Game Setting differences

[Thom001]

Hey guys, recently I've been playing D&D 5e with a new group. I've never played D&D before so I can't comment on any previous editions. There are definitely some differences between this game and Palladium. To everyone out here what are some of the biggest differences/adjustments you have to make when going between these two games? For myself personally I feel that at least with my new group they use way less setting material from the books. I don't think the party has yet been to a place that actually exists in cannon D&D. Things we do just seem a lot more off the cuff so the speak & the rules seem to be very flexible. They seem to be more like guidelines actually. The combat was also a big adjustment for me. Again I've never played D&D before so this could just be the group I'm in. What is your opinion?

[Library Ogre]

Really hard to say without knowing a lot of specifics, but, broadly.

5e tends towards a relatively small number of modifiers; most often, it will be attribute and proficiency bonus, then advantage or disadvantage. This can streamline the math, and static combat defenses (AC) tends to lead to a faster-playing game. While people start off relatively fragile, and gain power over time, on-level threats can still cause serious harm pretty quickly. Gaining a level is relatively quick, and often represents a fairly large gain in ability.

Palladium tends towards complexity and interlocking modifiers; you will have bonuses from several sources, and need to create an aggregate... sometimes on the fly, if something changed. With skills, you might have bonuses from several places (class, IQ, and synergy with other skills comes to mind). With active combat defenses (i.e. Parry, Dodge, and Roll), combat takes longer, especially if people haven't totaled their bonuses in advance. People start off relatively stout, and that continues; a lot of combat can become a slog without the intervention of powerful magics. Gaining a level takes a significant amount of time, and often doesn't mean that much greater a jump in ability (there's an old joke of "What's the difference between a 1st level Juicer and a 15th level Juicer?" "2 attacks and a +3 to strike")

There's a ton more that could be talked about; some differences in magical design, class design, expectations of balance and playstyle... lots of potential topics. But that requires a lot of time, and is harder to do without specific examples.

[The Dark Elf]

When I GM D&D I use their rules.

When I GM PFRPG I used their rules.

That's probably the biggest difference I can think of.

[Library Ogre]

Ok, let's try another topic: Magic.

D&D has a fairly streamlined magic system. In Core, most classes use leveled slots to cast from a subset of a larger class list. For most, this is "you know X spells at Y level"; for druids and clerics, it is "choose level plus casting modifier from your entire list", and wizards use "choose level plus casting modifier from your spellbook". Spells have a minimum slot level to cast, but many can be upcast, using a higher level slot to greater effect. Spells require some combination of speech, gesture, and materials, but the last is frequently handwaved in the case of dedicated casters (a wizard can use a "focus" to avoid most specific components, but subclasses like the Eldritch Knight may not be able to). Additionally, there are cantrips, which are at-will and without limit, and rituals, which are long-form and do not require spell slots. For most casters, you regain your expended slots with a long rest. In core, Warlocks are the exception to this; they cast all spells at maximum level, all the time, and have a very few slots that regain on a short rest. But most core classes with magic, even subclasses, work this way.

Palladium does not remotely do this. For psychics and spellcasters, individual characters learn a subset of spells from their class list; many are granted X new spells per level, while Wizards learn Y spells per level, and can learn additional spells as they gain access to them. Priests are a slight exception to the "subset of spells" rule, since some of their prayers can let them cast any spell their deity has available. Spells require speech, but seldom gestures or any sort of material component. Spells are powered by points, and their increase in power of a spell is usually tied to the spellcaster's level... you don't get a tougher Armor of Ithan by spending more points, you get it by going up in level. Points are regained with simple time, though the type of rest can increase point regeneration, and different classes have different ways of regaining points (i.e. borrowing from others, blood sacrifice, ley lines, etc.)

BUT, in addition to this, Palladium's core has two entirely different forms of magic, wards and circles. These require specific components and significant time to enact. They're somewhat akin to 5e ritual magic, but specifically have much longer effects... you can set a ward and have it go off 30,000 years later, and a circle might bond a creature for centuries.

[Levi]

There are some good highlights here. A couple other things of note from my experience.
1. Advantage and disadvantage is the primary mechanic for adding to or reducing the difficulty of success for actions. If something makes it easier to succeed, the character gains advantage. Or, when something is more difficult, the character may have disadvantage. When using either, the character rolls two D20s instead of one for the action. If the roll is with advantage, use the higher die roll. If it is disadvantage, use the lower roll. While very easy to apply and use, this system makes pretty much all advantages and disadvantages have the same impact mechanically.
2. No active defense in combat. In Palladium you can usually roll for a parry or dodge in combat. In 5e there is an armor class (AC) that is mostly static that attackers need to meet or exceed to hit. Some spells and reactions can add to the AC or give the attacker disadvantage on their roll. This system can be frustrating for those who are used to being able to impact the outcome of their character's defense.
3. There are far less skills. 5e only have about 20 skills. And, most characters will only be proficient in a few. While making characters quick and easy to create, it's a bit on the simplistic side.
4. Less character classes but each has a few sub-classes. This is another part of the system this is somewhat simplified compared to Palladium. However, if you have a good collection of books and subclasses, the range of character options isn't too bad.
5. Character levels are huge. A first level character in 5e only has a few hit points (there are no SDC or other health points). With most level 1 characters only having about 10 it is very easy to get low level characters kills. They also have limited spell slots or other ability users. However, they get an additional die of HP and more spell slots every level. Also, as they level up they either get additional attacks for fighter type characters, or additional dice for their abilities as they level. A level 5 character could probably take on and defeat 3 or 4 level 1 characters pretty consistently. The difference in capability is not near as big in Palladium.
6. Parity across classes. While each class has variations in the mechanics for defense and offense, they all scale pretty much the same. As the levels increase the gap in how they do damage or survive increases. Some classes gain more HP. Others gain more spells to evade or more healing. For damage, casters get more AOE and higher single target damage spells, but fighters get more attacks and can sustain output longer. But generally, played well, they all more of less deal out or sustain pretty similar amounts of damage.

