What are the major differences between Pathfinder and D&D 4e?

Question

I'm really only familiar with D&D 4e. Could someone give me a rundown of the major things that would be different if I were to DM Pathfinder? (I gather it is more similar to 3.5e, but I only know that from video games.)

Not interested in subjective "what is best", but rather how does it change the game mechanics (and hence DM's role) -- for example, I gather it isn't as "battle grid" oriented (a big difference). Do folks use miniatures with it? If my group were to switch to it, what would the biggest changes be?

Answer 1

I'm very familiar with 3.5, somewhat familiar with PF, but only know the core ruleset of 4e. Nevertheless, since no one else has answered, I thought I might as well take a stab at the major differences. I'd say the general theme is that PF offers more paths while building a character, at the cost of offering more dead ends as well. Similarly, monsters are more flexible, but more difficult for the DM to run.

I think you could write an interesting essay talking more about the philosophical and design differences between the two systems, but in answering this question it'll be more useful to address the observable differences point by point.

Class and monster roles

Fourth edition (4e) has clearly defined class and monster roles. This isn't the case at all in Pathfinder (PF). A fighter in PF might be good at dealing damage (striker) or a great tank (defender) but this will depend entirely on how you build your character. Monsters do not provide an obvious indication of how they should be used; the DM has to examine their abilities and think about what their role should be in battle.

It's very easy to build an ineffective character in PF, as a consequence of the greater flexibility you have in defining your role.

Multiclassing

Since in PF each class defines its own progression, every time a PC gains a level they can choose what class to advance in. Again, this means it is possible to design a character that performs very poorly. It would be a bit like creating a 4e character that drew from multiple classes, but was capable of using only heroic level powers while everyone else was choosing a paragon path.

Paths vs. Prestige Classes

In 4e, there are three distinct tiers of play, and you can choose a paragon path and epic destiny as you progress.

There's no direct analogue to the tiers in PF. The closest thing to a paragon path is a prestige class -- a class that can only be taken when you meet certain requirements. This was more of a big deal in 3.5, where it was used for character customization; in PF there are many fewer prestige classes, though they might be important for certain multiclass combinations.

Defenses v. Saves

This is purely technical, but confusing if you're not expecting it. Defenses in 4e are equivalent to saving throws in PF. If a wizard casts a spell, rather than rolling an attack, the defender rolls a saving throw against a DC set by the spell.

Automatic progressions

In 4e, you add half your level to a great many statistics. PF is not quite so straightforward -- your class(es) will determine your base attack bonus and saving throw progression, and you must pick how your skills improve every level. Other abilities like AC or initiative do not naturally increase as you level.

Powers, Spells, and Maneuvers

This is probably the most fundamental difference from a player's perspective.

In 4e, every class has a list of powers they can learn as they level. These powers are divided into at-will, daily, and encounter powers that dictate how often they can be used. Pretty much any special ability a player has is derived from a power -- and those powers are chiefly geared towards combat. Casting classes can gain rituals which are less combat related, and work off a different economy than combat powers.

In Pathfinder, it works a little differently. Casting classes have spells, which are probably closest in spirit to 4e powers, but tend to be more flexible. The number of spells you can choose from is quite large, and different classes have different mechanics for learning and casting these spells. Spells useful in combat consume exactly the same resources as more role-playing oriented spells.

Meanwhile, melee classes rarely have the same type of limited powers. Anyone can push, grab, pull, grapple, trip or disarm a foe during combat, and you can do so as often as you like. Doing so means sacrificing damage, though; you will only do damage with a regular attack. Unlike 4e, forced movement is quite difficult to pull off in PF, which is why a grid isn't as necessary.

As an example, a fighter in PF progresses chiefly because they get better at what they've been capable of doing all along, rather than getting spectacular new powers.

Monsters

This is a big difference from the DM's POV especially.

