Mixing
What is Pathfinder's relationship to D&D?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Pathfinder is often conflated with D&D, 4e I think, but it isn't actually named "Dungeons & Dragons." What is Pathfinder's relationship to D&D, and how does it fit in with the various D&D editions?
pathfinder dungeons-and-dragons history-of-gaming
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Pathfinder is often conflated with D&D, 4e I think, but it isn't actually named "Dungeons & Dragons." What is Pathfinder's relationship to D&D, and how does it fit in with the various D&D editions?
pathfinder dungeons-and-dragons history-of-gaming
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
4
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
2
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
3
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
4
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Pathfinder is often conflated with D&D, 4e I think, but it isn't actually named "Dungeons & Dragons." What is Pathfinder's relationship to D&D, and how does it fit in with the various D&D editions?
pathfinder dungeons-and-dragons history-of-gaming
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
Pathfinder is often conflated with D&D, 4e I think, but it isn't actually named "Dungeons & Dragons." What is Pathfinder's relationship to D&D, and how does it fit in with the various D&D editions?
pathfinder dungeons-and-dragons history-of-gaming
pathfinder dungeons-and-dragons history-of-gaming
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
edited 39 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
208k23519904
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
asked 58 mins ago
Grosscol
4,878944
4,878944
4
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
2
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
3
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
4
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
2
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
3
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
4
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago
4
4
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
2
2
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
3
3
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
4
4
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Technically: No, Pathfinder is not D&D.
Colloquially: Yes, many would consider Pathfinder a form of D&D, as Pathfinder (1e) is a direct descendant of D&D 3.5, so interconnected that many refer to it as "3.75" or "3.P". Be aware that purists on both sides may disagree with this answer, as it is a bit of a contentious issue, and a lot of people feel a need to point out the technical perspective that no, PF is not D&D.
The reason many would consider it D&D and label it as "3.75" or similar is fairly simple. Upon the creation of 4e, many considered the diverging nature of the game to be very far from what "felt" like "D&D", and at the same time, Wizards of the Coast dropped a lot of work that they had done with Paizo (such as the at the time age-old Dragon Magazine), "tightening up" their own hold on the IP and the constituent parts of the overall franchise.
This lead Paizo, spurred on by a lot of people disappointed in the development of 4e, to create Pathfinder, which many fans came to consider "more D&D than D&D".
But again, no, not technically D&D. Different company, different name, different owners.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but kind of.
Pathfinder is published by Paizo, who does not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast, who currently publish D&D 5e. But Pathfinder is a spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, specifically D&D 3.5e, and is extremely similar to that game in many ways. Playing a game of “3.PF,†using material from both rulesets, is quite possible and popular.
How and why this came to be, however, requires a history lesson.
D&D 3.5e
Wizards of the Coast released the foundation of the D&D 3.5e ruleset under the Open Game License, which was very, well, open about how much of it could be re-used. This led to a huge explosion of third-party content for 3.5e, and 3.5e lived a rather-long life as these things go. There was a ton of material for it, the people playing it had gotten very used to dealing with, or even getting attached to, its myriad problems.
At this time, Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines under license from Wizards of the Coast. They also published a fair amount of their own adventures for the 3.5e ruleset, under the Open Game License.
D&D 4e
Then Wizards of the Coast released D&D 4e. The fourth edition of the game was a massive departure from previous editions of D&D, and was extremely controversial. Many players had no desire to switch to 4e, and continued playing 3.5e. Some even decided they didn’t like Wizards of the Coast’s D&D altogether, and went back to older editions of D&D. And many did play 4e, and there are some hints that 4e did relatively well in bringing new players into the game.
So D&D had fractured its fanbase, and there were a lot of people playing D&D but not playing the edition of D&D that Wizards of the Coast was actually publishing.
At the same time, Wizards of the Coast got a lot more possessive with its property. They did not renew their Dragon and Dungeon licenses with Paizo, again publishing those in-house, and they did not release 4e under the OGL. Instead, they created and used the Game System License, which is vastly more restrictive than the OGL was. This made it nearly impossible to develop 3rd-party content for D&D 4e.
This put Paizo into a very tight spot: with their magazine revenue taken away, the latest edition of D&D hostile to third-party content, and the edition of D&D that was their bread and butter, 3.5e, aging and slowly dying, they had a serious problem.
