• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Gay Bowser

Member
Oct 30, 2017
17,708
The barrier to entry is definitely getting higher and higher. I know a few people who were initially excited at the prospect of "more complex D&D" but looked at the Feats or Spells list and had a huge drop off in enthusiasm.

Yeah, the intimidation factor definitely is a concern for them. I know that was part of the reason they decided to move away from just offering one massive 640-page Core Rulebook; too many people were taking one look at that doorstopper and noping the fuck out, even though obviously not everything in that bible is going to be relevant to every player or campaign.

The thing about the Pathfinder Feat lists is that it also includes all the ways that classes gain more power as Class Feats, which is something D&D does have as part of its design but things like "you get Extra Attack at 5th level" are just part of the class description (since in D&D Feats are an optional rule). Like, if you take a look at, say, the Ranger class in the 5e CRB, and break down all the things that you get with that class and all the choices that you make into individual Class Feats as you'd have in PF2e, you'd have quite a long list, and that's far from the most complicated class in the game. So I think the sheer amount of Pathfinder feats is maybe sort of more intimidating than it actually is in practice. There are definitely a lot of them but I don't think it's a dizzying amount, especially since you're not choosing between all the feat lists at the same time.

Pathfinder is definitely more complex in the sense that it offers more choices (and, in my opinion, more meaningful choices) to the player in regards to their character's development, but I don't think it's harder to play, and I'd argue it's actually significantly easier to GM because it's so much more balanced. As a player playing 5e for the first time in a long time after spending a while playing/GMing Pathfinder, that game's whole move/action/reaction/bonus action/interaction thing makes me actually just want the simplicity of the three-action economy in Pathfinder. Whenever something is both conceptually simpler and also more flexible, that's just a better design.

I do think they should maybe slow their roll on new classes, though. It's hard to say what else they can do to keep Pathfinder as beginner-friendly as possible, considering how much a core part of the appeal of the game is having all those interesting choices (after all, the most popular variant rule by far in the Pathfinder community is a way to give your character even more Feats). I think the book is already laid out better than pretty much any other RPG rulebook (as a graphic design nerd, the lack of clear sectional hierarchy and minimal wayfinding features in the 5e PHB is grating to me and it makes it harder to parse than it should be), and they have what I think is the best introductory product on the market in the form of the Beginner's Box.
 

Wunder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,797
The thing about the Pathfinder Feat lists is that it also includes all the ways that classes gain more power as Class Feats, which is something D&D does have as part of its design but things like "you get Extra Attack at 5th level" are just part of the class description (since in D&D Feats are an optional rule). Like, if you take a look at, say, the Ranger class in the 5e CRB, and break down all the things that you get with that class and all the choices that you make into individual Class Feats as you'd have in PF2e, you'd have quite a long list, and that's far from the most complicated class in the game. So I think the sheer amount of Pathfinder feats is maybe sort of more intimidating than it actually is in practice. There are definitely a lot of them but I don't think it's a dizzying amount, especially since you're not choosing between all the feat lists at the same time.

I think that's a fair point. Part of it comes from the generous nature of having everything available on AoN and other sites. You can just click "All Feats" and see over 4,000 different choices. Obviously that's not a realistic choice you're making as a 1st-level character, but without a guiding hand it can feel incredibly daunting. I know Pathbuilder exists but maybe some more structured character creation tool could be more useful. As a GM I've found it hard to advise new players on their options because I simply don't know the depth of every class, ancestry or archetype. I use ABP to make things smoother and Free Archetype as it seems to be a commonly used variant but it just adds more overhead in terms of decision making.

Funnily enough deciding a free archetype is the hard part but once you've made your choice you are mostly just following a linear path with maybe 2 to 3 choices.

Pathfinder is definitely more complex in the sense that it offers more choices (and, in my opinion, more meaningful choices) to the player in regards to their character's development, but I don't think it's harder to play, and I'd argue it's actually significantly easier to GM because it's so much more balanced. As a player playing 5e for the first time in a long time after spending a while playing/GMing Pathfinder, that game's whole move/action/reaction/bonus action/interaction thing makes me actually just want the simplicity of the three-action economy in Pathfinder. Whenever something is both conceptually simpler and also more flexible, that's just a better design.

