Pathfinder vs. AD&D

[imminence]

Just gained level 4 with my monk, the little bard, the berserker lady, a custom rogue and a custom cleric.

It's hard for me to understand all these bad reviews and complaints about difficulty etc.

For me the first impressions are from every point of view very enjoyable.

I play on "normal" and didn't have any fight which was impossible except that floating skull. For this I realized that it would be wise to avoid it and come back later. So what?

One question:

The pathfinder system is kind of AD&D, but then there are differences.

Could someone point out these differences in a nutshell?

[Myrryr]

Ooh boy, in a nutshell? That's a little difficult. Pathfinder is basically a better version of DnD 3.5e, and AD&D is DnD 2e. So it's basically 'three versions later'.

The biggest change is the fact that Pathfinder added a ton of cool stuff to every class, even clerics and wizards have neat things they get to pick besides just spells. Skills were streamlined a bit, a few tweaks to old annoyances (such as making Int boosts retroactively give skill points in the way Con boosts retro-give HP) and things like that.

[GreenBob]

ones named pathfinder and the other one is Attention Deficiet Disorder? did i get it right?

[Yaldabaoth]

Pathfinder is D&D 3.5 with a few, minute changes. If by AD&D you mean 2nd edition... that's like explaining electricity to ancient romans. No one speaks about 4th edition D&D. Yes, it's so bad, they even had to walk back the lore they introduced. The complete ♥♥♥♥ that was 4th edition led to the creation of Pathfinder (that and legal issues). 5th edition D&D and pathfinder are similar again (D&D5 is still a bit more simplistic, less feats, less mechanics etc.).

[BlueBangkok]

Originally posted by Myrryr:

Ooh boy, in a nutshell? That's a little difficult. Pathfinder is basically a better version of DnD 3.5e, and AD&D is DnD 2e. So it's basically 'three versions later'.

"Better" is subjective. "Different" is a bit more descriptive, imho.

[mrekun]

I definitely agree that if your baseline for difficulty is Baldur's Gate or Morrowind or Icewind Dale, then Kingmaker isn't actually all that hard.

As for differences... as others have said, an absolutely enormous amount has changed between AD&D and Pathfinder. The core mechanical system has been redesigned (AC ticks upward, you now have three saves of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will, there's a much larger and more expansive skill system), and every class has been heavily, heavily reworked.

It's probably easier to say what *has* stayed the same. Vancian spellcasting is still a thing, the basic system of d20+modifiers is still a thing, and the attributes still mostly do the same that they always did. Everything else has been changed to some extent.

[TheZeisonSha]

Also depends on the version you want to compare. As stated above, there's not really a "better". This writeup on stackexchange pretty much summarizes the differences (to 3.5).

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/1/differences-between-dd-3-5-and-pathfinder

And this one to 5e:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/53766/differences-between-5th-edition-dd-and-pathfinder

[BlueBangkok]

Originally posted by mrekun:

I definitely agree that if your baseline for difficulty is Baldur's Gate or Morrowind or Icewind Dale, then Kingmaker isn't actually all that hard.

Especially Icewind Dale II was brutal, more so on Heart of Fury.

[Yaldabaoth]

Originally posted by BlueBangkok:

Originally posted by mrekun:

I definitely agree that if your baseline for difficulty is Baldur's Gate or Morrowind or Icewind Dale, then Kingmaker isn't actually all that hard.

Especially Icewind Dale II was brutal, more so on Heart of Fury.

Getting totally destroyed by goblins was fun!

[imminence]

Originally posted by BlueBangkok:

Originally posted by mrekun:

I definitely agree that if your baseline for difficulty is Baldur's Gate or Morrowind or Icewind Dale, then Kingmaker isn't actually all that hard.

Especially Icewind Dale II was brutal, more so on Heart of Fury.

I hope I don't sound like an elitist, but IWD II plus HoF was absolutely ok for me, not too hard and not too easy. If pathfinder will be like this, I'd be happy.

The last "true" AD&D-game I played was NWN 2 with all expansions.
Then there was a free to play MMO with a "new" AD&D-system, which I didn't like at all.

With the information you gave me, I am again happy to have found this game.

I was really afraid, that someone will write
"...basically the same as AD&D, just dumbed down to the core, to make it playable for the so called "casual gamer"....."

But obviously this is not the case and I see hard times rising for me, because now I must try every single class.....): ;)

[Procrastinating Gamer]

Part of the confusion there is AD&D specifically refers to DnD 2nd edition, the version used for Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Neverwinter Nights 1 used DnD 3rd edition, while NWN 2 used 3.5 edition (basically 3e but with a few extra tweaks). DDO and Neverwinter (the two MMOs) used different systems entirely (the former was *very* loosely based on 3.5 while the latter was a modified form of 4th edition.

If you watch Critical Role, that's using DnD 5th edition, the current one and that (to put it simply) it's 3.5-ish, but with bits and pieces from other editions and simplified mechanics.