Pathfinder
Pathfinder was Paizo’s answer. It was based on the open game content from D&D 3.5e, and pushed hard to capture the market of people who refused to play 4e and were sticking with 3.5e. By promising 3.5e-but-better, and by delivering fresh content, Paizo could keep 3.5e alive, and therefore continue to make adventure material and maintain that revenue stream.
This worked. Through a phenomenal hype machine, Paizo could offer a game system that amounted to a few houserules applied to 3.5e, call it “better,†and capture a pretty large market share. It cost them relatively little to do it, and it allowed them to continue to publish their adventure modules. Extensions to the Pathfinder system (classes, feats, and so on) were enabled through low-paid freelancers with minimum editorial oversight, and allowed Paizo to keep Pathfinder “alive†through a blistering release schedule, again at relatively low cost. And so they could keep selling adventures.
An aside: the “old-school revolutionâ€Â
Paizo wasn’t the only company to notice the fractured D&D fanbase. Numerous other games, labeled “OSR,†came out to try to capture those players who ditched not only 4e, but 3.5e as well. So in addition to Pathfinder being a spin-off of 3.5e, there are other games that are spin-offs or inspired by older editions, mostly AD&D 2e.
The death of D&D 4e
The story of Pathfinder suggests that D&D 4e was a complete disaster; that’s certainly how many Pathfinder fans view it, and probably also Paizo themselves. However, it’s not really accurate: D&D 4e did well enough, and again did particularly well with new players, relative to Pathfinder mostly focusing on old players who didn’t like 4e.
As a game designer, I will also say that D&D 4e is easily the most tightly-designed RPGs in existence. That’s not everything, not by a long shot, but a lot of the criticisms leveled against it were based on perception from quick reads of the book, and not from actual play.
But there were also a number of large problems. Some of it was poor planning, some of it was pressure from Hasbro (who owns Wizards of the Coast) to cut costs on D&D, at least part of it was a murder-suicide (!) by one of the lead developers of a 4e virtual tabletop, killing not only himself and his wife, but also that project.
In the end, 4e ended up losing support from Wizards of the Coast, and even if you liked it sooner or later the fact that there was new Pathfinder content and no new D&D content meant a lot more people switched to Pathfinder.
D&D 5e
D&D 5e was an attempt to recapture the player base that had been lost to Pathfinder and the OSR. It undid a whole lot of changes made by D&D 4e. It embraced an “old-school†playstyle to a large extent. It also put a huge emphasis on being simple, easy to learn and play, and welcoming to new players, which is not something any of the other games mentioned here can say.
And it has been extremely successful.
No numbers are known here, but recent years have been some of D&D’s best—and that goes all the way back to the original editions in the 70s and 80s that became an international phenomenon.
Pathfinder 2e
Paizo is currently testing their second edition of Pathfinder. It is surprisingly 4e-like in a number of ways, which is somewhat ironic considering that Pathfinder was written as a response to 4e in the first place. (It also has a number of 5e-like features, and of course a whole lot of it is unique.) Perhaps most notably, it’s a large departure from PF 1e, greatly changing the game in a large number of ways.
This has been controversial. They’re still in playtesting (and uncharacteristically open to feedback, from what I can tell), but there is a risk here for Paizo that they will follow in 4e’s footsteps—clearly not their goal. Time will have to tell on that, though.
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
Technically: No, Pathfinder is not D&D.
Colloquially: Yes, many would consider Pathfinder a form of D&D, as Pathfinder (1e) is a direct descendant of D&D 3.5, so interconnected that many refer to it as "3.75" or "3.P". Be aware that purists on both sides may disagree with this answer, as it is a bit of a contentious issue, and a lot of people feel a need to point out the technical perspective that no, PF is not D&D.
The reason many would consider it D&D and label it as "3.75" or similar is fairly simple. Upon the creation of 4e, many considered the diverging nature of the game to be very far from what "felt" like "D&D", and at the same time, Wizards of the Coast dropped a lot of work that they had done with Paizo (such as the at the time age-old Dragon Magazine), "tightening up" their own hold on the IP and the constituent parts of the overall franchise.
This lead Paizo, spurred on by a lot of people disappointed in the development of 4e, to create Pathfinder, which many fans came to consider "more D&D than D&D".
But again, no, not technically D&D. Different company, different name, different owners.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Technically: No, Pathfinder is not D&D.
