The roots of 4e exposed?

[Tony Vargas]

. And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support.

True. 3.5 fans have had active support the whole time, but for maybe a year between the end of 3.5 and release of PF. 4e fans have been without active support since 2012.

AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities.

Maybe I need to look at it more carefully, but it seemed like casters were still basically Vancian, for instance. Avoiding dead levels is something PF was already doing, and even 5e does, sorta. So IDK...

I get the impression that people who don’t like 4e grossly misunderstand what the people who do like it like about it. That’s also why I’m seeing tons of 4e fans comparing PF2 to 4e, and tons of non-4e fans saying they don’t see the similarity.

I don't see the similarity. Exception that proves the rule, I guess. ;|

Of course there is. I’m not saying PF2 is directly trying to appeal to 4e fans. I’m saying it’s design appeals to 4e fans for similar reasons 4e does, and might offer us an actively supporter game that suits our tastes.

I can't imagine a game even half as balanced as 4e could pass muster with 3.5/PF fans.

Woah there, shots fired. Let’s not try to start an Edition war here.

Better not to quote that stuff.

 

[billd91]

4e failed to hit a revenue goal set by Hasbro that even the entire industry, today, would still be failing to meet.

If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either, but there was the real prospect that it would do significantly better than 4e and that's a function of bringing in more fans - old and new - than 4e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either....

Apparently, the whole "Core Brand" concept that called for such an unrealistic goal was just dropped. If it had been dropped a couple years earlier, 4e may not have gotten the desperate Essentials-redesign... a few years before that, might not have existed at all.

Business.

 

[Charlaquin]

True. 3.5 fans have had active support the whole time, but for maybe a year between the end of 3.5 and release of PF. 4e fans have been without active support since 2012.

Precisely. It’s the reason I settle for 5e when I would really rather be playing 4e.

Maybe I need to look at it more carefully, but it seemed like casters were still basically Vancian, for instance. Avoiding dead levels is something PF was already doing, and even 5e does, sorta. So IDK...

Yeah, casting is definitely still Vancian, and that’s something I imagine a lot of other 4e fans would have to get past before they’d adopt PF2. I’m ok with it, personally, but I know the potential for martial/caster disparity is very much there and will be a huge sticking point for the majority of 4e fans. Personally, I’m one of the odd ones who’s ok with different classes having different resource games. At any rate, I appreciate that spells and non-spell actions alike have very clear, consistent presentation. The little ability, spell, and item blocks are right out of 4e, and I love how easy it makes it to tell exactly what something does. I also like the way every character not only gets something at every level, but gets a choice at every level, and that everyone will have interesting choices to make every turn as well. Those are probably the two most important things to me.

I don't see the similarity. Exception that proves the rule, I guess. ;|

I’m sure you’re not the only one who feels that way. I’ve also heard from folks who see both the similarities and some dealbreaking differences (Vancian magic and martial/caster disparity, again, being chief among them.)

I can't imagine a game even half as balanced as 4e could pass muster with 3.5/PF fans.

Very true. And if 4e’s balance is one of its most important features to you, I don’t foresee PF2 being your game. I think I have a different outlook on game balance than the typical 4e fan, so this may be skewing my perception of PF2 as an evolution of 4e ideas.

Better not to quote that stuff.

It probably is, but I have a hard time not calling it out.

 

[Charlaquin]

If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit.

5e would never have been green-lit had Hasbro not changed its policies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e would never have been green-lit had Hasbro not changed its policies.

The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.

But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring.

Yeah, casting is definitely still Vancian, and that’s something I imagine a lot of other 4e fans would have to get past before they’d adopt PF2. I’m ok with it, personally, but I know the potential for martial/caster disparity is very much there and will be a huge sticking point for the majority of 4e fans. ...At any rate, I appreciate that spells and non-spell actions alike have very clear, consistent presentation.

See, to me, when I read:

PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities.

