5e or Pathfinder, Veeky Forums? What do you like about either system? What do you hate? Let's discuss.
5e or Pathfinder, Veeky Forums? What do you like about either system? What do you hate? Let's discuss
Carson Rivera
Nathan Hernandez
4e
Hudson Sullivan
lol
Austin Bennett
Pathfinder is a massive system. It's lumbering and suffers from content bloat. 5e has near the opposite problem where I believe it was over simplified. Both fail in my eyes. We need to go a bit more towards 3.5, not much but a bit.
Charles Gutierrez
Fantasy Craft
>not overly simplified like 5e
>crunchy, but no overly specific and unnecessary rules like PF
And the NPC builder is fucking great, I've made so many stupid creatures.
Aiden White
The best part: no players to mess up your perfect, pristine system!
Elijah Green
Two groups
Jackson Thompson
>Pathfinder is a massive system. It's lumbering and suffers from content bloat. 5e has near the opposite problem where I believe it was over simplified. Both fail in my eyes. We need to go a bit more towards 3.5, not much but a bit.
No, Pathfinder is a faggy, overcomplicated system with objectively bad choices.
5e is a better game, but your power scales up very slowly and d20 is a shit-tier dice mechanic that keeps you by the balls all game long.
The solution isn't to try to emulate another shitty game with a glut of options that are either broken or garbage, doubly so one that has 5e's problem but in reverse. Just play a system that isn't for faggots.
Or, if you want to play D&D, play 5e since it's the best of the lot.
Aiden Peterson
Hard to compare the two. It really is.
5e is an extremely slim-lined system that took excessive pains to make sure characters do not become too powerful and that players rarely run into rules conflicts which bog down play. Their process resulted in characters with somewhat limited customization, but less likelihood of accidentally crippling ones character with bad choices. Hard-caps on certain things mean that characters are limited to certain 'tiers' and must rely on DM Fiat to achieve certain feats (slaying gods, rewriting the cosmos, remaking reality as they see fit, basically turning DnD into Exalted)
Pathfinder took an already bloated system full of trap options and useless extraneous rules and added more trap options and more extraneous rules without addressing any of the complaints about the core system or its mechanical flaws. This process added a great deal of customization potential to characters, but did little in the way of improving playability. The plethora of new, largely untested, options and lack of hard caps means that it is remarkably easy for characters to achieve the greatest heights of power imaginable and perform certain feats generally reserved for the DM without the DM's consent (slaying gods, rewriting the cosmos, remaking reality as you see fit, basically turning DnD into Exalted).
All in all, the two are very different animals and which one you would like to play should be determined by your desired story type. Do you want Low-to-Middle Fantasy, or Epic Fantasy? Are Dragons fearsome beasts or common mounts? Are the gods supreme rulers of the cosmos or peers and obstacles on your path to further glory?
Camden Perry
I love Pathfinder and am sort of lukewarm about 5e, but even I have to admit that 5e is going to age like wine, gradually gaining more complexity and interesting options while maintaining reasonable balance. Whereas Pathfinder ages like milk, getting progressively more stale and disgusting. DSP helps to keep Pathfinder in a state of controlled chaos, though, so it's not all bad.
But yeah, once 5e has even a quarter of Pathfinder's character creation options, it's gon b gud.