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

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Considering some of your posts being clearly biased towards not understanding how they could possibly make such a terrible decision? Yeah, I'm not going to take your word for it.

In fact, considering Charlaquin's post about how it all works, I can see where you might think there is a lot of 4e involved, and I can also see exactly were they seemed to be coming from with those design decisions that has nothing to do with copying 4e and heading for destruction.

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

For example, you have "a beef" with their decision. That doesn't sound like someone trying to figure out a design philosophy, it sounds like someone angry and wanting to rant.

Which is fine, but if you aren't getting the response you expect out of this thread, that could be part of it.


For example, while the feats do seem relatively minor, that ideal of getting a lot of minor benefits that fold into a larger direction to give your character an set of abilities that reflect what you want, that is what I've heard praised in PF for years. That you can take any set of attributes and build it, make a character who can do any number of things and be completely different from someone of the same class.

From that perspective, it is easy to see where they are going with these feats.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"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.

Maybe if I saw more than a handful of fighter feats, but it looks like they have a pretty robust system in place to allow it in more than a superficial sense.

Multiple abilities for duelers, ranged fighters, two-handed fighter. Combine that with abilities for the race, skill feats. I'm sure it adds up quite rapidly, even if each feat is relatively minor.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Yeah, I grabbed a page from a quick google image search, I think it was fan-made. I’ll find a better example. As for the beef the thread was started for, I think everyone who has stuck it out this long is familiar with that. Not everyone participating is familiar with PF2, so that was the thing I clarified.

 

[CapnZapp]

For example, while the feats do seem relatively minor, that ideal of getting a lot of minor benefits that fold into a larger direction to give your character an set of abilities that reflect what you want, that is what I've heard praised in PF for years. That you can take any set of attributes and build it, make a character who can do any number of things and be completely different from someone of the same class.

From that perspective, it is easy to see where they are going with these feats.

Again, generics and vague hopes.

Commit to specifics that can actually be challenged, analyzed and criticized.

 

[Lanefan]

So when will you be requesting their medical records as part of the vetting process?

Sigh.

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.

True; but two other major reasons groups collapse are:

Lack of commitment - players (or worse, the DM) aren't reliable (by personal choice, not by necessity), or drop out "just because", or for whatever other reason just don't care enough to turn up each week.

Incompatibility - some players just can't get along in or out of game, be it with each other or with the DM; or the playstyles are irreconcilably different.

Both of these can often be largely forestalled by what I call "vetting".

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.

I too would rather have the friendly person than the wang-rod; but if there's two friendly people who want in and I've only room for one, I'm taking the one who's willing to commit long-term.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Again, generics and vague hopes.

Commit to specifics that can actually be challenged, analyzed and criticized.

Such as what?

The fact that the two handed feat (that I went to check the name of and saw Charluquin had changed their picture) forces your opponent to either move or take more damage? And that leads me to consider synergies with classes that create zone effects where you can force the enemy to choose between taking damage from moving into hazardous terrain, or take more damage from your attack, and that is an interesting interaction.

The fact that I'm curious if they have a feat that allows you to do a nasty effect on a creature that moves 5ft while in your range, meaning that if you combine these effects you could have them move and get hit with an effect or stand still and take more damage? And again, that is an interesting set of abilities that is possible with this single feat?

Would you prefer if I looked at PF2 for the first time ever and started researching every possible combination of abilities? I don't have time for that. I wouldn't even know where to start. And if that is the type of discussion you want, why is this thread in Dungeons and Dragons instead of Pathfinder on ENworld?

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps you're just trying to be contrarian?

Considering some of your posts being clearly biased towards not understanding how they could possibly make such a terrible decision? Yeah, I'm not going to take your word for it.

Mod Note:
Folks,

This does not seem like a constructive approach to your disagreement at all. Please work it out without making it personal.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, sort of. The OP (me )sees Pathfinder 2 repeat a lot of the same mistakes (or at least things I believe are mistakes) 4E did. The OP suggests this is because both games share the same fundamental philosophy.

[...]


It makes me tired. And it makes me sad, because we saw 4E try that, and we all know how that went.

14 years ago, I ran 4e. I really enjoyed it. I didn’t feel like the characters were “samey” (which is a pretty subjective) and for me, the fact that the math was so transparent was a plus, since it made modding (both as a PC and a DM) extremely easy.

That being said, in the intervening 14 years, both I and the RPG scene have changed. Even 14 years ago, Character Builder and Encounter Builder were a , and I have less time and more responsibilities than 14 years ago. In 2020, 4e (and any successor thereof) has to contend with 5e, which is easy to run and easy to customize (another subjective opinion).

All of this is a long-winded way to say that I am not sure you can abstract up the similarity in the design philosophy between 4e and P2e. There are too many variable, some of which are individual to each player, some of which reflect broader changes in gaming in a decade and a half.

Also, P2e really needs a Characterbuilder equivalent.

 

[Garthanos]

14 years ago, I ran 4e. I really enjoyed it. I didn’t feel like the characters were “samey” (which is a pretty subjective) and for me, the fact that the math was so transparent was a plus, since it made modding (both as a PC and a DM) extremely easy.

Yeah for me the implications of changes seemed obvious because of that too...

 

[FrozenNorth]

Thank you. It is possible they came up with the genesis of PF2 already when the success of 5E wasn't a given, but that still doesn't expalin why they didn't course-correct...

I still suspect hiring former 4E devs was a trojan horse and Paizo will suffer for it though...

My theory is that they developed a couple of mechanics they really liked (3 actions and levels of success), and that constrained the rest of the development of the game (to the point of tunnel vision, I would suggest).

To elaborate, if +10 is critical success (and critical success is meaningful and rare) and -10 is critical failure (and critical failure is meaningful and rare), then you have committed yourself to a tight band of bonuses/penalties if you don’t want optimizers to have a regular 25% chance or more of critting.

Note that where the 3-action economy and the degrees of success collide (MAP on multiple attacks), P2e dropped degrees of success (ie there is no critical failure on attack rolls).