Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

CapnZapp · Jul 16, 2019

Saelorn said:
Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.

Theoretically, yes indeed. However, we've already got 5E where 1 was sacrificed (but not for the benefit of 3).

So it feels like more of a market to offer 1 & 2

CapnZapp · Jul 16, 2019

Kurviak said:
But that’s not the route Paizo choose for PF2. They went with different methods for players vs non players characters

A very wise choice

after all, a player has one (1) character to worry about, while the DM has a dozen.

Making PC chargen more crunchy than NPC chargen makes a lot of sense.

Remathilis · Jul 17, 2019

Saelorn said:
The issue was never that they used the same math. The issue is that they were too complicated to create.

Same difference. For X amount of HD, they had Y feats, Z skill points, and if they had any class levels, Q amount of magical items to equip. All of those elements made monster and NPC creation a huge headache.

On the other hand, monster math also involved the issue of monsters being too strong/weak for their CR, creating imbalance depending on the level of optimization your group entailed. Some creatures could grapple for such bonuses that no creature could escape, while others could not hit a level appropriate PC except on a 20 or posssibly pass a saving throw from a PC.

So, really, it was both. Monster math being based on the same system PCs used makes them hard to create, hard to run, and wildly imbalanced. It was an issue 4e, 5e, and PF2 have all tried to fix in some way or another.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 17, 2019

Remathilis said:
Same difference. For X amount of HD, they had Y feats, Z skill points, and if they had any class levels, Q amount of magical items to equip. All of those elements made monster and NPC creation a huge headache.

It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.

As for CR balance, well... it certainly would have helped if PCs had been balanced against each other, rather than the optimization mess that ended up as. If PCs had been simple and balanced, then there would have been no issues with NPCs being the same.

Remathilis · Jul 17, 2019

Saelorn said:
It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.

I believe I was referring explicitly to 3.x/PF1.

"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."

So my problems with monster/NPC math came from the idea that they were built using all the same parts as a PC, right down to feats and skill points and magic items arrays, rather than a simpler or more organic method that didn't drown them in fiddly abilities and useless magical gear.

billd91 · Jul 17, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
...which went on to command such loyalty from fans that Paizo has been selling PF1 to that base for an extra decade past it's end of life.

End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 17, 2019

Remathilis said:
I believe I was referring explicitly to 3.x/PF1.

Right, but the inherent problem with that edition was specifically the combination of complex PCs with NPC symmetry. NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.

CapnZapp · Jul 17, 2019

Saelorn said:
NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.

True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.

Parmandur · Jul 17, 2019

billd91 said:
End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.

Weeeeellll, a lot of that was, more or less, reinventing the wheel from 3.5, rehashing concepts covered in existing WotC books.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 17, 2019

CapnZapp said:
True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.

Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC.

Using wildly different rules for PCs and monsters is a strong shift away from Simulationism and toward Gamism, and one of the major reasons why 4E died so horribly was that much of their target audience was not on-board with that shift. D&D players, at least in the 3E-era, wanted rules that told us how the world was supposed to work. While you could make an argument that this is no longer true of current D&D players, it should still be true of Pathfinder 1E fans, which means they will remain highly resistant to that sort of change. Ergo, Pathfinder 2E is making exactly the same mistake that D&D 4E made, by mis-judging their audience.