Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Parmandur]

Pathfinder also defines levels of precision for senses. By default, vision is a precise sense; hearing is an imprecise sense; and everything else is a vague sense. These levels of precision correspond to how well you can sense a creature (precise = observed, imprecise = hidden, vague = undetected). Of course, this can change from creature to creature. For example, scent could be an imprecise sense for dogs or hearing a precise sense for bats.

PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.

 

[kenada]

PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.

I think the dissonance between detail and abstraction you’re seeing is due to a shift in rule intent. The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).

Viewed through that lens, the Stealth rules can be seen as providing an intuitive framework for managing the various states of visibility. During the playtest, Paizo even made tweaks to improve flow (renaming the sensed condition to hidden). I also think they wanted to make sure scenarios like this one could be handled by the rules as written, since that wasn’t the case in PF1. Stealth as written in PF1 (before it was errata’d) had a lot of problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if no one ran it as written. I certainly didn’t.

 

[miggyG777]

PF2 is occupying a weird space for me: that seems like an awful lot of detail, while still being fairly abstract. I could pick up a game like HURPS, Rolemaster or HERO that offers Fuller detail, or a less detailed system that exists in a more fluid space. This seems too mixed, neither fish nor fowl.

Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.

 

[CapnZapp]

Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.

The game has been out less than three days. Please adjust your expectations on what level of discourse you will find on these forums accordingly.

 

[Mycroft]

The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).

I don't see it that way, at all; it's a clinical, dense, byzantine system.

 

[Parmandur]

Most of what I am reading from you seems to be guesswork. Yet you seem to be interested in PF2. Therefore, I would highly encourage you to just play the game, so you get actual data about how the game runs, to base your opinions on facts rather than speculation.

My interest is fairly abstract: I'm not going to be in the position to play PF2 anytime soon, probably ever. I already have D&D 5E and DCC for the fantasy genre and if I wanted to try something different I'd go with Dungeon World, The One Ring, Dungeon Fantasy, W.O.I.N, Burning Wheel, or Fantasy Hero at this time. I've been looking at this game out if general hobby interest, in terms of design and business.

 

[Parmandur]

I think the dissonance between detail and abstraction you’re seeing is due to a shift in rule intent. The rules in PF1 are a sort of crappy simulation. Historically, when people improve those rules, they try to improve the simulation (e.g., through more/better detail). PF2 seems to be going in a different direction. There’s still an element of verisimilitude, but instead of honing the simulation, the rules seem positioned now more as a framework for making rulings (via uniform core mechanics that create rich results when combined with the trait system).

Viewed through that lens, the Stealth rules can be seen as providing an intuitive framework for managing the various states of visibility. During the playtest, Paizo even made tweaks to improve flow (renaming the sensed condition to hidden). I also think they wanted to make sure scenarios like this one could be handled by the rules as written, since that wasn’t the case in PF1. Stealth as written in PF1 (before it was errata’d) had a lot of problems. I wouldn’t be surprised if no one ran it as written. I certainly didn’t.

I am not trying to be dismissive, but that first paragraph sounds more like a description of D&D 5E than anything I've seen out if PF2 so far.

 

[Garthanos]

It's easy to mistake 5E's approach as a "simplified" one. At first, I made that mistake too.

But 5E's approach isn't simple. I mean, yes it is, but more importantly it's the correct approach.

That is, I have come to the conclusion the approach where move is "just extra" is the correct one:

§1 Liberal use of move means dynamic exciting cinematic battles.
§1b Not moving around means static boring battles.

§2 Move needs to be free to be used liberally.

§3 The only way for movement to stay free is if there is zero ways to "cash it in" for something more minmaxed (like even a single extra point of damage, or healing, or attack or defense).

Ergo, it is not merely "simple" to offer no ways to spend your move on other things than positioning. It is good game design.

Interesting I was thinking of an action where one gains the lay of the land ie analyzing the battlefield and it required movement not trading your move for benefit but gaining a well defined benefit tbd via it.

 

[kenada]

I am not trying to be dismissive, but that first paragraph sounds more like a description of D&D 5E than anything I've seen out if PF2 so far.

No, I don’t think you’re being unfair. Let me expand on that a bit.

The actual core mechanics of PF2 are pretty simple. There are really only a handful: making checks (and rolling damage), the action economy, and traits. All kinds of checks resolve the same way. PF2 doesn’t have exceptions for attacks or saving throws or skills like PF1 or 5e have. The action economy also doesn’t either. The situations PF1 and 5e special case just fall out naturally because of of the way the action economy works. The complicating factor is the traits system, but I think it’s also the traits system that helps facilitate rulings. How I think it does that is by isolating the GM from the rest of the rules when making rulings.

As a GM, when the players do something that doesn’t fall under the game’s existing actions, I have to decide how that interacts with the rest of the system. Maybe I don’t decide everything right away, but I’ll have to make another ruling if it comes up later. Suppose the fighter does something that requires focus, and the barbarian wants to do it too, but he also wants to do it while raging. Without traits (e.g., PF1 or 5e), I have to make a ruling based on what I think the intent of the system is — or just whatever I think makes sense. With traits, I still have to make a ruling, but I now have the concentrate trait to help me with that. If I do decide the activity has the concentrate trait, then not only do we know whether the barbarian can do it while raging (no), but we also know other things like whether it can be done constantly while exploring (not without gaining fatigue). Being able to adjudicate once and letting the system take care of the rest strikes me as a helpful simplification for the GM when running the game.

 

[kenada]

I don't see it that way, at all; it's a clinical, dense, byzantine system.

In what ways? The core mechanics are pretty simple and straightforward (having few exceptions). See my response to Parmandur for my thoughts on the traits system. Note that I’m not considering customization, since that’s outside the GM’s purview.