Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Slit518 May 12, 2015 16:21:40	I have been running a D&D 5th edition campaign with a group.  We've been doing pretty well, everyone enjoys the simplicity, yet the multitude of options presented to us without being overwhelmed.  My one friend decides he wants to run his own campaign.  I'm all like, "Great, I can finally play!  What type of character should I make?"   Well, he decided he wanted to run a Pathfinder game, which normally, years ago would of been fine, but after playing 5th for a while now and going back to Pathfinder, it's just so overwhelming (though I can still understand it and create a character no problem).  His reason for running Pathfinder is he knows the rules better than 5th and doesn't want to learn how to run a new system.  My problem with this, he doesn't like picking classes or making characters that have more than one option (attack) because it's all too complicated and confusing and the rules are all too confusing, yet he wants to run a game with so much more to it than 5th edition.   Well anyway, that isn't the point to this post.  My original point, after backstory was established, was the gross difference between character concepts. Both sets of characters are level 3, both sets of characters have a 20 Dexterity, and both sets have max Stealth skill.   With D&D 5th edition a character's max Stealth (before any magical items/spells) caps off at 7 (9 if you have a double proficency bonus toward it).  So it's 1d20 + 7, a pretty hefty bonus, a pretty decent addative to the roll.   With Pathfinder (I am sure it could be the same in D&D 3.5 as well) we got the Stealth score up to a 17 at level 3 before any magical equipment or spell buffs.  And I am sure this isn't even the max!  It is pretty sad when the 1d20 die roll becomes an insignifigant variable to the +17 (and who knows how crazy high it could be at level 20) it gives to the 1d20 roll.   I just wanted to point out, what a crazy contrast in games, I like smaller numbers better, even though I can work with larger ones as well.  Who else likes D&D 5th edition for this reason?
#2 arnwolf666 May 12, 2015 16:33:36	That's pretty much my experience.  PF is a good game and I will play it with people who want to play it.  I doubt I will ever DM it again.  I enjoy less crunch, less optimizing.  I don't even need to use Hero Lab with 5E.  I did need hero lab to play competitively at the hobby shops when not playing with my regular group.  I feel like I am enjoying myself alot more.
#3 Zardnaar May 12, 2015 16:45:39	I'll play Pathfinder but I have not run it since about 2012. The amin advantage of Pathfinder IMHO is that it is easy to pick up and play because so many people know the rules. I have lost my last AD&D players example new ones tend to come from the ranks of the PFS. THe rules for Pathfinder are not hard to understand assuming you already know them and/or have a lot of experience with 3.x games.
#4 EthanSental May 12, 2015 17:51:13	I agree with the OP.  I used to enjoy playing PF but now with 1700+ feats I need Hero Labs to keep up with it all....not something I enjoy when I'm used to pen and paper from the 2e days.  The basic rules aren't hard for PF but since they have some much bloat, the PFS went core book only since new players were overwelmed with all the options.
#5 CCS May 12, 2015 18:16:33	I like both. That said, I like 5e slightly more. And yes, the skill system plays a large role in that. But my beef with the 3x/PF skill system stems from something different than just high #s. I've never liked how the 3x skill system grants skill points to various classes just for being classes. It was bad enough in AD&D with the old non-weapon proficiency system. But AD&D also wasnt very heavily reliant upon its skill system.... 3x & PF though have it baked in - and then punishes almost anyone who isn't a rogue/bard.
#6 Chakrum May 12, 2015 18:18:42	I still play it (with hero lab), but much prefer running AND playing 5E.
#7 Slit518 May 12, 2015 18:32:25	On another side note, and the comment abou the 1700+ feats reminded me of it.  I hated the grossly (there is that word again) specific feats the game would "allow" you to pick from. Example of Requirements: If you were ever eaten by goblins during a blood moon. If your mother gave birth to you while drinking tea with her pinky out. If you dad ever caught a shark and stabbed it 3 times while spinning on his head. If you sufferedd a critical, almost died and a friend stabalized you while at -9 HP. If you've ever eaten a bagel. That is just a small, exaggerated example of some silly requirements the game had for certain feats.  Like I can understand having certain requirements such as a certain BAB, Stat, Skill, Feat, etc...  But not something so obscure there is a 99% chance you wouldn't have the requirement for it unless you were playing a very specific module and did the thing(s) perfect to obtain the option to use this feat, which most likely didn't pay off so well.  Seriously, does the advantage off-set the ridiculous requirement(s)?   That was just my other gripe with 3.5 and Pathfinder as compared to 5th edition.
#8 Orethalion May 12, 2015 19:09:38	EthanSental wrote:
#9 lawrencehoy May 12, 2015 21:14:34	Slit518 wrote:
#10 Marandahir May 12, 2015 21:29:21	I played a 3.5e game last a year ago, before the finalized 5e PHB but after I had been playing quite a bit of NEXT, and after years of playing 4e. It was fun, just not nearly as fun as 4e, and definitely not as fun as 5e. Took up several hours just to get started, and even then, my Bard really sucked at Level 3 (we started at 3rd level).
#11 kalil May 12, 2015 21:44:41	Try playing pathfinder with only the core book. That certainly reduces the complexity of the game.
#12 Zardnaar May 12, 2015 23:43:39	kalil wrote:
#13 Glimjack May 12, 2015 23:52:25	I tried continuing to join in an old Pathfinder game after the release of 5e. I just couldn't do it. Everything seemed ridiculous (and incredibly slow!)
