Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Aldarc]

There is something else that I don't think gets much discussion in regards to comparisons of Pf2 with 4e: GM relationship to the rules. Based upon what I have heard from Paizo, particularly statements from Jason Bulmahn, PF2 represents a shift away from PF1 towards empowering the GM with greater authority and latitude to make judgment calls. This is similar in many respects to the move that 5e made with GM authority. This most certainly ties into the decision to make encounter design easier for the GM to manage.

 

[Noir le Lotus]

I'm not sure this is really true for PF2.It may be one of the design goals fr the 2nd edition but I don't think they succeded on this one.

Take a look at skills by example : in PF2, what a PC can do with 1 skill depends on proficiency level and skill feats. And in a party of 4 or 5 PC, a GM can't possibly memorize all the whereabouts of skills of the party.

So when you will come to skill resolution, the only power of the GM is to determine the DC, but it's the players who will tell him what their PC can do ...

 

[CapnZapp]

I do & I have.

No you are not listening.

If you had, you wouldn't be harping on about how 5E is going back to the old bad days of 3E, kept making comparisons to 4E, claimed 3E and 5E both have LFQW as if that's the relevant point (when in actuality it completely missed the point), and on and on.

You would instead have shown the tiniest inkling of discovery of how 5E really improves upon the 3E foundation in many many really smart and often subtle ways.

And you would have agreed with me when I say Paizo is about to miss the target if they release a game in 2019 which brings gamers back to the way wizards ran in circles around fighters fifteen to twenty years ago. Or if they release a game in 2019 where DMs spend hours to craft NPCs shot down in seconds, just like 15-20 years ago.

People accustomed to 5E simply won't accept a game like that, I fear.

 

[CapnZapp]

No one cares about those marginal improvement you keep calling 'fixes.' Actual fixes were implemented, and did not go over well with Paizo's core PF audience - indeed, their rejection is part of /why/ Paizo has had a core audience for PF1 for the last 10 years.

This here is proof. I know 3E and 5E, the fixes aren't marginal. They are game changing.

And the "actual fixes" you speak of (4E) didn't go down well with *anyone*.

In sharp contrast 5E meaningfully fixes LFQW and more, all without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Several posters have been trying to make this message come across, not just me.

But you have not yet exhibited any signs of listening when we tell you your perception is clouded by your love for 4E to the extent you can't see the improvements of 5E.

But no matter. This discussion is not about you, it's about Paizo. Unfortunately we are seeing signs Paizo did not see it either, but time will tell (=it's still not August 1 where I live).

Best regards

 

[CapnZapp]

There is something else that I don't think gets much discussion in regards to comparisons of Pf2 with 4e: GM relationship to the rules. Based upon what I have heard from Paizo, particularly statements from Jason Bulmahn, PF2 represents a shift away from PF1 towards empowering the GM with greater authority and latitude to make judgment calls. This is similar in many respects to the move that 5e made with GM authority. This most certainly ties into the decision to make encounter design easier for the GM to manage.

Unfortunately there is a gulf between sales pitches/market speak and what the end product actually does.

By that I only mean that a designer can claim they had plenty of goals. That does not mean they met even a single one.

Of course it doesn't hurt the end product either, so my remark shouldn't be read as anything else than "let us see what the actual book ends up saying"...

 

[Aldarc]

Unfortunately there is a gulf between sales pitches/market speak and what the end product actually does.

I certainly recall several failed sales pitches about 5e that never materialized.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I certainly recall several failed sales pitches about 5e that never materialized.

Were they failed, or were they successful in defusing controversy?

harping on about how 5E is going back to the old bad days of 3E, kept making comparisons to 4E, claimed 3E and 5E both have LFQW as if that's the relevant point, and on and on.

I would opine that 5e has returned us to the good old days of 1e, as it's given the game back to the DM, in stark contrast to 3e and (actually theoretically on topic) 4e.
LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading.

5E really improves upon the 3E foundation in many many really smart and often subtle ways.

I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive.

I say Paizo is about to miss the target if they release a game in 2019 which brings gamers back to the way wizards ran in circles around fighters.

I can agree it'd be a mistake, because we already have 5e, PF1, and OSR for that - and that's just the D&D & clones currently in print, folks can also dig up the actual TSR era and 3.x games, themselves, if they want. It's a crowded market with a 500lb gorilla totally dominating it. It'd also be a mistake not to, because anything else is going to be very niche, and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&D that didn't provide exactly that.

Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009.

Or if they release a game in 2019 where DMs spend hours to craft NPCs shot down in seconds, just like 15-20 years ago.

To be fair, we're talking last year, from the perspective of loyal PF1 customers.

People accustomed to 5E simply won't accept a game like that, I fear.

Most of those currently into 5e won't even be aware of it, nor have any impetus to go looking.













* indeed, for all the criticism it receives for making overall class balance impossible and confining functional play to a 'sweet spot' level range, LFQW is a feature - a necessary defining feature - of D&D. That it's also a technical 'bug,' notwithstanding.

 

[CapnZapp]

LFQW is prominent in all eds of D&D, except 4e, it's a structural feature* of class designs, to imply otherwise is misleading.

My aim is to highlight the difference between 3E on one hand, and 5E on the other.

Your line is not merely irrelevant, it is actively unhelpful when it comes to meeting that aim.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think part of the communication breakdown, here is that you think of 3e as difinitively D&D, when its just difinitively d20, while I consider 1e definitive.

I simply cannot understand your desperate attempts to shift the discussion away from 3E and 5E.

All the things you say might we'll be true.

They are also entirely irrelevant to the discussion of Pathfinder 2, when we're worried about they maybe not leaving Pathfinder 1 enough (=3E) and/or reaching the same "level of comfort" and the current standard and market leader (=5E).

In order to see my point, please lay down your 1E or 4E stories, if just for a moment.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ultimately, IMHO, putting out a new game instead of jumping on the D&D bandwagon is a mistake. There's just no opening for a d20 D&D clone or fantasy heartbreaker in the current market like there was in 2009.

I can agree with this in general.

About the only real market opening I see is "more crunch for 5E". That is, not actual 5E, but 5E-like. With more playerside crunch.

and because PF1 even exists, as such, in part because their core fanbase rejected a version of D&D that didn't provide exactly that.

If you think 4E failed simply because it wasn't exactly as before you don't get what people like about D&D.

4E failed because it had lost the soul of the game. You simply could not use it to tell the stories you were used to. At least I couldn't.

5E, in contrast, retains the soul of D&D but not the niggling peculiarities of d20.

You won't be able to see what Paizo needs to upgrade if you can't understand the value of the 3E-5E upgrade.

We'll soon see where PF2 ends up on this scale. Give me maybe a month and I might provide a first impressions.