Should I play 5e or Pathfinder?
>>46393676
No.
Pathfinder because it will eventually cause a stroke by someone who hates it.
Do the ten minutes of research it takes to get a feel for either game, and decide for yourself.
Likely, you'll want 5e since it's friendlier to new players, but everyone has different tastes and it's up to you to decide which game you like better.
>>46393676
I hate that face.
>>46393676
Pathfinder is for character tinkering, 5e is for adventuring as a party. Are you the DM? I'd suggest 5e. If you're a player, honestly look at the parties of Players.
I've found that pathfinder is an attractor forweeaboos and furrieswhile 5e has people more interested in role play.
5e also has adventurer's league, which means that If you level up a PC in one game, you can jump to another table with the same character.
>>46393676
>Should I eat shit or manure?
Neither. Go play D&D 2nd Ed.
You'll thank me later for saving you from 5E or Pathfinder.
>>46393850
I found that 5E tends to collect those groups more, at least at the few FLGS in my area, they all sing praises of 5E. So I suppose it's a 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' sort of thing.
5E has the Adventurer's league, Pathfinder has Pathfinder Society, both fulfill a similar role in the game.
>>46393894
>should I be shit or just shitpost
>>46393676
Well Lou, personally I prefer 5e, but it's just up to your own preference. My son Jon really likes pathfinder, he plays with his bros down at their place all the time, maybe you should check out his 4chan profile and take a look.
>>46393676
well, I personally Like Pathfinder and have had exactly 0 interest in learning about 5th edition (again I don't hate it, I'm just not interested in it). So I recommend PF, it's a fun game but as GM you gotta know what you're doing.
But then, I'm frequently in the minority on this particular board, so take that as you will.
>>46393676
>>46393676
That's like asking if you should punch yourself in the face or in the balls, both have their pros and cons, but the normal people are wondering why you've decided to do either of your own free will in the first place.
Now, with the obligatory shitting on D&D and PF out of the way, what are the most important things to you in a role-playing game? We don't know what you need or prioritize, so we can't give you an informed opinion, you've just asked a question that will turn into a fanboy slapfight. You're better than that. Possibly.
>>46393676
5th ed. It has flaws like any system, but at least it isn't bogged down by endless modifiers to every minute thing.
Don't listen to the faggots who bitch about either system. They just mad. Even if neither is the pinnacle of RPG's, they're not awful either.
>>46394427
>It's not awful
Is a very low bar to aim for when it comes to a hobby that takes up a lot of time and effort.
You're going to spend hours and hours just finding players, organizing sessions etc before even facturing in time spent learning the game and getting the players somewhat fluent with the rules.
With that in mind it's absolutely retarded to pick your system because it's one you know exists and someone said it wasn't awful.
>>46394572
It's not really that hard to get a group, organize sessions or learn rules if your group isn't autistic and you don't live in Nigeria.
Different settings have different purposes. You wouldn't play 5th ed for political intrigue, you play it for killing monsters, taking their stuff and building great heroes with bigger than life stories.
When you want to play something more thought-provoking and deeper, you play Eclipse Phase. You want to play politics in a fantasy world, L5R.
There's a system for everything, and 5th ed is simple, easy to learn and straightforward dragonslaying fun. Pathfinder is basically the same game without the simple and easy.
>>46393676
PF = more complex, more options.
5E = simpler, faster.
I prefer 5E.
>>46393676
Play pathfinder. 5E is boring.
>>46393676
What do you like in an rpg system op? Fuck loads of stuff or hand holding?
For a, pathfinder, for b 5e.
If neither idk wtf you are doing here mate make a more extensive post.
>>46393718
5e's pros: It's got no options, which is only good if you want that. It's popular because it's new and officially "D&D". It's "noob friendly" in the same way that having no choices to make is "noob friendly".
5e's cons: It's got no options. It's new. It attracts the sort of player for whom making any decisions or complicated evaluations or ... y'know... reading... is "too much work". And do you really want to play with people who perceive the essence of this hobby to be "too much work"??
PF's pros: It's complex, which is only good if you want that. It's popular among the segment of tabletop players who have been playing for a longer time and therefore know what the fuck they're doing already. It's "noob friendly" in the sense that you will either be forced to grow as a person and become a better player for it... or you'll form bad habits and be ejected from hobby (which is healthier for everyone else in the hobby).