They definitely offer a multitude of choices but I'm not certain that it's a good thing necessarily. I've read a lot of comments about how there isn't really a wrong choice you can make or because of how the system is balanced that you are free to make almost any character you want, but I feel like the game has fairly strict lines on a character's role, and if you stray outside those lines you'll feel very ineffective.

You also need resourceless healing or else you'll quickly find yourself out of luck very fast or having what little healing resources you have spent after a couple combats. Combat against a monster that is 2 levels higher is highly discouraged before a certain level, and while my current players have been destroying my moderate and severe encounters I am still wary of throwing some higher level monsters at them just because of what I've seen a level 4 monster can do to a party of level 2s.

I do like the system and Foundry has made things a lot more palatable, I don't know if I would play this over 5E as someone's first TTRPG experience in person though.
 

Gay Bowser

Member
Oct 30, 2017
17,708
You also need resourceless healing or else you'll quickly find yourself out of luck very fast or having what little healing resources you have spent after a couple combats. Combat against a monster that is 2 levels higher is highly discouraged before a certain level, and while my current players have been destroying my moderate and severe encounters I am still wary of throwing some higher level monsters at them just because of what I've seen a level 4 monster can do to a party of level 2s.

Yeah, I think the biggest thing behind the "Pathfinder is too hard" image is people coming to it from D&D and trying to play it like D&D, assuming it's making the same assumptions around encounters that D&D is making, and then getting slaughtered. Pathfinder combat is balanced around the party being pretty much in top form before each encounter, but sometimes people try to play it like a D&D style thing where it's much more of a war of attrition across multiple encounters and then they have a bad time. Interestingly, I haven't really had a problem with this among players for whom PF 2e is their first TTRPG (and I have helped people play PF2e as their first ever RPG!) — they're naturally a bit more cautious, and they haven't had their habits formed by D&D. It's the people who are used to D&D who come in and think they can just come out swinging and bounce between encounters like they do in D&D that are in for a rude awakening, even though I always warn people about this and try to impart upon them the importance of being in good shape before battle, because heavy hits do really happen. If you're prepared for it, it's not harder, but you have to understand that you have to be prepared.
 

Wunder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,797
Yeah, I think the biggest thing behind the "Pathfinder is too hard" image is people coming to it from D&D and trying to play it like D&D, assuming it's making the same assumptions around encounters that D&D is making, and then getting slaughtered. Pathfinder combat is balanced around the party being pretty much in top form before each encounter, but sometimes people try to play it like a D&D style thing where it's much more of a war of attrition across multiple encounters and then they have a bad time. Interestingly, I haven't really had a problem with this among players for whom PF 2e is their first TTRPG (and I have helped people play PF2e as their first ever RPG!) — they're naturally a bit more cautious, and they haven't had their habits formed by D&D. It's the people who are used to D&D who come in and think they can just come out swinging and bounce between encounters like they do in D&D that are in for a rude awakening, even though I always warn people about this and try to impart upon them the importance of being in good shape before battle, because heavy hits do really happen. If you're prepared for it, it's not harder, but you have to understand that you have to be prepared.

Yeah that's fair, I haven't actually tried so it's just an assumption on my part. But to that last part I would say that again it would require the hand of an experienced GM to advise players against that. I've run the Beginner Box and Book 1 of Outlaws of Alkenstar and there are definitely some insane encounters there. I've heard adventures like Abom Vaults and Ages of Ashes to have super punishing fights so I feel like an inexperienced GM just trusting an adventure to have "easy" encounters will be have a bad wake up call.

But the same can be said of D&D of course, low level combat just feels pretty deadly and I can definitely see PF2E shining a lot more once you get past those initial levels and have a lot more tools under your belt. But at the same time I am wary of rushing through the early levels and having my players not familiar with their kit being asked to make more class and skill feat decisions.
 

