Current Events > Differences between DnD and Pathfinder?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like say Im gonna play Pathfinder after playing Baldurs Gate. I hear there is a lot of differences in the rulesets. Can someone explain to me what to expect?

Pathfinder was built off of D&D 3.5 ruleset. It's a more complex system compared to D&D 5e which is what BG3 was built off of.

The average amount of dice rolled.

I honestly don't know, other than PF is based on 3.5. I guess there's more mechanical complexity in building a character?

Tmaster148 posted...

Pathfinder was built off of D&D 3.5 ruleset. It's a more complex system compared to D&D 5e which is what BG3 was built off of.

^

Then there is Pathfinder 2 which is more akin to 4th edition (or so I've heard... I've never played it) which is more pulpy than 5th.

You talking about the books or the video games? Because aside from the D20 system they have almost nothing in common anymore.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You talking about the books or the video games? Because aside from the D20 system they have almost nothing in common anymore.

Im curious about both in general but if I had to pick - the video games. Like if Im gonna start up WotR what particularly makes it different/complex compared to the rules in BG3

ellis123 posted...

^

Then there is Pathfinder 2 which is more akin to 4th edition (or so I've heard... I've never played it) which is more pulpy than 5th.

I don't believe PF2 is based on D&D 4e. 4e was never released in srd for others to use.

Pathfinder 2e is one of my favorite systems because of how many character options you have, and how open-ended they are. You could have two or more players with the exact same ancestry/class combination and they'd both still end up with wildly different characters, and multiclassing is so much easier to both understand and work into a build without ruining your character.

Combat is also a lot more tightly balanced and tactical thanks to the three-action economy as opposed to 5e's two actions.

Tmaster148 posted...

I don't believe PF2 is based on D&D 4e. 4e was never released in srd for others to use.

PF2 absolutely takes a lot of cues from 4e and just makes them work.

Tmaster148 posted...

I don't believe PF2 is based on D&D 4e. 4e was never released in srd for others to use.

I meant that the style was based on 4e. You are correct that it was not the same as how the first one was just wholesale 3.5.

Tmaster148 posted...

I don't believe PF2 is based on D&D 4e. 4e was never released in srd for others to use.

4e was released but under a more restricted license. The only product as far as I'm aware that ever made it to market under the 4e license is a game called Amethyst.

Edit: correction - the original Amethyst is 3.x. Amethyst: Evolution is the 4e version.

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/93001/amethyst-evolution

Are Pathfinder campaigns like DnD campaigns? Is it easy to start one like it is with DnD? I just played my first DnD campaign over the weekend so Im curious

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Are Pathfinder campaigns like DnD campaigns? Is it easy to start one like it is with DnD? I just played my first DnD campaign over the weekend so Im curious

Yes. Outside of the specifics of the rules you can play any campaign in either ruleset if you adjust for the differences.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Are Pathfinder campaigns like DnD campaigns? Is it easy to start one like it is with DnD? I just played my first DnD campaign over the weekend so Im curious

Any D&D campaign could technically be ran in a different system. The main difference systems provides are often flavor (d&d tends to be medieval theme) and mechanics (5e favors combat over rp).

If you aren't sure how to start a campaign, look at pre-built modules for the system you want to use.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Are Pathfinder campaigns like DnD campaigns? Is it easy to start one like it is with DnD? I just played my first DnD campaign over the weekend so Im curious

Pathfinder is definitely not a beginner friendly game. The huge downside of the 3.x systems that nobody ever likes to talk about is that it's way too easy to make a character that's completely useless. It was made by and for people who like to minmax the shit out of everything.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Pathfinder is definitely not a beginner friendly game. The huge downside of the 3.x systems that nobody ever likes to talk about is that it's way too easy to make a character that's completely useless. It was made by and for people who like to minmax the shit out of everything.

Not a huge problem with homebrew but a major issue for like everything else

Anyone else have any opinions on Pathfinder?

We talking Kingmaker/Path of the Righteous?

Because it's gonna get messy.

If we're including subclasses, you've got more classes than BG3 before you even get out of the A's.

Pathfinder was originally built by people who didn't like the more streamlined direction that d&d was going in. So if you played baldur's gate and thought that the game could use more options and added complexity, Pathfinder's the direction you'll go in. If you found the systems already too complex or annoying to internalize and manage, modern d&d has that taken care of for you.

I'm DMing a game of PF2e right now. Biggest differences off the bat are going to be the action economy is just 3 actions instead of move, standard, bonus. Most things don't have an attack of opportunity so it's strategically beneficial to move. If you roll 10 over your target it's a critical hit, if you roll 10 under it's a critical fail. This makes you want to "debuff" a target with things like off-guard and demoralized because every +1 raises your odds of a crit. There's a lot more numbers and a lot more things to do, but the numbers are tighter than DND so encounter building is way easier. You get upgrades and abilities at every level and pretty much every class is good and playable with very few exceptions.

s0nicfan posted...

Pathfinder was originally built by people who didn't like the more streamlined direction that d&d was going in.

Pathfinder 1e was actually a direct response to Wizards not using the OGL for 4e and instead using the far more restrictive GSL.

TMOG posted...

Pathfinder 1e was actually a direct response to Wizards not using the OGL for 4e and instead using the far more restrictive GSL.

Sure, but 4E being 4E was also a significant driver for them putting in the effort.

s0nicfan posted...

Sure, but 4E being 4E was also a significant driver for them putting in the effort.

