I have watched a Twitter argument blow up today between people who play D&D and those who play Pathfinder. The whole debacle has made me wonder, what is the difference between Pathfinder and D&D? I am not looking to start an argument here; I am looking for honest comparisons between the two systems based on facts.
If you have played both D&D and Pathfinder, please also talk about your experiences and which one you prefer.
My intent is to gain a better understanding of how exactly they are different from each other.
Thanks
XD
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I have watched a Twitter argument blow up today between people who play D&D and those who play Pathfinder. The whole debacle has made me wonder, what is the difference between Pathfinder and D&D? I am not looking to start an argument here; I am looking for honest comparisons between the two systems based on facts.
If you have played both D&D and Pathfinder, please also talk about your experiences and which one you prefer.
My intent is to gain a better understanding of how exactly they are different from each other.
Thanks
XD
I've played both - but I've never played Pathfinder 2E, I need to emphasize. Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.5 - in fact, my friend group used to refer to it as D&D 3.75. There are some important differences between the two, but not nearly as big as the differences between D&D 3.5 and D&D 5.
If you've never played 3.5, back then the rules were much tighter, because they were written as rules, so you didn't get into weird rules debacles like 5E has where the writer used "natural language", making it impossible to figure out what they meant and causing endless debates guessing at the RAI (we have one going on right now in the rules forum trying to solve the unsolvable problem of how to obey the RAW for rolling the damage for Magic Missile). By the same token, this could make them labyrinthine - infamously, handling a grapple properly required getting out the rulebook every time, because no-one could remember all of its nuances, for example.
A huge difference is that there was no attempt at bounded accuracy back then. In 5E, an intellect devourer pack can trivially demolish a tarrasque. In Pathfinder, that's a laughable nonstarter - the power gap between their CRs/levels is ludicrous. That has upsides and downsides, but as an example downside, by level 10 most adventuring parties were no longer bound by societal rules unless you straight-up gave society something like a level 15 enforcement bruiser. In 5E, even a level 10 party can't trivially fight 1,000 militia at once without even registering a threat.
Another significant difference is that in 5E, NPCs are generally constructed from narrativium - in Pathfinder, they hew much closer to following the same rules as PCs. That has its own upsides and downsides - as an example upside, you didn't get bizarre issues like how in 5E NPC drow and PC drow have fundamentally different racial magic.
There isn't any big differences, really, to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder (1st edition). This is because one of the designers who worked on D&D 3rd edition and the d20 SRD that was released under the OGL by Wizards of the Coast moved over to Paizo and made a new RPG based on that d20 SRD.
In other words both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder were developed from D&D 3rd Edition. This means Pathfinder is, essentially, a D&D game with some tweaked rules. A lot of gamers called it "D&D 3.75" as it was quite literally D&D 3.5 with a few changes. You could quite easily play a game that could be converted from to the other with almost no effort. My first time playing a pathfinder game was actually an accident - the group changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder but didn't tell me, so for the first two sessions they were using pathfinder and I was using D&D 3.5 and none of us even noticed until near the end of the second session since the switch. That is how similar they are.
There are differences, of course, but not many. Most would say those differences are an improvement, but that is subjective.
D&D 4th and 5th were very, very different from Pathfinder just as they were very, very different from D&D 3.5. There is almost no similarity as a system.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is still very different to D&D 4th/5th as it is still following a similar vein from it's previous 1st edition and so holds more similarity to 3.5 than any other D&D edition but does have more differences that between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st.
I haven't played Pathfinder 2nd Edition and have only 'lightly read' the 2nd Edition's manual but there have been significant changes. You could say Pathfinder 2nd is what D&D 4th should have been.
D&D 3rd, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and Pathfinder 2nd Edition are all similar to some extent as they are all based on a similar base system. D&D 4th and 5th are unique as they have had nearly complete overhauls of the base system they use. So they are very different.
