5e or Pathfinder, Veeky Forums? What do you like about either system? What do you hate? Let's discuss

>not overly simplified
By this he means that you will be running to the rulebook every single time a damage type comes up and that the game will be repeatedly paused while the DM calculates the stats of the monster you just woke up. I hated running to each rulebook in 3e to play a monster. 4e was a colossal step-up in that literally everything is in its statblock.

Then you must adore the 5e monster manual.

I don't think there'll ever be that many, actually. Simply because a lot of the things you had to 'build towards' in 3.pf are just taken for granted in the 5e system. Prestige classes are built into the base classes, there are no tax feats, and dual-wielding is both useful and easy. The entire system has shifted to do away with 'system mastery' as a concept.

The damage types are straightforward and easy to remember, although I suppose if something that simple confuses you then 5e might be better for you. I'll admit, 5e is great for people who cant do basic math and have the memory of a goldfish.

I'm not really talking about system mastery, just more concept fodder. More races and class variants and such.

yeah, I've been kind of disappointed by how slow 5e stuff has been coming out, seeing as it seems completely set up for expansion and additional flavour. I'd love to see more class variants/paths and those don't seem especially complicated to add to.

5e has much better balance, but lacks the customization of PF, and the crunch factor.

PF has way better bestiaries. Templates and class levels, it all works together. 5e's bestiary doesn't explain where numbers come from. I prefer an Orc race or a base Orc to several Orcs of varying position and power.

I think they're taking their time and thoroughly play-testing every possible thing before putting it out, so as to avoid the conflicts which plagued 3.pf and 4e.

That is one thing that I think 5e could have done better, making monsters more modular. At the same time, 5e seems to have made balancing encounters much easier with a CR system that actually works.

Pathfinder has fiddle bits to play with so that you can play at different power levels depending on system mastery and personal taste. Low optimization floor and high optimization ceiling. The disparity in power levels can make game prep difficult. GMs who want less disparity have to carefully vet character builds. There are a staggering array of subsystems to learn. Learning these systems and having a character of desperately high power can feel rewarding.

5e has less fiddly bits. It's hard to make bad choices unintentionally so there is going to be less disparity in power level. This makes game prep easier. Some options allow for optimization but those options are few and far between, giving system masters a hand full of options or DMs a short ban list if they don't want disparity. All players are likely to feel good about their characters.

amazing taste, but I still prefer 5e

>5e

I like that it's got a simpler system (even if it's not as simple as an OSR game). I like that it has bounded accuracy, and that ability scores are capped. I like that character concepts are baked into the classes via options like Champion or Eldritch Knight.

I don't like that ability scores progress as fast as they do. I don't know enough about 5e to comment on anything else, since I've only played it a couple of times (don't own the books, and obviously I haven't DMed a game of it).

>Pathfinder

Hoo boy. Most of what's wrong with the system is carried over from 3.5, since they're the same game with the serial numbers filed off and random bits stuck on.

I hate:

1.) Wealth by Level

2.) Infinite Ability Scores

3.) ability scores are so important that having low ability scores actively gimps a character or makes the character a drain on the party's resources

4.) Full casters are hands down the most powerful classes, but the monsters are balanced against the Fighter (arguably one of the weakest classes).

5.) Skills are superfluous when stacked against magic, and the skill system harms the low skill point classes by granted synergy bonuses (which only serve to make the high skill point classes more powerful in the long run). Worse, the skills system encourages a "roll a die and win the thing!" mentality (source: The Diplomancer).

6.) Trap options. Not only are there super weak classes, but they can be made even shittier if you're inexperienced and don't know any better. Toughness was a waste of a feat in 3e, and it isn't much better in PF. Same goes for Endurance. Some feat trees are too long, and contain garbage.

I like that they made prestige classes less important in the core system, but ultimately it's just more 3.5, and I've had enough of that over the years. The Ultimate Campaign book is pretty cool, and the kingdom management stuff might be useful for other games.

Don't forget that access to magic items is an expected component of levelling and factored into the WBL system.

That's actually what I was getting at. I probably should have elaborated, but I was running out of space.

But yes, magic item access is expected via the WBL system, AND is baked into the CR system.

It's a mess.

Mutants and Masterminds.

No, seriously.

It has all the capability of 3.5/Pathfinder to create mechanically interesting characters, while at the same time having much simpler and generally better rules.

[/spoiler]GURPS[/spoiler]
[spoiler[Just kidding[/spoiler]
But d20 is still shit in any form

Mostly I just like the edition wars. Countless hours of fun!

Such a great system, wish it had more success

You are correct.
It's like Veeky Forums is trapped in some alternative reality that never had rpgs who evolved beyond outdated and shitty rule sets written in the 80's.

d20 and it's offshoots will always have a special place in my heart, but they are so fucking terrible.

It seems like a good system, but its a bitch-and-a-half to learn. Tried to read the PDF the other day, and just when I thought it was making sense, it busted out some new stat or concept without properly explaining it.

