Difference Between Pathfinder and 2e DnD


3.5/d20/OGL

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Aelryinth wrote:

I have said that AT LEAST 3 times. Your willful misinterpretation of me is getting annoying.

You can say it as many times as you want. The reason that 2e is not called AD&D is because of edition warring s+#*posters that insist "2e IS NOT D&D" which I'm assuming you are one of. There is no 'avoiding confusion' entering into it, because no one here was confused and neither were you, as the title of the thread specifically mentions edition. At the edition warring s$*$poster dens that insist on this nomenclature, calling 2e a "true" edition of Dungeons & Dragons results in a temper tantrum at best, or banning at worst. It's not going to fly outside of them because it's factually wrong, and completely childish.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:
on to make another assumption (that each marble triggers individually)

The more egregious portion of the reading is that throwing any number of marbles constitutes an "attack" at all. This has clearly never been a viable tactic and it's the worst kind of rules lawyering. It's a knowingly wrong interpretation of the rule argued disingenuously to gain a benefit over an overpowered option. No RAW argument for this kind of tactic would fly here if we were talking about Pathfinder, because the tactic being discussed is essentially finding a reading of the rules that allows you to cheat, and being able to cheat means a particular option isn't even powerful if you can cheat your past it.

Aelryinth has already cut off the logical interpretation of his own tactic at the pass saying you can't actually throw a handful of marbles to constitute multiple attacks. It's just an exception to the general "rule" that throwing handfuls of marbles is not an attack, or multiple attacks when the target has stone skin up, in which case a hand full of marbles chucked in the same general direction as the target is then considered as many attacks as you've got marbles in your hand.


Steve Geddes wrote:
It sometimes seems obligatory, in any discussion of two completely different RPGs, for someone to opine that 4E sucks. I'm surprised it took that long, to be honest. :/

Isn't that the truth? Honestly, comparing PF and 4E together, which are the two systems I know the best, 4E is a MUCH better introduction to DnD than Pathfinder or any previous edition, because the rules and character creation are easy to understand and straightforward. Occasionally that means too rigid to bend, but it's an acceptable tradeoff in my opinion. Playing Pathfinder is a constant exercise in looking up rules, or arguing because the rules are vague/don't make sense/contradictory/or just plain hard to find.

tl;dr Old players have their nostalgia filter set to high and whine about TheyChangedItNowItSucks

Auxmaulous wrote:
3e based casters are the best - they are not even playing on the same level of rules, they are playing above them. A whole set of mechanics were designed - the skill system (which is a terrible and game-able binary +X system) and then the casters just take a giant steaming one right on it - since they operate a level above. Terrible design.

Hit the nail on the head here. People f#~!ing whine and whine about how 4E "turned fighters into wizards" with encounter and daily powers, but all it REALLY did was give fighters their own martial-themed abilities that put them on par with wizards and gave them something better to do than 'hit it really hard.'

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Also, with both 1E and 2E, you should feel more free to do things. You aren't hampered by tons of rules and modifiers like you are in Pathfinder. There is much more interpretation from the DM.

That is adorable.

You are adorable.

You are also completely, absurdly wrong.

1st and 2nd Ed were piles upon piles of rules, even more-so than Pathfinder in a lot of ways. Beyond simple things like Classes being restricted only to certain Races, you had ability minimums for both races and classes, you had maximum ability scores for races, you had crazy BS Exceptional Strength nonsense with 18/%, a giant chart for literally all 6 stats with no rhyme or reason indicating how an 18/00 Strength affected the game more or less than an 18 Int or 18 Con, you had Non-Weapon Proficiencies, THAC0, Comeliness, etc. etc.

Yeah, 'cos there are no examples in 3.0/3.5/PFRPG of "You can't do that, because you don't have these three feats, a minimum score in this ability, and at least two levels in this prestige class".

:P

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
And you had to be a greedy murderhobo to level, as exp was determined more by how much cash you got from the monsters and the loot you sold than by defeating your objectives.

3.0/3.5/PFRPG is actually a LOT more aimed at the murderhobo style than the previous editions. There were rules in those editions for getting XP apart from fighting things...hell, avoiding combat was preferable, since treasure netted you more XP than killing the monsters stacked in front of it. If you want XP in a d20 game, good look getting it without murdering people/monsters. You don't earn XP from any of the old sources from 0e/1e/2e/Basic in the d20 systems.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Pro-d20 advocates like to pretend that having a rule for practically every situation protects people from bad GMs. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. A bad GM is still a bad GM, whether he's running a game that has 3 pages of rules or 3000 pages of rules.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I played 1E and 2E. 2E was an attempt to 'fix' 1E rather than being a new system.

