Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Tony Vargas]

The latter, though it can be a replacement or supplement.

So, not a module.

Sorry, I get persnickety about the meaning of 'modular.' There was noise during the playtest that 5e might be modular, there was never any development to indicate it was going in that direction, and it ultimately wasn't modular. It was DM-Empowering,. put some rules in the option ghetto/enshrined others as somehow non-optional, and it is clearly very open to variants, including presenting some official variants. Which does not add up to the same thing as 'modular.'

 

[Remus Lupin]

But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?

It seems some folks are arguing that it both has less stuff AND even more stuff!

 

[Parmandur]

So, not a module.

Sorry, I get persnickety about the meaning of 'modular.' There was noise during the playtest that 5e might be modular, there was never any development to indicate it was going in that direction, and it ultimately wasn't modular. It was DM-Empowering,. put some rules in the option ghetto/enshrined others as somehow non-optional, and it is clearly very open to variants, including presenting some official variants. Which does not add up to the same thing as 'modular.'

It is modular in that there are multiple variants of many rules (see much of the DMG), and changing one thing usually has limited repercussions to the whole.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems some folks are arguing that it both has less stuff AND even more stuff!

5E has fewer decision points, and more pre-built packages.

 

[Remus Lupin]

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.

I like this way of expressing it, and it does a better job of expressing what I'm trying to say than I have. I've never denied it's a question of preferences, with some preferring 5e and others PF2. What seems strange to me is that this conversation seemed to begin with the idea that PF2 is unnecessary (and ill advised) because we already had 5e. My argument is that, even with 5e, there's an important niche in the ecology that PF2 will fill. I happen to inhabit that niche.

 

[Eric V]

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.

Having said that, PF2 does provide the whole cow, at least at first level. For each class, there are examples along the lines of "If you want to play a swashbuckler, choose the following..." and voila! Toon is ready to go.

Both options are present in PF2.

 

[Zardnaar]

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

It is anemic compared to PF2 Ina core book to core book comparison.

There's only 2 or 3 options for most classes you make very few decisions you just pick from a preselected package of stuff.

5 years in no new official classes, 3pp ones tend to be terrible, 3pp archetypes are a lot better.

Xanathars is more of the same but with a lot of power creep.

I still prefer 5E but yeah relative to 3.5, 4E, SWSE, or core book to core book it does lack a lot of stuff.

There's a lot more depth when you get into it more but I'm sure that's the same as PF2 plus you get a lot more moving parts at a first glance type scenario.

5Es good, it's not perfect has some if its own problems and doesn't do some things very well (grittiness, low powered setting etc).

Personally not a fan of PF2 but yeah it has more moving parts than 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Those claiming 5E has many build choices clearly have never played previous editions.

Getting to pick a Background there, a subclass here, is not even close to the customization available in d20.

Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.

Most if not all subclasses added in supplements only reshuffle existing abilities and mechanics already offered by the PHB.

Claiming this is "much choice"? Please.

 

[CapnZapp]

That said, the subject here is PF2.

Does it offer any real choices, or is it just an illusion of choice?

Talking charbuild here - if the wall of feats only offer choices that don't give any meaningfully impact, then, yes it reminds me of 4E.

In the way the philosophy seems to be that it is how you choose to play your playing piece in action that matters.

Don't get me wrong, 4E offered a wonderful tactical experience. Thing is, if PF2 does the same (emphasis on what your character does , not what it is) how can we NOT say Pathfinder 2 isn't Paizo's 4E?

The trouble, you see, is that many people don't like or want this philosophy! (I'd argue most people even, but that's neither here nor there)

People are distracted from discussing the core issue.

The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?

 

[CapnZapp]

Specifically: far too many PF2 feats are of the "use this bonus instead of that bonus for this specific action".

From a 5E point of view (which the vast majority of presumptive customers will have): "why not simply assume the character can apply his best bonuses in any given instance?"

Bluntly speaking: loads and LOADS of PF2 feats could have just been done away with if the game just assumed the simple and straightforward stance of saying yes.

From a perhaps less charitable viewpoint: all those feats just try to divert you away from the fact you can't transcend the devs view of what your character class can accomplish. Each class presents a box, and you cannot reach outside of that box.

For instance (and this is most baffling): once you select your character class (at level 1) your core proficiencies are locked in: weapon (offense), armor and saves (defense). There is no meaningful multiclass (in the sense that you actually become something of the other class) - a Fighter with Wizard dedication remains 100% a fighter, only with a smattering of spells.

This is MILES APART from Pathfinder 1, where every single knob or lever was in the power of a crafty player to adjust.

In a very strange way, PF2 comes across as even more bounded than 5E. (It's just that the boundary is tied to level.)

I haven't found a single feat that meaningfully lets one character do something others cannot. They're all carefully constructed to only allow things the game considers balanced in the first place. You might think you open new boxes when you pick various feats, but really all you do is release constraints that prevented you from achieving nominal performance.

It's still early days (and so I am not yet a master of the rules), but spells seems to be the chief candidate for a true outlet (of achieving things "outside the norm"). As opposed to 4E, that is, where spells were just regular actions in disguise.

Feats arent. Magic items sure doesn't seem to be. There's no multiclassing (in the 3E/5E) sense.