Colloquially: Yes, many would consider Pathfinder a form of D&D, as Pathfinder (1e) is a direct descendant of D&D 3.5, so interconnected that many refer to it as "3.75" or "3.P". Be aware that purists on both sides may disagree with this answer, as it is a bit of a contentious issue, and a lot of people feel a need to point out the technical perspective that no, PF is not D&D.
The reason many would consider it D&D and label it as "3.75" or similar is fairly simple. Upon the creation of 4e, many considered the diverging nature of the game to be very far from what "felt" like "D&D", and at the same time, Wizards of the Coast dropped a lot of work that they had done with Paizo (such as the at the time age-old Dragon Magazine), "tightening up" their own hold on the IP and the constituent parts of the overall franchise.
This lead Paizo, spurred on by a lot of people disappointed in the development of 4e, to create Pathfinder, which many fans came to consider "more D&D than D&D".
But again, no, not technically D&D. Different company, different name, different owners.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Technically: No, Pathfinder is not D&D.
Colloquially: Yes, many would consider Pathfinder a form of D&D, as Pathfinder (1e) is a direct descendant of D&D 3.5, so interconnected that many refer to it as "3.75" or "3.P". Be aware that purists on both sides may disagree with this answer, as it is a bit of a contentious issue, and a lot of people feel a need to point out the technical perspective that no, PF is not D&D.
The reason many would consider it D&D and label it as "3.75" or similar is fairly simple. Upon the creation of 4e, many considered the diverging nature of the game to be very far from what "felt" like "D&D", and at the same time, Wizards of the Coast dropped a lot of work that they had done with Paizo (such as the at the time age-old Dragon Magazine), "tightening up" their own hold on the IP and the constituent parts of the overall franchise.
This lead Paizo, spurred on by a lot of people disappointed in the development of 4e, to create Pathfinder, which many fans came to consider "more D&D than D&D".
But again, no, not technically D&D. Different company, different name, different owners.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Technically: No, Pathfinder is not D&D.
Colloquially: Yes, many would consider Pathfinder a form of D&D, as Pathfinder (1e) is a direct descendant of D&D 3.5, so interconnected that many refer to it as "3.75" or "3.P". Be aware that purists on both sides may disagree with this answer, as it is a bit of a contentious issue, and a lot of people feel a need to point out the technical perspective that no, PF is not D&D.
The reason many would consider it D&D and label it as "3.75" or similar is fairly simple. Upon the creation of 4e, many considered the diverging nature of the game to be very far from what "felt" like "D&D", and at the same time, Wizards of the Coast dropped a lot of work that they had done with Paizo (such as the at the time age-old Dragon Magazine), "tightening up" their own hold on the IP and the constituent parts of the overall franchise.
This lead Paizo, spurred on by a lot of people disappointed in the development of 4e, to create Pathfinder, which many fans came to consider "more D&D than D&D".
But again, no, not technically D&D. Different company, different name, different owners.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
answered 49 mins ago
Luckmann
572
572
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Luckmann is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
add a comment |Â
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
It’s probably worth noting that 5e was a considerable “return to form†after 4e, and while obviously plenty of people still prefer Pathfinder to 5e, most of the “not real D&D†feelings seem to have died with 4e. And now Paizo is perhaps making the same mistakes WotC did; Pathfinder 2e is a considerable departure and seems to be rather controversial from my limited visibility. (Also, according to at least one friend and fellow designer that I trust, interestingly 4e-like in some ways.) Paizo does seem to be uncharacteristically open to feedback on it, though.
– KRyan
44 mins ago
1
1
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Yes, I would agree with that completely, but did not include such thoughts in the answer since I think it would detract from the clarity of the answer, and arguably introduce a lot of opinioning that others may not necessarily agree with. I know some PF people that still hate the direction D&D has taken even with 5e (and obviously, the same people hate PF2 too).
– Luckmann
37 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
Though I agree with this answer, I think it would help if you explicitly defined and differentiated the different ways D&D is used here (as I think you intended): D&D the WotC Game/title/setting/lore (which PF can never even be argued to be) and D&D the ruleset (which is a bit more debatable since it was spun off of 3.5 rules).
– Rubiksmoose
20 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
@KRyan I tend to agree, PF2E seems to have tried to take, on first draft, everything that people liked from PF, 4E and 5E and tried to combine them all into what seems like still an overly complex system but a lot of people prefer the need for a calculator to create a character.
– Slagmoth
18 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but kind of.
Pathfinder is published by Paizo, who does not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast, who currently publish D&D 5e. But Pathfinder is a spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, specifically D&D 3.5e, and is extremely similar to that game in many ways. Playing a game of “3.PF,†using material from both rulesets, is quite possible and popular.