So it rather depends on which editions but ultimately, if you're playing Pathfinder you're playing a variant of D&D, but if you're playing D&D 4th or 5th, you're playing something very different from pathfinder or any previous D&D edition. At least from my personal experience.
I'm going to mention this is just my take and my experience with Pathfinder is significantly limited compared to my experience with D&D. Somebody with more experience with the pathfinder games might be able to offer different/better insight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You know how 5e is all about streamlining everything as much as possible? Pathfinder is a little “crunchier,” so it’s not quite as simple as 5e, but players do have a bit more nuance to what they can do.
I think the biggest difference is the attitude toward DMs. 3.5 (and pathfinder) are rules heavier, and I’ve read this was a design choice to protect players from bad DMs. The idea was bad calls made by DMs were making the game less fun, and therefore pushing people out of the hobby. To counter that, they tried to create a rule for every conceivable situation, basically removing the DM from the equation.
5e has the rulings, not rules philosophy. Essentially it’s more willing to trust the DM to make good choices. It’s taken the opposite idea — that the vast number of rules was a roadblock to people entering the hobby, and they should make it easier.
In essence, the issues quindraco are taking about are a feature not a bug. This edition assumes people will trust their DM, make a ruling about how something works at their table, and move on. Sure, people argue about MM on the internet, but around the table, not so much, because the DM makes a call, and the table moves on, at least in theory. As opposed to 3.5, where there were a zillion books which allowed someone with sufficient knowledge to pull obscure rules out of them and try to override the DM. In 5e, the DM is in charge, in 3.5 the books were, at least, it wasn't as cut-and-dry as it is now.
Also Pathfinder, like 3.5, uses a lot, lot more math. There’s are many different ways to get a +1or 2 on a given attack, and they largely stack, so it really encourages players to optimize their position in a fight and tally up bonuses. Where D&D has moved to the adv/disadv and you can’t double it up makes smaller things less critical and really speeds up combats.
Also 3.5 characters were much more customizable. This could be fun, but it was also much easier to make a bad choice and therefore have an ineffective character. Conversely, it was possible to make a precise series of good choices and have an almost immortal character (pun pun being the most notorious).
Hi,
I have watched a Twitter argument blow up today between people who play D&D and those who play Pathfinder. The whole debacle has made me wonder, what is the difference between Pathfinder and D&D? I am not looking to start an argument here; I am looking for honest comparisons between the two systems based on facts.
If you have played both D&D and Pathfinder, please also talk about your experiences and which one you prefer.
My intent is to gain a better understanding of how exactly they are different from each other.
Thanks
XD
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I've played both - but I've never played Pathfinder 2E, I need to emphasize. Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.5 - in fact, my friend group used to refer to it as D&D 3.75. There are some important differences between the two, but not nearly as big as the differences between D&D 3.5 and D&D 5.
If you've never played 3.5, back then the rules were much tighter, because they were written as rules, so you didn't get into weird rules debacles like 5E has where the writer used "natural language", making it impossible to figure out what they meant and causing endless debates guessing at the RAI (we have one going on right now in the rules forum trying to solve the unsolvable problem of how to obey the RAW for rolling the damage for Magic Missile). By the same token, this could make them labyrinthine - infamously, handling a grapple properly required getting out the rulebook every time, because no-one could remember all of its nuances, for example.
A huge difference is that there was no attempt at bounded accuracy back then. In 5E, an intellect devourer pack can trivially demolish a tarrasque. In Pathfinder, that's a laughable nonstarter - the power gap between their CRs/levels is ludicrous. That has upsides and downsides, but as an example downside, by level 10 most adventuring parties were no longer bound by societal rules unless you straight-up gave society something like a level 15 enforcement bruiser. In 5E, even a level 10 party can't trivially fight 1,000 militia at once without even registering a threat.
