Similarities 4E PF2?

CapnZapp said:

But let me ask you: which is more fun
a) a combat encounter that might take a long time to resolve but never feels dangerous and never could pose a threat
b) a combat encounter which inadvertently turns out to be impossibly hard; monster AC you can't hit, special attacks you can't defend against
or c) a combat encounter that's challenging but not too challenging, so you actually have a reason to deploy your abilities in smart ways and are encouraged to actually team-work to make the sum of your party greater than its parts

Click to expand...

Your first problem is that easy fights, which pose no threat, take a long time to resolve. Your second problem is that the PCs are apparently locked into inescapable death matches, against their will. If you fix those two problems, then contriving the third situation won't seem like the only option.

CapnZapp said:

Remember all of that takes place behind the DM screen. As a player you shouldn't deny the DM good tools just because you want to live in a bubble of illusion the great game you're in came together just by accident.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a great game, if it's actually contrived behind an illusion. Deception is the worst quality that a GM can have. If you can't trust that your GM is playing honestly, then there's no point in even playing.

Remember, the GM has three jobs: 1) Describe the world; 2) Play the NPCs; 3) Adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution.

This is an RPG. It's not fight club.

Saelorn said:

Your first problem is that easy fights, which pose no threat, take a long time to resolve. Your second problem is that the PCs are apparently locked into inescapable death matches, against their will.

Click to expand...

Now I don't know what game you're talking about, or how that relates to NPC build rules...

The only game I know where "easy fights still take too long" is 4E, and I'm not defending that edition.

There's no such thing as a great game, if it's actually contrived behind an illusion. Deception is the worst quality that a GM can have. If you can't trust that your GM is playing honestly, then there's no point in even playing.

Click to expand...

If you truly believe that, or it's inverse
a) that you "lie" just because your monsters don't follow PC build rules...
b) that following PC build rules somehow prevents a DM from "cheating" if they really want to...

I really have nothing to say to you...

CapnZapp said:

Edit: This is not a troll thread. For the purposes of this thread, assume I am neutral towards 4th edition and that any similarities are neither bad not good. Thank you.

I've heard the sentiment "PF2 will be good because it's like D&D 4E" enough times now that I gotta ask:

What are the similarities between 4E and PF2? What could be the specific PF2 mechanics (and/or design assumptions) that makes anyone say this? And are these people the same ones that see similarities between 5E and 4E? (That is, are the alleged similarities between PF2 and 4E stronger or weaker than the ones between 5E and 4E?)

What (other than personal wish lists) could suggest PF2 will play like 4E and not like PF1 (and therefore 3.x?)

I am genuinely curious. Too many people here and at Reddit and elsewhere say this. No edition-bashing intended.

Click to expand...

The final product isn't out yet, obviously, but from the playtest I found practically nothing to resemble 4E. I found it just a different version of 3.5 in all comparisons, with 5E proficiency matrix in mind. Speaking that I very rarely play anything with a level-based system, I found the proficiency system being a modifier of level an appealing way to perhaps trying such a thing again.

So if untrained is Level-X, and trained is Level, and everything else is an increase - it reminds me more of base attack bonuses from 3.5 than the 4E's half level to everything approach. The abilities may have action costs written in with them, but they don't have that cut and dry 4E feeling at all. The 'powers' aren't clean at all - they are written very much like 3.5 feat entries; "You can take a -2 penalty to whack at something different."

I think they have the chance to make something pretty nifty with PF2, and I'm waiting (im)patiently to see the final product, and hope a few aspects from the playtest, change. Picking your class based on a selection of 'Feats' just seems like a naming issue. I don't feel like they are feats so much as just class options, akin to 5E's subclasses, only without being adherent to a specific path once you start picking. I dunno - I just don't see the 4E comparison at all.

- my 2 cents.

CapnZapp said:

Now I don't know what game you're talking about, or how that relates to NPC build rules...

The only game I know where "easy fights still take too long" is 4E, and I'm not defending that edition.

Click to expand...

In that case, you have (a2) easy fights that resolve quickly and the players get to show off how awesome they are, and you have (b2) impossible fights that the players avoid in order to show off how wise they are. The choice between your given options, (a) (b) or (c), was disingenuous. In reality, the choice between (a2) and (b2), or (c), is a lot less one-sided.

CapnZapp said:

If you truly believe that, or it's inverse
a) that you "lie" just because your monsters don't follow PC build rules...
b) that following PC build rules somehow prevents a DM from "cheating" if they really want to...