How and why this came to be, however, requires a history lesson.
D&D 3.5e
Wizards of the Coast released the foundation of the D&D 3.5e ruleset under the Open Game License, which was very, well, open about how much of it could be re-used. This led to a huge explosion of third-party content for 3.5e, and 3.5e lived a rather-long life as these things go. There was a ton of material for it, the people playing it had gotten very used to dealing with, or even getting attached to, its myriad problems.
At this time, Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines under license from Wizards of the Coast. They also published a fair amount of their own adventures for the 3.5e ruleset, under the Open Game License.
D&D 4e
Then Wizards of the Coast released D&D 4e. The fourth edition of the game was a massive departure from previous editions of D&D, and was extremely controversial. Many players had no desire to switch to 4e, and continued playing 3.5e. Some even decided they didn’t like Wizards of the Coast’s D&D altogether, and went back to older editions of D&D. And many did play 4e, and there are some hints that 4e did relatively well in bringing new players into the game.
So D&D had fractured its fanbase, and there were a lot of people playing D&D but not playing the edition of D&D that Wizards of the Coast was actually publishing.
At the same time, Wizards of the Coast got a lot more possessive with its property. They did not renew their Dragon and Dungeon licenses with Paizo, again publishing those in-house, and they did not release 4e under the OGL. Instead, they created and used the Game System License, which is vastly more restrictive than the OGL was. This made it nearly impossible to develop 3rd-party content for D&D 4e.
This put Paizo into a very tight spot: with their magazine revenue taken away, the latest edition of D&D hostile to third-party content, and the edition of D&D that was their bread and butter, 3.5e, aging and slowly dying, they had a serious problem.
Pathfinder
Pathfinder was Paizo’s answer. It was based on the open game content from D&D 3.5e, and pushed hard to capture the market of people who refused to play 4e and were sticking with 3.5e. By promising 3.5e-but-better, and by delivering fresh content, Paizo could keep 3.5e alive, and therefore continue to make adventure material and maintain that revenue stream.
This worked. Through a phenomenal hype machine, Paizo could offer a game system that amounted to a few houserules applied to 3.5e, call it “better,†and capture a pretty large market share. It cost them relatively little to do it, and it allowed them to continue to publish their adventure modules. Extensions to the Pathfinder system (classes, feats, and so on) were enabled through low-paid freelancers with minimum editorial oversight, and allowed Paizo to keep Pathfinder “alive†through a blistering release schedule, again at relatively low cost. And so they could keep selling adventures.
An aside: the “old-school revolutionâ€Â
Paizo wasn’t the only company to notice the fractured D&D fanbase. Numerous other games, labeled “OSR,†came out to try to capture those players who ditched not only 4e, but 3.5e as well. So in addition to Pathfinder being a spin-off of 3.5e, there are other games that are spin-offs or inspired by older editions, mostly AD&D 2e.
The death of D&D 4e
The story of Pathfinder suggests that D&D 4e was a complete disaster; that’s certainly how many Pathfinder fans view it, and probably also Paizo themselves. However, it’s not really accurate: D&D 4e did well enough, and again did particularly well with new players, relative to Pathfinder mostly focusing on old players who didn’t like 4e.
As a game designer, I will also say that D&D 4e is easily the most tightly-designed RPGs in existence. That’s not everything, not by a long shot, but a lot of the criticisms leveled against it were based on perception from quick reads of the book, and not from actual play.
But there were also a number of large problems. Some of it was poor planning, some of it was pressure from Hasbro (who owns Wizards of the Coast) to cut costs on D&D, at least part of it was a murder-suicide (!) by one of the lead developers of a 4e virtual tabletop, killing not only himself and his wife, but also that project.
In the end, 4e ended up losing support from Wizards of the Coast, and even if you liked it sooner or later the fact that there was new Pathfinder content and no new D&D content meant a lot more people switched to Pathfinder.
D&D 5e
D&D 5e was an attempt to recapture the player base that had been lost to Pathfinder and the OSR. It undid a whole lot of changes made by D&D 4e. It embraced an “old-school†playstyle to a large extent. It also put a huge emphasis on being simple, easy to learn and play, and welcoming to new players, which is not something any of the other games mentioned here can say.
And it has been extremely successful.
No numbers are known here, but recent years have been some of D&D’s best—and that goes all the way back to the original editions in the 70s and 80s that became an international phenomenon.
