If you think PF1E was rule-heavy, you should look at PF2E playtest... So, so many rules. They decided that default variant successes was a wonderful idea for Core Rules. So, you can have a regular success, a critical success, a regular failure, and a critical failure. And then criticals are not decided just on a roll of 20 or 1, it's also based upon your check result as compared to the DC of the task.
I still enjoy Pathfinder for my 3.5 itch and agree that Paizo has some of the best artwork in their books.
I am playing Pathfinder, and man as a new player overall (just got into D&D in July), with dndbeyond for character creation...they had to hold my hand in making my character in Pathfinder. I agree, so many rules. Still fun time with friends, but geez.
Yes, the rules are super crunchy but many love that...and one of the better (best in my book) actual play podcasts is glass cannon and they play pathfinder.
The art of Pathfinder is superior to that of WotC D&D, but neither have surpassed TSR's art. Caldwell, Easley, Elmore and Brom will always be the best in my opinion.
I actually prefer Pathfinder over D&D and I don't think the rules are really more complicated than 5e.
It's still "you get an action, a move, a bonus action and a reaction per round", although named differently. Skill checks are still a D20 + X (Attribute + Skill Ranks).
The only real difference imo is that Pathfinder has hundreds of feats if you don't restrict the rule books you want to use. But imho that's an advantage it has over D&D.... almost no matter what character you want to play, there will be a feat that allows you to play just that. :D
Rules aside, I think the art of Pathfinder is hit and miss. I really love the Goblins and some of the pre-generated characters, but e.g. Amiri the Barbarian imo looks horrible in the original art. And a lot of the art is a bit too cartoonish for my taste.
Pathfinder 2 is good. Very very good. Reminds me a lot of tactical nature of D&D4e. It's much more crunchy, but also allows for considerably more elaborate character customization. And this without the horrible bloat and balance issues that plagued Pathfinder 1 given it's roots in 3.5.
Now that being said, I don't consider it better or worse than D&D5e. D&D is easier and faster, although it does suffer from GM fiat issues with it comes to skill checks, especially in combat. I basically consider Pathfinder 2 the new AD&D. Familiar D20 system but with more detail and crunch.
Pathfinder 2 is good. Very very good. Reminds me a lot of tactical nature of D&D4e. It's much more crunchy, but also allows for considerably more elaborate character customization. And this without the horrible bloat and balance issues that plagued Pathfinder 1 given it's roots in 3.5
PF2 is still new, wait a year or two and see it bloat up just like PF1; due to the need for the publisher to keep making money.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But it gave us the vastly superior adora-goblins, which I now use over normal D&D goblins in all of my campaigns.
"The Epic Level Handbook wasn't that bad, guys.
Guys, pls."
PATHFINDER SUCKS (TBH I actually wanna try Pathfinder)
Agreed! I also decided to use the Pathfinder goblins, but the miniatures. I like their design. I haven't gone into their stats to be honest.
Pathfinder had much better pictures. Compare the glabrezu demon in pathfinder and the messed up looking one in 5e, no contest
Pathfinder does have great art, I wanted to try it and bought the players handbook to look into it and was OMFG this is too many rules and NOPE.
If you think PF1E was rule-heavy, you should look at PF2E playtest... So, so many rules. They decided that default variant successes was a wonderful idea for Core Rules. So, you can have a regular success, a critical success, a regular failure, and a critical failure. And then criticals are not decided just on a roll of 20 or 1, it's also based upon your check result as compared to the DC of the task.
I still enjoy Pathfinder for my 3.5 itch and agree that Paizo has some of the best artwork in their books.
Valaith "Rimehand" Kalukavi - Chronicles of Arden
There's an artist in these forums who does character art commissions and I feel like his style is very evocative of the art from the Pathfinder books. His name is David Baldridge and you can find him in the advertisements forum where he frequently takes on new commissions. Here's a paladin I had him create for my Oath of Observation paladin subclass.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Wow! That is some amazing work. Thank you for sharing that with us, TexasDevin.
Valaith "Rimehand" Kalukavi - Chronicles of Arden
I am playing Pathfinder, and man as a new player overall (just got into D&D in July), with dndbeyond for character creation...they had to hold my hand in making my character in Pathfinder. I agree, so many rules. Still fun time with friends, but geez.
Yes, the rules are super crunchy but many love that...and one of the better (best in my book) actual play podcasts is glass cannon and they play pathfinder.
Pathfinder has an interesting alternative art
But D&D RULES!
Member of Calabozo Criollo VENEZUELA
Roleplaying in Venezuela since 2000! #WEDOPLAY
Every pathfinder hater ever
The art of Pathfinder is superior to that of WotC D&D, but neither have surpassed TSR's art. Caldwell, Easley, Elmore and Brom will always be the best in my opinion.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I actually prefer Pathfinder over D&D and I don't think the rules are really more complicated than 5e.
It's still "you get an action, a move, a bonus action and a reaction per round", although named differently. Skill checks are still a D20 + X (Attribute + Skill Ranks).
The only real difference imo is that Pathfinder has hundreds of feats if you don't restrict the rule books you want to use. But imho that's an advantage it has over D&D.... almost no matter what character you want to play, there will be a feat that allows you to play just that. :D
Rules aside, I think the art of Pathfinder is hit and miss. I really love the Goblins and some of the pre-generated characters, but e.g. Amiri the Barbarian imo looks horrible in the original art. And a lot of the art is a bit too cartoonish for my taste.
Pathfinder 2 is good. Very very good. Reminds me a lot of tactical nature of D&D4e. It's much more crunchy, but also allows for considerably more elaborate character customization. And this without the horrible bloat and balance issues that plagued Pathfinder 1 given it's roots in 3.5.
Now that being said, I don't consider it better or worse than D&D5e. D&D is easier and faster, although it does suffer from GM fiat issues with it comes to skill checks, especially in combat. I basically consider Pathfinder 2 the new AD&D. Familiar D20 system but with more detail and crunch.
PF2 is still new, wait a year or two and see it bloat up just like PF1; due to the need for the publisher to keep making money.