Uzzy

Gabe’s little helper
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,222
Hull, UK
I do always find the 'Pathfinder 2e is too complex/hard!' argument amusing, cause 5E isn't some one page OSR style micros RPG, and PF2E's three action economy is far more elegant and understandable than 5E's morass of actions/bonus actions/action surge etc.

It is undoubtedly more complex, but starting with the Beginner Box and Core Rulebook is fine, at least that's what I've found.
 

Yossarian

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,265
I do always find the 'Pathfinder 2e is too complex/hard!' argument amusing, cause 5E isn't some one page OSR style micros RPG, and PF2E's three action economy is far more elegant and understandable than 5E's morass of actions/bonus actions/action surge etc.

It is undoubtedly more complex, but starting with the Beginner Box and Core Rulebook is fine, at least that's what I've found.

I think it comes down to the fact that you can gut 5E of most of its rules/systems and it still functions, more or less. PF2E feels more mechanically cohesive and mathematically tight, so gutting it of rules can affect a lot of other things (stealth, for example, which is more nuanced than 5E, affects a lot of feats).

Additionally, players can get away with knowing less mechanics in 5E. The classes don't have nearly as much that differentiate how they actually play compared to PF. Every class there has very distinct mechanical differences that require a certain level of knowledge to play out the class fantasy.

Character creation too is daunting given the greater number of options. It takes time with new players to go through what everything means and how it interacts with the rest of the game (not to mention how all the derived stats work). Subsequently, there's a lot more to track on an individual basis, and the fact that every +1 is important means there are more maths involved too.

Ironically, I find all these extra option and rules somewhat of a limiting factor, as new players tend to stare at their character sheets for what they are allowed to do rather using their imaginations and then using the mechanics to support it. That's an issue with 5E too (all skill-based systems, really).

Don't get me wrong, I vastly prefer PF to 5E (I prefer pretty much anything compared to 5E tbh) but it's not a shock that people find it too crunchy/hard. That's the price paid for the additional options and nuance involved.

Sure, it isn't GURPS or Shadowrun, but as a first game for someone new to the hobby, it's not one I'd personally recommend, even with the Beginner Box.
 

Gay Bowser

Member
Oct 30, 2017
17,708
new players tend to stare at their character sheets for what they are allowed to do rather using their imaginations and then using the mechanics to support it. That's an issue with 5E too (all skill-based systems, really).

Yeah, I've noticed that this an issue with new players of most any TTRPG, because they're often coming to it from a mindset of it being a board game player or video game player. D&D probably gets this the most, just because its most people's first TTRPG (and often their only one...).

There's a certain mental shift of playing a TTRPG that probably requires an experienced GM to help them understand, like, "what you do is just tell me what your character does, in 'real life,' and then I'll decide what skill checks are necessary for you to do that and we'll roll to see if you succeed," which is a much different mindset from a board game or video game where you have a predefined and limited array of allowed options.

A lot of GMs, frankly, kind of suck and they immediately dive into explaining like combat mechanics and stuff and they sort of do a poor job explaining and highlighting one of the key parts of a TTRPG and one of the things that makes them so special, that is, the whole role playing part. This is arguably the biggest weakness of the Pathfinder Beginner Box: it's largely focused on being a combat/dungeon tutorial and that can create the impression that that's what the game is, when of course we've probably all had great play sessions that had long stretches of social interaction/information gathering with long periods of no combat at all. The way the entire adventure is played on a "game board" is also a decision that likely helps many new players feel at home but may give them the wrong impression. When I've run it I've tried to start with a brief non-combat role playing scene and introduce a few other characters around Otari before having the key NPC actually meet the PCs and give them their quest, rather than simply saying the players received a letter from her and then having everyone place their pawns on the map.
 

Uzzy

Gabe’s little helper
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,222
Hull, UK
Personally, if I were recommending a first game for someone new to the hobby, I'd grab a one page RPG or something much simpler than the big TTRPGs. Mork-Borg maybe. The only thing recommending 5E as a beginner TTRPG is that it's D&D.