Pathfinder 2e
Paizo is currently testing their second edition of Pathfinder. It is surprisingly 4e-like in a number of ways, which is somewhat ironic considering that Pathfinder was written as a response to 4e in the first place. (It also has a number of 5e-like features, and of course a whole lot of it is unique.) Perhaps most notably, it’s a large departure from PF 1e, greatly changing the game in a large number of ways.
This has been controversial. They’re still in playtesting (and uncharacteristically open to feedback, from what I can tell), but there is a risk here for Paizo that they will follow in 4e’s footsteps—clearly not their goal. Time will have to tell on that, though.
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
No, but kind of.
Pathfinder is published by Paizo, who does not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast, who currently publish D&D 5e. But Pathfinder is a spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, specifically D&D 3.5e, and is extremely similar to that game in many ways. Playing a game of “3.PF,†using material from both rulesets, is quite possible and popular.
How and why this came to be, however, requires a history lesson.
D&D 3.5e
Wizards of the Coast released the foundation of the D&D 3.5e ruleset under the Open Game License, which was very, well, open about how much of it could be re-used. This led to a huge explosion of third-party content for 3.5e, and 3.5e lived a rather-long life as these things go. There was a ton of material for it, the people playing it had gotten very used to dealing with, or even getting attached to, its myriad problems.
At this time, Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines under license from Wizards of the Coast. They also published a fair amount of their own adventures for the 3.5e ruleset, under the Open Game License.
D&D 4e
Then Wizards of the Coast released D&D 4e. The fourth edition of the game was a massive departure from previous editions of D&D, and was extremely controversial. Many players had no desire to switch to 4e, and continued playing 3.5e. Some even decided they didn’t like Wizards of the Coast’s D&D altogether, and went back to older editions of D&D. And many did play 4e, and there are some hints that 4e did relatively well in bringing new players into the game.
So D&D had fractured its fanbase, and there were a lot of people playing D&D but not playing the edition of D&D that Wizards of the Coast was actually publishing.
At the same time, Wizards of the Coast got a lot more possessive with its property. They did not renew their Dragon and Dungeon licenses with Paizo, again publishing those in-house, and they did not release 4e under the OGL. Instead, they created and used the Game System License, which is vastly more restrictive than the OGL was. This made it nearly impossible to develop 3rd-party content for D&D 4e.
This put Paizo into a very tight spot: with their magazine revenue taken away, the latest edition of D&D hostile to third-party content, and the edition of D&D that was their bread and butter, 3.5e, aging and slowly dying, they had a serious problem.
Pathfinder
Pathfinder was Paizo’s answer. It was based on the open game content from D&D 3.5e, and pushed hard to capture the market of people who refused to play 4e and were sticking with 3.5e. By promising 3.5e-but-better, and by delivering fresh content, Paizo could keep 3.5e alive, and therefore continue to make adventure material and maintain that revenue stream.
This worked. Through a phenomenal hype machine, Paizo could offer a game system that amounted to a few houserules applied to 3.5e, call it “better,†and capture a pretty large market share. It cost them relatively little to do it, and it allowed them to continue to publish their adventure modules. Extensions to the Pathfinder system (classes, feats, and so on) were enabled through low-paid freelancers with minimum editorial oversight, and allowed Paizo to keep Pathfinder “alive†through a blistering release schedule, again at relatively low cost. And so they could keep selling adventures.
An aside: the “old-school revolutionâ€Â
Paizo wasn’t the only company to notice the fractured D&D fanbase. Numerous other games, labeled “OSR,†came out to try to capture those players who ditched not only 4e, but 3.5e as well. So in addition to Pathfinder being a spin-off of 3.5e, there are other games that are spin-offs or inspired by older editions, mostly AD&D 2e.
The death of D&D 4e
The story of Pathfinder suggests that D&D 4e was a complete disaster; that’s certainly how many Pathfinder fans view it, and probably also Paizo themselves. However, it’s not really accurate: D&D 4e did well enough, and again did particularly well with new players, relative to Pathfinder mostly focusing on old players who didn’t like 4e.
As a game designer, I will also say that D&D 4e is easily the most tightly-designed RPGs in existence. That’s not everything, not by a long shot, but a lot of the criticisms leveled against it were based on perception from quick reads of the book, and not from actual play.
