Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Parmandur]

They get shouted down pretty quickly, and it's not like they were ever non-controversial.
Neo-Vancian keeps the usual suspects in Tier 1 (if you transplanted neo-Vancian into 3.5, it'd make them "Tier 0" for sure), the Bard has clawed it's way up quite a bit, arguably even that high. Some sub-classes arguably belong in different Tiers, the Fighter could be said to be splayed out from Tier 5 through 3. But not all that hugely different, really, because the game's /trying not to be that hugely different, really/.

DM fiat can keep /anything/ in line, sure. ::shrug::


It didn't, it just didn't multiply it LFQW factors. Like I said, not perfect.

The versatility disparity was there from 1st level. Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.
(Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.

But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern. The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.

Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.

5e /did/ focus on getting BA & DPR to line up, though. A Warlock's baseline DPR isn't obviously superior to an Archers, for instance. Single-target DPR is formulaic by slot level (& cantrips attack bonus, and save DCs by caster level) and not the most potent thing you can do with a spell. Area & multi-target DPR is another thing entirely, and once you go beyond DPR, there's vanishingly little (the odd BM trick) on the non-caster side.

It was less "shouted down" and more "proven to be not useful for optimizing" since the Class balance was fixed in 5E.

Relying on anything other than DM fiat to keep a tabletop RPG going is fools gold.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was less "shouted down" and more "proven to be not useful for optimizing"

It was always more about versatility/power and campaign planning than optimization. I mean, that's like saying "E6 was proven not to be useful for optimizing."

since the Class balance was fixed in 5E.

"Fixed" as in "only exists at a certain number of encounters and short rests per day," arguably. Fixed as in "repaired," hardly...

Relying on anything other than DM fiat to keep a tabletop RPG going is fools gold.

Heh.
I mean, if you have a net, why even try to grab the trapeze, right?

 

[Imaro]

It didn't...

We are certainly in agreement here.

The versatility disparity was there from 1st level. Fighter got defender class features, skills. The Wizard got controller class features (which, itself, gets complicated), skills, plus cantrips, plus rituals.
(Now, TBF, rituals cost to cast made them little more than a license to use a specific expendable item, and with wealth/level & make/buy, the fighter had quite the range of expendables, too.)
And, there was inherently less versatility in martial exploits - which were always weapon-keyword, virtually never typed damage, mostly attacked AC, typically melee/range, limited when Close & rarely area, and more combat-focused when utilities - than prayers or spells which had numerous damage types, were frequently range/area, imposed a wider range of conditions (slightly, you didn't expect to see Dominate on exploits, for instance), especially exception-based one-offs (like, oh, "I hurl you through Hell - save ends, tho"), and accomplished a wider range of effects with utilities.

But, that didn't balloon at high level in the LFQW pattern. The casters and non-casters /both/ got more options as they leveled up, so the relative versatility of those options didn't grow vastly with level.

The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided if you have 4 powers that are... do X damage, do X+5 damage, do X damage and push, do X damage and pull... while I have 4 that are.... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ... I have the same number of powers but much greater versatility. 4e created a like number of powers for each class but what those powers could accomplish is where versatility kicked in and casters outshined martials in 4e just like every other edition of D&D.

Not /just/ for that reason, but, yes, spells & rituals are greatly upgraded (restored) in effect and versatility compared to spells & rituals in 4e.

In what way? Let's take a look at Raise dead in both editions...

In 4e you can cast the spell at 8th level... In 5e you can't cast it until 9th level.
In 4e creature must have died within 30 days... In 5e creature must have died within 10 days
In 4e component cost is 500gp ... in 5e component cost is specifically a diamond worth 500 gp
In 4e creature returns to life as if it had taken an extended rest... In 5e creatire returns with 1 hit point
In 4e creature comes back with -1 penalty to attks, abil/skill checks & saves which is gone after 3 milestones... In 5e the creature comes back with a -4 penalty to attks, abil checks & saves which is reduce by 1 after each long rest
In 4e casting time is 8hrs... In 5e casting Time is 1hr

So where exactly is this nerfing of effect or versatility? In nearly every comparable category the 4th edition Raise Dead is better then the 5e one.