(Reply to #8) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #14) AaronOfBarbaria	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #11) XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek	kalil wrote:
#17 Razintarr May 13, 2015 5:02:26	Slit518 wrote:
#18 Timmee May 13, 2015 5:14:20	I gave up on PF for all the same reasons. That said, I still have friends who swear by it to the point that if I even mention 5e they roll their eyes. This past weekend we started a PF campaign and I decided to roll up an Arcanist. I found that this class is most like the 5e caster model: prep spells use slots to cast. That made it more fun for me. Yet everytime I play PF I come away with the same feelings of overwhelming frustration at the microcosm of rules and mechanics.   I used to be a "rules lawyer", enjoying in the pointing out of why "you can't do that". After the steamlined 4e came out, I left the lawyering behind and with the advent of 5e, I can never go back.  My new model is "this is how we'll do that". There's so much freedom to 5th that even stepping back into PF for a weekend feels like a hike through the Swamp of Sorrows. Mechanically speaking. I still have a blast with my friends. I just wish they weren't such PF purists.   Meh.
#19 joeburgos May 13, 2015 6:51:47	arnwolf666 wrote:
#20 Mephi1234 May 13, 2015 7:08:02	The gross difference - one has more puke on it than the others.   That's just nasty.   [/badjoke]
(Reply to #16) Mechatarrasque	XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
#22 Slit518 May 13, 2015 8:53:29	joeburgos wrote:
#23 FFSAA May 13, 2015 9:11:19	Slit518 wrote:
#24 Slit518 May 13, 2015 9:28:01	FFSAA wrote:
#25 DaomSlayer May 13, 2015 10:11:31	Orethalion wrote:
#26 Mommy_was_an_Orc May 13, 2015 10:34:33	Slit518 wrote:
(Reply to #25) AaronOfBarbaria	DaomSlayer wrote:
#28 SterlingRat May 13, 2015 11:15:52	Honestly... my main problem now is the players. I can have fun playing 3.5, 5, 4, PF, Chess, Shadowrun, Dresden Files, Rifts, WoD, Munchkin or anything else... I just want to go have fun with a bunch of people that want to have fun as well. I've found that most of the 3.5/PF games in my area are populated with argumentative rules exploitation, which I don't particularly enjoy. On the other hand, I've played 3.5 with a bunch of relaxed and friendly people before and had a lot of fun with it... It's not a bad system.   Any system can be fun with a good group. There are a number of PF players in my area that show up to organized games and generally take a giant dump on my fun by arguing with the DM for half an hour about a feat from a magazine article that they based their whole character on and the DM said no. Then they create a back-up character and pout or ruin the game for the rest of us. Fortunately, those people in my area LOVE pathfinder and would never betray their beloved to join our 5e game. Thank goodness. and WotC.
#29 Orethalion May 13, 2015 12:07:48	DaomSlayer wrote:
#30 ChrisCarlson May 13, 2015 12:32:46	DaomSlayer wrote:
#31 Rhenny May 13, 2015 13:00:31	I feel the same way as many of you.  Going back to Pathfinder or 3.5 is a chore.  I still like playing any RPG, but I have to admit, the last time I played Pathfinder, I spent more time looking at my character sheet and thinking than actually feeling the game and making more organic/character based decisions.   Combat also seemed slow and tedious.  Lots of misses and even a fight against 6 kobolds at 1st level seemed like an eternity.   As for DMing...no way will I go back.  Pathfinder/3.5e is not what I'm looking for in my D&D anymore.
(Reply to #23) EthanSental	FFSAA wrote:
(Reply to #29) arnwolf666	Orethalion wrote:
#34 JohnLynch May 14, 2015 2:09:55	Zardnaar wrote:
#35 Orethalion May 14, 2015 7:19:51	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #29) Farmer42	Orethalion wrote:
#37 Orethalion May 14, 2015 7:48:36	Farmer42 wrote:
(Reply to #17) CCS	Razintarr wrote:
(Reply to #27) CCS	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #34) CCS	JohnLynch wrote:
(Reply to #34) arnwolf666	JohnLynch wrote:
#42 Gnarl May 14, 2015 19:13:08	I really liked 3.5 because of the fun character crunching aspect but after a few years of it, I really got fed up with it and I'm very happy with 5e's simpler character building blocks. I wouldn't mind a few more blocks to play with though. It currently isn't a problem for me because I'm the DM and I work with my players to make homebrew stuff when necessary but I have a feeling in a near future I'll be a player and I'm not sure all DMs are as easy going about homebrew stuff.
#43 masterfat78 May 14, 2015 22:48:24	I prefer 5th over PF. I actually like the fact that numberporn has been limited. Its something I thought a revised 4th edition needed also. I am worried about some of the new stuff showing up in UA, but I dont consider any of that official yet so its good.
(Reply to #41) JohnLynch	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #44) arnwolf666	JohnLynch wrote:
#46 Mecheon May 15, 2015 1:25:16	JohnLynch wrote:
(Reply to #45) Mechatarrasque	arnwolf666 wrote:
(Reply to #47) arnwolf666	Mechatarrasque wrote:
#49 Shasarak May 23, 2015 1:30:39	I find that the main advantage of playing Pathfinder is you make customise your character better and you also have many more options.   The main advantage of 5e is that it is simpler.