No, 4e being 4e was what motivated players to buy Pathfinder instead.

TMOG posted...

Pathfinder 1e was actually a direct response to Wizards not using the OGL for 4e and instead using the far more restrictive GSL.

Other way around. Pathfinder came first. WotC was mad that they couldn't monetize it so they made the 4e license more restrictive.

Ranting__Nord posted...

I'm DMing a game of PF2e right now. Biggest differences off the bat are going to be the action economy is just 3 actions instead of move, standard, bonus. Most things don't have an attack of opportunity so it's strategically beneficial to move. If you roll 10 over your target it's a critical hit, if you roll 10 under it's a critical fail. This makes you want to "debuff" a target with things like off-guard and demoralized because every +1 raises your odds of a crit. There's a lot more numbers and a lot more things to do, but the numbers are tighter than DND so encounter building is way easier. You get upgrades and abilities at every level and pretty much every class is good and playable with very few exceptions.

Ooh, now this is interesting. I especially like that you can get upgrades and abilities at every level.

DrizztLink posted...

We talking Kingmaker/Path of the Righteous?

Because it's gonna get messy.

If we're including subclasses, you've got more classes than BG3 before you even get out of the A's.

Games and tabletop tbh but more so games yeah

Tyranthraxus posted...

Other way around. Pathfinder came first. WotC was mad that they couldn't monetize it so they made the 4e license more restrictive.

D&D 4e's core rulebook released in June of 2008.
Pathfinder 1e's core rulebook released in August of 2009.

https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Player%27s_Handbook_(4e)
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Core_Rulebook_(First_Edition)

Now, I'm not the best with calendars, but I'm pretty sure 4e existed a full year before Pathfinder released.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Games and tabletop tbh but more so games yeah

I absolutely recommend Wrath of the Righteous.

There's a lot of mechanics to learn but the Mythic path stuff opens up so many shenanigans.

Also I'd wanted to play a Lich for years.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Ooh, now this is interesting. I especially like that you can get upgrades and abilities at every level.

Yeah, I love that about P2e. Everybody gets at least one new feat at every level, so you really get a feel that your character is constantly growing and improving unlike 5e where sometimes a level just comes with one more spell slot or slight improvement/extra use to a feature you already had.

Also, ancestry feats really help to make your choice between elf or dwarf matter beyond the first level. Your ancestry benefits aren't front-loaded anymore, they're constantly improving just like your class and skills. Hell, it even makes human a much more interesting choice.

TMOG posted...

Now, I'm not the best with calendars, but I'm pretty sure 4e existed a full year before Pathfinder released.

Before the 1e core Pathfinder was a thing you tacked onto D&D 3.5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(periodicals)#

This was a full year before 4e.

DrizztLink posted...

I absolutely recommend Wrath of the Righteous.

There's a lot of mechanics to learn but the Mythic path stuff opens up so many shenanigans.

Also I'd wanted to play a Lich for years.

Yeah Im downloading wrath of the righteous as we speak. If you have any tips Id love to hear them

Tyranthraxus posted...

Before the 1e core Pathfinder was a thing you tacked onto D&D 3.5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_(periodicals)#

This was a full year before 4e.

Oh neat

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Yeah Im downloading wrath of the righteous as we speak. If you have any tips Id love to hear them

Don't get too overwhelmed.

Play on Normal or whatever your first time, it'll make life easier while you figure things out.

That way, just leveling a dude to 20 in one class won't make them too unoptimized to be effective.

Also:

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Ooh, now this is interesting. I especially like that you can get upgrades and abilities at every level.

WotR is NOT PF2e, so progression is a little different.

You'll get some levels that are nothing but skill points.

Cyberpunk > pathfinder > dd

All the rules are free on the Archives of Nethys, just pick the right system.
https://www.aonprd.com/

You really gotta specify which edition of D&D and Pathfinder.

PF "1E" was D&D 3.5 w/ some common sense rules changes and then a whole lot of dumb shit and utter bloat (for all the criticisms 3E got for "trap options", none of them made you objectively weaker for taking them like some of PF's).
A common criticism of 3E was that casters were too strong, so PF's solution was to...make them even stronger. Like... being a specialist wizard sure is nifty but it's a shame you have to ban two whole schools of magic, then PF came around and was like, "but what if you didn't have to, though?"
It's a rom-hack of the best edition of D&D so even though it's not as good as the original, it's...ok. Just stick to classes w/ a spell list, even if it only goes up to 4th or 6th level spells, and you'll be ok.

PF 2E is entirely it's own thing and I've only heard about it, but it sounds fucking dreadful. Like D&D 4E except the feats and options are even weaker and lamer than in that dumpster fire of a rules set (like instead of a feat to get +2 to some skills, which would already be weak and lame in 3E, now there's feats to situationally get +1 or +2 to a skill or two). I'm actually shocked there's people here saying they like it, they're literally the first people I've ever seen outside of Paizo's (maker of PF) own boards (and even there it's got a lot of detractors) that had good things to say about it. I've seen lots of people online and friends of mine who liked PF 1E and hated D&D 4E all universally say it's even worse than D&D 4E.

Not going to bother talking about D&D, I assume you're familiar with it at least.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Anyone else have any opinions on Pathfinder?

It's good if you like tactical miniatures combat. Vastly better then D&D if only because Paizo is an infinitely better company. There are much better systems but if you are looking for the closest thing to D&D, Pathfinder is it .