A more honest assessment is that 2E was an attempt to publish a version of the game for which Gary Gygax wouldn't receive royalties.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
And you had to be a greedy murderhobo to level, as exp was determined more by how much cash you got from the monsters and the loot you sold than by defeating your objectives.
3.0/3.5/PFRPG is actually a LOT more aimed at the murderhobo style than the previous editions. There were rules in those editions for getting XP apart from fighting things...hell, avoiding combat was preferable, since treasure netted you more XP than killing the monsters stacked in front of it. If you want XP in a d20 game, good look getting it without murdering people/monsters. You don't earn XP from any of the old sources from 0e/1e/2e/Basic in the d20 systems.

2e has rules in place for awarding xp for: clever ideas, idea that saves the party, RP character, encouraging others to participate, successful use of granted power (not always combat), Spells to further ethos, making magic items, successful research, getting treasure or using Rogue abilities successfully.

Sounds like Murderhobo/Greedy system alright.

Wait, do the older systems have a WBL system or was that Pathfinder?
The later is the system where you need to finance the characters big six or casters ability to build items to skew the games power curve even more than other characters (ultimate meta-fail in system design).

Yes - 3/x is the system where money is everything - where it's really important that you need X cash/level to buy or build your own (boring) magic items to change your stats.


Kthulhu wrote:
LazarX wrote:
And you had to be a greedy murderhobo to level, as exp was determined more by how much cash you got from the monsters and the loot you sold than by defeating your objectives.
3.0/3.5/PFRPG is actually a LOT more aimed at the murderhobo style than the previous editions. There were rules in those editions for getting XP apart from fighting things...hell, avoiding combat was preferable, since treasure netted you more XP than killing the monsters stacked in front of it. If you want XP in a d20 game, good look getting it without murdering people/monsters. You don't earn XP from any of the old sources from 0e/1e/2e/Basic in the d20 systems.

There are rules in PF (D&D 3.x too, I believe) for overcoming challenges, whether you kill anything or not. As well as for story awards.

1st Edition did reward a lot for loot, but I'm not sure that really makes it less "murderhobo". Technically, I suppose it encouraged robbery over murder, which isn't really an improvement. Especially since robbery + murder was best.

Scarab Sages

One thing I really liked about 2E was the way it organized the character classes. All classes were sorted into four groups - weapon swingers, sneaky/social types, arcane casters and divine casters. Fighter, ranger, paladin and barbarian were all weapon swingers. Thief and bard were sneaky/social. Magic users, illusionists, and the other specialty wizards (new in 2E) were arcane casters. Priests of all deities and druids were divine casters.

Later editions, including Pathfinder, stepped back from that organized system. Instead of four divisions, with multiple subdivisions, they went back to a bunch of random classes. Some spells crossed the boundaries between divine and arcane, depending on who cast them. Something about having four "primary flavors" of classes, with multiple variations of each flavor, just appealed to me.

Expanding specialist wizards from only illusionist to all the other schools of magic was a great addition. Specialist priests matched the specialist wizards, and made the choice of a deity more significant than it had been in 1E.

Side Note: I think one area where 3E doesn't always receive the credit it's due is art design and layout. 2E added color pictures where 1E had none, but some of those pictures were awful. 3E added tons more art than either 1E or 2E, and that art was strategically chosen and placed to illustrate what was being discussed in the text. 3E books looked immeasurably more professional than 1E and 2E books.


KarlBob wrote:
Side Note: I think one area where 3E doesn't always receive the credit it's due is art design and layout. 2E added color pictures where 1E had none, but some of those pictures were awful. 3E added tons more art than either 1E or 2E, and that art was strategically chosen and placed to illustrate what was being discussed in the text. 3E books looked immeasurably more professional than 1E and 2E books.

I liked 1E art. It wasn't professional but there was some that was really good and a lot that was fun. I liked the cartoons. And that little bottom margin adventure running through the appendices.

It was like the best parts of fan work - not professionally done (or laid out or edited), but the enthusiasm shines through.

2E added color and tried for professionalism but didn't really succeed. 3E was definitely more professional - enough to actually be good.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
Technically, I suppose it encouraged robbery over murder, which isn't really an improvement. Especially since robbery + murder was best.

Eh, attempting the murder also carried with it more danger. And death was a bigger deal in those editions. Even if you got someone to raise/resurrect you, you:

1) You had to succeed at the System Shock / Resurrection roll to actually return to life.