PF's cons: It's complex. It's older and inherits some of the "charming" idiosyncrasies of old-er-school game design. It's plagued by haters who ceaselessly try to make you feel bad for enjoying it (i.e., all of /tg/)
>>46396330
>It's plagued by haters who ceaselessly try to make you feel bad for enjoying it (i.e., all of /tg/)
I can personally attest to that!
>>46396330
Eat dogshit and die, Virt.
>>46396522
Thanks for proving my point.
>>46396522
>Virt.
Virt's been perma-banned,
Besides, Virt liked FATAL, remember?
it's not him.
Ops & Tactics Magic if you really want to play d20 and are not afraid of game where wizards are usefull but not all powerful.
Unknown Armies for going mad in diffrent fun ways.
Basically anything but those two clusterfucks.
5e is what 3.5 should have been and Pathfinder is what it would have become if they didn't kill it off in time.
Legends of Wulin
>>46396552
What, that I refused to engage your infantle point, Vert? I could lay out the vast number of reasons people hate PF, but you'll just try and condense it down to nothing. Like trying to pretend the shocking relivation of people not liking to be useless is a thing, or maybe, just maybe they get a bit salty when a class feature renders their whole character worthless. How the book out and out lies to you.
You know, shit like that. But no, the game can't possibly be bad, it's purely "People being whiny".
So I say again.
Eat fucking dogshit.
And go die.
>>46394219
So what you're saying is, you started with pathfinder and are sticking it because you don't know any better?
>>46394726
Said what >>46396330
Without a terribly high amount of bias.
>>46396790
Which is sadly so oft the case, what with the brain damage 3.PF inflicts.
>>46393676
13th Age
Really, you're asking what's better: Rules-light or crunchy. The problem is both of those systems are dogshit. If you want rules-light, play 13th Age. If you want crunchy, play Fantasy Craft.
I've been hearing good things about 5e, namely that it includes some old throwbacks from 2e's mechanics in some ways.
Pathfinder I've actually played, but I can't really vouch for or against it. It's really just another system to play in, and it's not too different from 3.5e in most ways.I'll admit personally the system doesn't matter to me as much. I'm not picky - I enjoy roleplaying first, having fun second, and having a well-built character third.
>>46394219
>well, I personally Like Pathfinder and have had exactly 0 interest in learning about 5th edition (again I don't hate it, I'm just not interested in it).
easy every time
This is what pathfinder does, OP. It takes forever to get "system mastery" of it, and by then you're so entrenched that trying anything else loses appeal.
>>46398314
If the system doesn't really matter, I think you should really consider 5e.
>>46398428
This. It's the poker player's fallacy: I've invested so much on this, I can't fold now.
>>46398501
Is that a clever insult about 5e, or a legitimate recommendation?
>>46393676
5e is a flick, Pathfinder is a kino
I strongly prefer 5e. If any of your players are new, then 5e is far and away the better choice.
If you're just thinking about mechanics and building characters, but you don't actually have a group, Pathfinder is better. For actual play, go with 5e.
>>46399074
And then you try to use the system for EVERYTHING, because, hey, we know the system, would be too much bother to learn something else, and...
>>46398314
I think 5e fits your priorities better than Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, you have to pay a little more attention to character build and mechanics. In 5e, the mechanics are simple and functional, and they get out of the way of the roleplaying.
5e is also good at catering to different types of player in the same party. My group has one clever tactician bastard who's always keeping track of mechanics and spell selection and build choices, and one chick who just wants to roleplay and have her combat decisions be "charge and smash!" They work great together. The party gains a lot from the spellcaster planning carefully, but the simple-to-play barbarian is still super valuable.
>>46399338
I would think just the opposite. If you have no clear requirement for a complex system, by default you should go (I think) with the faster, less complex, easier to learn/use system.
The only reason to go with Pathfinder (and it is a legit reason) is if you want to be able to build just about any type of special snowflake character your furry love'n mind can imagine - one that will likely break whatever campaign the DM is running.
If you don't want that, go with 5e.
>>46394219
Don't fall into this trap! Most systems are not as fiddly as Pathfinder! Learning new systems is actually easy and fun!
>>46399407
I'd be willing to say that for everything but actual play Pathfinder is a better system. After you get to the point where you are actually playing the game 5e is the way to go.
>>46393676
Whatever people in your area are playing.
Otherwise, play 5e if you're new, it's pretty streamlined and easy to get into. It also won't turn you into a grognardbecause after a campaign, you'll probably know what kind of different system you want to play.
