What's The Difference Between D&D And Pathfinder? [Archive]

Zanos

2017-02-17, 04:48 PM

Wizards of the Coast released the central rules for 3.5 as part of an Open Game Licence so other companies could make compatible products.

Paizo Inc, a company that had previously done some writing work for WotC, took the material released on the Open Game Licence and created a very similar fantasy roleplaying game. It is, essentially, D&D 3.5 with someone else's design philosophies. As Grod said, calling Pathfinder a set of published houserules for D&D 3.5 is not inaccurate.

Firechanter

2017-02-17, 04:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL1dEyDMA-o

Snowbluff

2017-02-17, 04:56 PM

Nothing, really. Pathfinder started as a rewrite of the PHB with someone's houserules and class tweaks, then grew a bunch of original content that's distinguished from 3.5 stuff only by the expert eye.
This. PF is 3.5 made easier, but at the same time they made a box to put players in. Really, you wouldn't know the weird stuff from 3.5 is missing until you've made a ton of characters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL1dEyDMA-o

Not this. Star Wars and Star Trek have a different basis in philosophy. Star Wars as a classic underdog struggle of good against evil. Star Trek is speculative fiction about societal issues.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 05:04 PM

OK I could see the comparison between D&D and Pathfinder. And I could see the comparsion between Star Wars and Star Trek. OK another question. What about the game balance, Is it balance or unbalance in D&D and Pathfinder?

Coretron03

2017-02-17, 05:05 PM

Core is basicly the same with some minor tweaks and a couple larger ones like the combat manuaver system and changes to polymorph spells. Most classes were buffed with a some minor benfits excluding druid who got wildshape nerfs due to the changes to polymorph spells. Instead of prestige class bloat they got archtype bloat which is a bunch of ACF's grouped together. Some feats are different (Cleave was removed until it was added in later called something different) archery is better because of ranged power attack/manyshot works for full attacks. Basically its just some minor differences in core and different spalts. Oh, and they printed blood money which is so ripe for abuse and fun its my favourite spell.

Basically, if you play 3.5 you can probably get into pathfinder fine.

Edit: Eh, depends on your power levels. It isn't really that much different from a balnce perspective although martials gained some nice things its still like 3.5.

Efrate

2017-02-17, 05:20 PM

Casters still dominate. A diviner 20 is autowin forever. Martials got better, but still lag behind. The unchained variants are nice and bring them up a bit further still, as does Path of War. Skill consolidation helped a few point starved classes, and makes its reasoable for everyone to have Perception (spot, listen and search combined into one skill) which is very good. Skill points and hit die for the most part increased across the board, races are better balanced. Druid got nerfed is the biggest classs change in play that is very noticable. Monsters got a bit of a power creep as well. The CMB/CMD system is a double edged sword, but unless you are a constant lockdown style of player, you won't notice a huge change. Big thiings are still hard to effect with any kind of bull rush, trip, disarm, etc, and will basically auto succeed on every grapple forever, but thats nothing really new.

Pugwampy

2017-02-17, 05:21 PM

Imagine DND editions 1 - 3 , 3.5 as a straight line . Then for whatever reason WOTC decides to make a whole new rule system probably for the reason of selling a whole new set of 200 plus rule books .

Lots of nerds took offense to this . 1- 3 slowly eased them into the new systems and their old stuff did not become obsolete overnight .

Paizo saw an opportunity to profit and created Pathfinder core rules which takes 3rd edition rules and expands on it and filling gaps giving more options for core classes and well making both heroes and monsters a bit stronger . Pathfinder is compatible with 3rd edition rules so even if you dont find any class , prestige class or race from PF you can dig till your hearts content through the older 3 rules books to use in a pathfinder game .

So basically this imaginary line now forks . One way 4th edition and the other pathfinder .

Everyone is happy again . Guys who dont care for the new 4th and 5th edition dnd systems play Pathfinder .