I do agree that 5E is less complex than PF2E, and yeah the 'rulings not rules' approach is a good one for it. But there's also a fair few times where 5E suddenly becomes very concerned with the exact rules and then your poor DM is scrambling around various rulebooks, r/dndnext and Jeremy Crawford's twitter because somehow the difference between melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon has become important. Which amuses me.
 

Gay Bowser

Member
Oct 30, 2017
17,708
yeah the 'rulings not rules' approach is a good one for it. But there's also a fair few times where 5E suddenly becomes very concerned with the exact rules and then your poor DM is scrambling around various rulebooks, r/dndnext and Jeremy Crawford's twitter because somehow the difference between melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon has become important. Which amuses me.

This is exactly the thing that bothers me the most about 5e. It sort of has to be all things to all people, or at least try to be, and so it's caught in this uncomfortable, inconsistent space between being a rules-driven game and a rulings-driven one. It'll give the DM very little guidance on, say, what is a "reasonable" suggestion for the Suggestion spell, a 2nd-level spell that (as written) could have potentially massive consequences for a campaign if used on the right person, but then basically every DM at some point needs to halt everything and pull up an online calculator just to see how far a character is supposed to be able to jump.
 

Wunder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,797
Sadly DND still has incredible name recognition and for almost all "newbie" TTRPG games I've run; both self-organised and also as part of a group, D&D was the catch-all term for TTRPGs. I would also agree that one-pagers with super fast chargen is probably the way to go, and if fantasy flavor is all you want there's loads that can fulfill that D&D-flavor without having to get into the weeds with it. But if you say "wanna play Honey Heist" or "Jason Statham's Big Vacation", no one will know what you mean.
 

Yossarian

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,265
Yeah, I've noticed that this an issue with new players of most any TTRPG, because they're often coming to it from a mindset of it being a board game player or video game player. D&D probably gets this the most, just because its most people's first TTRPG (and often their only one...).

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head there. There are some games, however, that put the fiction first in the rules, like Blades, Labyrinth, and Electric Bastionland.

Apart from Blades, the NSR/OSR-y games don't have enough on the page for people to rely on it to tell them what they are 'allowed' to do, which is a good thing in my book.

A lot of GMs, frankly, kind of suck and they immediately dive into explaining like combat mechanics and stuff and they sort of do a poor job explaining and highlighting one of the key parts of a TTRPG and one of the things that makes them so special, that is, the whole role playing part.

Absolutely. I think it doesn't help that combat is the main mechanical focus in a lot of big games either. Ironically, combat is the majority of people's least important aspect of TTRPGs (at least from the surveys I've seen).

Personally, if I were recommending a first game for someone new to the hobby, I'd grab a one page RPG or something much simpler than the big TTRPGs. Mork-Borg maybe. The only thing recommending 5E as a beginner TTRPG is that it's D&D.

I've had really good results with Blades. Just the character and crew creation gets people excited because it sets up the narrative of the world in front of them. Get way more done in a single session too.

Honey Heist is great too; my kids have tons of fun with it.

I do agree that 5E is less complex than PF2E, and yeah the 'rulings not rules' approach is a good one for it. But there's also a fair few times where 5E suddenly becomes very concerned with the exact rules and then your poor DM is scrambling around various rulebooks, r/dndnext and Jeremy Crawford's twitter because somehow the difference between melee weapon attack and attack with a melee weapon has become important. Which amuses me.

True! Even I get caught up in some spell wording or another, even when I really don't want to. 😅 I will be glad to see the back of 5E. Once my two games are done, I'm officially bailing on it.
 

SpaceSong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,015
Absolutely. I think it doesn't help that combat is the main mechanical focus in a lot of big games either. Ironically, combat is the majority of people's least important aspect of TTRPGs (at least from the surveys I've seen).
It's a big part for me, personally. I like a little shake up using maps and minis to have a little wargame between the roleplay. The issue is when the combat becomes a slog from room to room in a dungeon. With the way a lot of modern adventure design goes it can burn folks out really quickly, I think. You're not fighting 2 or 3 big interesting monsters or playing keep away from 1 or 2 hard to kill ones, or any other numerous interesting things you could do in a dungeon. You're getting into 6 or 7 encounters with several similarly leveled adversaries on the regular where it gets a bit samey and tiresome. And often that's just the first floor of the dungeon.
 