But there were also a number of large problems. Some of it was poor planning, some of it was pressure from Hasbro (who owns Wizards of the Coast) to cut costs on D&D, at least part of it was a murder-suicide (!) by one of the lead developers of a 4e virtual tabletop, killing not only himself and his wife, but also that project.
In the end, 4e ended up losing support from Wizards of the Coast, and even if you liked it sooner or later the fact that there was new Pathfinder content and no new D&D content meant a lot more people switched to Pathfinder.
D&D 5e
D&D 5e was an attempt to recapture the player base that had been lost to Pathfinder and the OSR. It undid a whole lot of changes made by D&D 4e. It embraced an “old-school†playstyle to a large extent. It also put a huge emphasis on being simple, easy to learn and play, and welcoming to new players, which is not something any of the other games mentioned here can say.
And it has been extremely successful.
No numbers are known here, but recent years have been some of D&D’s best—and that goes all the way back to the original editions in the 70s and 80s that became an international phenomenon.
Pathfinder 2e
Paizo is currently testing their second edition of Pathfinder. It is surprisingly 4e-like in a number of ways, which is somewhat ironic considering that Pathfinder was written as a response to 4e in the first place. (It also has a number of 5e-like features, and of course a whole lot of it is unique.) Perhaps most notably, it’s a large departure from PF 1e, greatly changing the game in a large number of ways.
This has been controversial. They’re still in playtesting (and uncharacteristically open to feedback, from what I can tell), but there is a risk here for Paizo that they will follow in 4e’s footsteps—clearly not their goal. Time will have to tell on that, though.
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
No, but kind of.
Pathfinder is published by Paizo, who does not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast, who currently publish D&D 5e. But Pathfinder is a spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, specifically D&D 3.5e, and is extremely similar to that game in many ways. Playing a game of “3.PF,†using material from both rulesets, is quite possible and popular.
How and why this came to be, however, requires a history lesson.
D&D 3.5e
Wizards of the Coast released the foundation of the D&D 3.5e ruleset under the Open Game License, which was very, well, open about how much of it could be re-used. This led to a huge explosion of third-party content for 3.5e, and 3.5e lived a rather-long life as these things go. There was a ton of material for it, the people playing it had gotten very used to dealing with, or even getting attached to, its myriad problems.
At this time, Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines under license from Wizards of the Coast. They also published a fair amount of their own adventures for the 3.5e ruleset, under the Open Game License.
D&D 4e
Then Wizards of the Coast released D&D 4e. The fourth edition of the game was a massive departure from previous editions of D&D, and was extremely controversial. Many players had no desire to switch to 4e, and continued playing 3.5e. Some even decided they didn’t like Wizards of the Coast’s D&D altogether, and went back to older editions of D&D. And many did play 4e, and there are some hints that 4e did relatively well in bringing new players into the game.
So D&D had fractured its fanbase, and there were a lot of people playing D&D but not playing the edition of D&D that Wizards of the Coast was actually publishing.
At the same time, Wizards of the Coast got a lot more possessive with its property. They did not renew their Dragon and Dungeon licenses with Paizo, again publishing those in-house, and they did not release 4e under the OGL. Instead, they created and used the Game System License, which is vastly more restrictive than the OGL was. This made it nearly impossible to develop 3rd-party content for D&D 4e.
This put Paizo into a very tight spot: with their magazine revenue taken away, the latest edition of D&D hostile to third-party content, and the edition of D&D that was their bread and butter, 3.5e, aging and slowly dying, they had a serious problem.
Pathfinder
Pathfinder was Paizo’s answer. It was based on the open game content from D&D 3.5e, and pushed hard to capture the market of people who refused to play 4e and were sticking with 3.5e. By promising 3.5e-but-better, and by delivering fresh content, Paizo could keep 3.5e alive, and therefore continue to make adventure material and maintain that revenue stream.
This worked. Through a phenomenal hype machine, Paizo could offer a game system that amounted to a few houserules applied to 3.5e, call it “better,†and capture a pretty large market share. It cost them relatively little to do it, and it allowed them to continue to publish their adventure modules. Extensions to the Pathfinder system (classes, feats, and so on) were enabled through low-paid freelancers with minimum editorial oversight, and allowed Paizo to keep Pathfinder “alive†through a blistering release schedule, again at relatively low cost. And so they could keep selling adventures.