I am a Pathfinder fan . I am glad it came out . To me DND 4th edition is alien and does not feel like a DND game . Despite the mountain of info and book suppliments 3 rules have , there were lots of things that felt incomplete to me .
Why does the half orc have a paragraph of race rules while a gnome has 2 pages of racial options .
Why are sorcerers only dragon bloodlines . Where are the other mutants ?

Snowbluff

2017-02-17, 05:26 PM

If you examine 4e and PF, they actually make a lot of the same choices. For example, clerics have a new healing ability in PF, and in 4e they are a healing class. I used to have a schpiel on it.

EDIT: Oh I remembered the big one! PF and 4e make race more important. That's something I liked about both.

What about the game balance, Is it balance or unbalance in D&D and Pathfinder?

Both are unbalanced, PF lies to you about that. XD

Look at my sig. Now look at me. It's a cooperative game. Balance isn't so important.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 07:33 PM

If you examine 4e and PF, they actually make a lot of the same choices. For example, clerics have a new healing ability in PF, and in 4e they are a healing class. I used to have a schpiel on it.

EDIT: Oh I remembered the big one! PF and 4e make race more important. That's something I liked about both.

Both are unbalanced, PF lies to you about that. XD

Look at my sig. Now look at me. It's a cooperative game. Balance isn't so important.Ugh! I knew it was too good to be true. :frown:

ImperatorV

2017-02-17, 08:13 PM

If you want balance, some of the pathfinder third party stuff is really good about it (cough* spheres of power *cough). The core rules is basically the same balance issues as 3.5, sometimes with the really broken stuff toned down (or up, if it was broken in the underpowered way).

Stealth Marmot

2017-02-17, 08:27 PM

Not this. Star Wars and Star Trek have a different basis in philosophy. Star Wars as a classic underdog struggle of good against evil. Star Trek is speculative fiction about societal issues.

And 6 posts in and we're already mutating the thread into a Star Trek vs Star Wars thread.

Aaaaaanyway, One needs to ask which version of D&D are you talking about.

If you are talking about 3.5 versus Pathfinder, the differences are in the details and the refinement, but overall fundamentally they are the same game. What 3.5 was to D&D 3.0, Pathfinder is to 3.5. Overall I consider it an improvement, but nothing about the fundamental game was changed.

I have not played 5e however, but from what I understand it has a good deal of difference in the mechanics and really took the idea of 3.5 and added 4e elements into it, and 4e was a fundamentally different game from 3.5.

But, overall, the games play similarly, campaigns can easily be adapted from one to the other, and they feature the same concepts and a lot of the same mechanics. To give it a comparison, I would say that the difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder is like the difference between riding a Kawasaki Motorcycle and a Suzuki Motorcycle. There will be some differences, but you would have to have ridden motorcycles for a while to really understand and care about the differences. The differences between Pathfinder and 5e however, is the difference between a Harley Davidson Chopper and a Suzuki motorcycle. While still similar at a glance, a more engaged look will notice the difference. The difference between say Pathfinder and a game series like say, Exalted though, is the difference between a Suzuki Motorcycle and an ATV.

4e would be a scooter :smalltongue:

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-17, 08:45 PM

Ugh! I knew it was too good to be true. :frown:
Pathfinder is marginally better-- the optimization "floor" is higher for all classes (so if you don't know what you're doing, you'll probably be stronger in PF), and in most cases the ceiling is lower (so if you really know what you're doing, you'll probably be stronger in 3.5). But... in neither case is it very much higher or lower. At the power levels most people play at, you'll see the exact same problems, or lack thereof, in PF as in 3.5.

If you want a game that's legitimately a more balanced version of 3.5, 5e D&D does a pretty good job of keeping the basic feel while tightening up on balance. The downside is that character creation is... somewhat more retrained. There's more variety in the 5e PHB alone, but they've really been dragging their feet about moving beyond that. Also less customization, which is both a plus and a minus-- you pick your race, class, "subclass," and a background, and that's largely it. Maybe a feat or two, or multiclassing, but both are optional rules. It's a great game for anyone less interested in the character creation minigame.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 08:51 PM

Pathfinder is marginally better-- the optimization "floor" is higher for all classes (so if you don't know what you're doing, you'll probably be stronger in PF), and in most cases the ceiling is lower (so if you really know what you're doing, you'll probably be stronger in 3.5). But... in neither case is it very much higher or lower. At the power levels most people play at, you'll see the exact same problems, or lack thereof, in PF as in 3.5.

