PROS AND CONS

Sounds like your group already has an opinion on what they want to play then. In that case it's probably best to play what they want to play, unless you don't have fun with it, then talk to them about it.

Also I'm not going to do your survey because I haven't played enough 5e and only have experience with 3.5e instead of PF. I don't feel I have enough experience to answer those questions specifically.

>Also I'm not going to do your survey because I haven't played enough 5e
thank you for not giving me one-sided results

>Sounds like your group already has an opinion on what they want to play then.
they want a game they could all agree on. all of those games only have one or two supporters out of 5
we have 3.5 D&D but I wanted to see about an upgrade on that.

Thats rough user. I know that feeling. my group is pretty set on what they want to play. Luckily i Like 5e but sometimes i want to branch out and try other stuff and they usually don't want to.

>which system does High, Middle, Low Magic games better?
High: PF, Middle: Either, Low: Neither

>which one is easier to teach to an RPG virgin?
D&D

>which offers more straight core-book options for characters or GMs?
PF

>which has more optional rules systems that a game can go totally without but that could add depth(encumberance, survival, grapple rules, alchemy, armor fabrication, damage from being out in the elements.)
PF, by far

>which has better in-core balance?(this may be an opinion but it might be pretty useful to have enough disparate opinions)
D&D, by far

>which game offers the widest array of entities in it's respective monster bestiaries?
PF, by far

>which game is easier for a munchkin to bend over a table and spank violently?
PF, by far

Pathfinder is absolute trash, and already dead in the water.

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

AD&D 2E is the only thing you ever need

>group won't play Traveller
Leave your group.

This.
Thac0s are delicious.

and here if you don't like that one

paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

(this one has little to no hotlinking, and no cool links to FAQ rulings and rule clarifications. The d20pfsrd he posted is the best. but this one does have stuff sorted by book, which you might like)

PF
Pros
>More player options in core and splats

Cons
>Incredibly easy to break accidentally
>Fanbase is comprised of furries, min-maxers, rules lawyers, and general THAT GUYS
>CR math is fucked beyond belief, which could lead to a TPK if you aren't careful and know what you're doing.
>Character Creation is a slog, especially if you're the only one who knows how to create characters.
>Combat is only really satisfying if you're a min-maxer who can cheese it so that it ends in one round.

5e
Pros
>Character creation is easy to do.
>New content still being printed.
>Bounded accuracy keeps the numbers smaller.
>Advantage/Disadvantage makes the game run faster.
>Spell slots are modular so mages gain more options in the way they spend their slots.
>Background helps you develop a basic backstory whenever you're rolling up a character.

Cons
>Combat is a chore due to certain creatures having too much HP for their level.
>Character options at the moment are scarce.

Get a better group.

no new books going out for that...I don't want to play out of book thats disintegrating

not an option. the only other group for gaming is the local fetish and RPG group. and the guy running that hates my face for stealing his girl and out selling sex toys

I'll give that a look

thanks especially
>Incredibly easy to break accidentally
the guy I have thats lobbying for PF wants to play a Garrote-grappler and a greatsword thrower(same character does both from stealth)...is that broken cheesy shit like you mean?

>is that broken cheesy shit like you mean?

Yes, but not to the level of a full caster. The guy is most likely a rollplayer who looks up character builds on CharOP and will spend most of the campaign forcing the spotlight onto himself by showing off how cheesy his character is.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, PF is made for people like that and should be avoided if you don't want to turn a cooperative game into a single-player one.

well, thats worrisome

Rule of thumb: You can tell a rollplayer and a roleplayer by how they describe their favorite campaigns.

If they spend more time talking about the events that occurred during the campaign and the NPCs they've encountered, they're roleplayers.

If they spend more time talking about their characters and the cheesy bullshit they can do, they're rollplayers.

Granted, it's not a foolproof system but it is a good way to separate the wheat from the chaft.

>Which does High, Middle, and Low fantasy better
PF does high, 5E does middle, and both are terrible at low

>Which one is easier to teach
5E

>Which one has more options
Pathfinder

>Which one has more rules options
Pathfinder

>Which one has better in-core balance
5E

>Which one offers the widest array of monsters
Pathfinder

>Which game is easier for munchkining
Depends on how you define easier, but typically PF

bumping the thread.
also how does this sound for a module?

