A mini-rant re: Pathfinder and D&D

[OnlineDM]

I think I'm naive on this one. I thought D&D was a brand of fantasy role-playing game. Different versions of a game bearing that brand name have come out over the years (OD&D, BECMI, AD&D 1st Edtion, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e... maybe some I'm forgetting). There have also been other fantasy role-playing games with different brands (Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, etc.). Those are clearly related to D&D, but they're their own brands.

I can see, though, that my point of view is probably naive. D&D isn't a brand to a lot of people here. It is to me, though - and I expect to lots of lawyers at various companies.

 

[Chaos Trip Studios]

I have often wondered about the people who rave about Pathfinder like it is a brand new game. I have no problem with Pathfinder, as it is an exact copy of a game that I already like and the books themselves are quite well done. I might even start buying PF when my original 3e books finally disintergrate (the Players Handbook is getting close after 12 years).

In the end Pathfinder isn't D&D, it is d20 fantasy in the vein of the many, many 3.x clones of D&D.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I have often wondered about the people who rave about Pathfinder like it is a brand new game. I have no problem with Pathfinder, as it is an exact copy of a game that I already like and the books themselves are quite well done.

Well for starters it's actually not an EXACT copy of 3.5. There's like, a 10 page thread over on Paizo detailing the differences between Pathfinder and 3.5. Even opening the Core Rulebook and reading the Classes chapter you'll see there are quite a few differences between the Core Pathfinder Classes and their 3.5 counterparts.

Also people raved about Pathfinder because most of them didn't want to give up support for their 3.5 based games. While Pathfinder isn't exactly like 3.5 it's enough like 3.5 that you'll still be able to use your 3.5 adventures and supplements with Pathfinder with some adjustments. I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne (a 3.5 AP) with very little in the way of changes (unless it's something that I want to change). So yeah, there's that part of it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Pathfinder exhibits the Soul of D&D, so it is a member of set [things which are D&D].

I would not refer to it as D&D, if only to respect Paizo & WotC's various brand IP.

 

[caudor]

Pathfinder exhibits the Soul of D&D, so it is a member of set [things which are D&D].

I would not refer to it as D&D, if only to respect Paizo & WotC's various brand IP.

I didn't believe this until recently. I decided to dips my toes into Pathfinder to see what it is all about. I just received my first book today and was surprised just how much of D&D's soul the game actually has...a lot!

I'm keeping my 4e stuff and will certainly buy some more Pathfinder stuff. Choice is my favorite option.

Perhaps you should show your Pathfinder players the 4e handbook and show your 4e players the Core Pathfinder book. They may end up liking both.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

I use the word Pathfinder so people know what I'm playing.

If I just say D&D the response is likely "What edition?"

If I say Pathfinder I get asked one less question.

No secret motives about subtle word choices establishing PF as something separate from D&D. It's just convenient and easy to understand when phrased as "Pathfinder".

 

[Jack7]

Which is why I brought up not just the Ligers & Tigons, but also the Li-liger, Li-tigon, Ti-liger and Ti-tigons that are the result of breeding Ligers and Tigons back with Lions & Tigers.

I'd like to see what ya get if you breed a Bear with a Tigon and Liger - oh my!

Whatever it is, I'll bet it's a Bigon

 

[Mercurius]

Pathfinder is not D&D. The first clue is the name is different. Now, the games might have some similarities but I can't just make a D&D character and sit down at a Pathfinder game and be ready to go. Pathfinder not being D&D is a good thing. That means it is strong enough to stand on its own and it doesn't need to be lumped with something it is not. I think calling Pathfinder D&D is insulting D&D just like calling D&D Pathfinder would be insulting Pathfinder. I play Pathfinder and O play D&D and they are certainly not the same thing.

I don't know Pathfinder well enough to say this with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that you can make a 3.5E character and sit down at a Pathfinder table and be just fine.

"Some similarities" is a massive understatement, more of an understatement than "The Monkees were influenced by the Beatles" and probably closer to "clementines are kind of like mandarin oranges." Actually, clementines are a variety of mandarin orange, just with the specific name of "clementine."

Pathfinder is more than a mere name change for D&D. There are mechanical & fluff differences.

Yes, but they are very small, much smaller than the difference between 3.5 (one version of D&D) and 4E (another version of D&D), and probably smaller than the difference between 3E and 3.5E.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that except that not recognizing this and saying that Pathfinder is a different game or not a variety of D&D seems like willfully ignoring its etiology.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't know Pathfinder well enough to say this with absolute certainty, but I'm pretty sure that you can make a 3.5E character and sit down at a Pathfinder table and be just fine.

"Some similarities" is a massive understatement, more of an understatement than "The Monkees were influenced by the Beatles" and probably closer to "clementines are kind of like mandarin oranges." Actually, clementines are a variety of mandarin orange, just with the specific name of "clementine."



Yes, but they are very small, much smaller than the difference between 3.5 (one version of D&D) and 4E (another version of D&D), and probably smaller than the difference between 3E and 3.5E.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that except that not recognizing this and saying that Pathfinder is a different game or not a variety of D&D seems like willfully ignoring its etiology.

I think that you are missing the point that Pathfinder is not like the current version of D&D.

Actually, that leaves a fair number of us saying the game currently titled D&D isn't D&D, while something that isn't named D&D... is.

It is not that Pathfinder is a radical change, it is that the titular game has changed too much.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mercurius]

I'm not missing the point that Pathfinder is different from 4E--that's loud and clear. But I don't see what that has to do with whether or not Pathfinder is a form of D&D.

You do realize that it is rather absurd to say that "4E is not D&D to me" and then say "Pathfinder is not D&D because it isn't like the current version of D&D" (which isn't really D&D, anyways). I'm not saying that you are saying this, but it seems to be an underlying implication in some of the views expressed.