2) If you returned to life, you permanently lost a CON point. It should also be noted that your System Shock / Resurrection was directly based on your CON, so it got harder to make that the more often you died.

3) Even if you managed to raise your CON score several times during your adventuring career (and ability score increases weren't given out like candy in the pre-d20 editions), your original CON score was a hard maximum on the number of times you could ever be raised / resurrected.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
KarlBob wrote:
Side Note: I think one area where 3E doesn't always receive the credit it's due is art design and layout. 2E added color pictures where 1E had none, but some of those pictures were awful. 3E added tons more art than either 1E or 2E, and that art was strategically chosen and placed to illustrate what was being discussed in the text. 3E books looked immeasurably more professional than 1E and 2E books.

I liked 1E art. It wasn't professional but there was some that was really good and a lot that was fun. I liked the cartoons. And that little bottom margin adventure running through the appendices.

It was like the best parts of fan work - not professionally done (or laid out or edited), but the enthusiasm shines through.

2E added color and tried for professionalism but didn't really succeed. 3E was definitely more professional - enough to actually be good.

Yeah, the bottom margin adventure was neat, and the joke about talking to a lynx was funny.


Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Technically, I suppose it encouraged robbery over murder, which isn't really an improvement. Especially since robbery + murder was best.
Eh, attempting the murder also carried with it more danger. And death was a bigger deal in those editions. Even if you got someone to raise/resurrect you, you:

Fair enough, though I find in practice you often wind up in more danger when the robbery goes bad than if you just kick the door down and start killing. Better to surprise the guards and kill them than to be surprised by them in the vault.

But that's beside the main points, which were that later editions also give plenty of ways to get xp without murder and that the game rewarding robbery instead of murder isn't really a moral improvement.

And face it, in every edition, the game's focused on fighting. It started from a wargame and that's still where the focus is. Mind you, many of us prefer a more meaningful or even heroic approach than just "get more loot". And have since the 1E days.


Kthulhu wrote:


Yeah, 'cos there are no examples in 3.0/3.5/PFRPG of "You can't do that, because you don't have these three feats, a minimum score in this ability, and at least two levels in this prestige class".

:P

In paizo forum I once saw a guy arguing htat you most definitenly can not jump and attack a flying enemy because there was no rule about it and therefore paizo should publish a feat for that.

And strike back, rumormonger, all those horrible feats of gnomes of golarion...SO, I see your point.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
But that's beside the main points, which were that later editions also give plenty of ways to get xp without murder and that the game rewarding robbery instead of murder isn't really a moral improvement.

In all editions you gain by committing crimes (whether robbery or murder) it's really just a function of what opportunities your DM provides you with. Our 0E and 1E games feature basically noble characters - the only people we kill and loot tend to be capital-E-evil types and that loot is often subsequently given back to "help rebuild the town" (or whatever) - since we don't think of ourselves as adorned with "slots" in need of an upgrade. (Whether that should actually count as good or not is a moot point - my argument is that the type of adventures you run and the moral quality of those adventures isn't dependant on the edition you play but on the group's tastes).

"Story" or "goal based" experience was a thing in AD&D, it was just (as usual) not spelled out as explicitly as it has been in more modern games. It nonetheless featured relatively often in modules and the rules were clear that the experience points were given for "defeating" a monster, not just for killing it.


In what part of the player handbook way you gained exp for your treasure?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It was probably in the DM's guide.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
In what part of the player handbook way you gained exp for your treasure?

Dungeon Master's Guide. Players weren't supposed to know about such things.


LazarX wrote:
Nicos wrote:
In what part of the player handbook way you gained exp for your treasure?
Dungeon Master's Guide. Players weren't supposed to know about such things.

I remember two things

1. It was just for thieves. Every clas had a different way to gain more exp.

and

2. It was an optional rule, not a hardcore rule.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't want to revisit the whole 1E/2E debate above, but I was speaking about the first edition (and the "edition" prior to that). I never played 2E.

In earlier editions it was the same for all classes and wasn't any less hardcore than the other rules.

Of course personally, I think a key difference between gaming then and now is that all rules were seen as optional.


Steve Geddes wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that's beside the main points, which were that later editions also give plenty of ways to get xp without murder and that the game rewarding robbery instead of murder isn't really a moral improvement.

In all editions you gain by committing crimes (whether robbery or murder) it's really just a function of what opportunities your DM provides you with. Our 0E and 1E games feature basically noble characters - the only people we kill and loot tend to be capital-E-evil types and that loot is often subsequently given back to "help rebuild the town" (or whatever) - since we don't think of ourselves as adorned with "slots" in need of an upgrade. (Whether that should actually count as good or not is a moot point - my argument is that the type of adventures you run and the moral quality of those adventures isn't dependant on the edition you play but on the group's tastes).