Pathfinder is made by another company and is basically DnD 3.5 with further modifications and adding more class features (a big complaint in 3e was Sorcerers were just "Wizards without bonus feats" - Pathfinder gave them bloodlines which gives them bonus spells, feats, and abilities thematic to the source of their magic).

[mrekun]

Originally posted by Yaldabaoth:

Originally posted by BlueBangkok:

Especially Icewind Dale II was brutal, more so on Heart of Fury.

Getting totally destroyed by goblins was fun!

Oh memories... I still remember my 1st level Khajit thief screaming and running away from Dremora in Morrowind. Good times, good times.

Originally posted by imminence:

I hope I don't sound like an elitist, but IWD II plus HoF was absolutely ok for me, not too hard and not too easy. If pathfinder will be like this, I'd be happy.

...if you beat HoF without issue, then I tip my hat to you good sir. Anyway, in that case, I think Kingmaker at base will be a bit easy for you, but the nice thing about the game is that it has extremely modular difficulty level. So just bump it up from Normal to Challenging or so and you'll be set.

That said, if you *do* do so, you might consider waiting a few levels in. The first 2-3 levels of the game are a fair bit harder than the rest, because your characters don't have very many options yet.

Originally posted by imminence:

The last "true" AD&D-game I played was NWN 2 with all expansions.

Hmm. Well, NWN 2 wasn't AD&D, it was 3.5, which is very, very similar to Pathfinder. (Roughly speaking, Pathfinder was a lightly polished and updated version of 3.5). So if you know that then you'll be familiar with most of the stuff here.

Originally posted by imminence:

I was really afraid, that someone will write
"...basically the same as AD&D, just dumbed down to the core, to make it playable for the so called "casual gamer"....."

But obviously this is not the case and I see hard times rising for me, because now I must try every single class.....): ;)

Personally, I think that D&D 3.0/ D&D 3.5/Pathfinder is the least casual-friendly and most complex of the D&D variants. They rationalized a bunch of AD&D mechanics (going from Save vs. Petrification and Save vs. Wands to Fortitude/Reflex/Will Saves, say), but it's a lot more modular.

In Baldur's Gate, Multiclassing or Dual-Classing were complicated and restricted and most characters were basically single-class types. I don't think AD&D had feats either.

In the later editions, and in Kingmaker, you can make any mixture of classes you want, and they all have their own options. You can make a sorcerer with fey heritage or with dragon heritage, and they will play somewhat differently. You can also make a paladin/sorcerer, or a paladin/monk/fighter, and these characters will all *work*. Single-class characters are highly effective and recommended, but if you want to get tricksy you have near limitless options.

[imminence]

Uhm... just to clear up one thing:

When I entered HoF of IWD II with my ...what was ist?... level 15 or 16 party the first time, I didn't really know, what will happen.

I saw the first goblin in the harbour quarter and thought "omg, again these critters..", tried to rush.... and was slaughtered in a way I never believed, that this could happen :)

Issues...yes, of course. I had to figure out, what to do with my 6 heroes and in many fights I figured the wrong way until I found the "right" one. :)

What I wanted to say: It was hard, but never unfair.

BTW: Is there a HoF in pathfinder, too?

[1 (all muted)]

Then should try nwn. On hardest difficulty, the only challenging things are bosses, rest do nothing. its actually getting a little annoing, every room is infested with those 1dmg mobs, who give no xp and do no dmg. Would rather see few good battles than this.

[SIlverblade-T-E]

Icewind dale 2 was very good :) almost 3rd ed
Heart oF Fury you HAD to use summoned monsters to soak the damage first because 3rd ed was "broken", the way monsters scaled against players was WAY out whack :(
hence part of reason I quit DMing 3.5 ed D&D

then they made 4th ed too complicated (too many power cards etc) but had TONS of good ideas, like "Minions" (1 hp critters with decent-ish stats, so you could throw lots of them at players without melting your brain in complexity)

temple of elemental evil was SUPERB, if not for the bugs, only Turn based D&D game that was good in a LONG time

[BlueBangkok]

Originally posted by imminence:

Originally posted by BlueBangkok:

Especially Icewind Dale II was brutal, more so on Heart of Fury.

I hope I don't sound like an elitist, but IWD II plus HoF was absolutely ok for me, not too hard and not too easy. If pathfinder will be like this, I'd be happy.

The last "true" AD&D-game I played was NWN 2 with all expansions.
Then there was a free to play MMO with a "new" AD&D-system, which I didn't like at all.

With the information you gave me, I am again happy to have found this game.

I was really afraid, that someone will write
"...basically the same as AD&D, just dumbed down to the core, to make it playable for the so called "casual gamer"....."

But obviously this is not the case and I see hard times rising for me, because now I must try every single class.....): ;)

I think that Challenging / Unfair in Kingmaker is quite a bit harder than IWD2 Heart of Fury so you're in for a treat.