Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

MoonSong · Jul 13, 2019

Saelorn said:
I'm not saying that you couldn't make the distinction, if you really wanted to. I'm saying that, if you do make the distinction, and you include separate modifiers for each, then they are redundant for the task of distinguishing a character's competence within a given level.

A simpler alternative would be to only use the proficiency bonus, say that it represents some combination of natural talent and learned skill, and only use that one bonus (in addition to the level bonus). It would prevent issues where (for example) the cleric is more perceptive than the ranger, when their Wisdom gap is greater than their proficiency gap. It would also solve the annoying old problem where the only way to truly specialize was to have both the maximum ability modifier and the maximum skill bonus.

Ideally I would have ability modifiers not affecting skill bonus by themselves, I would rather high ability bonuses helped you have higher proficiency levels faster.

Edit: An on topic, this isn't necessarily a judgment of value, what I got from the playtest was that PF2 somehow managed to have the bad parts of 4e without the good stuff. I'm still on the fence on whether to give it some of my time of money. I'll have to wait to see what changes we get from the playtest and how it improves before getting invested.

Zardnaar · Jul 13, 2019

Mistwell said:
Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.

That's rough.

I don't think we can call it one way or another.

That playtest just left such a bad taste though.

billd91 · Jul 13, 2019

Mistwell said:
Pathfinder 2 is Highlander 2.

That’s a pretty strong statement. It’s not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does.

pemerton · Jul 13, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Let's turn around using a theory that claims not to be exclusionary and judgmental, to exclude my perspective from discussion, and instead make it about why I don't want to be judged & excluded?

If your perspective is that playing DitV is the same as playing DL, then I have to ask - have you played DitV, or any system like it?

Tony Vargas said:
the purpose of GNS is to divide, excluded, and judge other divisions inferior to your preferred one.

I don't find it uninteresting, I find it false, pernicious, and elitist.

<snip>

a monolithic division of RPGs and the people who play them into exclusive warring camps, it's corrosive.

So now it's corrosive for people to talk about their play experiences, and what they found different in different systems?

This is why I described you upthread as hostile to analysis.

As for the idea that GNS is corrosive - the only anger and hostility I see is people who apparently can't handle the fact that Ron Edwards cares about something that seems not to matter to them. If you don't see any difference in fundamental play experience between playing (say) CoC and playing (say) Apocalypse World then that's how it is. Why is it wrong for others to see the world of RPGing differently from you?

Tony Vargas · Jul 13, 2019

pemerton said:
If your perspective is that playing DitV is the same as playing DL, then I have to ask - have you played DitV, or any system like it?

Dude, I've never played DL, if I'm even tracking the acronyms. And, it shouldn't matter which specific games someone has played, if the point isn't to be exclusionary.

So now it's corrosive for people to talk about their play experiences, and what they found different in different systems?

No, GNS. I thought that was clear from context.

This is why I described you upthread as hostile to analysis.

I'm maybe a little tired of it, because it's work, to me, and this is my hobby.

But, seriously, taking something as complex as RPGs, and dividing it into three categories - with the clearly-stated premise that they're descriptive and can all be present in a given game, group, individual or experience - treating them as exhaustive, then using them to define exclusive, incompatible, 'agendas?'

That's not analysis, it's politics.

What do people do when presented with It? They pick one. "Oh, I'm simulationist!" "hey, these are games, how can you be anything but gamist" "gaming is my outlet for my creative storytelling talents (until my novels get published) so I'm clearly in the most sophisticated, narrativist, camp"

As for the idea that GNS is corrosive - the only anger and hostility I see is people who apparently can't handle the fact that R*********s cares about something that seems not to matter to them.

Damn, it's like the point is enhancing his name recognition or something.

If you don't see any difference in fundamental play experience between playing (say) CoC and playing (say) Apocalypse World then that's how it is. Why is it wrong for others to see the world of RPGing differently from you?

I'm definitely in the 'system matters' camp (just not when it comes to popularity or commercial success).

But, the "experience" is a couple degrees of freedom removed from the system, which, itself, is removed from design intent. And GNS 'agendas' are yet further removed.

GNS is just a me/you/them refinement of the us/them of Roll v Role.

And, like it, corrosive.

Mistwell · Jul 13, 2019

Zardnaar said:
That's rough.

I don't think we can call it one way or another.

That playtest just left such a bad taste though.

billd91 said:
That’s a pretty strong statement. It’s not many sequels that ruin the original like Highlander 2 does.

LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.

Zardnaar · Jul 14, 2019

Mistwell said:
LOL it was a joke. I was trying to one-up the prior jokes. I think Pathfinder 2 will do fine.