If you want a game that's legitimately a more balanced version of 3.5, 5e D&D does a pretty good job of keeping the basic feel while tightening up on balance. The downside is that character creation is... somewhat more retrained. There's more variety in the 5e PHB alone, but they've really been dragging their feet about moving beyond that. Also less customization, which is both a plus and a minus-- you pick your race, class, "subclass," and a background, and that's largely it. Maybe a feat or two, or multiclassing, but both are optional rules. It's a great game for anyone less interested in the character creation minigame.
What about Epic Level Campaign between D&D and Pathfinder? Are they still unbalanced or did they toned it down a bit?

Fouredged Sword

2017-02-17, 08:54 PM

Pathfinder also made an attempt to make all the classes more interesting. You don't have classes that contain nothing but 19 levels of +1 spellcaster level as the only class feature.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-17, 09:03 PM

What about Epic Level Campaign between D&D and Pathfinder? Are they still unbalanced or did they toned it down a bit?
I don't think epic rules exist for Pathfinder at all?

Jack_Simth

2017-02-17, 09:24 PM

I don't think epic rules exist for Pathfinder at all?
They sort of do (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement/#Advancing_Beyond_20th_Level)

Note that there's also been some Homebrew here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?290599-PF-Epic-Pathfinder-Handbook-Custom-rules-for-characters-beyond-20th-level) and elsewhere (http://www.jessesdnd.com/epicpf) (and probably lots of other places) of varying quality.

Snowbluff

2017-02-17, 09:27 PM

4e would be a scooter :smalltongue:

Only if you never learned to build with it. 4e is really a more interesting experience to build in that PF, partially because of new mechanics (for better and for worse, you can't deny different rules give different opportunities), and a much improved feat system over PF.

if I could, I would combine 3.5's variety, with 5e's multiclassing and archetypes that matter (tm), and 4e's feats.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-17, 09:31 PM

They sort of do (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/character-advancement/#Advancing_Beyond_20th_Level)
Oh. Much saner, then, though I suspect that increasingly high-level spell slots for metamagic, and increasing spells/day and spells/known, will trump anything a mundane character can get.

Zanos

2017-02-17, 09:33 PM

Well, Mythic Ranks exist, which are busted as hell.

Jack_Simth

2017-02-17, 09:49 PM

Oh. Much saner, then, though I suspect that increasingly high-level spell slots for metamagic, and increasing spells/day and spells/known, will trump anything a mundane character can get.
Hasn't that been happening since around level 10-ish anyway?

Kish

2017-02-17, 09:54 PM

Well, Mythic Ranks exist, which are busted as hell.
Mythic tiers aren't part of a default progression, though. They're only in use if it's a mythic game. Using that to say anything about Pathfinder would be like saying D&D is broken because gestalt rules exist.

Coretron03

2017-02-17, 09:55 PM

I don't think epic rules exist for Pathfinder at all?

They have mythic which to a degree are like epic except its more templates added to your character and can be gained before level 20.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 10:05 PM

Are the tier system same or different in D&D and Pathfinder?

Jack_Simth

2017-02-17, 10:07 PM

Are the tier system same or different in D&D and Pathfinder?
Tiers are less a system and more a reference in discussion...

There's some shuffling, but for the most part if a class is in both lists it'll be in the same tier in both lists.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 10:15 PM

I know I've been asking so many question about this topic but I have three question to ask.

1. Is the Level Adjustment still applies in both D&D and Pathfinder?

2. Is the the Level Adjustment the same or different in D&D and Pathfinder?

3. Is the Level Adjustment balanced or unbalanced in D&D and Pathfinder?

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-17, 10:20 PM

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 10:36 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2017-02-17, 10:39 PM

Good grief I got to learn how to stop asking questions, but can you explain more about race points please?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races/

So I guess I was sort of wrong; they encourage you to use harder encounters when players have stronger races, which is about right.

