Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Parmandur]

Let's engage in a little nuance here.

In Pathfinder Second Edition a feat is simply something you choose. Ancestries and Classes have very few bundled features, usually only the bare minimum required to realize it conceptually. Instead players design what their fighter or their dwarf looks like. Some classes are particularly good at this. You get to decide how mystical, how athletic, or how kung fu focused your Monk is by selecting only the features you want. Some classes have subclass like options, but you generally get to decide how deep you want to lean into your subclass. A dragon instinct Barbarian could have a breath weapon, grow wings, and eventually transform into a dragon. They could also just have a flaming sword and have fire resistance and resistance to piercing weapons.

Archetypes allow to venture away from the themes of your class, although the thematic core stays with you. You never stop being a Fighter or a Barbarian. You also get to choose exactly what you want from them although you cannot invest in another archetype until you have invested 3 class feats in the archetype.

The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.

The whole cow approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities designed to work in tandem. It also makes character creation much simpler.

The select cut approach allows the individual player the ability to design exactly what they want, but it's up to them to make it all work together in play.

At the table things tend to work out largely the same. You have the abilities you have and must face the opposition in front of you. So far the at the table the table complexity when it come to combat feels pretty similar to me. Pathfinder Second Edition has a lot more defined noncombat abilities so it feels more complex there.

That's about the long and the short of it.

 

[Campbell]

5E has the same amount of narrative "Stuff," it's just not Lego-bricked out. Which isn't a knock against PF2, it's a different approach (just like buying Lego bricks and action figures are different toy experiences, even if creative play is creative play).

TBH, if I wanted to put that much effort into PC Gen, I would go for GURPs or HERO, not a Class based system.

Although to be fair character creation does not feel exactly like building bricks. There are strong themes to each class. Class feats are strongly designed towards those themes. You can build more towards one theme or another, but your Rogue will still be a Rogue and your Monk will still be a Monk. It's a different experience than what games like HERO provide. It feels a little bit like deck building to me.

There is a very strong sense of ancestry and class identity that is hard to get away from. Archetypes like the Hellknight Armiger, Living Monolith and Aldori Duelist have their own thematic identities that help shape your character's identity. The game is definitely designed for how things feel.

Personally this attention to themes and identity is important to me in game design. Aesthetics are important to me even in CCGs and board games. My favorite role playing games all have strong ties to theme. Games like Exalted, Legend of the Five Rings, Apocalypse World, and Masks.

 

[Parmandur]

Although to be fair character creation does not feel exactly like building bricks. There are strong themes to each class. Class feats are strongly designed towards those themes. You can build more towards one theme or another, but your Rogue will still be a Rogue and your Monk will still be a Monk. It's a different experience than what games like HERO provide. It feels a little bit like deck building to me.

There is a very strong sense of ancestry and class identity that is hard to get away from. Archetypes like the Hellknight Armiger, Living Monolith and Aldori Duelist have their own thematic identities that help shape your character's identity. The game is definitely designed for how things feel.

Well, LEGO sets these days are pretty tightly themed, but the deck-building analogy works, too. For both games, really, just that 5E has a strongly railroaded deck-building system in place geared towards larger choices.

 

[Xenonnonex]

And just for the record: I still disagree. The way that options are parsed in 5e feels paltry to me even when you take account of supplementary sources. Meanwhile, I think that Paizo's options are robust right out of the box, without me having to go out and invest in supplementary sources just to have the kind of flexibility in character creation that should be baseline.

And, I'll also add that when we discussed this around my 5e table, everyone agreed. You basically get three flavors of every kind of character with 5e. With PF2, the default provides many more options.

Some people prefer it one way, some the other, but it's a genuine issue, not "disingenuous" to express. I've never said anyone should do anything other than play the game they prefer. And PF2 certainly has a ready market in those of us who are less than fulfilled by 5e's approach.

I urge you to try to create characters in 5e. You will find with backgrounds alone you will get more than three flavors of characters. With ideals, bonds, flaws, personalities your also creating a more nuanced character. And a different character. With that alone you already have customization of your character.
Absolutely your opinion is valid but it is disingenuous to make the claim your making. Unless you are trying to ignore the choices in character creation 5e gives you.

With PF2 I am finding sure there is a lot of choice. But a lot of that choice should have been part and parcel of the either ancestry itself or a class feature. It wants you to invest in what are actually false choices.

 

[Xenonnonex]

I didn't forget them, so much as dismissed them out of hands as they are:
strictly optional
totally arbitrary (you can just make 'em up)
all do the same thing, mechanically (the DM gives you 'inspiration' if he wants to)
and, of course, are something I don't care for, personally, so I let my opinion override my objectivity...

...so, yeah, go ahead and count those up, too.

Granular & crunchy certainly counts.
I would be curious to hear actual counts, even just approximate.

Backgrounds give ways to meaningfully engage the world in the form of skills and tools proficiencies. And help provide a context for your character in it in the form of your personality. And the items you gain from it.
Sure they can be optional. But they are absolutely a choice.

 

[darjr]

False choices? Maybe. But I think that isn’t objective but subjective?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Either game allows you to make fun characters. PF2 gives options for backing up personality characteristics with a wealth of small feats. 5e paints with broader brush strokes, with less chance there'll be a mechanical option to fine tune your concept. In exchange, 5e has a lighter system.

You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?

That is not the issue. The issue is claiming that 5e is really anemic with character options and choice when that is untrue.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Backgrounds ...

Were not what I was dissing, it was the bonds/raits/flaws/quirks/beignets/whatevers that are used to buck for inspiration (which as a DM, annoys me, so yeah, I conceded the point, already).

 

[Parmandur]

Were not what I was dissing, it was the bonds/raits/flaws/quirks/beignets/whatevers that are used to buck for inspiration (which as a DM, annoys me, so yeah, I conceded the point, already).

Oh, man, that's easily one of my favorite parts of the game. I had a player turn the rolled-for Trait "There's nothing I like more than a good mystery" into her PC's spoken-out loud catchphrase. Good times.

 

[Arilyn]

That is not the issue. The issue is claiming that 5e is really anemic with character options and choice when that is untrue.

We have to account for differing tastes, and tendency to exagerrate features of a system we don't like. I know, I know, that never happens.

I find it frustrating when players complain that PF is all about power builds and dpr, because I enjoy PF, and I'm as far off a power gamer as you can get.

The frustration for some players is 5e feels like there are less character options. Archetypes only have a few points to add in alternate character options, for example. Personally, I have made a wide variety of 5e characters. They don't feel anemic, but I get players wanting more choice. PF2 offers that because of its more modular character design system. You can get into more nitty gritty detail.

I think that was poster's point before it spiralled into "my game is better than your game." (from both sides)