Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Campbell]

A funny joke to you.

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

Maybe you should have said that instead then.

 

[CapnZapp]

So this does change the curvature somewhat.

The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.

You do a comprehensive smart overhaul where entire subsystems are thrown out and expectation rejected outright.

 

[CapnZapp]

Maybe you should have said that instead then.

I didn't start the thread.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.

For instance, all the classes in 5e were in 3.5 - two were even introduced by it. And, the fighter classes in both editions were marked by linear progressions, while the casters in both went from very few spells of 1st level, at first to many at high level. There were also differences. For instance, in 3.5, spells scaled with caster level, while save DCs scaled with slot level, while in 5e saves scale with character level while spells scale with slot level.

And yes, both innately have LFQW, 5e just to the minimum level needed to avoid another edition war.

PF2 really has nothing much to learn from that comparison ...

....except, maybe, "fans will argue anything."

 

[Parmandur]

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.

By that definition, then, I would not Co Sider LFQW a problem to be solved. The asymmetric resource game is part of the fun: different Classes working differently is a deaireable good in the game, especially because it is cooperative and players need to pull together.

The AEDU system does "solve" the resource game, in a "they make a desert and call it peace" sort of way. Not that it can't be fun in itself, but it is a solution only be eliminating a dynamic that many people actually enjoy. 5E revived the dynamic, but provided a context for it to work so that Class "Tiers" of optimal playability are meaningless. Ergo, solving the problem of party balance.

As to PF2, I douvt that it will eliminate the dynamic of Class differences from what I have seen, nor implement either a 4E or 5E style approach. I don't think that will be the defining reason for how it is received, but that on one hand backwards incompatibility with previous material will make it a hard sell to the PF crowd, while on the other hand the complexity of management (look at the character sheet! I started literally laughing out loud when I read the formula for Skill check resolution) will limit adoption by new players

 

[CapnZapp]

There are many somethings similar between 3.5 and 5e.

For instance, all the classes in 5e were in 3.5 - two were even introduced by it.

You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.

My point was that your remark could be interpreted as the opposite of the point Parmandur made.

I didn't start a discussion of what things are similar between the two editions. I flagged that something in particular is very different between them.

 

[Aldarc]

The lesson I learned from 5E, and the lesson Paizo ought to have learned too, is that you don't fix 3E by tweaking curvatures.

You do a comprehensive smart overhaul where entire subsystems are thrown out and expectation rejected outright.

That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.

You come across as someone not listening, just rambling on.

That's an ironic accusation to make.

 

[Campbell]

Honestly this market is suffocating. Outside of story gaming communities and some other niche groups it is damn hard to find or start a game that isn't 5e. You'll even get perspective players who will run up to you and be like "Why don't you run 5e instead?"

Given the conservative nature of its fan base and this one note marketplace it was always going to be extremely difficult for Paizo no matter what PF2 ended looking like. No matter how things turn out I don't think how well PF2 ends up doing is really going to be a reflection of the quality of the product.

 

[Hussar]

That's an odd lesson to learn from 5e when "tweaking curvatures" is exactly what WotC did with 5e.

That's an ironic accusation to make.

See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door.

I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve.

Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.

 

[Aldarc]

See this I don’t agree with. 5e didn’t just tweak 3e. 5e took most of the complete overhaul that 4e did, repackaged it and then sent it out the door.

I mean very little of 3e made it to 5e without being strained through the 4e sieve.

Skills, bounded accuracy, limited spell lists, powers for classes, two step recovery, huge reduction in lethality- these are all 4e designs. All wrapped up in a pretty presentation that has folks drooling for more.

All nice and good, but here I am talking specifically about the spell system.