumping out new content still. Paizo also produces a constant stream of adventures, which may or may not matter to you.

[Krusk]

5e's DMG is not even something you can review. Its just pages after pages of charts for you to roll on. There isn't content.

The charts are probably handy and everything, but there just isn't advice for running a game, or instructions on how to do things.

I don't know how he or anyone is reviewing it, because there just isn't content.

IO9 pissed me off. I opened it up right after I finished reading it, and the first article was one of theirs talking about how its the best DMG for any edition of any game ever. http://io9.com/the-new-dungeon-masters- ... 1670551012

[fectin]

Given how excited they are at the DMG including magic bracers "(bracers!)", I wouldn't take their opinion too seriously.

[Aryxbez]

@OP:
You HAD to know what the answer was before posting here.

You know the Den would give other answers depending on what is wanted out of the Fantasy RPGing right? Such as, if the OP wanted the equivalent of "peasant Fantasy", then I'd possibly recommend the equivalent of Lamentation of The Flame Princess, Torchbearer, or Castles & Crusades. Hell, we had another thread with someone had this genre smasher, and Frank/others suggest Munchasen and FATE respectively.

Otherwise, I recommend [Tome] D&D, simply because its content is offering far more fuller experience of D&D than what's been perpetuated for the last 14 goddamn years (Monsters magnet to Fighter out of DM pity, Rogue Flanks & SA's 1/round, Cleric heals, and Wizard wastes all its ammo, or is using wands...). Though, I do agree with the complexity of new material can be harder to present and get players to know the rules of (printouts of rule summaries & specific character sheets for it would help IMMENSELY).

EDIT: Lastly, for Future Shopping purposes, Five Moons may be something you/group find appealing. Since it's not out yet, it'll be awhile before its release, so have time to see how it turns out for your group.

[Dogbert]

5e:
-Play it if you like simplicity and E6.
-Don't play it if you hate playing Mother-may-I with the DM for every little thing or low-fantasy.

PF:
-Play it if you liked 3.X (years of power-creep also made it a lot better).
-Don't play it if you didn't like 3.X.

[SubversionArts]

First off, I want to thank everyone for their responses. It has been very helpful and enlightening.

@OP:
You HAD to know what the answer was before posting here.

You know the Den would give other answers depending on what is wanted out of the Fantasy RPGing right? Such as, if the OP wanted the equivalent of "peasant Fantasy", then I'd possibly recommend the equivalent of Lamentation of The Flame Princess, Torchbearer, or Castles & Crusades. Hell, we had another thread with someone had this genre smasher, and Frank/others suggest Munchasen and FATE respectively.

Otherwise, I recommend [Tome] D&D, simply because its content is offering far more fuller experience of D&D than what's been perpetuated for the last 14 goddamn years (Monsters magnet to Fighter out of DM pity, Rogue Flanks & SA's 1/round, Cleric heals, and Wizard wastes all its ammo, or is using wands...). Though, I do agree with the complexity of new material can be harder to present and get players to know the rules of (printouts of rule summaries & specific character sheets for it would help IMMENSELY).

EDIT: Lastly, for Future Shopping purposes, Five Moons may be something you/group find appealing. Since it's not out yet, it'll be awhile before its release, so have time to see how it turns out for your group.

This is also really great information! I'll investigate these. I have to agree, what I've seen of the Tome looks like something I would be stoked about if I were back into fantasy tabletop role-playing to a bigger degree than I am currently. Hit me with that when I was a freshmen into college, and I would probably have been obsessing over it still.

What I've settled on at this point is to order a copy of the PF Core Rules, which Amazon so promptly delivered, and I'm going to look over that and see how I feel about it. I still will probably give Earthdawn 5th edition a thorough look once they finally publish it after repeated delays. I'm not optimistic, but I'm pretty into the setting and some concepts of the system. And of course, I'll look over the stuff that people spoke strongly of here.

[silva]

I heard some good things about 13th Age too. As it meshes classic fantasy with some narrative sensibilities, perhaps it feats the simplicity the other games lack.

I too can't find the time or inclination these (adult) days for over granular and complex rules. ;D

[Dogbert]

if the OP wanted the equivalent of "peasant Fantasy", then I'd possibly recommend the equivalent of Lamentation of The Flame Princess, Torchbearer, or Castles & Crusades.

