Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Aldarc]

The topic of this thread is, does it seem as if PF2 is set to receive a chilly response from PF1 fans, and not bring in new players? While anything can happen, both of those seem to be the case.

I don't think that it has been chilly. It's down right tame in comparison with the reaction that 4e received, which is one reason why the enthusiasm for 5e felt so one-sided. A lot of the reaction seems fairly standard for a typical edition change. I have also seen a lot of praise for the 3-action-economy, the ancestries, the change to paladins, and spellcasting. And there are threads in the PF2 subreddit that include people who play 5e (including those who never played PF1) talking about why they plan on switching to PF2.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think that it has been chilly. It's down right tame in comparison with the reaction that 4e received, which is one reason why the enthusiasm for 5e felt so one-sided. A lot of the reaction seems fairly standard for a typical edition change. I have also seen a lot of praise for the 3-action-economy, the ancestries, the change to paladins, and spellcasting. And there are threads in the PF2 subreddit that include people who play 5e (including those who never played PF1) talking about why they plan on switching to PF2.

Chilly might be worse than passionate hatred: but time will tell.

I was actually enthusiastic to try the playtest out, because I liked done of what the general overview was suggesting, and I love lifepath character generation. I was... disappointed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Is it? 4e didn't get rid of
<LFQW> (thought it mitigated it) so how is it misleading to claim it still exists in 5e?

LFQW is not just a fancy way if saying "Wizards rule, fighters drool!" LFQW is a structural feature of class designs in every instance of D&D, except 4e AEDU classes.

4e /completely eliminated LFQW/. Everyone gained limited-use resources at the same rate, all of them scaled at the same rate. Those resources, along with class features, were very different, but they weren't progressing at different rates, which is what LFQW describes.

What it didn't do was perfectly balance classes. Fighters were still the worst out of combat, especially compared to Rogues & Rangers. Wizards were still given a few too many toys, and were still over-versatile. Even if the gaps were a lot smaller, they were still there.

That's not LFQW.

I'm certainly not opposed to such asymmetrical design, but this mainly applies to competitive PvP rather than cooperative PvE.

That TTRPGs /are/ cooperative games isn't always an easy insight. D&D grew out of competitive wargames, and the early game retained that quality, with PCs more like rivals cooperating for survival, while competing for the greatest gains.

Fairness - same options and rules applying to everyone - is enough in a competitive game, because (not too obviously-)bad options just add to the skill factor. Balance is a higher bar, and more important to cooperative games.

, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e approached fixing 3E in some very fundamental areas."

5e wasn't a fix-up of 3e, it followed 4e, which had fixed a lot if perennial issues. So 5e was a matter of re-breaking solved issues, so that play would be channeled back into the familiar dynamics that coped with, masked, or exploited those issues.

Could that possibly be because PF1's goal was never about "fixing" 3.x but instead about providing continued support for 3.x?

Ding!



RE PF2:

You have to use a higher level slot to heighten the spell.

Wasn't that the case for the Heighten metamagic feat in 3.x/PF1? It raised the save DC by 1 per level higher?

I think autoscaling is only a thing for cantrips...

Sounds like 5e...

spells requiring concentration (don't have the list) will require that the caster use one of their three actions per round to maintain....Levitate is now a 3rd level spell. Fly has been moved from being a 3rd level spell to a 4th level spell.

Those actually do sound a bit like 4e.

 

[Parmandur]

That's good then, I believe this will help the game succeed.

Certainly won't hurt, and will give an introduction that older games have lacked.

 

[Parmandur]

I've never been in touch with a forum for a game within a few days of its release, so I'm not sure how much excitement is supposed to be happening - there's been some, that I've seen, but maybe not a lot.

One more thing I'd note about the PF subreddit is that a lot of the posts are very mechanics focused, which PF2 posts couldn't possibly be about (yet). Some of today's posts include "Catfolk Unchained Monk Build Advice: Long Ranger's Bane?", "[Request] Strange Aeons Maps (3rd Book)", and "How do Efreeti Switch/Cords work?" - all of those (and many more in the first few pages) are about specific products or character options, while some others are system neutral questions about the setting and stuff. When PF2's options are actually public, I imagine questions and discussion about them will become more popular.

Become more popular, probably. But how much more?

 

[Aldarc]

RE PF2:Wasn't that the case for the Heighten metamagic feat in 3.x/PF1? It raised the save DC by 1 per level higher?

It's more like upcasting spells in 5e. The difference though is that PF2 reduced redundancy by including the upgraded version of some spells in the heightened version. For example, there is only Invisibility. You gain the greater effect associated with Greater Invisibility by casting Invisibility at a higher spell level. Or likewise a lot of the Cure Wounds spells have been reduced to Heal, which increases in benefits when heightened.

 

[CapnZapp]

The same was true in 3.5, when LFQW, CoDzilla, 5MWD, and caster supremacy in general were at their absolute height.

In the context of your quote, it's possible to read this to mean something is similar between 3E and 5E.

But the point made was the total opposite. The damage output of Fighters and Rogues is generally of a competitive useful level in 5E (compared to casters casting) but a joke in 3E.

The point was to contrast one edition with a troubling level of LFQW (3E) and one without (5E).

Just to clarify that which might not need clarification...

 

[CapnZapp]

On topic, from what we have seen, PF2 does not address the potential imbalance, and maintains a fairly 3.x approach on Caster/Martial balance.

If true, a complete disaster.

Not for me. For Paizo.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then, very much on-topic, it runs no risk of being Paizo's 4e!

A funny joke to you.

But we're not talking about specific 4E mechanics. We're essentially asking "Is PF2 Paizo's Waterloo?"

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, I think that "fixed" is far too strong of a hardlined opinion here that suggests there is only one "fix" for an issue. IMHO, it's more accurate to say, "Please don't publish PF2 without first analyzing how 5e approached fixing 3E in some very fundamental areas."

I will happily use your preferred wording verbatim!