LogFAQs > #980058952

You really gotta specify which edition of D&D and Pathfinder.

PF "1E" was D&D 3.5 w/ some common sense rules changes and then a whole lot of dumb shit and utter bloat (for all the criticisms 3E got for "trap options", none of them made you objectively weaker for taking them like some of PF's).
A common criticism of 3E was that casters were too strong, so PF's solution was to...make them even stronger. Like... being a specialist wizard sure is nifty but it's a shame you have to ban two whole schools of magic, then PF came around and was like, "but what if you didn't have to, though?"
It's a rom-hack of the best edition of D&D so even though it's not as good as the original, it's...ok. Just stick to classes w/ a spell list, even if it only goes up to 4th or 6th level spells, and you'll be ok.

PF 2E is entirely it's own thing and I've only heard about it, but it sounds fucking dreadful. Like D&D 4E except the feats and options are even weaker and lamer than in that dumpster fire of a rules set (like instead of a feat to get +2 to some skills, which would already be weak and lame in 3E, now there's feats to situationally get +1 or +2 to a skill or two). I'm actually shocked there's people here saying they like it, they're literally the first people I've ever seen outside of Paizo's (maker of PF) own boards (and even there it's got a lot of detractors) that had good things to say about it. I've seen lots of people online and friends of mine who liked PF 1E and hated D&D 4E all universally say it's even worse than D&D 4E.

Not going to bother talking about D&D, I assume you're familiar with it at least.