Funny you mention Torchbearer, did you know that treasure for a lvl 1 encounter can go as low as 5 COPPER pieces? (I just read the DMG).

Yeah it's official, it's Shadowrun 5 all over again where players are forced to become road bandits because a single horse is worth more gold than they'll probably see in their lifetime otherwise.

All hail Grand Theft Dragon!

[ruemere]

I heard some good things about 13th Age too. As it meshes classic fantasy with some narrative sensibilities, perhaps it feats the simplicity the other games lack.

I too can't find the time or inclination these (adult) days for over granular and complex rules. ;D

If you need some first hand info on 13th Age, just ask.

It's recommended for more experienced GMs though, as the game is more abstract than d20. On the other hand, you can easily run quick fights for tens of opponents in time it takes you to run an encounter with 2-3 in Pathfinder.

Regards,
Ruemere

[mean_liar]

I didn't really see anything in 13th Age that was striking other than the built-in 13 Icons (or Idols or whatever). Otherwise it's basically a stripped-down version of 4e, yes?

[Hiram McDaniels]

@OP:
You HAD to know what the answer was before posting here.

You know the Den would give other answers depending on what is wanted out of the Fantasy RPGing right? Such as, if the OP wanted the equivalent of "peasant Fantasy", then I'd possibly recommend the equivalent of Lamentation of The Flame Princess, Torchbearer, or Castles & Crusades. Hell, we had another thread with someone had this genre smasher, and Frank/others suggest Munchasen and FATE respectively.

Well yeah...but the OP specifically asked: 5E vs. Pathfinder, and between those two the majority sentiment of the Den clearly favors Pathfinder because of it's similarity to 3E. If the OP had given broader criteria, he would have had a number of different suggestions. I would have recommended the Dragon Age RPG if he wanted something less crunchy than Pathfinder, but more complete than 5E, for instance.

5e is by far the simpler game, useful if you don't want to dive through all the options and internet advice of an older and more rules heavy game. The basic rules are free, and if you don't care about just making up expansion options as needed / desired then you can make due with those. It requires more mind caulk and making shit up, so you spend time making shit up instead of looking in the book. If you're not used to making things up or not used to the system, this will probably turn out non-optimally for a while, if not actually badly. If you have sufficient experience with 2e (unclear from your OP) you can probably apply a lot of the same bullshitting technique to it and have something playable / fun for your group. Just be willing to revisit rulings and adjust them as needed to tune your group's enjoyment.

I find 5E to be simpler to plan and run, but it occurred to me that this is probably because years of experience with 2/3/4E has trained me to make good, consistent calls behind the screen. When I assign a DC to a task in 5E, I'm probably using something close to 3E's benchmarks, adjusted for deflation of course. I can't help but wonder if the lack of minutiae is actually helpful for newer GM's, or if it just leaves them lost.

[ruemere]

I didn't really see anything in 13th Age that was striking other than the built-in 13 Icons (or Idols or whatever). Otherwise it's basically a stripped-down version of 4e, yes?

There are similarities, certainly. Just like there are differences.

For example:
- the game uses relative distances and positioning instead of squares, feet and mat.

- dwarves, halflings and humans use the same speed.

- most values used by opponents are static, the opponents have several attack modes. D20 attack roll decides whether an attack is a hit and what attack mode is used.

- the opponents go down quickly, but not fast enough to lack opportunity to hit back.

- the mooks deal 1/3 damage, have 1/5 hitpoints and leftover damage spills from downed mook to the next.

- there are no iterative attacks. Martials are not penalized for moving.

- flight is an epic (9th level) spell

- magic items can be divided into cosmetic (weapons, armors) and wondrous

- damage and ability bonuses to damage scale with levels

- level up hitpoints are fixed and improved by con bonus

- GM sets the DC, the PCs come with modifiers (backgrounds, levels, abilities)

And so on. I'm not claiming the system is perfect for everyone.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. I guess that for the sake of decency, I should give a few examples of system weaknesses:

- the monsters are simple, sometimes too simple. The GM needs to actively work with players to ensure that longer combats are as interesting as shorter ones.

