D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Ah, okay.

I like the system actually. I have a friend who did a similar action system for his game (Cold Steel Wardens) in that you got two actions, if it is a thing you can do, it is an action, do two of them.

Degrees of success is nice, and the implication of a 1 degrading success is that you could still potentially succeed on a 1. I'm not sure I like that necessarily, but it does give some interesting movement in that area.

Frankly, it looks like a fascinating system. I might actually be interested in playing it depending on how some of the other systems end up working out. Get rid of Vancian for my own taste though, hate Vancian casting. But the feat system and being able to customize exactly what you can do does sound like it is a natural development of the PF options and mix and match classes that I've heard people prasie as a strength of the system
It has some really great ideas, I was very excited for it. Unfortunately, I was ultimately put off by the fiddliness. So many niggling +1s and +2s for various things. As I commented on earlier, it feels like PF2 is still in the 3e and 4e mindset of trying to maximize consistency by relying on comprehensive systems instead of trusting the DM’s judgment, which is a mindset I don’t think I’ll ever want to go back to after 5e. The +Level to most d20 rolls also bugs me, but I’d have been willing to house rule around that if it hadn’t been for the fiddliness issue.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Committing for the long haul? Vetting?
Damn right.

It's a game played with friends
Yes, and I've had many friends who, while being fine people otherwise, I'd never even think of inviting into a game for any of a bunch of reasons - commitment being but one.

Crap happens in the lives of my friends, and unless I was completely devoid of sensitivity, I would prefer that they prioritize their problems than any silly game, because it is, in fact, just a silly game meant to be played with friends.
Of course crap happens, I'm not dismissing that.

But if choosing between a prospective player who, when presented with a potentially very long campaign, says "I'm in for as long as it goes!" and one who says "I'm in to start with but can't promise anything after April", if all other things are equal I'm going for the first one every single time.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
That might because a lot of us have no knowledge of PF2, I've never even looked at the rules for it. But, we can discuss 4e, and through that we can potentially highlight why a game might emulate some of that game.



Perhaps they believed each decision does have enough of an impact.

Perhaps they wanted to create a game where a character was a dozen minor impacts instead of three major ones.

Perhaps they heard complaints about 5e characters being locked into their path by 3rd level and decided to design a game where that would not be true, while keeping the balance of 5e.

Perhaps their designers liked 4e and thought it could have been a success with different marketing
Perhaps

Perhaps they don't see the similarities you are claiming between PF2 and 4e

Perhaps they see this as an expansion upon the mix-and-match design that players of PF have expressed enjoyment of, so the designers are building to increase their most popular feature.


Without having sat down with one of the designers and asking them, I can't tell you for certain. But, I can posit that as professional game designers, they likely have a reason for it.
Perhaps you're just trying to be contrarian?

Or do you have any other reason why you invest so much energy into NOT taking my word for it, even though you just confessed you have no experience playing the game?
 

Aldarc

Legend
Damn right.

Yes, and I've had many friends who, while being fine people otherwise, I'd never even think of inviting into a game for any of a bunch of reasons - commitment being but one.
So when will you be requesting their medical records as part of the vetting process?

Of course crap happens, I'm not dismissing that.
But that is a major reason why many gaming groups sometimes break, and this has NOTHING to do with commitment issues or your needless vetting process.

But if choosing between a prospective player who, when presented with a potentially very long campaign, says "I'm in for as long as it goes!" and one who says "I'm in to start with but can't promise anything after April", if all other things are equal I'm going for the first one every single time.
Here's my criteria: "Are you a wang-rod? Nope. Cool. Welcome to the table." And I would much rather have the friendly person than the wang-rod who can't commit every single time because this is a silly game where grown adults play make-belief and argue on the internet about whether they should do silly voices for their characters.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't think anyone even believes that it cannot be done.

What angers me about Max's post is the idea that all it takes is the desire to do it, and therefore any group or game that ends early is simply because they did not care enough.

Considering the sheer number of games I've had fall apart for life reasons, I can state unequivocally that he is wrong. No matter how much you desire a game or a group to continue, sometimes that isn't a choice you can make.
Unless it's the DM who has to bail, I've always found a group's resiliency is in large part dependent on the willingness of the DM and remaining players to allow for player turnover in a continuing campaign.

Very simple example:

Group starts with Alan DMing, and Barb, Connie, Dan, Ed, and Frank as the players.

Six months in Connie and Dan decide to move out of town, meanwhile Frank can't make the games any more as he's got a weekend job. Barb, meanwhile, is still keen but will be away for the next few months.

This leaves Alan and Ed (and to some extent Barb) with a choice: fold the campaign or invite in some new players. Ed knows some people from work and so introduces people to George and Helga; they come in and the game continues. Barb returns after her sabbatical and jumps back in when she can; and the following year Frank's schedule changes again and back he comes as well.

