Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Zardnaar]

First two ultimate books were very good IMHO.

 

[Imaro]

I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.

And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.

Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.

While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way: after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).

...

Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards. If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up? Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?

Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game). Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves?? This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.

 

[Parmandur]

I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.

And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.

Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.

While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way: after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).

...

Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards. If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up? Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?

Anecdotally, two of the PF1 fan reactions I have been seeing are "I have all the game I'll ever need" and "let's pick up 5E."

The success of 5E is likely not simply timing, as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior to even 4E, and nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in early 3.x days: the content plays a part as well.

The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.

 

[Zardnaar]

Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game). Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves?? This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.

That's more or less it. I think what that mentality is about trying to undermine the legitimacy of liking other editions that are not 4E.

If you like OSR gaming it's because if nostalgia, nothing because the playstyle is different or it does some things better/different than modern gaming.

I don't like 4E but I don't think people who like it are wrong. It stratches a different itch and everyone has different itches.

 

[mewzard]

Anecdotally, two of the PF1 fan reactions I have been seeing are "I have all the game I'll ever need" and "let's pick up 5E."

The success of 5E is likely not simply timing, as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior to even 4E, and nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in early 3.x days: the content plays a part as well.

The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.

As a PF1 fan who absolutely hates 4E...I want to play PF2e so badly. While I've loved my years with Pathfinder since our group ditched 4E (and thank God for that), the game is starting to really show its flaws with age. Whether it's one of the DMs finding building encounters a pain, another DM's frustration about balance, a player's annoyance at trap options, or my own desires to not have to sacrifice out of combat utility or stick to stringent guides just to not feel underwhelming in said combat.

At first, the group showed little interest in it...but as the months have passed on, and our frustrations with PF1e's flaws have grown, the group's listened more and more to the details I've been able to provide about PF2e, and there's some level of excitement, to at least give it a proper look into. One DM in particular thinks the game could be a fine enough game to bring new players in without having to go 5e.

For me, the game's been looking like the perfect middle ground between PF1e and 5e that I've needed. I won't know for sure until we play, but I haven't been this excited for potentially swapping systems since I first looked at Pathfinder when 4e's flaws were really starting to grate on me.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The success of 5E is likely not simply timing

You don't say?

While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way: after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous

as the tabletop board game Renaissance was in full swing for years prior ,

Seemed like it was picking up c2012, to me, just as D&D was going on hiatus.

nerd culture, fantasy especially, was big even in

That's been slowly building since the 90s.
But it's been a nagging question: why couldn't D&D catch that bandwagon?
Maybe because M:tG diverted the usual demographic in the 90s? Clearly because of the toxic atmosphere of the edition war...
What stopped 3e, IDK, but the d20 phenom did seem a very hobby-insider thing?

The fact that gameplay styles for modern D&D and Ye Oldde Fadde days align might be a coincidence, or it might be that is the style that scratches folks itch for fantasy adventure.

Or, it might be what 5e consciously evokes, since doing just that was an avowed goal of Next in the playtest.

 

[Arilyn]

Lol... new players only play 5e because it's a fad, not because they are actually having fun playing the game (and by the game I mean interacting with the mechanics of said game). Is that the argument you're going with... people don't really know what they enjoy or want even when they are playing and purchasing it in droves?? This reminds me of the old arguments that if people just played more of 4e they'd realize how great a game it was... only many did play and there was still something about it (possibly multiple things) that turned them off of it and reduced or eliminated their fun.

I think you have missed Tony Vargas' point. D&D has huge brand name recognition, at a time where TT games are have been experiencing a surge in popularity. The game is fun, and relatively easy to get into. Most new players aren't playing 5e because of the rules differences from prior editions. As long as WOTC put out a game that wasn't too different from 3e, but lighter, and enjoyable, they would have had a big success. I don't think Tony was saying it's just doing well because it's a fad. Where did you get this from his post?

 

[Hussar]

/snip
5e only made it even easier on casters, no OAs, no spell loss, all spontaneous, multiple at will attack cantrips. At first level, casters are doing just fine, even before casting one of their spells &/or after being tapped out. But it added back LFQW - even if slightly tweaked in opposite directions as 3e, by spells scaling with slot, but save DCs with level - that's an issue.
And, compared to the prior ed, in no way a fix or improvement.

Honestly [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION], I think that you are overblowing this by a LOT. You are ignoring a lot of things:

1. Most classes have spells. LFQW doesn't mean much when everyone has casting abilities. And, even the half casters get pretty significant abilities.

2. Even the totally non magic classes (in core, there's what, 3 of them?) still get "magical" abilities. What are Battlemaster maneuvers if not low powered spells? Regeneration. Damage resistance. Etc. 5e does not have a "non magic" class. At all. Everyone is getting fantastic (as in stuff that's not mundane) abilities.

3. You mention the buffing - but, that's what the LFQW was all about. The fact that the wizard (or casters) could make the non-casters surplus to needs. Why bother with a rogue when a handful of scrolls and a wand of knock pretty much does everything you need a rogue for? But, that's not how 5e works. 5e casters cannot ignore their daily limits by crafting wands or scrolls.

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. Most classes have spells. LFQW doesn't mean much when everyone has casting abilities. And, even the half casters get pretty significant abilities.

As long as they present 'L' sub-classes as equally-weighted choices to "Q" ones, the issue will remain.

Even the totally non magic classes (in core, there's what, 3 of them?)

5 sub-classes, are definitively non-magical in the PH.

3. You mention the buffing - but, that's what the LFQW was all about.

I hope I mentioned it in the context of CoDzilla or effective spells/day, or BA.

5e casters cannot ignore their daily limits by crafting wands or scrolls.

They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes. Then again, their at-will baseline is higher, too.

I really think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

SQUIRREL!

 

[MockingBird]

I'm sure it's been hit on but I like the discussion so ima put my bits in. 5e is popular because it's super easy to get into. It isn't hard and can be made as rules light as you want it. I've tried and failed to get casual friends to play 4e, it was just too much for them. I then tried to get them to play PF and again it was too much to grab their attention. Then comes 5e and now we have a regular game going. They enjoyed the simplicity, how fluid combat works, and the overall feel. I dont think it's just a fad or a by product of nerd culture. It only takes one RPG fan to potentially create 3 or 4 more out of casual passer bys. I credit the simplicity of 5e for the up swing. Saying all that, I hope PF2e can do the same.