4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons vs. Pathfinder and why history is repeating itself

VS.

Edition Wars Redux: D&D vs. Pathfinder and the Cycle of Schism

Taking a short break from Warhammer, I wanted to share some thoughts on the current rift brewing between modern Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder. Not as a partisan—but as an outsider. I say “outsider” because I’m not really on either side. No one in this fight is on my side, and frankly, I don’t have much skin in the game.

Why? Because I don’t play either version.

Pathfinder is, for all intents and purposes, the natural continuation of D&D 3.0/3.5 after Wizards of the Coast pivoted sharply into 4th Edition territory. Paizo wisely stepped in and offered a home for those cast adrift by 4e’s direction. Thanks to the OGL, they could legally build on the previous edition’s bones—a twist of fate that’s nothing short of poetic. And from all accounts, Pathfinder has done very well for itself.

But for many long-time gamers like me, D&D stopped being “our game” long before Pathfinder ever hit the scene. Some folks fell off with the release of 2nd Edition. For me, it was 3rd. I bought the core books, gave them a go, and found them… meh. Then 3.5 dropped not long after. It felt like a video game on paper. Over time, it began to resemble World of Warcraft more than Dungeons & Dragons.

What finally sealed it for me was the creeping prevalence of phrases like “character build” and “optimized path”. If your tabletop RPG revolves around those concepts, you’re either going to attract MMORPG players—or you’re already emulating that structure, consciously or not. That isn’t inherently bad—but it is a far cry from the games many of us grew up with.

Now, this isn’t to say older editions didn’t have powerful characters or min-maxing, but that wasn’t the point. Today, characters are often designed with end-game blueprints in mind. There’s a roadmap to becoming a specific “build.” What you play matters less than what you build. And for me, that’s a shame. Dont get me started on equipment overload.

Now before anyone pegs me as an old-school purist—hold up.

I’ve played 3.0, 3.5, and enjoyed d20 Star Wars quite a bit (honestly, more than the West End d6 version). I don’t hang out on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse, and I’ve disagreed with my fair share of Dragonsfoot arguments. I’m not anti-WoW or anti-modern gaming. If I had more free time, I’d probably play the hell out of it. I truly believe people should play what they love.

But not everyone feels that way. And that’s where this schism starts to resemble something eerily familiar.

We've Been Here Before

This whole D&D vs. Pathfinder showdown? It’s basically the 1989 edition rift all over again—but magnified.

Back then, GaryGygax was forced out of TSR after Lorraine Williams took the reins. When 2nd Edition dropped, it came with the baggage of her reputation. A lot of players rejected it not because of radical rules changes, but because of who was behind it. And to be fair, mechanically, 1st and 2nd Edition aren’t all that different. It was more about the drama behind the scenes than the game itself.

Sound familiar?

Back then, the fan-base fractured into edition loyalists. Now, we’re seeing a repeat—but this time, it’s companies going head-to-head. Wizards of the Coast vs. Paizo. D&D vs. Pathfinder. And just like last time, lines are being drawn, and sides are being taken.

Except now the stakes are higher. The editions are more divergent. The business models more aggressive. And the player base more fragmented than ever.

The Market Is Shrinking—and Splintering

Some in the Old School Renaissance like to believe that retro clones and classic games are on the rise. And sure, in a niche sense, they are. But let’s not kid ourselves: the market for any tabletop RPG is smaller than it was in its 1980s heyday. And within that smaller market, we’re seeing further division. Instead of unity, we get micro-communities and echo chambers.

The irony is that D&D, once the 800-pound gorilla of the hobby, now feels more like QuarkXPress circa 2002—slow to adapt, vulnerable to competitors. Could Pathfinder be the InDesign of our hobby, quietly taking over while the original giant stumbles?

It’s possible. Pathfinder is gaining steam. Paizo has momentum. Wizards has the name, but that’s starting to feel like an anchor more than an asset. Worse, Wizards' strategy around “Essentials” and rumored plans for a new edition feel like confusion, not clarity.

If 5th Edition ends up being yet another hard turn from what came before, they risk alienating what's left of their already fractured fan base. And if the goal is just to get people to re-buy books again and again, well… eventually, players notice.

Same Circus, Different Clowns

At the end of the day, we’ve seen this before. The fan base fractures. The “wars” get fought online. And somewhere in the background, players just want to roll dice and tell stories.

So maybe it’s not a Kid Rock song—but it does feel like déjà vu. Once again, we’re at one of those once-in-a-generation turning points for the hobby. Last time, the split was ideological. This time, it’s corporate. And as usual, the players are caught in the middle. 

As a (mostly) disinterested observer, I’ll keep watching. Neither company is making what I want—but maybe that’s okay. Maybe that’s the lesson here: the industry doesn’t need to serve me anymore. But it does need to decide what kind of game it wants to be—and who it wants to keep around.

Because if things keep splintering like this, there might not be many left. 

Bait and Switch?