Another significant difference is that in 5E, NPCs are generally constructed from narrativium - in Pathfinder, they hew much closer to following the same rules as PCs. That has its own upsides and downsides - as an example upside, you didn't get bizarre issues like how in 5E NPC drow and PC drow have fundamentally different racial magic.
There isn't any big differences, really, to D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder (1st edition). This is because one of the designers who worked on D&D 3rd edition and the d20 SRD that was released under the OGL by Wizards of the Coast moved over to Paizo and made a new RPG based on that d20 SRD.
In other words both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder were developed from D&D 3rd Edition. This means Pathfinder is, essentially, a D&D game with some tweaked rules. A lot of gamers called it "D&D 3.75" as it was quite literally D&D 3.5 with a few changes. You could quite easily play a game that could be converted from to the other with almost no effort. My first time playing a pathfinder game was actually an accident - the group changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder but didn't tell me, so for the first two sessions they were using pathfinder and I was using D&D 3.5 and none of us even noticed until near the end of the second session since the switch. That is how similar they are.
There are differences, of course, but not many. Most would say those differences are an improvement, but that is subjective.
D&D 4th and 5th were very, very different from Pathfinder just as they were very, very different from D&D 3.5. There is almost no similarity as a system.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is still very different to D&D 4th/5th as it is still following a similar vein from it's previous 1st edition and so holds more similarity to 3.5 than any other D&D edition but does have more differences that between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1st.
I haven't played Pathfinder 2nd Edition and have only 'lightly read' the 2nd Edition's manual but there have been significant changes. You could say Pathfinder 2nd is what D&D 4th should have been.
D&D 3rd, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and Pathfinder 2nd Edition are all similar to some extent as they are all based on a similar base system. D&D 4th and 5th are unique as they have had nearly complete overhauls of the base system they use. So they are very different.
So it rather depends on which editions but ultimately, if you're playing Pathfinder you're playing a variant of D&D, but if you're playing D&D 4th or 5th, you're playing something very different from pathfinder or any previous D&D edition. At least from my personal experience.
I'm going to mention this is just my take and my experience with Pathfinder is significantly limited compared to my experience with D&D. Somebody with more experience with the pathfinder games might be able to offer different/better insight.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
You know how 5e is all about streamlining everything as much as possible? Pathfinder is a little “crunchier,” so it’s not quite as simple as 5e, but players do have a bit more nuance to what they can do.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think the biggest difference is the attitude toward DMs. 3.5 (and pathfinder) are rules heavier, and I’ve read this was a design choice to protect players from bad DMs. The idea was bad calls made by DMs were making the game less fun, and therefore pushing people out of the hobby. To counter that, they tried to create a rule for every conceivable situation, basically removing the DM from the equation.
5e has the rulings, not rules philosophy. Essentially it’s more willing to trust the DM to make good choices. It’s taken the opposite idea — that the vast number of rules was a roadblock to people entering the hobby, and they should make it easier.
In essence, the issues quindraco are taking about are a feature not a bug. This edition assumes people will trust their DM, make a ruling about how something works at their table, and move on. Sure, people argue about MM on the internet, but around the table, not so much, because the DM makes a call, and the table moves on, at least in theory. As opposed to 3.5, where there were a zillion books which allowed someone with sufficient knowledge to pull obscure rules out of them and try to override the DM. In 5e, the DM is in charge, in 3.5 the books were, at least, it wasn't as cut-and-dry as it is now.
Also Pathfinder, like 3.5, uses a lot, lot more math. There’s are many different ways to get a +1or 2 on a given attack, and they largely stack, so it really encourages players to optimize their position in a fight and tally up bonuses. Where D&D has moved to the adv/disadv and you can’t double it up makes smaller things less critical and really speeds up combats.
Also 3.5 characters were much more customizable. This could be fun, but it was also much easier to make a bad choice and therefore have an ineffective character. Conversely, it was possible to make a precise series of good choices and have an almost immortal character (pun pun being the most notorious).