>>46396330
>grain of salt required
>>46396330
>5e has no options
Oh no! I don't have "seperate" classes for rogue, thief, scout, assassin, ninja, scoundrel, and swashbuckler? How terri-
Oh, wait. All of those classes are just variations on the theme of "agile, sneaky fellow", and have significant mechanical overlap. Why not make them into small sets of variant features on one main class?
5e has a reasonable number of options (and there should be splats out by the end of the year). 5e doesn't have class bloat.
>>46393676
5e. It's a better game.
>>46400255
Bit more then a grain needed there.
Play something else
You should stop sucking at the outmoded teat of d20-based generic fantasy RPGs and explore options in literally any other genre or play style.
If you're REALLY serious about the d20-based generic fantasy RPG thing, play Fantasy Craft. It's the best iteration of that formula.
>>46396330
>5e has no options
It has the most customization for characters available from the source books than any other mainstream fantasy RPG including Pathfinder.
I never understood the complaint of it being too limiting.
I don't see the appeal of Pathfinder as someone who first played 3.5 long after its run ended.
>Oh, it's 3.5 but more balanced but still very 3.5-ish (unbalanced)!
I don't even hate D&D 3.5. I never would've played it if not for my friends using it as a go-to system but they also love to use if for powergame wanking. And that's fine. It's kind of fun but in a so bad it's good kind of way. That's all it's good for. So it's almost insulting for there to be a system out there doing the exact same shit but trying to pass itself off as balanced.
No. 3.5 is only good for exploiting its unbalances to make silly shit in a silly campaign with your group. PF is therefore the same and should never be taken seriously.
Play 5E, Fantasycraft, or 3.5
>>46396330
You forgot "unbalanced mess that can't even run it's own settings much less others" in PF cons.
>>46393676
PF is 3.5 but fixing nothing and making new mistakes.
5e is 3.5 dumbed down, but at least is simple.
>>46400862
5e is also a shitload more balanced because Concentration absolutely smashes caster supremacy and allowing movement between attacks allows for full attack actions to be far more effective AND agility based fighters can actually be a very good choice this time around.
>>46400986
>More balanced
It's slowly losing it's balance, new melee cantrips have killed the monk (who was already the worst damage dealer) and don't even make me start talking about the beastmaster, way of the 4 elements monk and the bladelock (which is outperformed by a tomelock).
I thought they were going to fix these but they actually said they refuse to fix stuff, so fuck them.
>>46401036
The monk is the worst damage dealer? Well in terms of raw damage that is true, but they are more versatile. Those damage numbers don't tick up as high as others, obviously, but they are stunning, tripping, and causing other negative status effects while attacking, their chi points regenerate completely after a short rest too allowing them to spam magical effects and shit without worrying about not being able to do so later.
Then you have their incredibly mobility. A mid-level monk can run across a lake, up a wall, and reach a opponent on the other side of the god damned room with no trouble and then beat them and keep them stunned until the others catch up but the evil wizard on the other side of the map? He ain't doing shit now.
You want the highest damage dealer? Go Rouge Assassin. They are insane damage dealers because it is incredibly easy to get a sneak attack off in 5e causing them to churn out massive damage (especially with auto-crits) that happen pretty damn frequently too.
It isn't uncommon for an assassin rouge to snipe someone for 60+ damage in one shot in our game while the fighter and barbarian are getting about 15 damage a hit on average. True they get multi-attacks, but god damn.
>>46393676
You can play whatever you want.
Just don't try to play Lex Luther.
>>46401036
>3 bad options
OH GOD SO HORRIBLE, compared to like, fucking half of all Pathfinder classes being goddamn traps that lie to you.
Will /tg/ ever not be elitist about using obscure systems?
>>46393676
Obvious bait but I'll bite anyway. I'd say go for 5e.
5e Pros: It's new so it doesn't suffer from the horrible splat bloat that pathfinder does.
The core classes are reasonably balanced against one another, you can't just pick a cleric or wizard and win the game forever anymore.
Despite what the haters say 5e does have a lot of options, each class has unique pathways that all have exclusive content, what the haters miss is combing through the srd looking for broken feats from obscure splats.
Backgrounds, bonds and flaws are a long overdue addition to help people get into character and they encourage roleplaying.
5e Cons: It's new so there isn't a whole of official content outside of core, wizards release monthly stuff through unearthed arcana but its all beta and isn't necessarily balanced.
If you liked theory crafting or high powered games it doesn't allow for the same insanity as 3.PF.