Cosi

2017-02-17, 10:51 PM

PF is like 3.5, but with a bunch of fiddly crap and designers who are bad at their jobs. There's no reason to use PF's rules for anything. Just figure out fixes for planar binding et al, backport anything interesting, and play the better system.

Look at my sig. Now look at me. It's a cooperative game. Balance isn't so important.

Don't do this. Snowbluff's sig is just a really pretentious way of saying "I don't understand why the game has levels". There is already a system for some characters being better than others. That system is the ability to have both 3rd ant 13th level characters. All the kind of imbalance Snowbluff wants does is let people make weak characters accidentally, which makes the game harder to learn for no reason.

If you want balance, some of the pathfinder third party stuff is really good about it (cough* spheres of power *cough). The core rules is basically the same balance issues as 3.5, sometimes with the really broken stuff toned down (or up, if it was broken in the underpowered way).

I don't think Spheres of Power is as good as people seem to believe. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56733&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

Good grief I got to learn how to stop asking questions, but can you explain more about race points please?

It lets you make a specialized Ubermensch for whatever character you were going to play anyway. It mostly makes people more powerful for no good reason, while also causing them to bail on any racial traits with niche utility. Both of those are bad.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 10:51 PM

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races/

So I guess I was sort of wrong; they encourage you to use harder encounters when players have stronger races, which is about right.Oh my gosh! These race points are amazing. So much information even though it sound a bit complex and advanced than D&D. :eek:

Snowbluff

2017-02-17, 11:15 PM

Don't do this. Snowbluff's sig is just a really pretentious way of saying "I don't understand why the game has levels". There is already a system for some characters being better than others. That system is the ability to have both 3rd ant 13th level characters. All the kind of imbalance Snowbluff wants does is let people make weak characters accidentally, which makes the game harder to learn for no reason. You're implying that levels should given out to players who make weaker characters, instead of being used to represent growth and give players a reward and something to look forward to for playing? And I am the one who doesn't understand levels?
http://data.whicdn.com/images/188001158/large.gif

You know, if it's the kind of person who does not do research for a character, and is there for the beer and pretzels, there's no problem with him having a weak character.

Cosi

2017-02-17, 11:19 PM

You're implying that levels should given out to players who make weaker characters, instead of being used to represent growth and give players a reward and something to look forward to for playing? And I am the one who doesn't understand levels?

WTF? No, I'm implying that the game has a mechanism for a character to be weaker even if classes are balanced. Namely, having it be lower level. There is zero benefit to having a 10th level Fighter be worse than a 10th level Wizard. Any story you wanted to tell by having 10th level Fighters suck can just be told by having Fighters be 5th level.

You know, if it's the kind of person who does not do research for a character, and is there for the beer and pretzels, there's no problem with him having a weak character.

There's also no problem with having a strong character. And giving him a strong character lets you simplify encounter rules, and cope with people who want simple characters and care about power level.

Zanos

2017-02-17, 11:33 PM

I always assumed the "Snowbluff Axiom" was a half joke about how not everyone could actually be happy with something well put together because people play vastly different types of games.

Stealth Marmot

2017-02-17, 11:43 PM

Riiiiight I'm going to go ahead and try to address OP instead of stepping in a minefield here...

Oh my gosh! These race points are amazing. So much information even though it sound a bit complex and advanced than D&D. :eek:

One point of note is that Pathfinder seems to try to avoid racial adjustments for any race that they intend players to play, so they tended to balance out and get rid of racial adjustments for Drow, Aasimar, Tiefling, etc. In fact racial adjustments generally only exist for custom races, so you don't have to worry about it.