No, but seriously, look at Mutants and Masterminds. Its very existence alone redeems the d20 system as a whole.

I've played it before. It's alright, and it's one of the best d20 systems out there, but it's nowhere near as good as other non d20 systems.

Meh. D20 systems have their place, even if they'e not perfect.

>Abitlities per day: The Game

played in a fantasy based mutants and masterminds campaign. the players and the GM each made a small checklist of 5 things they wanted out of the campaign (setting, theme, general primary player goals, percent of 'chapters' spent in combat, etc) as well as 5 things each participant HATED about the system.

The lists were compared, compromises were made, a handful of house rules set for testing, and off we went. Had a great time.

>literally 0 per day abilities in the game

Fantasy Craft is okay, but it's a little bit dense to jump into and definitely requires somebody helping you through.

Personally I've been liking Savage Worlds recently. Seems to work well enough for everything.

If there's anything I've learned from the occasional FantasyCraft generals it's that something terrible is about to happen to the GM(s). According to them whenever anyone starts talking about their FC group on Veeky Forums their GM (or them if they run it) gets stabbed, or in a car accident, or moves, or SOMETHING.

It's like the Veeky Forums equivalent of the Macbeth curse.

>I like that it has bounded accuracy, and that ability scores are capped.

I'd probably like this better if they still weren't using a d20 to determine your "to hit DC" rolls in a game where getting your bonuses above single digits is a lot of work.

Played one game of M&M. Pretty fun shit, and a lot better than PF or 5e for me, and about even with 4e.

Shame the DM vanished about 2 weeks in. Might've been for the best though. It was advertised as a supervillain game so we made over-blown evil supervillains, and we were still being railroaded into a "save the world because it's the right thing to do" plot.

5e every single time.

>Simple to understand
>Sub-races offer racial customization without having the shitty sub-race system from PF.
>Classes have 2-4 sub-variants that offer different playstyles depending on how you want to play the class.
>Backgrounds are great for quick building and give you a basic framework to build a backstory from.
>Advantage/Disadvantage does away with the overly complicated bonus/penalty system, replacing the need to check and balance bonuses vs. penalties to "roll 2d20, take best/worst one."
>MM offers creatures with legendary actions and special abilities that take place if you're fighting it in its lair.

Plus there's a decent number of modules to choose from as well.

That's just a matter of how you want a game to feel though. For certain games you don't want people to ever be untouchable entirely by numbers so the player only being able to push their d20 by 10-15 points in the most extreme cases is a good thing

To actually answer your question: between the too I'd pick 5e pretty much every time.

Personally I'd suggest instead trying a new system and/or genre though. Not because those two are especially lacking, but because D&D/D&D-adjacent is a rut too many people get trapped in.

FUCKING THIS!

I hate how mundane they made magic items in third edition.

In most games, gaining access to a magic item meant that you received a quantifiable bonus to your abilities or even a new ally if the magic item was intelligent or a familiar.

In 3.PF though, it's treated as humdrum and boringly as buying a sword from the local blacksmith and trading it in once a better sword is produced.

Fuck this shit!

Honestly, the rut is only an issue with third edition and its derivatives.

You don't hear about faggots nearly as much in OSR, 4e's fanbase is small and generally willing to offer advice for new GMs, and 5e is shaping up to be a viable competitor to enticing new people into the hobby.

It's just that third edition as a whole sucks so bad in comparison to the editions that came before and after it that it just paints the entire brand in a negative light due to how much faggotry it inspired overall.

5E can get crunchy if you use the DMG, you know, that book no one reads.

Facing, Chase rules, Renown, Piety, Extra combat actions,
Speed Factor, injuries, healing kits, wilderness hexcrawling, Chapter Six, fear and morale. Start loading up on magic items, property, hirelings and retainers, you'll have as much crunch as you can handle.

kek

never played either in my life

i'm just here because you posted my husbando

watched a group of people play Pathfinder once and that was cool though so i guess pathfinder

Is that a moa sized kiwi? Does it eat people?

That's right.

A beach snatcher is a large carnivorous bird that skulks the tropical beaches of the world. They are surprisingly clever, utilizing ambush tactics to essentially "hit-and-run" often earning its name by grabbing prey and running off to its nest. Beach snatchers are not afraid to prey on Snid and other intelligent races, and are considered by snid to be one of the most frightening of the surface creatures. Beach snatchers only fight if backed into a corner, preferring to make off with vulnerable creatures with as little danger as possible.

Beach Snatcher (Large Animal Walker — 54 XP): Str 14, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 4, Wis 10, Cha 10; SZ L (2×2, Reach 2); Spd 50 ft. ground; Init VII; Atk III; Def II; Resilience II; Health III; Comp None; Skills: Acrobatics III, Athletics IV, Tactics III; Qualities: always ready, charge attack, feat (Charging Basics), grappler, superior runner II.
Attacks/Weapons: Bite II (grab)
Treasure: 2T

Symbaroum.