 

[Parmandur]

It was always more about versatility/power and campaign planning than optimization. I mean, that's like saying "E6 was proven not to be useful for optimizing."

"Fixed" as in "only exists at a certain number of encounters and short rests per day," arguably. Fixed as in "repaired," hardly...

Heh.
I mean, if you have a net, why even try to grab the trapeze, right?

Certainly, one doesn't need to follow the encounter day to have fun: see Critical Role, for example, they never follow the full day guidelines and have a blast.

If a table cares about martial/caster balance, the tools to keep it in line are provided. If not, then bliss on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided
.... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ...

In the context of LFQW, it /really/ does. If you have one character gain 6 over 20 levels, and they're not that versatile, vs another gaining 25 over 20 levels, and they're potentially quite varied & versatile, you go from a clear advantage to an overwhelming one. If you both gain a total of 4 such powers, then even if one tends to have more versatile powers than the other, the gulf doesn't widen hugely as you go.

In what way? Let's take a look at Raise dead in both editions...

Raise Dead, really?
Let's look at Wish: Oh, we can't, it didn't even exist in 4e, because they purged it of the most problematic spells.
Oh, or how about, since you called them out: .... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball … since you already brought them up.

Levitate:
Available at: 4e, 6th level; 5e, 3rd level
Range/target: 4e self-only; 5e, 60'/creature or object, forces CON save
Duration: 4e sustain(move) up to 5 min; 5e concentration(no action) up to 10 min
Speed: 4e 15' vertical, 5' horizontal; 5e, 20' vertical, climb speed horizontal if near a surface
Ceiling: 4e 20'; 5e 60'
Usage: 4e 1/day (6th level utility); 5e 2nd level slot.

invisibility

Available at: 4e, 6th level; 5e, 3rd level
Range/target: 4e 25'/one creature; 5e, touch/one creature
Duration: 4e sustain(Standard) up to 5 min, broken if attacks, or moves more than 25' from you; 5e concentration(no action) up to 1 hr, broken if attacks no range limit.
Usage: 4e 1/day (6th level utility*); 5e 2nd level slot, higher level slots turn more creatures invisible.

*worth noting that a 4e wizard might know both invisibility & levitate (and nothing else of that level), but would have to prep one or the other as his 6th level utility, and, regardless of his level, could use it only 1/day, whereas a 5e wizard could prep both, and use any 2nd or higher level slot(s) to cast either spell.


minor illusion
Availability: 4e cantrip (Ghost Sound); 5e cantrip
Range: 50' ; 30'
effect: sound, whisper to yelling or fighting; sound whisper to lion's roar OR image of an object in a 5' cube
duration: none ; 1 min (ends if re-cast in that time)
usage: at-will ; at-will


fireball
Available at: 4e, 5th level; 5e, 5th level
Range/target: 4e 100'/12.5'r (25' cube, TBH); 5e, 150'/20'r (40' sphere)
Damage: 4e 4d6+INTmod; 5e 8d6
Save: attacks REF*, miss:1/2 (no damage to minions); DEX* save: 1/2 (if that exceeds your Kobold's hps, too bad)
Usage: 4e 1/day regardless of level; 5e 3rd level slot, higher level slots add damage.

* 4e REF is one of 3 defenses, all of which scale with level, 5e DEX is one of 6 saves, 2 of which typically scale with level.

 

[Imaro]

The number of powers has nothing to do with the amount of versatility provided
.... levitate, invisibility, minor illusion & fireball ...

In the context of LFQW, it /really/ does. If you have one character gain 6 over 20 levels, and they're not that versatile, vs another gaining 25 over 20 levels, and they're potentially quite varied & versatile, you go from a clear advantage to an overwhelming one. If you both gain a total of 4 such powers, then even if one tends to have more versatile powers than the other, the gulf doesn't widen hugely as you go.

