Basically it's as different as it could be while maintaining the "roll a d20 and add modifiers" base. Pathfinder has much less concern for balance, fighters are a joke instead of awesome, rangers are super versatile rather than mobile dpr platforms, the list goes on.
There are no defenders...no way to pull that off at all. You can buff, but healing in battle is generally a poor move unless you are built correctly for it. Generally, the strongest casters are Controllers and EVERYONE ELSE is a striker. Mobility is nonexistent without magic, so battles are a lot less fluid as everyone gets bogged down trying to pull off full attacks.
But, you get a lot more meaningful and open ended noncombat support. You can actually bypass obstacles with clever roleplaying, no horrible skill challenges...
Basically, you trade fairness/balance and a robust tactical combat metagame for meaningful noncombat options and abilities and the freedom to use them creatively.
|
If you had the Heroes of the Forgotten Lands books that took out all of the Daily/Encounter powers for Fighters and Rogues, that would be what most of the martial classes are like.
Most martials do not have the spell-like stuff that 4th edition does. Instead they can make a basic attack or maneuver that anyone can do, and have either an always on or limited pool per day of abilities that enhance normal attacks in some way.
Also spellcasters have more versatility, as spells are not limited into encounter/daily options, and utility spells are spells and not rituals.
One thing to keep in mind for Pathfinder is that each class has their own little sub-system mechanics.
Where 4E used the same basic framework for each class, the differences between them were laid out mostly through the specific list of powers. This had the advantage of letting you go easily from one character to another but had a downside of giving the impression of too much homoginization.
Pathfinder focuses a lot of the differences between them, with each class having their own thing and some mechanics attached to it. it strongly encourages system mastery and some classes are easier to master than others. There is however a great deal of flexibility and customization.
of course with greater customization comes the greater possibility of gimping yourself with bad choices and poor synergy.
They are both good games with different strengths and weaknesses. If I had to boil down the difference I would say Pathfinder is a more complex system and while that dose mean it covers a lot of ground and provides you with mechanics for a great deal it also has a risk of getting bogged down with it'self.
You can take a look at the rules using the PRD (located in the sidebar) if you want.
I agree with LazarX, the better question is what is similar between DnD 4.0 and Pathfinder. And the answer is: Mehcnically, almost nothing is the same. Or even similar. They're very different games.
Pathfinder has a good amount of similarity to 3.5 though. But still enough difference you would need a thorough review of the rules to point out all the changes.
It's a different system completely, you will need to treat it as such.
To the OP, can you just elaborate a little more? It doesn't sound like you're deciding whether to take up Pathfinder. Why do you "need" to learn Pathfinder? What is the occasion for switching? Have you had a disliking toward the 4E system, or is there something in Pathfinder/3.X that you're looking for?
There isn't really a "4.0 to Pathfinder" transitions guide out there that I know of.
I think one good place to start is the online rules for the Pathfinder Beginner's Box, particularly the rules for Combat. They give a newbie an introduction to the 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset. The Beginner rules are very much consistent with the full Pathfinder core rules, you won't have to "unlearn" anything. (Main difference is that the beginner rules don't have rules for opportunity attacks; you are simply forbidden from casting a spell adjacent to a creature instead of required to roll a concentration check.)
From there, you can move on to the Pathfinder PRD and look at the descriptions of specific classes.
So iv been playing dnd for about 2 years now and have exclusively played 4.0. But now i need to learn pathfinder and was wondering what rules are majorly different and how i need to change my mindset about the game. (srry if its worded badly, i have a very hard time putting my thoughts on paper/document)
Most people have covered the differences in mechanics. Let me go over the difference in approach.
Pathfinder has a game-within-a-game of building your player character. You have to devote a lot of thought to how you want your PC to grow and evolve out of a lot of options. It is important to know that some options are not as good as others for a given outcome; each class has different mechanics and these interact differently with the universal systems of feats and skills.
Given the effort that goes into creating your character, people tend to want to hang on to them. Characters are neither disposable nor interchangeable, so you can put a lot into developing their persona as well as their mechanics and it will usually be rewarded with an enriched game.
When D&D4 came out, a lot of people likened it to a video game approach to a pen-and-paper game. That isn't very fair, but it does illustrate the difference between the v4 mechanics and approach and the 3.X mechanics and approach. D&D4 was designed to be easy to pick up and play, so that you could get a game going in twenty minutes. Now there is nothing bad with that per se, but it's not what a lot of people liked. It gave them the feeling that there was very little special about their characters, that one fighter (for example) was just like another - hell, that the fighters were not that different than the wizards! It felt (to some) that their PCs were cookie-cutter and disposable.
3.X, which family includes Pathfinder, was designed with customization of your character at the heart of it. When you create a character in Pathfinder, you can be assured that no-one else will have another character quite like yours, that there will be differences in what they can and cannot do. It might take time, but it becomes a labour of love. So with 3.X you get a more "intimate" relationship with PCs.
As noted, you don't get many per-encounter abilities - this means that you are either able to do something a lot, or that you have to weigh up using a per day ability on an encounter carefully. So your approach to encounters tends to be a little more thoughtful. However, when you combine this with all the various ability combinations you could have, it means you can sometimes engage an encounter with more imagination than you might otherwise use.
Well as a general rule you will be doing much less damage than normal. Pathfinder focuses much more on roleplay than 4E. And everything is crazy when casters come out.
- The crazy OP nudist Oni-spawn tiefling monk who loves wounding Amulet of Might Fists.
I didn't play the Essentials classes, but my understanding is that they only did basic attacks.
That's what all martials are like in Pathfinder.
The first thing to realize is that you have a LOT less hitpoints. a first level character with 6 hp is entirely possible. At low levels, a 1-hit KO is a real risk.
The second thing to realize is that spellcasters are an exercise in resource management and planning. Resource management because you have a finite number of spells per day, and planning because when you pick your spells (either learning them as a spontaneous caster or prepping your list for a prep caster) you need to work out what spells will give you the most use, and how to cover as many bases as possible with those spells. Overlapping spells tend to be redundant.
The third thing to realize is that not everything deals damage, and sometimes not doing damage is the better option. Battlefield control mages can go through their entire career without inflicting damage, and still be very useful to the group.
One other important thing: It's entirely valid to play a character with an emphasis on something other than combat, or even plays against type. A charisma monkey who talks to everyone and intimidates people in combat is workable. A utility mage who specializes in finding ways to bypass problems? Totally valid concept. A wizard who specializes in self buffing and wading into melee? Tough to pull off, but I've seen it done.
Don't limit your imagination on this one. Pathfinder characters don't have niches to fill.
No they're not.I didn't play the Essentials classes, but my understanding is that they only did basic attacks.
That's what all martials are like in Pathfinder.
Seconded. Martials can have a lot of options in combat, but you have to choose the right options in character generation to use them. There's a lot of scope, but it's up to the player to exploit it.
In general, while martials are more limited than spell-casters, they are good at what they do and remain in an effective role throughout their careers.