I really have nothing to say to you...

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about that. Those are honest choices, which a system can use or not, and players can accept (or reject) at face value.

I'm talking about the illusion of objectivity, where the GM pretends that they're running the world as a living place, while they're actually contriving the party into level-appropriate scenarios. When a great game comes together, it shouldn't be because the player was oblivious to what the GM was doing behind the screen (as you put it). If a game experience would be ruined for the player, if they ever found out how the GM was doing things, then it was never a good game to begin with.

Xaelvaen said:

Picking your class based on a selection of 'Feats' just seems like a naming issue. I don't feel like they are feats so much as just class options, akin to 5E's subclasses, only without being adherent to a specific path once you start picking. I dunno - I just don't see the 4E comparison at all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this actually reminded me much more of the 5e Warlock, where you can pick Invocations related to one of your paths (e.g., Blade, Chain, Tome), but most are essentially class features of your choice. Part of the popularity of the warlock, IMHO, is in how it provides players with greater build and customization points.

The focus spells and replenishment of focus points to use them after a short rest, are pretty much encounter powers. The swap a class feat for another class feat hybrid-classing is pretty similar to 4E.

Aldarc said:

Yeah, this actually reminded me much more of the 5e Warlock, where you can pick Invocations related to one of your paths (e.g., Blade, Chain, Tome), but most are essentially class features of your choice. Part of the popularity of the warlock, IMHO, is in how it provides players with greater build and customization points.

Click to expand...

That's a great point - I hadn't honestly thought of that, but Warlock is considerably popular in our 5E games - could be just that reason.

payn said:

The focus spells and replenishment of focus points to use them after a short rest, are pretty much encounter powers. The swap a class feat for another class feat hybrid-classing is pretty similar to 4E.

Click to expand...

I didn't do any Multi-classing in the playtest, so I hadn't really checked that section out - the watered-down feats from 4E multiclassing, before the PHB3, were terrible. As far as encounter resources, 5E uses several of those too (Warlocks, Martial Maneuvers, Monk Ki...) - so it made me think more of 5E's Monk than 4E's A/E/D approach, or the Nine Swords book from 3.5. It seems Encounter-based resource is becoming pretty popular (which I approve of whole-heartedly).

Xaelvaen said:

As far as encounter resources, 5E uses several of those too (Warlocks, Martial Maneuvers, Monk Ki...) - so it made me think more of 5E's Monk than 4E's A/E/D approach, or the Nine Swords book from 3.5. It seems Encounter-based resource is becoming pretty popular (which I approve of whole-heartedly).

Click to expand...

I think it's important to keep in mind that 5e short rests resources are pretty pointedly /not/ encounter-based, the intended theoretical balance-point for encounters:short:long is 6-8:2-3:1, or about /two/ encounters between rests. And, that's in theory, in practice, it depends on how much time you have between encounters and whether you use a variant, like the 'gritty' variant that makes short rests 8 hrs and long rests a week. An hour or 8 between every encounter?

Literal "Encounter-based Resources" would recharge when you rolled initiative (or began an other-pillar 'encounter' in some formal way), and be unavailable for systematic use outside of encounters (during downtime, for instance).

Tony Vargas said:

I think it's important to keep in mind that 5e short rests resources are pretty pointedly /not/ encounter-based, the intended theoretical balance-point for encounters:short:long is 6-8:2-3:1, or about /two/ encounters between rests. And, that's in theory, in practice, it depends on how much time you have between encounters and whether you use a variant, like the 'gritty' variant that makes short rests 8 hrs and long rests a week. An hour or 8 between encounters?

Literal "Encounter-based Resources" would recharge when you rolled initiative (or began an other-pillar 'encounter' in some formal way), and be unavailable for systematic use outside of encounters (during downtime, for instance).

Click to expand...

Yes, very true - I often forget the 1 hour short rest requirement of 5E due to the fact that when we play it, we use the 5 minute short rest alternate in the DMG - good catch though. We found that without a healer in the party, which is quite often since I'm the only one that really likes cleric all that much, the characters would find a way to get in that 1 hour rest regardless of circumstance (saving dungeons of course) to get to spend Hit Dice to heal. We decided to just get rid of the finagling and make it closer to 'encounter' resources.

Added bonus for me as the GM - getting to really push my players constantly, which they love, being old grognards like myself.