Gay Bowser

Member
Oct 30, 2017
17,708
Combat often ends up being the thing TTRPG people care about the least in TTRPGs, but it's often the thing that gets people excited about playing a TTRPG in the first place. Dungeons & Dragons with neither dungeons nor dragons would be a much tougher sell to a lot of new players, even if the most memorable moments many people have around the table end up not being combat-oriented. Especially since a lot of people come to the game with the expectation that a combat game is what it is. "Just" being, like, a talking simulator is not nearly an appealing a premise to the uninitiated, who don't yet know how fun and interesting role-playing social encounters can be.

I think there's something to the idea that the reason so much of the PHBs and CRBs of the world are focused on combat is not because it's more important but because that's the thing that GMs want more of a structure or a scaffolding to adjudicate, precisely because it is ultimately less important to them. I would instantly reject any game that tried to have as many specific picayunish rules for social interaction as D&D or Pathfinder have for combat, because that's the part of the game where I want to have a bit more freedom in how I choose to play NPCs and guide the story. This is sort of the point Brennan Lee Mulligan was making that we were discussing earlier, about choosing the right appliance for the job that you want. I want a system to "automate" the less interesting part, not the part where I'm, like, writing.
 
Last edited:

Yossarian

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,265


Oh nice!

It's a big part for me, personally. I like a little shake up using maps and minis to have a little wargame between the roleplay.

Yeah, that's fair, but - and please don't take this wrong - even then you're describing it, it's to shake up the other stuff rather than as the primary focus, you know? The primary mechanical focus of 5E and PF is combat.

Combat often ends up being the thing TTRPG people care about the least in TTRPGs, but it's often the thing that gets people excited about playing a TTRPG in the first place.

I dunno, I certainly say "oh, there's cool combat" but I haven't experienced a case personally where I describe specifics about combat. I find people are more excited about engaging with the fantasy (which can, of course, involve combat). I got a bunch of my close non-TTRPG buddies to play Alien, for example, because they like the fantasy it presents.

I guess folks want to know they can do combat, but I'd be surprised if it's the major initial draw.

I think there's something to the idea that the reason so much of the PHBs and CRBs of the world are focused on combat is not because it's more important but because that's the thing that GMs want more of a structure or a scaffolding to adjudicate, precisely because it is ultimately less important to them. I would instantly reject any game that tried to have as many specific picayunish rules for social interaction as D&D or Pathfinder have for combat, because that's the part of the game where I want to have a bit more freedom in how I choose to play NPCs and guide the story. This is sort of the point Brennan Lee Mulligan was making that we were discussing earlier, about choosing the right appliance for the job that you want. I want a system to "automate" the less interesting part, not the part where I'm, like, writing.

Yeah, that's an interesting angle (love Brennan), but if it's to 'automate' the less interesting part, it's odd that it takes up the largest amount of mental load to get it running - if that makes sense?

Like, at its core, all combat needs to work is a resolution (dice roll, for example) and effect mechanic (HP or injury); yet, PF and 5E have reams of detailed rules to understand.

But you look at something like Blades (sorry, I love it 😅), and it systemises a ton of non-combat systems without ever feeling like it gets in the way of roleplaying. If anything, it supports it, imo.

I dunno 😅
 
Last edited:

SpaceSong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,015
Yeah, that's fair, but - and please don't take this wrong - even then you're describing it, it's to shake up the other stuff rather than as the primary focus, you know? The primary mechanical focus of 5E and PF is combat.
Not taken the wrong way but Having 3 sessions straight of in town RP and investigation that give way to 3 sessions of combat and dungeon crawl seems normal to me? Especially when we like that part.
 

Uzzy

Gabe’s little helper
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,222
Hull, UK
RDT_20240424_0740004926480707907742952.jpg


Love some good Pathfinder art.

:D