I knew you were joking but some lines shouldn't be crossed. Being compared to Highlander 2 is one of them. I would almost retain your services. You could sue yourself.

Remathilis · Jul 16, 2019

I see some of 4e in PF2, but that's because they were both attempts to fix the same inherent problems with 3.5. For nigh unto 20 years, the problems with the 3.x/d20 mechanics have shown themselves again and again. The inherent unevenness of the Bab/Save progression, the dependency the mainline 6 magic items, monsters using PC math for creation. The escalation of bonuses, the bloat of options, LFQW, static combats, etc.

So of course, 4e and PF are attempted to fix the same problems; you fix the uneven math progression by streamlining everything into a single progress line. You reduce magic item dependency to a small (3) sets of static bonuses, and then use some cooldown method for other magic items. You curb the math so that it flows easier. You roll different customization abilities into selectable abilities gained every level from a variety of siloed abilities. You fix the action economy to allow for more fluid movement and lose full-round actions. You give monsters types/roles and use different math to create them. You make most magic and other abilities not scale by character level.

The big difference is that Paizo had a great window to see why 4e failed and what 5e did right, so they avoided some of those pitfalls, like forcing all classes into the ADEU structure rather than some form of spell-slot casting and other resource mechanics. It will be interesting to see if Paizo managed to answer the problems of 3e better than WotC initially did.

FatR · Jul 16, 2019

PF2 cannot be Paizo's 4E, because 4E had actual design goals. Of course those design goals were dubious (make a game that CharOp boards' regulars would like) or unrealistic (we want World of Warcraft audience), and their execution was bungled, but at least 4E tried to do something with the system, besides making all the mechanics different for the sake of selling all the books again.

PF2 absolutely doesn't. The whole project reeks of a cynical attempt to restart the supplement threadmill. As far as I can tell, no one can explain what selling points of PF2 are supposed to be, in what ways it is better than PF1, what actual problems it fixes, or even what made-up problems it fixes better than existing versions of DnD. It is one of the most complicated, rules-hyperheavy RPGs I've ever read, and more of the complexity than before is upfront and unavoidable, rather than being optional (by all accounts the system wasn't reworked entirely since beta, therefore this observation will equally apply to the final product), so it cannot claim to be "streamlining" anyting. Between "are you kidding me?" levels of complexity that a new player must confront before play even starts, and the fact that it is even more self-referential than other versions of DnD, it has zero appeal to anyone who is not a hardcore DnD/PF fan. It tries to cram itself into the same weird niche of "kitchen sink high fantasy with magic galore, but options available to players are straightjacketed to the point that at any level GM will have no problems railroading through the same sort of dungeons they crawled at level 1, only with bigger numbers" that DnD tried to starting with 4E, consequently even if it had been less incestous, it still would have little hope to actually connect with the sort of stories people nowadays may imagine when they thing of high-powered high fantasy.

Oh, and the art so far is not that good either. Given than good art was, IMO one of the two big factors behind PF success, that is a big problem.

Hussar · Jul 16, 2019

FatR said:
PF2 cannot be Paizo's 4E, because 4E had actual design goals. Of course those design goals were dubious (make a game that CharOp boards' regulars would like) or unrealistic (we want World of Warcraft audience), and their execution was bungled, but at least 4E tried to do something with the system, besides making all the mechanics different for the sake of selling all the books again.

PF2 absolutely doesn't. The whole project reeks of a cynical attempt to restart the supplement threadmill. As far as I can tell, no one can explain what selling points of PF2 are supposed to be, in what ways it is better than PF1, what actual problems it fixes, or even what made-up problems it fixes better than existing versions of DnD. It is one of the most complicated, rules-hyperheavy RPGs I've ever read, and more of the complexity than before is upfront and unavoidable, rather than being optional (by all accounts the system wasn't reworked entirely since beta, therefore this observation will equally apply to the final product), so it cannot claim to be "streamlining" anyting. Between "are you kidding me?" levels of complexity that a new player must confront before play even starts, and the fact that it is even more self-referential than other versions of DnD, it has zero appeal to anyone who is not a hardcore DnD/PF fan. It tries to cram itself into the same weird niche of "kitchen sink high fantasy with magic galore, but options available to players are straightjacketed to the point that at any level GM will have no problems railroading through the same sort of dungeons they crawled at level 1, only with bigger numbers" that DnD tried to starting with 4E, consequently even if it had been less incestous, it still would have little hope to actually connect with the sort of stories people nowadays may imagine when they thing of high-powered high fantasy.

Oh, and the art so far is not that good either. Given than good art was, IMO one of the two big factors behind PF success, that is a big problem.

This is your very first post on the boards? Well, welcome aboard bud. I'm sure you'll make friends in no time.