>>46402321
>B-but 3.5 was more shit
That doesn't excuse 5e for still having, and releasing new books that only make it worse, unbalance problems
Those 3 options are half the options rangers have, 1/3 of the options warlocks have and 1/5 the options monks have
>>46402560
Are you ever going to give me up?
>>46401172
>A mid-level monk can run across a lake, up a wall, and reach a opponent on the other side of the god damned room with no trouble
A mid level caster (say, a bard) can Misty step across bars and shit. He'll also have better damage than the monk.
>You want the highest damage dealer? Go Rouge Assassin.
Literally outperformed by the same level Fighter, or possibly Fighter with 3 level dip into assassin if you really want that awesome first turn.
>>46402644
THREE. FUCKING. BAD. OPTIONS. And here you are, throwing a fucking 'tsim tantrum about how shit 5e. Just fuck off. Fuck right off. The new options don't unbalance anything.
>>46402855
>The new options don't unbalance anything.
Depends on how official they get. Tumblr bard makes rogues question their existence for example, but it's just UA for now.
Then again, so do normal bards.
>>46402915
>Then again, so do normal bards.
I suspect that may be because because people aren't building rogues right or have off-base expectations. I've played both classes, and ended up significantly more effective (and had a lot more fun) as a rogue.
>>46401036
>It's slowly losing it's balance, new melee cantrips have killed the monk (who was already the worst damage dealer) and don't even make me start talking about the beastmaster, way of the 4 elements monk and the bladelock (which is outperformed by a tomelock
None of which are bad enough to be unplayable. They just don't feel as good to play as other options in their class. Beastmaster is even the higher single target damage path.
>but they actually said they refuse to fix stuff, so fuck them.
Now that's a sentiment I would agree with.
>>46403129
>I've played both classes, and ended up significantly more effective (and had a lot more fun) as a rogue.
How can you build a rogue wrong
>>46402915
Bards and rogues don't do the same thing in combat. Essentially no overlap.
>>46403186
You can build a damage dealer bard.
Tumblr bard also, you know, moves around BETTER than the rogue (although, why would you want to when the ranged rogue is superior unless you have the blade cantrips...).
Unless you mean "I make stealth checks and then make an attack with advantage!" is a combat niche somehow...
What's a good system for doing High Fantasy settings?Something like WoW but maybe with a lower tech level
>>46401172
>Rouge
Come on man.
>>46403297
The answer is simple, especially with your spoiler.4e, Strike!, 13th Age. 5e honestly isn't that bad, it's just also not that good.
>>46403351
Anything that doesn't require a grid?I might try DMing an event on WoW RP.
>>46403395
13th Age is gridlessand you can substitute the icons with WoW lore characters easily.
>>46403429Thanks fampai.
>>46403237
You can build a character that does good damage and has bard as their highest class, but rogue will still do it better.
>>46403473
>You can build a character that does good damage and has bard as their highest class, but rogue will still do it better.
Oh yeah, and it won't be with the tumbling fool college.
>>46403473
If it wasn't 3 in the morning, I'd get my excel sheets to see if it's true.
Quick rundown (assuming same accuracy means they'd do the same % of damage):
10th level valor bard damage with swift quiver with 20DEX=4x(1d8(4,5)+5)=38
10th level rogue damage with 20DEX using bow= 1d8(4,5)+5d6(17,5)+5=27
This is with 0 optimization/magic items. Magic bows favor the bard, as they give him +4 damage/turn, while the rogue only gets +1. Assassin does ~54 on the first round, 81 on 2nd (still having a 5 point lead in damage), but then bard overtakes him.
If the rogue is assumed to have haste and does delayed action/commander's strike shenanigans then his damage is way higher, but that means somebody has to cast haste on him (or he has to be an AT). It's also assumed the rogue always gets SA (which is not a big assumption to make, but hey).
>>46403921
>Assassin does ~54 on the first round, 81 on 2nd
Actually, doesn't get to add DEX twice IIRC, so 49 and then ties the bard with 76 on second.
>>46401036
>I thought they were going to fix these but they actually said they refuse to fix stuff, so fuck them.
This is explicitly false. For one thing, one of the things they've said they're working on is a rework of Ranger that has an animal companion as a core feature so they can throw more oomph behind it and the Beastmaster archetype.
Does anybody even play fantasycraft?
I prefer pathfinder. Never played 5E only 3.5 tho
>>46405267
So it's not so much you prefer it as much you only know it
5e
>>46393676
... Retroclones
>>46403921
And the bard can do that twice a day, while the rogue uses *their* level 10 class feature on crossbow expert to deal 2d6+10+5d6=34.5, with much better average damage since missing once doesn't cost him half his damage. They don't have the same accuracy, IOW.