An aside: the “old-school revolutionâ€Â
Paizo wasn’t the only company to notice the fractured D&D fanbase. Numerous other games, labeled “OSR,†came out to try to capture those players who ditched not only 4e, but 3.5e as well. So in addition to Pathfinder being a spin-off of 3.5e, there are other games that are spin-offs or inspired by older editions, mostly AD&D 2e.
The death of D&D 4e
The story of Pathfinder suggests that D&D 4e was a complete disaster; that’s certainly how many Pathfinder fans view it, and probably also Paizo themselves. However, it’s not really accurate: D&D 4e did well enough, and again did particularly well with new players, relative to Pathfinder mostly focusing on old players who didn’t like 4e.
As a game designer, I will also say that D&D 4e is easily the most tightly-designed RPGs in existence. That’s not everything, not by a long shot, but a lot of the criticisms leveled against it were based on perception from quick reads of the book, and not from actual play.
But there were also a number of large problems. Some of it was poor planning, some of it was pressure from Hasbro (who owns Wizards of the Coast) to cut costs on D&D, at least part of it was a murder-suicide (!) by one of the lead developers of a 4e virtual tabletop, killing not only himself and his wife, but also that project.
In the end, 4e ended up losing support from Wizards of the Coast, and even if you liked it sooner or later the fact that there was new Pathfinder content and no new D&D content meant a lot more people switched to Pathfinder.
D&D 5e
D&D 5e was an attempt to recapture the player base that had been lost to Pathfinder and the OSR. It undid a whole lot of changes made by D&D 4e. It embraced an “old-school†playstyle to a large extent. It also put a huge emphasis on being simple, easy to learn and play, and welcoming to new players, which is not something any of the other games mentioned here can say.
And it has been extremely successful.
No numbers are known here, but recent years have been some of D&D’s best—and that goes all the way back to the original editions in the 70s and 80s that became an international phenomenon.
Pathfinder 2e
Paizo is currently testing their second edition of Pathfinder. It is surprisingly 4e-like in a number of ways, which is somewhat ironic considering that Pathfinder was written as a response to 4e in the first place. (It also has a number of 5e-like features, and of course a whole lot of it is unique.) Perhaps most notably, it’s a large departure from PF 1e, greatly changing the game in a large number of ways.
This has been controversial. They’re still in playtesting (and uncharacteristically open to feedback, from what I can tell), but there is a risk here for Paizo that they will follow in 4e’s footsteps—clearly not their goal. Time will have to tell on that, though.
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
No, but kind of.
Pathfinder is published by Paizo, who does not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons. Those rights are owned by Wizards of the Coast, who currently publish D&D 5e. But Pathfinder is a spin-off of Dungeons & Dragons, specifically D&D 3.5e, and is extremely similar to that game in many ways. Playing a game of “3.PF,†using material from both rulesets, is quite possible and popular.
How and why this came to be, however, requires a history lesson.
D&D 3.5e
Wizards of the Coast released the foundation of the D&D 3.5e ruleset under the Open Game License, which was very, well, open about how much of it could be re-used. This led to a huge explosion of third-party content for 3.5e, and 3.5e lived a rather-long life as these things go. There was a ton of material for it, the people playing it had gotten very used to dealing with, or even getting attached to, its myriad problems.
At this time, Paizo published the Dragon and Dungeon magazines under license from Wizards of the Coast. They also published a fair amount of their own adventures for the 3.5e ruleset, under the Open Game License.
D&D 4e
Then Wizards of the Coast released D&D 4e. The fourth edition of the game was a massive departure from previous editions of D&D, and was extremely controversial. Many players had no desire to switch to 4e, and continued playing 3.5e. Some even decided they didn’t like Wizards of the Coast’s D&D altogether, and went back to older editions of D&D. And many did play 4e, and there are some hints that 4e did relatively well in bringing new players into the game.
So D&D had fractured its fanbase, and there were a lot of people playing D&D but not playing the edition of D&D that Wizards of the Coast was actually publishing.
At the same time, Wizards of the Coast got a lot more possessive with its property. They did not renew their Dragon and Dungeon licenses with Paizo, again publishing those in-house, and they did not release 4e under the OGL. Instead, they created and used the Game System License, which is vastly more restrictive than the OGL was. This made it nearly impossible to develop 3rd-party content for D&D 4e.
This put Paizo into a very tight spot: with their magazine revenue taken away, the latest edition of D&D hostile to third-party content, and the edition of D&D that was their bread and butter, 3.5e, aging and slowly dying, they had a serious problem.