>rumors abound regarding the road being extra bad this year just one stretch of road on the far side of the village and the surrounding forest, and its been getting progressively worse

villager1;;;"the merchants have to have someone watch the horses at night"

villager2;;;"I swear I saw a pair of wolves and a bear working together to break open my hen-house, ate them all!"
////
///
//
/
several small packs of wolves attack the party on the road prioritizing smaller targets(children, gnomes, etc.) or the weak and wounded, going after already downed opponents rending chunks of flesh where possible.

mauled and mostly eaten bodies are found on the roadway, pilgrims of a god to wanderers. tracks and dribbles of blood, can be followed to the ruined crumbled remains of a small tower.

fights and beasts and heavily gnawed bones getting thicker all the way to the old ruin.

a pair of dire-wolves reside in the basement of the tower sleeping around a half-buried sphere of polished onyx inlaid with brass and copper wires.

it cannot be dstroyed by any process available to the party. magical detection has it individually highly strong and neutrally alligned, with gentle emanations or slight magical radiation.
////
///
//
/
there is no immediate effect for holding this sphere, but over a month of close-ish proximity a simple continuous Willpower Test causes entities to begin consuming more food. supplies are consumed faster and faster a weeks food is eaten in 5 days more water is drunk.

once the will check is failed a harder check starts, and when it is failed an impossible amounts of food begin being consumed. characters get aggressive if food is withheld.

a week outside of contact with the sphere removes these effects.

>what might the sphere do/be?
>I thought of one thing but it may not pan out

so it looks like 5e is the way I'm going to buy...

Okay, a few thing...
A: roleplayers are not cancer in and of themselves, some of the funnest groups I've been a part of roleplayed their character to a tea.
It becomes a problem when someone tries to make every situation about them and their character. A good DM will talk to their players and make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen.

B: No. A Grappler with throwing-Greatswords is not inherently broken. But if the player is actively sabotaging the game (See: Killing named NPCs or attacking/stealing from players because "lol idk.") just to showcase his "OMG so cool!" character, then you've got to tell him to knock that shit off.
If they continue, boot them.

C: Watch out for the following classes. (it should be noted that if someone is new to the game they will not break it the intentionally unless they follow a guide)
As in, if someone plays one of these let the person know that this game is about cooperation and, while you aren't banning the class, ask them to be mindful of the others.
-Barbarian (while I have seen fair and considerate Barbarians played, more often than not this type of player will just smash everything because "imma savage")
-Warder (extra Attacks of Opportunity, extra attack radius, players compose of those who got tired of Fighter and just wanted to kill everything while showing off)
-Gunslinger (shits out more damage per round than should be reasonable. "Of course I can reload my musket three times in less than a second")
-Magus (can be played a lot of ways, but most will play it as "I electrify my sword and watch him die.")
(the following class can break the game even when used by a new player)
-Wizard

D: If you do end up running Pathfinder, take it from me, limit their access to magic items. Especially if your in the lower levels..

>Watch out for the following classes.
PF or 5e?

>limit their access to magic items
noted

Pathfinder.
I have seen groups that are new to tabletop games have a harder time playing Pathfinder, especially if you try to bring up every little rule in the book.

At the same time, if your players are interested in a system a lot of depth and customization I can recommend Pathfinder, there is a learning curve though.

>there is a learning curve though.
guessing by the groups taste in boardgames this might be fine.

You will hear a lot of people, especially Veeky Forums, complain about Pathfinder, and many of the complaints are well-grounded. But pretty much all of them can be overcome with a good DM.
Encounters may be over way too soon (consider the party's strengths and play against them, perhaps a scenerio where the threat isn't so obvious or the party isn't together) Hell, if they kill something in 1 round you thought was badass, Guess what? They are three of them around the corner.
Someone is gonna forget what to roll (if it's something obscure that you'd have to crack open the rulebook for, make something up), etc.

Remember to ask yourself this question: Are they having fun? If yes, keep doing what you're doing. If not, talk to your players and find out why.

>Remember to ask yourself this question: Are they having fun? If yes, keep doing what you're doing. If not, talk to your players and find out why.

rule one and such after all...

most of my concern is I have one player who insists that Pathfinder is the shit and boasts abut his past shenanigans involving a gnomish battle-ladder and similar things.

for now we're doing 3.5 because we all have the books for that.

Ah. Well, I haven't played 3.5 myself.

(Also, I don't know what shenanigans he'd be referring to. There's no listed Gnomish battle ladder, and the Battle Ladder that's there is basically just a Quaterstaff that you can drop instead of being tripped when tripping.)

>Also, I don't know what shenanigans he'd be referring to
oh, no he's a seasoned pathfinder player.
he doesn't have the books for it and neither does anyone in the group.

this thread is to see if I want to update us with PathFinder or 5e

Don't bother with either.
PF is just 3.5 with a different paintjob and a few minor "fixes" that only serve to screw over Martials even further.
5e is a slightly less shitty 3.5, but if you switch, you're just going to get complaints about the lack of character customization.

