Just thought I'd ask how many of you here played Pathfinder. I'll be honest right off the bat; I consider it superior to 3.5, and most definitely superior to 4th Ed, and that playing 3.5 instead is a great mistake. It's all more or less compatible anyway, and Sorcerers are far, far more interesting in Pathfinder, but then Sorcerers (and anything Psionic) are basically my favourite thing to play.

I'm a starter DM right now for 4e, and I like it better than 3.5. However, Idk the difference between Pathfinder and 4e.

I think Pathfinder is better than 3.5. Yeah, there will always be some differences you don't like, but overall I find it much more manageable and less deadly to the players than 3.5.
1926093 Basically, Pathfinder is 3.5, just more polished.

1948839 so, why does he say 3.5 is better than 4? 4e is smoother and gives you more flexibility and powers

1950380 Probably because everything is just too balanced. I feel like a bard going into battle should get destroyed by a fighter, hands down. Don't get me wrong, I do like 4e, but some things in it are just too set in stone for my taste. Take, for example, skills. You're trained in a skill and that's it. You're on a steady slope of how good you are with it with little variation at all. Another thing is all the powers and feats you end up getting. Now, me, I'm a total munchkin ; I love all the weird combinations, min-maxing, making the craziest character designs possible. In fact, it's almost easier to do in 4e since there's less searching for the perfect feat to make your low level character do a minimum of 20 damage with at-will powers (I'm exaggerating a tiny bit), but I digress . That's also a problem though, with all the different options for every character. It's easy to forget when certain feats or abilities activate, when to use them, etc, problems that used to be only applied to spellcasters. Pathfinder can do that a bit too, but not to the same extent as 4e. Anyway, I'm probably rambling at this point.