Community

This is not meant to be a tinderbox for flames, nor a thread for fanboys of either side.

This is meant to be a legitimate Q&A about why someone would choose to play 5e over Pathfinder or Pathfinder over 5e.

I chose Pathfinder instead of 4e since that should probably be a separate topic, and both Pathfinder and 5e seem to have more in common with each other than either has with 4e.

Also, Pathfinder is the White Elephant in the room--just as 4e ran against Pathfinder for market share, so too will 5e.

But, mostly I ask because my regular group got together this afternoon to read over the 5e playtest packet, and the first thing someone said was "Why not just play Pathfinder?"

For the record, there are 6 of us, 3 of us began playing D&D with either AD&D or 2e, 2 of us started in 3/3.5e and one has only ever played Pathfinder and 4e.  We're all currently in both Pathfinder and 4e games and recently completed a 3.5e campaign.

The general consensus was that 5e (as it is now, subject to change, all aspects of being a 'live' playtest acknowledged) "feels" a lot like 2e, which we assumed is a tip of the hat to the Old School/Grognard fan base of "lapsed" players who've never moved on to 3e/3/5e/4e and who WotC wants to attract back to the buying cycle.

But, outside of "feel" we all felt that the mechanics were mostly 3/3.5e, with a splash of 4e ideas without the 4e mechanics.

Again, one comment was that these rules "Felt like a Homebrew/House Ruled OGL game" more than a new edition.

We made some mock combat ("PvE" against monsters in th Beastiary and "PvE" between the Pre-Gens to see how classes balanced out against each other), but didn't actually play the included adventure yet (which we're playing tomorrow)

And, overall, we all sort of shrugged and agreed that--at the moment, in the current state, subject to change--we don't see a lot of newness to the new edition, we just see a sort of agglomeration of previous editions all folded together in an attempt to appeal to the broadest spectrum of previous gamers without really breaking new territory (as 4e did--with mixed results).

Those of us with AD&D or 2e experience could see the similarities to those editions, but after having moved on to Pathfinder and 4e, we didn't necessarily see those similarities as advantages.

Plus, since we still have our AD&D, 2e, and 3/3.5e books, we're not sure what would tempt us away from them and into choosing 5e over those past editions if we wanted a "nostalgia" game.

Lastly, the primarily 4e player said that she felt the game was a regression, and felt that 4e seemed easier to learn-at-a-glance, and that Pathfinder seemed to do everything that 5e does.

So, that's the background, and my open question is--what can we point to that's clearly better in 5e (as it is now, subject to change, etc.) than Pathfinder?

Honestly I do not see this as a fight but rather a very good post. With some intresting questions. As far as why not play Pathfinder, well......its not that I have anything against the 3x style, for me it felt a little too tight. There were so many feats, rules, archetypes, paragon paths and what not, that I just felt like I was no longer developing my character but, some pre-destined thing. I remember asking my DM once if I could do a kip-up for flare. Well as it turns out there was a feat that allowed people to not provoke and AO. “I do not care about that, I want “Style points”, well so much for that. Overall I did not like the rote PFS public play and the system being derived from 3x was still leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

I am not surprised by the PF already does this statement. As PF, do not care what people say is OGL D&D. What I have seen from the rules so far is the start of a more open branching system. Sure, I do see the “feel of my nostalgia days” but, back then there was no branching abilities. It would be nice to go from this play test to the next and be able to get character development rules. My hope is that I do not have to look so far down the character development path that I have to reverse engineer my hero. No more pre-gen kits, paragon paths, epic paths. Instead I would like to let the character become part of the world around him and grow more organically. What if I want to play a fighter based on the basic trope that does not have to rely on armor for a defense? Could he improve his swordsmanship to such a skill level to develop a fighting style that boosts his AC?

I am not looking for WotC to break the mold on a new mechanics for d20. Just shore up the mechanics to where I can play and develop the character in a way that is guided by the system, not pre-destined by it.

As far as your question goes........there is no comparison that can even be made yet. I am sure the rules set the developers have been mucking about with are more detailed than what we have now. As for PF, it is a live product, a play test is not.

May 24, 2012 -- 10:10PM, elibus wrote:

5e will have:

1. The ability to play the 3e style of simulationist gaming along side the player that wants an abstraction like 4e alongside a player who wants an open-ended creation like 2e.
2. 5e combat will move faster with more options available in combat
3. 5e combats will be more mobile because they will not be tied down to the Full Attack option from 3.x.
• In theory this should lead to a more dynamic battlefield
4. 5e will have magic that is more undefined through rituals, strange monster abilities, and magic items.
5. 5e might be produced by a company that listens to thier playtester's criticisms.

I have played 2e,  3e, 4e, and Pathfinder. I loved all but 4e, but 4e wasn't as bad as some make it out to be, imo. Please do not take any of my points as a dig against Pathfinder. PF fixed 3.5 in many, many ways. 

Take the following as my playing Devil's Advocate:

My concern with your #1 is as follows--I cannot combine simulationists with TotM players in the same game at the same time.  If I have a hard core mat & minis player, then s/he won't like the "too abstract" nature of strictly narrative combat.  Likewise, the Mat & Mini Hater won't like counting out the squares.

Likewise, if I have someone who wants all their skills listed on the sheet and wants to roll their interactions (mainly because they're not comfortable with their in-character roleplaying ability), and I have another who prefers straight roleplaying, then I'm not sure they'll want to play together either.

So, unfortunately, I don't see 5e being as great of a Uniter as is being heralded...

While the system may prove to be supportive of multiple styles in general, I still can't see combining divergent players (styles/rules) at the same table at the same time.

On the other hand, players who "prefer" Pathfinder are all in (relative) agreement on the basic aspects of the game, so (most likely) they'll all be of a like mind when it comes to using minis, skills, rolls, etc.

So, in some ways, I see Pathfinder as being easier to gain player consensus simply because you don't have all the varying levels of complexity and the various "factions" who want to play 5e in varying ways...

I'm holding off on commenting on #2-5 until I can play the module and see how combat works in practice for myself, but I understand what you're getting at.

May 24, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Black_Knight999 wrote:

If you're not a fan of 4e, I don't really see any reason to prefer 5e over Pathfinder. This new edition is just...boring.

For clarity, I've played every edition of D&D, and while I was a late convert, I actually quite like 4e and, if pressed, would state that 4e is probably my favorite D&D system despite having the fondest memories of fantastic 2e games.

If D&D Next resembles this playtest, there is one sure way to get me to adopt it, and that is with the campaign setting support, specifically Forgotten Realms.  I did not like how drastically 4e changed the realms, and even though 4e was not my edition of choice I would of stuck with it if they did not needlessly change the Forgotten Realms around.  Since I had a game system I didn't like as much as previous, and then a campaign setting that I thought was 180 degrees chaged from what it was there was no reason for me to adopt 4e.

I eun 3rd edition Forgotten Realms with Pathfinder.  If I had a choice of a system I thought about equal (say PF and NEXT), but one was supporting the campaign world I liked over the other, I would go with that system.  I love Pathfinder, yet even if Next as a system did not work quite as well for me, yet I was guaranteed campaign world support, I would probably adopt NEXT as my home game.

Likewise 4e did not work as well for me as 3rd edition, and when the Realms was changed, I decided I would rather play in the previous campaign world.  Since it was not going to be supported by WOTC anymore, I just chose the system I could use to make better stories.  For that it was Pathfinder.  I have a feeling Next will work for me just as well.