If you want to switch systems, switch to an at least decent system.

I'd argue that every class still has there place.
Even in PF, where some classes are going to do basically everything when built right.

But do you have a personal experience where a martial was completely useless next to a caster in the hands of an experienced player?

Not in PF directly, but in 3.5.
And considering PF just nerfed Martials and buffed Casters, I have strong doubts it's going to be any different.

Go to the OSR thread. PDFs for days. Wizards also has reprinted a lot of AD&D material, some in print, and lots in PDF

>-Warder (extra Attacks of Opportunity, extra attack radius, players compose of those who got tired of Fighter and just wanted to kill everything while showing off)
>-Gunslinger (shits out more damage per round than should be reasonable. "Of course I can reload my musket three times in less than a second")
I see you're retarded

>D: If you do end up running Pathfinder, take it from me, limit their access to magic items. Especially if your in the lower levels..

Pathfinder balance is built on the idea that characters have certain types of magic items at certain levels.

>But pretty much all of them can be overcome with a good DM.
This is a non-sequitur on the merits or lack thereof of a game system.

Nerfed in what aspect? I ask because they do different things.

And the game designers knew that players would have magic items passed a certain point.
But at low levels (ie. 1st-4th), it's assumed that you have almost none)

I'm. Not the OP, but does anyone have any answers to these questions that AREN'T PF or 5e?

Why the fuck are you the one who has to buy the book then?

Not really. They all try to do damage while the casters do interesting stuff.

What does every Martial need? Feats.
What does every PF character get more of? Feats.
What has been greatly nerfed in PF? Feats relevant to Martials.
Who actually benefits from the increased number of Feats? Casters.

On top of that, the introduction of CMB and CMD has made it even harder for Martials to do anything that isn't feebly trying to apply weapon to enemy.

>he guy I have thats lobbying for PF wants to play a Garrote-grappler and a greatsword thrower(same character does both from stealth)...is that broken cheesy shit like you mean?
Nah, weapon throwing isn't particularly viable and still requires the full arrange of ranged featss for minimum advantage; and grappling is generally shit; and stealth is quite easy to get past.

Get 4e stuff instead.

>Gunslinger
>OP in any way shape or form
>Not mentioning Alchemist which can just straight up replace Rogues, do their job better, and still gets 'spells' and mutagens
is this nigga seri-

>limit their access to magic items
oh it's bait. carry on then

>D&D 5e
>Pathfinder

hey, those were the request options

1) Martial feats have been nerfed to the ground so now certain builds are no longer viable, such as the one rogue build that allowed them to get sneak attack damage off of thrown weapons.
2) A lot of powers introduced suffer from the same issues as feats, in that the really useful ones aren't available until they're already obsolete.
3) CMD/CMB scales poorly, making it harder for martials to pull off maneuvers on people.
4) Mages got powers of their own, such as divination wizards getting a power that adds their wizard level to AC while allowing them to never be surprised, which just skewed the advantage further into their favor.

That and the game designers are fucking tools who turned their forums into a safe space where you're not allowed to criticize their game, even if you're discussing something that's legitimately broken.

>such as the one rogue build that allowed them to get sneak attack damage off of thrown weapons.
It's things like this that make me wonder if you've actually played the game.

How am I wrong?

Or are you implying that PF didn't render most martial builds from 3.5 obsolete because the designers didn't know what they were doing?

user who provided the other explanation here.
PF didn't render most martial builds from 3.5 obsolete because the designers didn't know what they were doing. Martial builds were already obsolete in 3.5.

False!

Even if most builds required multiple splats and system mastery to work, there were martial builds that allowed even shit classes like Rogues and Monks to keep up, even if it all boiled down to them reaching T3/T4 overall.

Then PF shows up, gives everyone extra bits that made it so there were no longer empty levels, and then adds shit like CMB/CMD on top of that just to make sure martials had even less viable options beyond full attacking while the mages got shit that turned into a straight up boon that widened the gap even more.

If Paizo knew what they were doing, they would've improved the feat system so that a martial didn't need 2-3 feats just to trip a dude effectively, they would've given martials options beyond full attacking, and mages would've gotten some of their roadblocks put in to slow down their progression from "weak" to "OP AF."

Yet instead, they somehow managed to make 3.5's problems worse.

PF ruins RPGs for newcomers because of its overabundance of rules, focus on "builds" and having an awful community. D&D isn't much better.
Get basic D&D (or any of its retroclones) and start there. Or play a different game.

>which system does High, Middle, and Low fantasy better?
>which system does High, Middle, Low Magic games better?
I feel they're about the same in these respects. Pathfinder has more crazier/overpowered spells though, so it might be better for high magic, if that's what you're looking for.

