What you think about these game

[AceWildcard]

I have a question, even if it's a silly one. I wonder what game do you all think is better. Pathfinder or the current edition of D and D? If you do not think one is better than the other then why? As for me I don't know which is better. I play pathfinder a bit and like certain aspects of it, but I also like d and d as well yet with it I also have aspects I don't like. Yet I haven't play pathfinder in a long time due to the fact there isn't games that I can get to. As for why I like them, they give off mostly good storylines in their campaigns or leagues they do from what I gathered. I am not going into the technical aspects right now,  as I think both systems have flaws to them, just wanting to know what everyone thinks about this?

[Nina]

SYSTEM REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IN THE LONG RUN BUT IF i HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO i WOULD ALWAYS CHOOSE 5E. IT'S A LESS COMPLICATED SYSTEM, IT'S RULES LIGHT COMPARED TO PATHFINDER AND JUST A VERY SMOOTH GAME TO BOTH PLAY AND TO RUN.

FOR ME WHILE PATHFINDER AND STARFINDER ARE BOTH GOOD THEY SUFFER FROM RULES BLOAT. AND I DON'T LIKE LOTS OF RULES

i AM NOT A CRUNCHY ST

[SalmonMax]

I tend to agree with Nina, though perhaps not with quite her emphasis.

I like Pathfinder a lot, but it's very rules-intensive. There are a TON of options right out of the gate, and that can be a lot of fun if you have the system mastery to understand those options...but it also makes it a higher bar of entry, and a much more time-consuming character generation and to some extent gameplay. Some of those issues were adjusted with Starfinder, which replaced a huge array of classes with a small number of classes that have a large number of customization options...a step forward, but it's still a different experience than 5th Edition.

Overall I've been really impressed with 5th Edition. It's not a 'perfect' game (what is?) but it has a very workable balance between the time and effort needed to learn and master the rules, and the number of options available. I have in the past wished it had more options, but fortunately the publisher erred on the side of simplicity, knowing that it's easier to add options later than it is to subtract complexity. I have my own wishlist of course, for changes and additional options, but I find 5th Edition D&D provides a robust framework for customized rules as well. The relatively streamlined core rules mean it's easier to overlay one's own house rules without creating unintentional conflicts or weird interactions. So it's quite flexible.

[Dave ST]

I keep hearing the 'too many rules' thing for Pathfinder and I've yet to use all these rules people keep complaining about.  Then again Paizo does try to cover bases when it comes to their products, because the problem isn't the rules, it's the players.  When Starfinder was released the biggest discussion wasn't about mechanics it was about the mating and breeding habits of the various alien species and everyone was mad that Paizo didn't put out more pages in their already massive Core Rule book detailing those specific things.

Personally I prefer Pathfinder.  The product and the company is pretty customer-centric and you can actually talk with their devs and when questions and concerns arise Paizo actually helps it's customers.  Wizards is, and always has been in it for the money.  That's why they market D&D5e with the various NPCs from the various worlds.  That's why they held onto the rights to Star Wars for as long as they could without making more products for it, so no one else could profit from it, especially the gamers who wanted a new Star Wars RPG, ore revised rules that weren't trash like Wizards had already released.  I understand how business works, that doesn't mean I have to like it.  How a company does business reflects greatly on what sort of company they are.

Paizo has entire books released with shout outs to fans and players.  Player made content, contributions, high-fives and thank yous for constant support and looking out for them as a company.  I've been playing D&D for a long time, my first set was the 1981 Basic Set 2nd Edition.  Granted it stayed in my closet until I was about 10, but I've been rolling dice for a minute.  I've been dealing with Wizards of the Coast for 17 years, and every product they release strips from me more and confidence for the future of D&D.  I'm not impressed with 5e.  It seems like 'D&D for Dummies'.  They give the players the most basic system with the most basic rules because people are too lazy put in any effort anymore and they designed a system for purely out of simplicity.  There are so many things not covered in the books that players flood forums looking for answers, the hobby shop where I GM, I'm always having to answer questions on to handle X or what do when Y happens.  It's RPG easy mode, but most players are in an easy mode far beyond 'easy'.  If I had children, and all those children had Downs Syndrome, then D&D 5e would be the Special Olypmics RPG I'd let them play.

Pathfinder has it's faults, but people tend to forget that you are under no obligation to use any of the rules that people seem to think bogs down the system.  So, I prefer Pathfinder.