"Story" or "goal based" experience was a thing in AD&D, it was just (as usual) not spelled out as explicitly as it has been in more modern games. It nonetheless featured relatively often in modules and the rules were clear that the experience points were given for "defeating" a monster, not just for killing it.

Generally agreed. The game is what you make it.

I was originally responding to a post claiming 3.x was more murderhobo because AD&D got xp from loot. Consider my post in that context.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah yeah, I see. I wasn't following very well. Apologies.

It's (kind of) a compliment though - I'm only skimming the thread, but I generally stop to read your posts. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious about how the game went. Magic, did you enjoy the game? Inquiring minds want to know!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Theives got DOUBLE xp for gold. Everyone else got single.

Clerics got xp for healing npc's.

Fighters got extra xp for beating on monsters.

Mages...got xp for recovering new spells and spellbooks. There was no faster way to gain levels, or sell such things for gold, then getting a mages spellbook. Absolute best loot you could find.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Don't go into Power Dome A wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I have said that AT LEAST 3 times. Your willful misinterpretation of me is getting annoying.

You can say it as many times as you want. The reason that 2e is not called AD&D is because of edition warring s$#$posters that insist "2e IS NOT D&D" which I'm assuming you are one of. There is no 'avoiding confusion' entering into it, because no one here was confused and neither were you, as the title of the thread specifically mentions edition. At the edition warring s*#+poster dens that insist on this nomenclature, calling 2e a "true" edition of Dungeons & Dragons results in a temper tantrum at best, or banning at worst. It's not going to fly outside of them because it's factually wrong, and completely childish.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:
on to make another assumption (that each marble triggers individually)

The more egregious portion of the reading is that throwing any number of marbles constitutes an "attack" at all. This has clearly never been a viable tactic and it's the worst kind of rules lawyering. It's a knowingly wrong interpretation of the rule argued disingenuously to gain a benefit over an overpowered option. No RAW argument for this kind of tactic would fly here if we were talking about Pathfinder, because the tactic being discussed is essentially finding a reading of the rules that allows you to cheat, and being able to cheat means a particular option isn't even powerful if you can cheat your past it.

Aelryinth has already cut off the logical interpretation of his own tactic at the pass saying you can't actually throw a handful of marbles to constitute multiple attacks. It's just an exception to the general "rule" that throwing handfuls of marbles is not an attack, or multiple attacks when the target has stone skin up, in which case a hand full of marbles chucked in the same general direction as the target is then considered as many attacks as you've got marbles in your hand.

It's a good thing that nothing of what you're saying here is true OR logical, or a I might be offended. :) The willful misrepresentation is continuing, however!

And no, I'm not part of the '2E isn't D&D crowd'. I can only assume that poster is part of the '2e is better then AD&D and buried it!' crowd. I played both. ANd because of that, I'm very precise on how I refer to each, because they are different games.

===Aelryinth

Dark Archive

One interesting thing I found with while play AD&D/2 ed is just how much damage the thief could deal with Backstab/Sneak Attack, they could be a scary class when it came to damage.

Another benefit of AD&D was the richness of the settings and the shear amount of detail. Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and more. So much offered fluff, and crunch in many ways, that could be used by players and DMs when it come to their roleplaying experiance.. Much more then what was offered when it came to 3.x and even Pathfinder

Grand Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:
Theives got DOUBLE xp for gold. Everyone else got single.

Aside from Rogues (because it applied to Bards as well as Thieves) getting 2 XP per gold piece value of treasure obtained, XP for gold for "everyone else" was purely optional (page 69 of the 1995/2014 DMG):

The 2nd Edition AD&D DMG wrote:
As an option, the DM can award XP for the cash value of non-magical treasures. One XP can be given per gold piece found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign.

Also...

Aelryinth wrote:
Clerics got xp for healing npc's.

Actually, Priests (as this also applied to Druids) only received XP for casting spells to overcome foes or problems and not just for casting their spells in general (page 70 of the 1995/2014 DMG).


Kthulhu wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I played 1E and 2E. 2E was an attempt to 'fix' 1E rather than being a new system.
A more honest assessment is that 2E was an attempt to publish a version of the game for which Gary Gygax wouldn't receive royalties.

Which was just karma giving EGG a kick in the pants since AD&D 1E was written so TSR wouldn't have to pay Dave Arneson any royalties. ;)

101 to 128 of 128 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Difference Between Pathfinder and 2e DnD All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.