>which one is easier to teach to an RPG virgin?
5e, no contest.

>which offers more straight core-book options for characters or GMs?
I'd say Pathfinder, but I've never done it core-only. 5e has a few character options, but nothing compared to all the shit in Pathfinder.

>which has more optional rules systems that a game can go totally without but that could add depth(encumberance, survival, grapple rules, alchemy, armor fabrication, damage from being out in the elements.)
Pathfinder. Has rules for everything from crafting to challenge pissing.

>which has better in-core balance?(this may be an opinion but it might be pretty useful to have enough disparate opinions)
5e by far. There's still some power gap between classes, but it's not that bad and nothing compared to how crazy Pathfinder can get. I'd say it's the most balanced DnD edition besides 4e.

>which game offers the widest array of entities in it's respective monster bestiaries?
Pathfinder's bestiary is great. 5e's isn't bad, but Pathfinder's has more shit.

>which game is easier for a munchkin to bend over a table and spank violently?
5e because you probably have to take a feat for munchkin spanking in Pathfinder.

tl;dr:

5e
>simpler
>better balanced
>less bullshit
>not much customization options (unless you allow hombrew)
>better for beginners

Pathfinder
>more complex
>easier to break
>shitloads of customization
>has challenge pissing rules

Honestly, I'd overall recommend 5e if you're a beginner and maybe check out Pathfinder when you feel you want to play something with a bit more crunch.

Did you get bullied a lot in High School for being too brainy?

If so, Pathfinder is the game for you. Create a magic using guy who shows that Fighter and Rogue that Brains beat brawn everytime!

show me on the doll where the bad wizzard touched you...

PF only works if you allow 3pp options to shore up the deficiencies of the martials or try to mitigate what the casters can do. Also have an agreement not to be be dicks and don't try to be the soloshit in a cooperative game.

PF's vaunted complexity and options ultimately aren't that because a lot of that complexity and those options are useless traps or won't even see play.
While it can still be fun, PF inherited a lot of the problems of 3e and then exacerbated those problems.

5e has a lot tighter design but because of its relative infancy it doesn't have as much bloat and options.

I'd also definitely recommend 4e, but definitely 5e for beginners or even veterans and also PF if you want to theorycraft building characters and want high level play.

What do you want to compare? All of those questions are comparison questions.

PATHFINDER IS TRASH

limit to fantasy RPGs that use common dice(no d30s) or other supplies(decks of cards)

we need frames of reference for your comparisons...

because I am expected to GM so I need to have copies of the books

I need more than you simply saying that at me to take it as a useful comment

See

Basically: if your players are new to the system you definitely want 5e. Purely because with Pathfinder, newbies to character building have about a 30% chance of building an OP character and a 40% chance of building an awful one. It's harder to do either of those in 5e unless you know what you're doing.

>which one is easier to teach to an RPG virgin?
5e has an easier character creation plus a built in backstory you can use and flesh out
>which offers more straight core-book options for characters or GMs? Right now Pathfinder but 5e is still being produced
>which has more optional rules systems that a game can go totally without but that could add depth(encumberance, survival, grapple rules, alchemy, armor fabrication, damage from being out in the elements.) Without house ruling, Pathfinder but they can easilly be added in 5e
>which has better in-core balance?(this may be an opinion but it might be pretty useful to have enough disparate opinions)
5e
>which game offers the widest array of entities in it's respective monster bestiaries?
Pathfinder but you can easilly move them to 5e
>which game is easier for a munchkin to bend over a table and spank violently?
Pathfinder by far

That's not true at all! You're expected to have 3000+GP accrued by level 3, which is plenty for a low level wondrous item like a pearl of power or hand of the mage, or what have you. I agree you shouldn't be giving level 1 and 2 characters metamagic rods and vorpal longswords, but there's a reason craft wondrous item only requires caster level 3. You should start building a decent collection by levels 4 and 5.

You shouldn't play. Period.
If Veeky Forums taught me anything It's that it's that actually playing rpgs is awfull.

thats nice...please return to the peanut gallery while the adults are talking

>Give 5e another 6 months and it will be just as broken as PF.
5e's been out for 2 and a half years now. The release of new content is slow. All of the big issues in the PHB are known, and we aren't going to get the wide array of things to break your campaign with that PF has.

There's also just a different design principle in mind that, in general, keeps 5e from being as easily broken.

Dude's clearly telling a joke, you'd get that if you'd been on Veeky Forums for more then a day.

Play 5e, it's designed for new players. Don't play PF, it's designed to retain players from 3.5 DnD.

I know, but I care less about memes than data here. even if it's subjective and qualitative