I nod in agreement, but also think: The /consistent/ part needs to include a consistent structure. If there are going to be resource mixes dictated to the player, at all, they need to be comparable across classes (or any other build choices). Clear is good, and concise is nice to have, but consistent means the game has a chance of being comparatively robust, thus more of the options it presents will be real (viable), and it can present more options with less risk of breaking. Given PF's record when it comes to adding options, it could do with being a lot more robust.

 

[Charlaquin]

The future of D&D was look'n pretty grim there for minute.

But, had that been the case, and D&D been shelved for the last six years, we still might be seeing the come-back, just with the OSR & PF (mabye a more 5e-like TSR-era-evoking PF2 or Advanced PathFinder or something) reaping the rewards and Hasbro not noticing/caring.

Indeed. Things would definitely have gone differently.

See, to me, when I read:
I nod in agreement, but also think: The /consistent/ part needs to include a consistent structure. If there are going to be resource mixes dictated to the player, at all, they need to be comparable across classes (or any other build choices). Clear is good, and concise is nice to have, but consistent means the game has a chance of being comparatively robust, thus more of the options it presents will be real (viable), and it can present more options with less risk of breaking. Given PF's record when it comes to adding options, it could do with being a lot more robust.

That’s totally fair, and I think a significant portion of the 4e fandom would aree with you, perhaps even the majority. Personally, I’m fine with different classes having different resource games, and it’s one of the things I actually preferred about Essentials. I appreciate the advantages that a unified resource structure provides, but it’s not a necessary feature for me personally. Like I said, I’m aware it makes me the odd one out among 4e fans, but it is what it is.

 

[Maxperson]

I am a 4e fan seriously considering turning to PF2, so it can’t be that remote a possibility. Even if it’s not a 4e clone, it has a lot of elements of 4e that I love, along with some new ideas that I like such as the 3-Action economy and Bulk. And one very important thing that 4e doesn’t have - active support.

AEDU isn’t really that core to 4e’s identity to me. PF2 already adopted the part of AEDU I liked the most, which was the clear, concise, and consistent presentation of powers and abilities. I get the impression that people who don’t like 4e grossly misunderstand what the people who do like it like about it. That’s also why I’m seeing tons of 4e fans comparing PF2 to 4e, and tons of non-4e fans saying they don’t see the similarity.

People from 3e went to 4e, but the mass exodus to Pathfinder was because Pathfinder was actually 3e 2.0. Pathfinder 2 is not 4e 2.0, even if there are some similarities. Note, I never said nobody from 4e would make the switch. I was saying that you aren't going to see the mass exodus to Pathfinder 2, because it just isn't 4e 2.0. You considering(you haven't even committed yet ) the switch doesn't change that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

That’s totally fair, and I think a significant portion of the 4e fandom would aree with you, perhaps even the majority. Personally, I’m fine with different classes having different resource games, and it’s one of the things I actually preferred about Essentials. I appreciate the advantages that a unified resource structure provides, but it’s not a necessary feature for me personally. Like I said, I’m aware it makes me the odd one out among 4e fans, but it is what it is.

4e had some sterling qualities, balance among them, and, as you point out, clarity & consistency. But it's hard (and perhaps pointless) to point at one of them and say "most fans of this ed must like this specific thing." We just don't have the statistics to back it up. Maybe 4e fans will like PF2 if it's clear but not balanced, or balanced but not consistent, or maybe not.

If what 4e fans liked mattered, we'd still have 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

People from 3e went to 4e, but the mass exodus to Pathfinder was because Pathfinder was actually 3e 2.0. Pathfinder 2 is not 4e 2.0, even if there are some similarities. Note, I never said nobody from 4e would make the switch. I was saying that you aren't going to see the mass exodus to Pathfinder 2, because it just isn't 4e 2.0. You considering(you haven't even committed yet ) the switch doesn't change that.

I feel like you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying PF2 is 4e 2.0. I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus of 4e fans from 5e to PF2 (are there even that many 4e fans playing 5e?). I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan. And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.