They outline Monsters as PCs in the Bestiary (Page 313-314) that if the creature is listed as having some sort of class levels in the bestiary it's fit to use as a PC race without having to worry about racial level adjustments. In those cases they usually line up the "X as PCs" info next to it. If the creature does not have that, instead treat the creature's CR as the effecting level of the character before class levels. A pixie is CR 4 and giving it a level of Rogue makes it a level 5 character effectively. It DOES mention that you should possibly add an adjustment as necessary, but that's more advanced stuff if you were looking to that. Most DMs should start with basic classes and listed PC races. I should mention that due to the Pixie's Improved Invisibility for example, allowing it in a game that had characters under level 7 or 8 is a bad idea since it could destroy most anything without the ability to see invisible creatures. Unless a player starts asking about the custom races, don't think about how you'll cross that bridge until you reach it.

TLDR; They expanded the intended playable races and discourage anything else.

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-17, 11:52 PM

Riiiiight I'm going to go ahead and try to address OP instead of stepping in a minefield here...

One point of note is that Pathfinder seems to try to avoid racial adjustments for any race that they intend players to play, so they tended to balance out and get rid of racial adjustments for Drow, Aasimar, Tiefling, etc. In fact racial adjustments generally only exist for custom races, so you don't have to worry about it.

They outline Monsters as PCs in the Bestiary (Page 313-314) that if the creature is listed as having some sort of class levels in the bestiary it's fit to use as a PC race without having to worry about racial level adjustments. In those cases they usually line up the "X as PCs" info next to it. If the creature does not have that, instead treat the creature's CR as the effecting level of the character before class levels. A pixie is CR 4 and giving it a level of Rogue makes it a level 5 character effectively. It DOES mention that you should possibly add an adjustment as necessary, but that's more advanced stuff if you were looking to that. Most DMs should start with basic classes and listed PC races. I should mention that due to the Pixie's Improved Invisibility for example, allowing it in a game that had characters under level 7 or 8 is a bad idea since it could destroy most anything without the ability to see invisible creatures. Unless a player starts asking about the custom races, don't think about how you'll cross that bridge until you reach it.

TLDR; They expanded the intended playable races and discourage anything else.
Wow that's amazing. I'm thinking about playing my first Pathfinder for my next RPG game. Forget D&D! :smile:

Snowbluff

2017-02-17, 11:55 PM

WTF? No, I'm implying that the game has a mechanism for a character to be weaker even if classes are balanced. Namely, having it be lower level. There is zero benefit to having a 10th level Fighter be worse than a 10th level Wizard. Any story you wanted to tell by having 10th level Fighters suck can just be told by having Fighters be 5th level.
I can't make heads or tales of this. So you're saying we should balance the game, but then just randomly take levels away from people?

There's also no problem with having a strong character. And giving him a strong character lets you simplify encounter rules, and cope with people who want simple characters and care about power level.
This is an easy one. It discourages system mastery, and making a character build your own. If your character builds are automatically strong, there's no reason to put any effort into it. People aren't as invested in their characters, and won't be playing the game... well, a decade after it "died."

I always assumed the "Snowbluff Axiom" was a half joke about how not everyone could actually be happy with something well put together because people play vastly different types of games. Yeah, kind of. I was agreeing with Darrin about how the wackiness of 3.x is what makes it work.

Stealth Marmot

2017-02-17, 11:56 PM

Wow that's amazing. I'm thinking about playing my first Pathfinder for my next RPG game. Forget D&D! :smile:

I DM Pathfinder and am going to be playing in a 3.5 game but if I were you would check out D&D 5e as well as Pathfinder and see which one works better for you.

Always good to have options.

Jack_Simth

2017-02-17, 11:56 PM

Pathfinder... doesn't really do level adjustment anymore, I don't think. They have "race points" instead, and basically list some races as being more "race points" than others, but I don't think they really have a system for reducing your class level or point buy or anything if you choose to play one. So... eh?
There's also Monsters as Races (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/bestiary/monstersAsPCs.html), which sets ECL = CR... with a rider: "It is recommended that for every 3 levels gained by the group, the monster character should gain an extra level, received halfway between the 2nd and 3rd levels. Repeat this process a number of times equal to half the monster's CR, rounded down."

So in a 13th level game, you could, in theory, play a Nymph (CR 7) / Druid-8, and cast as a Druid-15 (you get four levels between 7th and 10th, and 4 between 10th and 13th).