Pathfinder
Pathfinder was Paizo’s answer. It was based on the open game content from D&D 3.5e, and pushed hard to capture the market of people who refused to play 4e and were sticking with 3.5e. By promising 3.5e-but-better, and by delivering fresh content, Paizo could keep 3.5e alive, and therefore continue to make adventure material and maintain that revenue stream.
This worked. Through a phenomenal hype machine, Paizo could offer a game system that amounted to a few houserules applied to 3.5e, call it “better,†and capture a pretty large market share. It cost them relatively little to do it, and it allowed them to continue to publish their adventure modules. Extensions to the Pathfinder system (classes, feats, and so on) were enabled through low-paid freelancers with minimum editorial oversight, and allowed Paizo to keep Pathfinder “alive†through a blistering release schedule, again at relatively low cost. And so they could keep selling adventures.
An aside: the “old-school revolutionâ€Â
Paizo wasn’t the only company to notice the fractured D&D fanbase. Numerous other games, labeled “OSR,†came out to try to capture those players who ditched not only 4e, but 3.5e as well. So in addition to Pathfinder being a spin-off of 3.5e, there are other games that are spin-offs or inspired by older editions, mostly AD&D 2e.
The death of D&D 4e
The story of Pathfinder suggests that D&D 4e was a complete disaster; that’s certainly how many Pathfinder fans view it, and probably also Paizo themselves. However, it’s not really accurate: D&D 4e did well enough, and again did particularly well with new players, relative to Pathfinder mostly focusing on old players who didn’t like 4e.
As a game designer, I will also say that D&D 4e is easily the most tightly-designed RPGs in existence. That’s not everything, not by a long shot, but a lot of the criticisms leveled against it were based on perception from quick reads of the book, and not from actual play.
But there were also a number of large problems. Some of it was poor planning, some of it was pressure from Hasbro (who owns Wizards of the Coast) to cut costs on D&D, at least part of it was a murder-suicide (!) by one of the lead developers of a 4e virtual tabletop, killing not only himself and his wife, but also that project.
In the end, 4e ended up losing support from Wizards of the Coast, and even if you liked it sooner or later the fact that there was new Pathfinder content and no new D&D content meant a lot more people switched to Pathfinder.
D&D 5e
D&D 5e was an attempt to recapture the player base that had been lost to Pathfinder and the OSR. It undid a whole lot of changes made by D&D 4e. It embraced an “old-school†playstyle to a large extent. It also put a huge emphasis on being simple, easy to learn and play, and welcoming to new players, which is not something any of the other games mentioned here can say.
And it has been extremely successful.
No numbers are known here, but recent years have been some of D&D’s best—and that goes all the way back to the original editions in the 70s and 80s that became an international phenomenon.
Pathfinder 2e
Paizo is currently testing their second edition of Pathfinder. It is surprisingly 4e-like in a number of ways, which is somewhat ironic considering that Pathfinder was written as a response to 4e in the first place. (It also has a number of 5e-like features, and of course a whole lot of it is unique.) Perhaps most notably, it’s a large departure from PF 1e, greatly changing the game in a large number of ways.
This has been controversial. They’re still in playtesting (and uncharacteristically open to feedback, from what I can tell), but there is a risk here for Paizo that they will follow in 4e’s footsteps—clearly not their goal. Time will have to tell on that, though.
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
answered 2 mins ago
KRyan
208k23519904
208k23519904
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f133423%2fwhat-is-pathfinders-relationship-to-dd%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
4
“Pathfinder is often conflated with 4e†... when? I have never seen Pathfinder conflated with D&D 4e by anybody, ever. Are you thinking of D&D 3e/3.5e instead? Also, in what sense do you mean “Is Pathfinder D&Dâ€�
– doppelspooker♦
55 mins ago
2
How are you defining "D&D"?
– Oblivious Sage
55 mins ago
3
This is a basic misunderstanding that can easily be clarified. The appropriate response is to answer the question explaining the situation, not to close it and expect the querent to already know the answer to his own question.
– KRyan
53 mins ago
4
@doppelspooker See above. This question doesn’t have a yes or no answer, it requires an explanation, and that leaves answerers quite capable of explaining how Pathfinder is or isn’t D&D. We don’t need a definition in the question at all.
– KRyan
47 mins ago
@doppelspooker perhaps OP meant "contrasted to" rather than "conflated with". I can certainly imagine a blog starting "Pathfinder, in contrast to 4e, ..."
– Caleth
19 mins ago