3.5 > PF
everyones recommending fantasy craft. is there a mega or a torrent for the pdfs?
>>46393676
>>46393685
this
or 5e. come on now, don't be crazy. simple vs complex, fun vs sorta fun.
>>46408149
While this is true, it's like saying rabbit shit is more palatable than dogshit
>>46398314
>not different from 3.5
I've played 3.5 and 5e and would rather play anything than 3.x again. it's just so bad in comparison to 5e. so that's my 2 cents on that. Never actually played pathfinder, so, hey, maybe it's better than i think?
>>46402855
>makes a good conversation and point without bashing
>accuse sane person of salt throwing.
come on, he's just pointing out clear flaws.
>>46393676
Fuck no.
Play Risus because you just need a system.
Or play Torchbearer because you need something explicitly dungeony.
Or play GURPS because you love rules.
Or play Descent and switch to Risus when you're not fighting, that's allowed.
All the D&Ds give you heaps of rules for no real benefit. You can play games with basically no rules instead. Or you can play games with lots of rules that guide the narrative experience. Or you can play games with piles of rules that add realism. Or you can play games with piles of rules that make a balanced experience.
But D&D really doesn't give you much for the baggage it makes you carry.
>>46408762
wish i could argue with this but you summed up those system's well and i can't think of any way to compare the systems.
>>46408660
3.5 > 4e > AD&D > PF > 5e
>>46399588
what? you honestly think that's the only system I know?
Look, I Don't just know Pathfinder, hell there are systems I know better; Dark Heresy 1st ed (which is the first RPG I ever played), Rogue trader, Black Crusade, Call of Cthulhu 6th ed, Shades of Earth, Corporia, and Etoe/AoR/F&D. I'm usually up to learning new systems, and depending on the kind of game anon wants to play, I'd recommend a LOT of other RPG's to OP first. (for example if OP was going to do a SF game, I'd probably tell them to try re-working FFG Star Wars RPG to make it fit the setting honestly)
But if you want to play a base-line fantasy RPG, I do think Pathfinder is not a terrible choice.
>>46408973
Not that guy, but I think you should take a look at Risus (it's four pages), and either Torchbearer or one of the Fate games. Just because with the number of systems you've mentioned, it's a shame not to have played something on that end of the spectrum.
Or Dogs In The Vinyard, if you really want to push it.
>>46409087
>, it's a shame not to have played something on that end of the spectrum.
what? rules-lite you mean?
yeah I briefly did free-form RPG's too, and let me tell you, THAT was a GOD AWFUL experience.
>>46409157
Rules light or narrative-focused.
Free-form is usually garbage. Haven't done that since I was a teenager, and there was about one session of that that was good.
>>46409212
yeah, I can say I only did that for a few months in college and it was just a complete mess from start to finish.
After that experience I found that I preferred RPGs where there was more structure to them.
I think the FFG Star Wars games are about as narrative driven as I've gone since and while they are fun, I firmly believe that may-well be my limit.
You are welcome to play more rules-lite than that, I can respect that, it's just not for me.
>>46409307
I think rules light, narrative driven, and freeform are fundamentally different. If you've only played freeform out of that group, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Dogs In The Vinyard is more rigid than most games, but heavily narrative driven.
>>46393676
Pathfinder offers more in-depth customization and character options, while 5e offers more efficiency and simplification.
>>46393676
Pathfinder has a lot of options, and it would be impossible to navigate without a database (which thankfully it has online). Sometimes, there are many ways to play the same thing. There must at least 10 ways to play, say, a scimitar-wielding agile warrior or warrior/mage, for example.
Overall, it has a lot of options and content - maybe too much - and it has a rock-solid online database that has pretty much all the crunch options ever published. I rate the last bit very high, as you have access to almost anything without having to purchase the book.
5e is newer, leaner and . Wizards have taken some lessons from 3E, 4E and Pathfinder imo. Things are simpler and there is less bloat (yet, give it time). They seem to have addressed the high-end imbalance issues by flattening the power curve somewhat. This is good if you want more balance and consistency, less good if you want a really epic fantasy.
I would say 5E would be easier for new people at this point. I personally play Pathfinder now and then and enjoy it, although I mostly play at lower levels.
requesting that forum screencap where the guy says he doesn't want to run D&D but is open to suggestions and literally everyone says 5th ed or pathfinder