So your argument is more powers that are more versatile makes a character more versatile than someone with less powers that are less versatile... You're still seperating the versatility of the powers from number of powers... otherwise you wouldn't have to specify more versatile powers.

In other words in your same situation having the same number of powers the character with more versatile powers will still be more versatile and it is likely that if their powers are fundamentally more versatile even with less they will probably be more versatile. not sure what exactly this was a rebuttal to.

Let's look at Wish: Oh, we can't, it didn't even exist in 4e, because they purged it of the most problematic spells.

Ok let's... Wish in 5e duplicates and other spell of 8th level of lower (remember it's 9th level spell). Outside of that it can...
1. Create an object of up to 25,000 gp in value not magical and must fit in a 300 X 300 X 300 unoccupied space.
2. Heal 20 creatures that you can see in one space to full hit points.
3. Grant Immunity to 10 creatures a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours.
4. Force a reroll of any roll made within the last round.

Outside of these specific effects it's up to the individual DM if anything else can be accomplished. And this is your supposedly all-powerful spell in 5e?

 

[CapnZapp]

At least you're no longer trying to promulgate the fiction that 5e 'fixed LFQW,' when, in fact, it brought it back.

I definitely do.

If we ignore 4E, which is easy to do, my advice to Paizo is clear.

"Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5E comprehensively fixed 3E in some very fundamental areas."

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah. No. Nice try though. LFQW and Tier 1 caster supremacy was absolutely /crazy/ in 3.5, though, you're not wrong about that, even PF1 arguably reigned it in a little. It's like 3.5 was the Joker running wild in Gotham City while Batman was on vacation, and 5e is the contained, manageable, Hannibal Lecter.

You're just rambling.

I know from personal experience that the value of bringing along martials in 5E is far greater than anything in 3.x

On the other hand, PF1 did comparatively nothing to fix 3E. That's the reason Paizo really needs to step up now. They won't get away with something like PF1 now, in a 5E world.

And again, sorry, but nobody cares what 4E did or didn't do. The only lesson to be learnt from 4E is, don't do it like that.

LFQW index:

3.x and PF: unbearable
4E: irrelevant
5E: significantly improved to the degree I call it as fixed.

Now, if we add a fourth line to this table (and call it PF2), it's clear to me it better offer LFQW about on the level of what 5E is offering, because otherwise it will come across as an unwelcome throwback, a game not living with the times.

My point: nostalgia is indeed alive and well, but do not confuse the want for older times with a desire for the old bad days.

Us customers might want old styles and tropes, but that does not extend to uncomfortable mechanics and details.

Nobody accepts LFQW any longer. 5E has shown you can play a 2E-3E like game and not be plagued by rampant LFQW without having to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as 4E did. Them's the breaks and Paizo better know it.

 

[CapnZapp]

4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.

Exactly.

The value of "we fixed LFQW" in 4E is zero, if you can't stand the AEDU sameness.

The effort brought by 5E is far more valuable, since it shows us a way to play a 3E-like game but without 3E-like LFQW.

It is arguably 5E's greatest accomplishment.

 

[FrogReaver]

LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.

LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.

How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?

I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. Not that one game needs to resemble another on any other plane.

And why are you having trouble with me not bringing 4E into this equation. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.

Honestly, Wizards are still quadratic in 5e. There are 2 important mitigating factors though.
1. Generally non-stacking effects (largely due to concentration)
2. Martial niche of single target damage superiority

This means that even though a wizard gains power quadratically that he is often restricted from bringing it to bear in encounter/game trivializing ways. He also will never be as good as a fighter at single target damage which means that even though the wizard scales quadratically, there's still a purpose for a fighter as a wizard isn't typically capable of doing his job of killing things better than he is.

So you are right, LFQW still exists in 5e, but it's contained to the point that is acceptable for now. It could still have a vast amount of improvement though.