Meanwhile through all this the campaign happily chugs along...
 


CapnZapp

Legend
Since it seems like a lot of folks are coming in to this thread with very little knowledge of PF2, here’s the rundown: at the core of PF2 are two major innovations: the three-action economy and degrees of success.

Degrees of success are fairly simple. As with most d20 based games, you have your target number, your d20 roll, and your bonus. If your total meets or exceeds the target number you succeed. But in PF2, if you exceed the target number by 10 or more, you critically succeed. If you undershoot the target number by 10 or more, you critically fail. A natural 20 upgrades your degree of success by 1, and a natural 1 downgrades it. The system plays with this in interesting ways, for example, most spells that deal half damage on a successful saving throw now deal no damage on a critical success and double damage on a critical fail.

The three action economy though is the real masterstroke of design. Instead of categorizing different actions as “standard”, “minor/bonus/swift/whatever”, or “move,” everything is just an action, and you get three of them. You can draw your weapon with one action, move your speed with another, and attack with your third. You can use two actions to move your speed and one to attack. If you really need to cover a lot of ground you can use all three actions to move your speed. If you’re in the thick of it and just want to wail on your target you can use all three actions to attack. That said, it’s Pathfinder, so your second attack in a turn is made at -5 to hit and your third attack in a turn is made at -10 to hit. You also get one reaction per round, exactly like 5e.

The three-action economy is the backbone of the spellcasting and maneuver systems. Power Attack, for example, is a Feat that lets you use two actions to make a single attack, which does 2[W] damage if it hits. There’s a charge feat that lets you use two actions to move double your speed and attack. Casting a spell requires one action for each component (action for verbal components, action for somatic components, action for material components), which is used to help balance more powerful spells by making them cost more actions. Metamagic allows you to add effects to your spells by adding components (also a balancing factor because you can’t add, for example, material components to a spell that already requires them.) Some spells have Metamagic-like effects built in. For example, Heal (PF2’s equivalent of Cure Wounds) lets you restore hit points to a creature you touch (or damage an undead you touch) with one action, lets you affect the target from up to 30 feet away with two actions, and affects each target within 30 feet with 3 actions. Magic missile shoots one missile for each action you spend casting it (and one for each spell slot level above first you used on it, 5e style.)

Where the 4e comparison starts coming in is with character advancement. Every level, you get a Feat. Some levels it’s a Class Feat, some levels it’s a Skil Feat, some levels it’s an Ancestry Feat (they call races ancestries), some levels it’s a General Feat. Some levels you get Feats from multiple categories - especially Rogues who get twice as many Skill Feats as everyone else. But Class Feats especially look pretty much like Powers from 4e. Your Class is basically a big list of PowersFeats you choose from at certain levels, most of which give you a new special attack you can make by spending a certain number of actions on you turn, like Power Attack mentioned above. They are also laid out almost exactly like Power cards in 4e. Here’s what a page from the Fighter class looks like:
skem3z43j4221.png

Unlike 4e, there’s not much in the way of Encounter or Daily Powers. Most martial Feats are at-will and balanced with the action economy. Spells are daily and Vancian. There are, however, encounter powers of a sort in the form of Focus Abilities. Everyone has a pool of Focus Points (I think they’re based on your Charisma?) which are an encounter-based resource you can spend on certain abilities, most of which are preternatural in some way. A monk’s ki abilities, for example, are Focus based, as are an Alchemist’s infusions. Many casting classes have a few Focus spells in addition to their normal spells.
Thank you for making an effort.

Two observations though:
1) the rulebook pages doesn't look like your spoiler
2) you don't mention or explain the actual beef this thread was started for
 

CapnZapp

Legend
But the feat system and being able to customize exactly what you can do does sound like it is a natural development of the PF options and mix and match classes that I've heard people prasie as a strength of the system
"being able to customize exactly what you can do" is exactly what I'm accusing the game of not allowing, other than in a superficial sense.

To compare to 4E: you get to choose the name of your power.


(but the numbers and mechanical impact is tightly locked down by the developers)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Instead, they actually took that out and kept everything else; Success, Success with a Bonus, Failure, Failure with an additional Penalty.

I would love to have the designer’s notes on why they went that route.
Which means there's actually room for a six-step success-failure ladder (though not all six steps would necessarily suit or apply to every application):

Success with a Bonus (nat. 20)
Success (beat cutoff by 5; or nat. 19)
Success with a Complication (beat cutoff by less than 5)
Fail-Forward (miss cutoff by less than 5)
Failure (miss cutoff by 5 or more; or nat. 2)
Failure with a Penalty. (nat. 1)

The '5' is open to amendment and could be replaced with any other number, depending on how often one wants to see mitigated success/failure outcomes.
 

Remove ads

Top