- also, since monsters are very simple in terms of statblocks, use of out of combat abilities is problematic in vanilla core book. So as a GM you do one of the three things
-- use GM's fiat when you want to do some behind the scenes action, or have a monster try to do something that is not combat related
-- put the monster against a PC, and have PC roll a check
-- (or, like me) assign proper background to the monster and do a normal check

- the reward system is based on PCs achieving a goal (minor goal - you get an increment ability toward full level; large goal - you get a full level), but there is no fixed system for this. Therefore your players may feel left hanging in a limbo as to their own personal progress. Again, there are several ways to do this:
-- use incremental progress reward system, and explain the players what they need to achieve to get a next increment
-- implement alternative reward system (castles, reputation, special backgrounds)
-- focus on the story and tell the players that they get a level once they complete a story arc successfully and in accordance with their tier (adventurers need to complete an adventure, champions need to champion a larger cause, and epic heroes need to do something epic). Of course, you should lay such goals or requirements in front of the players (note: this is my interpretation of what the game manual says - you're likely to disagree with me)

PS 2.: Sample monsters:
- a bestiary entry: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread ... The-Redcap!
- SRD monsters: Just the monster SRD

[Kaelik]

Half your list of differences from 4e are just 4e things. None of your listed differences in any way explain why the game would be fun when 4e isn't.

Even if I didn't already know your game was shit, that attempt to differentiate it from 4e would have told me it is.

[Blicero]

@ruemere: Speaking as someone who is at least mildly sympathetic to 13th Age, that was a super shit attempt to sell anyone on the system.

[silva]

The list was more or less useful to me. In special I liked the greater simplicity and the goal-oriented rewards.

[Kaelik]

The list was more or less useful to me. In special I liked the greater simplicity and the goal-oriented rewards.

There are zero elements in that description that are more simple than 4e. Literally all the "simplicity" distinctions he makes are copy and pastes from 4e that 13th age exactly mimics, and this fucker is too stupid to actually know the rules to 4e.

Also, as always, silva agreeing with you should fill you with shame Rue.

[SubversionArts]

I find 5E to be simpler to plan and run, but it occurred to me that this is probably because years of experience with 2/3/4E has trained me to make good, consistent calls behind the screen. When I assign a DC to a task in 5E, I'm probably using something close to 3E's benchmarks, adjusted for deflation of course. I can't help but wonder if the lack of minutiae is actually helpful for newer GM's, or if it just leaves them lost.

Interesting. That's probably the most positive thing I've seen on here about 5E. And the example is good for me because most of my D&D experience is from 2E and before. I admit I'm still catching up on the developments in TTRPG's over the past few years. I like how prevalent discussions on the problem with Linear Warriors and Quadratic Wizards have become. That stuff already was known back in the 2E days of both D&D and Shadowrun. Just not a lot of crunchy solutions.

[Blicero]

There are zero elements in that description that are more simple than 4e.

That's not necessarily true. I would say these

- the game uses relative distances and positioning instead of squares, feet and mat.
- most values used by opponents are static, the opponents have several attack modes. D20 attack roll decides whether an attack is a hit and what attack mode is used.

indicate that some aspects of 13th Age are simpler than 4E.

[Kaelik]

There are zero elements in that description that are more simple than 4e.

That's not necessarily true. I would say these

- the game uses relative distances and positioning instead of squares, feet and mat.
- most values used by opponents are static, the opponents have several attack modes. D20 attack roll decides whether an attack is a hit and what attack mode is used.

indicate that some aspects of 13th Age are simpler than 4E.

Nope... I tried to concede one of those points, but I couldn't find even one.

1) relative positioning and defenses is not in fact simpler than squares. Not even a little bit, I mean, if you have a true board and turn based, you basically just made the game exactly the same except with vectors that aren't 90 degrees, so that is more complex, if you don't have turn based, you have 2es shitty way more complicated simultaneous acting, which is also more complicated.

2) "most values are static" might be a vague sort of description of a simplicity, in which apparently buffs and debuffs don't exist. But I highly fucking doubt it, since 13th Age was modelled after 4e, and 4e was literally a game about fiddly +1s and nothing else, so I concede that this could possibly describe such a thing, but more likely describes actually just 4e.

3) "has multiple attack modes and d20 decides what attack modes are used" is the furthest thing I could possibly imagine from simplicity.

[silva]

Sorry Kaelik. Saying your little finger is bigger than your dick won't make it true.

(except if your dick is really that small, that is )