There are bunch more differences. But really, overall it is a good system. It is a bit easier to learn and run. But it does lack some depth. I prefer Palladiums system for the depth, but I have learned and adapted to 5e and enjoy it as well.

[katheludwig]

I think gaining a level is relatively quick.

[Borast]

Simple... PFRPG is a role playing game.
4th & 5th ed D&D are streamlined for playing a computer game with pencils & dice.
When it came out, 4th was described as for intended Power Gamers, and ROLL players.

[Curbludgeon]

The ability to role play is entirely independent of a rule system.

[Veknironth]

Well, the combat is quite different with Palladium's active defense. I can remember when I first started playing Robotech and being blown away by the chance to counter my oppenent's attack directly. I do not find that combat takes longer in Palladium than 5E. I think that's entirely dependent on the players. Now, I haven't studied the HP to damage output ratios for the two games, but I do know that SDC warps things quite a bit in the long combat direction.

The skills for 5E drive me nuts. There are like 20 of them and it seems like everyone has every skill. They're rather diffuse and broken into categories. I prefer the more specific Palladium skills. You know how to do a thing, not just you have a chance of success for everything under the umbrella.

The Magic in 5E seems bizarrely complicated in comparison to the "it takes X amount of energy to cast a spell" of Palladium.

I also don't like how in 5E everyone does all of their actions/movement on their turn. Yes, I know there are reactions that are different. But an example is that Vek the fighter wanted to stay near Levi the paladin to take advantage of Levi's auras. But we couldn't both advance to a target at once. There was literally no way to do it by the rules. Of course, all RPGs struggle with moving at the same time.

5E felt to me like a beginner game, or like an RPG with training wheels. It was rather simple and allowed you to get rolling (pun intended) rather quickly. I mean I was playing with no problem in like one session. However, once I absorbed the rules I was disappointed in that simplicity.

-Vek
"Oh, and 5E has much more support."

[Kraynic]

The ability to role play is entirely independent of a rule system.

That is so. I have seen people claim to roleplay chess. While the ability to roleplay is independent, there are definitely games that encourage roleplay more than others.

It seems to me that there are several systems going now that the primary reason to play them is to roll dice and kill things. The rules of the game reflect being able to get done will all that pesky recovery from the last fight and streamlined social rules so that you can get back to the important part of rolling dice and killing things. I can't really throw too much shade at games like that, because when I first started that was pretty much what I wanted. Different systems diminish some parts of play by design (intentionally or by accident). Over time I have come to the decision that combat is one of the least interesting aspects of tabletop games to me (not that I want to cut it out entirely though), and so I don't really enjoy games that seem hyper focused on that aspect as well (thinking mostly of Pathfinder and D&D here). Of course roleplay isn't removed from those games due to the focus on combat, but it is certainly different than games that don't make combat quite the focus of the system.

[foilfodder]

I think both the OPs question about similarities between Palladium Fantasy RPG and DnD5E mesh nicely withCurbludgeon's point that the ability to roleplay is independent of the rules system.

Palladium is in my opinion adequate for a fantasy RPG. That is "good enough" for me move on to what makes a gaming session fun; the other people and characters.

In my opinion, the Gamemaster as well as the other players at the table have a very heavy influence on the way the game is played no matter what rulebook you are playing with. If the entire world had only one Palladium Fantasy RPG and only one pre-written adventure which everyone played over and over;, the experience can be remarkably different depending on the other players at the table and the GM running the session even if you play the same.

Is the table stoic roleplayers who always stay "in-character?" Or is the gaming table improv comedy hour?

Most games have an alignment system but would the Gamemaster step in if the party Paladin tries to kill your character because he wants the magic sword you are holding?

The gameworld maybe have tons of source material or be based on a book or show you know and love...yet the G.M.'s homebrew and other player characters horribly out of place?

With the right group and a G.M. to match. the rulebook doesn't really matter. The key is I said the "right" G.M. and group, as what one person considers "good" may be bad for another. The situations I posted above aren't universal black and white, some players stick to alignment, others don't care. Some players thrive on PvP, some don't. What one person considers "essential" to a campaign or game world others might thing is cliche or outdated.

Find like-minded players to game with and if you can't then be open-minded.