Pathfinder vs DnD

You jackasses are going to leave me hanging on this?

Gameplay is the exact same between the two. Pathfinder has more easily available resources online and takes a more mechanics-first approach with less class complexity. DnD is more flavorful with a much wider spread on balance and far more character options, though tracking down resources can be a pain.

>>52185393
I'm a fan of both games, and my opinion is that they're both successful at very different things.

Pathfinder is almost identical mechanically to 3.5e, save for being a liittle less broken mechanically speaking. It allows for tons of crazy character builds and offers loads of options for customization. This means players have more freedom to make their characters, but it's also very easy to make an awful character and there can be huge disparities in power level within a single party based on how well each player knows the system.

D&D 5e (I assume you're talking 5e?) is far more stable, but character creation is fairly linear. You pick a race, a class, a path for your class, and you may choose to get a feat or two instead of stat increases down the road, and that's it. This means that it's good for getting right into roleplaying, but that it's a bit weak for people looking for tons of mechanical depth.

>>52185393
Pathfinder and 3.X are basically the same thing. For the most part you'll get more difference from allowing different splatbooks than between them. They both do BIG DAMN FANTASY HEROES but run into balance issues, and they're fairly complicated rules-wise.

2e and older are various flavors of (relatively) simple dungeon crawling and LotR level stuff, though there are splatbooks that add all kinds of stuff. With just the core books, though, there's not a whole lot of character customization so I'm not find of it for anything other than really short (1-3 session) stuff.

4e is very tactical and has tight, well done combat. It's basically hands-off about the non combay stuff, which some people like and others don't. It's considered to be by far the easiest to DM for, btw.

5e I don't have much experience with, but it's theoretically the best bits of 2e and 3.X mixed together (theoretically). It's the current edition, so it should be pretty easy to get the books and a group and all that.

I, personally vary between playing whichever game/edition with slight rules tweaks and playing with a ton (as in, halfway to a new game levels of tweaks), but I like messing with that sort of thing so it's not really an issue for me.

As for what's best, it depends on what you and your group want out of the game.

>>52185440
Wait more than 5 minutes before assuming no one will respond and insulting us, please.

>>52185393

Pathfinder gameplay is fundamentally identical to 3rd and 3.5 editions of D&D.

That podcast used 4th edition D&D, which has major gameplay differences from 3rd.

Probably the friendliest edition to get into right now would be 5th, as it's the one currently in print and therefor has a large playerbase and active support from the company, also 5th is pretty well suited to new players as it was meant to be more accessible while not triggering the grognard's 'tism as bad as 4th.

>>52185440

It's after midnight on a Tuesday/Wednesday anon, have some fucking patience.

File: 119wjdw.jpg (41KB, 569x428px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 569x428px

>>52185393
I'm assuming you mean D&D 5e.

>What sort if fundamental gameplay differences are there between Pathfinder and DnD?
5e is more streamlined and easier to play, and encourages role playing more. Patherfinder has more customization options and has more complex mechanics.

>Which game is friendlier to tabletop and tactics scrubs like myself?
5e

>Which edition of each game is considered superior?
5e for D&D (for the WotC editions anyway). PF doesn't have editions.

>>52185393
Pathfinder splintered off from DnD because some people liked the game one way and that wasn't eh direction wizards was headed in so they made their own version. They are basically the same type of game.

Mechanically they have diverged quite a bit. I'm not a huge fan of Pathfinder myself but I've played it and enjoyed it with friends. It's a bit more crunchy than 5e which is my preferred fantasy system.

>>52185446
>>52185470
>>52185478
>>52185487
Thanks for the Information guys, definitely going to keep it in mind.

>>52185505
>>52185485
I apologize about this. I had drifted from here onto other sites, and it had only dawned on me after the fact that /tg/ isn't a spam fest like some of the overpopulated boards are.

>>52185393
>>52185537
Pathfinder is D&D 3rd edition with a different coat of paint. Which is to say, there's some different mechanics, but the core rules and stuff are basically identical.

>>52185393

AD&D is the first version of the game. Its geared toward a low fantasy style similar to LOTRs or Conan. It was revolutionary for its time and created an entire industry. It is plagued with all sorts of issues ranging from random numbers an unhealthy obsession with over-complicated half-thought out sub-systems and few character options mechanically that makes pretty much everyone play the same

2nd ed was an update and streamlining of 1st edtion and is still generally thought of as "AD&D". It did streamline a lot of things and organize the rules significantly better but retains most of them same problems. It was also bought out from the original creators by a woman that hated the hobby and thought she could milk it for every cent she could. The upside was it lead to the creation of some fantastic settings and a huge amount of setting material before oversaturation of the market bankrupt them

3rd ed/3.5 was a big change after Wizards of the coast saved the company from bankruptcy circa 2000. It was wildly popular spawned a massive amount of material and the open licensing agreement meant you could easily get attention for your product by making a D20 version. Its downsides were noted that a lot of the character option material was either utterly useless or wildly OP. This was an upside compared to how restrictive old editions were while still being really unbalanced but the stories of theoretical optimization with plant smashing god killing reality warping PCs are the stuff of legends

PF is a continuation of 3.5 with the serial numbers filed off. It took off because 4E was not particularly liked by the fansebase. It is about as similar to 3.5 as 1st and 2nd ed were and shares most of its strengths and weaknesses

5E is the present version. After 4Es run was considered subpar by Hasbro they downsized ita lot and decided to make a new version more similar to old editions. It is probably the one that has the best balance of things from every version

>>52185440
I know I am.