In addition to fitting certain roles (as mentioned above) monsters in 4e are often defined by a set of bespoke abilities. In contrast, monsters in PF always play by the same rules as the players. Their hp, attacks, saves, and skills are defined and limited by the type and HD of the monster. The majority of unique special abilities are copies of spells, or one of a small set of abilities common to many monsters. Often a powerful monster will have a large set of abilities they will never use in combat, but can provide role playing hooks.

There is no PF equivalent to elite or solo monsters -- you simply must use a higher level beast to provide a greater challenge to the party.

Overall the 4e system is much easier on the DM in creating encounters. For those so inclined, though, the PF system allows the creation of some interesting beasts; you can even add class levels to monsters, much like PCs can multiclass.

Magic items

The majority of magic items in PF do one of two things -- they either increase the attributes of a PC, or they can replicate the effects of spells. Magic weapons and armor combine several different attributes, almost Diablo style. Compared to the 4e items in core, they are much more varied, and what specific item your character has can drastically affect what they can do. The downside is that it becomes harder for a player to choose the 'correct' gear.

Answer 2

At a very high level here is the key difference:

• 4e is an well-structured miniatures game with very light role-playing elements
• Pathfinder (PF) is a reasonably structured combat system with far more role-playing elements

There's a blogger on the D&D forums named The Jester who has some good high-level insights:

4e is designed for you to play a fantasy action hero going through a dungeon with tactical combat encounters.

I like to think (as he often does), that roleplaying has three key elements:

1. Combat
2. Skills checks / obstacles / exploration
3. PC / NPC interactions

4e has a very fleshed out combat system (#1). But it's very limited on #2 & #3. Most players have few or no skills b/c doing so puts them behind on combat. 4e has the concept of "Rituals" for overcoming obstacles, but their designed means rituals aren't useful on a combat time scale: e.g., the rites for closing a portal or magically opening a door require 10+ minutes; are you really planning to sit around for 60 combat rounds waiting to close the portal after the escaping villain?

Pathfinder has much more in the way of #2 & #3. Many of the spells in the book have nothing to do with combat. Players get points for skills at each level (without spending feats), so most PCs have at least one useful non-combat skill. However, the combat in Pathfinder is much less fleshed out and balanced.

Where 4e is a boxing match, PF can be a wild west gun-slinging event. Where 4e has a large variety of balanced, tactical combat abilities, PF typically comes down to a couple of dozen combat spells and a handful of combat tricks.

In 4e, it's very easy to build a balanced combat character. In PF, a character is built out of lots of little +1s that are sometimes found in non-obvious places.

Do folks use miniatures with it?

You definitely do. The rules for moving around the grid are still well-defined. The only big adjustment is that everything is measured in 5ft squares instead of spaces representing 5ft squares.

Also, flying is accessible relatively early (about level 7 of 20), so it's nice to have some plastic tubes around for indicating height.

Could someone give me a rundown of the major things that would be different if I were to DM Pathfinder?

I think @starwed has covered a lot of the technical differences.

From a gameplay perspective I find the big difference to be "openness". In PF, games move from a "dungeon crawl" towards a "swords and spells and politics" game. You still plan encounters and try to balance out combat. But you really have to willing to roll with the punches and let the dice tell the story.

To give a concrete example. My PF party escaped a snowstorm and walked right into a Yeti cave. In 4e, that moment means that everyone rolls initiative and we take out the yetis or die trying. In PF, we don't go straight to initiative. Instead, our undead tiefling warlock jumps at them and starts yelling like a madman, rolls a 19 on his Intimidate check and they cower away from us. To ensure they don't stab us in the back over night, the other magic users cast "Speak Language" and "Charm" and convince the yetis that we won't attack them and we're not worth eating.

There's still die rolling and checks, but there's a lot more back and forth on what's possible and DM judgment calls on what's allowed. You will be reading spells details and going "can it work that way"?

Answer 3

For the most basic and simple difference:

4e is a battle heavy game.
Not so much about exploration.

Pathfinder is dedicated to exploration.
Battles are be "seamless" with the exploration and light.

That's the central difference between Pathfinder and D&D 4e.

D&D 4e is more suited to casual players that like combat and Pathfinder is more suited to hardcore players that like exploration.