Cosi

2017-02-18, 12:03 AM

I can't make heads or tales of this. So you're saying we should balance the game, but then just randomly take levels away from people?

I'm saying there's no point to having different classes have different inherent power levels, because you can replicate any power gap that achieves by having some characters be lower level. You don't need to do the thing you've suggested (make the game super complex and make things imbalanced) to get the effect you want (variety of power levels). The game already does that for free because it has levels.

This is an easy one. It discourages system mastery, and making a character build your own. If your character builds are automatically strong, there's no reason to put any effort into it. People aren't as invested in their characters, and won't be playing the game... well, a decade after it "died."

You're not "encouraging system mastery" by making simple character suck. You're discouraging new players. The game is easily complex enough without trap options. Sorcerers are simpler to play than Wizards, roughly comparable to Wizards, and people play both.

There's no great miracle to 3e's continued success. PF is more 3e, and 4e and 5e are bad. What else are people going to do?

Bartmanhomer

2017-02-18, 12:20 AM

I DM Pathfinder and am going to be playing in a 3.5 game but if I were you would check out D&D 5e as well as Pathfinder and see which one works better for you.

Always good to have options.

OK. I will. :smile:

KillianHawkeye

2017-02-18, 12:41 AM

Snowbluff

2017-02-18, 12:58 AM

I'm saying there's no point to having different classes have different inherent power levels, because you can replicate any power gap that achieves by having some characters be lower level. You don't need to do the thing you've suggested (make the game super complex and make things imbalanced) to get the effect you want (variety of power levels). The game already does that for free because it has levels. weak in granularity of power levels, as well as player agency in developing the power of their own characters.

You're not "encouraging system mastery" by making simple character suck. You're discouraging new players. The game is easily complex enough without trap options. Sorcerers are simpler to play than Wizards, roughly comparable to Wizards, and people play both.

There's no great miracle to 3e's continued success. PF is more 3e, and 4e and 5e are bad. What else are people going to do? well you start by assuming I advocate trap option, even when I earlier complimented on 4e improving feats. Then you contradict yourself by saying 4e and 5e are bad, when they largely eliminated trap options. so which is it? Trap options are bad or the games that fix that are bad? Because 3e has this huge issue with trap options, which you don't like...

Kelb_Panthera

2017-02-18, 03:23 AM

Good grief I got to learn how to stop asking questions,

Bite your tongue, man. Never stop asking questions until your desire for knowledge is fully satisfied. If you're not learning, you're getting dumber.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled edition war.

Uncle Pine

2017-02-18, 04:15 AM

Hey everybody. I got a question. What's the difference between D&D and Pathfinder?

Pathfinder is to 3.5e the same that Homebrew Design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?15-Homebrew-Design) is to 3.5e, with the key difference that Pathfinder is officially licensed, released and distributed by Paizo.

EldritchWeaver

2017-02-18, 09:16 AM

I don't think Spheres of Power is as good as people seem to believe. (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=56733&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

Looking over the linked thread, it seems that the criticism is mostly either misunderstanding what the point of SoP is (specializing of the magic on a few spheres at most as well - limited - access to more powerful effects already at level 1 is the goal) or not knowing what talents/feats are available (you can get e.g. free fireballs, if you spend the resources). So complaining that it does what it set out to do is non-sense.

Snowbluff

2017-02-18, 10:57 AM

Bite your tongue, man. Never stop asking questions until your desire for knowledge is fully satisfied. If you're not learning, you're getting dumber.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled edition war.
Yep.

Looking over the linked thread, it seems that the criticism is mostly either misunderstanding what the point of SoP is (specializing of the magic on a few spheres at most as well - limited - access to more powerful effects already at level 1 is the goal) or not knowing what talents/feats are available (you can get e.g. free fireballs, if you spend the resources). So complaining that it does what it set out to do is non-sense.
It's not a bad system at all. I have discussed some issues with one of the issues privately, though. For example, there is an Archetype that loses all of its spheres. o.0