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

[Neonchameleon]

Let's not play games about what was said. You were very clear about those saying PF2 and 4e were similar. I am one of those people pointing out the similarities. I just disproved your hypothesis.

I miswrote - I meant to write CapnZapp's opening post, sorry. And you did not disprove a thing.

Claiming that someone said there are no similarities between two versions of D&D is a pure strawman - the same six stats, the same basic dice types used, armour class, etc. are obvious similarities. That doesn't mean that the design of one derives from the other - just both from a common ancestor.

Now tell me where does 4e influence the design of Pathfinder 2e?

If you claim it has then you should be able to do this. And the answer should be things that weren't taken from Pathfinder.

I think you are alone in that opinion. 5e is known as the DM Empowerment edition. It was explicitly designed to encourage that style.

1: No I'm not
2: What exactly does it do to empower the DM? As a DM I find 5e gives me very little - if I want empowerment I go to 4e or something Powered By The Apocalypse. Because they actively help me.

I can however tell you a few things it does to give me makework. Some people claim that having to oversee everything empowers the DM. I consider these people wrong.

Essentials is not 4e.

Yes it is.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is a pretty simple test on the hypothesis of "did the PF2 creators design with intent toward capturing the play paradigm, and therefore the advocates of, 4e D&D?"

Do the major advocates of 4e, the folks that played it and advocated for it stem to stern and who are not simultaneously fans of PF, play PF2?

Well, if the ENWorld forums signal carries any weight, the answer is trivially "no". Campbell is a PF2 fan and plays it. Outside of that, I personally know about 50 big time fans of 4e, including myself...none of them play PF2. I'm sure there are more than just the people I know...but that it is pretty robust evidence that the people who are most discerning/dedicated when it comes to 4e, and who simultaneously weren't advocates of PF, aren't playing PF2.

Overwhelmingly, the folks that I know who loved 4e have been playing indie games or hacks (of which Strike! is basically an indie hack of 4e) for the last half decade.

And that doesn't mean that PF2 isn't a swell game. I'm sure it is. I just don't remotely see it as anything resembling the holistic play experience of 4e D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

What are those similarities that are not present in Pathfinder 1e and D&D 3.5?

3.5e didn't have feats that granted named attacks that were strictly superior to the basic attack. That's a 4e thing as far as I can tell.

Indeed. But it has absolutely nothing to do with an absurd conspiracy theory about it being an attempt to remake 4e.

Instead "Whatever reason" is Pathfinder 2e is an immediate successor game to Pathfinder 1e. And Pathfinder 1e is a near-clone of D&D 3.5 - the game 4e is a successor to.

The point is that PF2 wasn't made in a vacuum. 4e and 5e both were around to influence it. This stuff about immediate successor requires the idea that the game was made in a vacuum which is utterly nonsense.

The choice was so far as I can tell to ignore 4e and 5e and create something similar to Pathfinder 1 that is based on what the designers of Pathfinder wanted to do with their own system - and how this is things in many cases that come from Pathfinder. I've pointed out how literally none of the distinguishing features of 4e that I can think of that made it 4e are anything I've remotely seen in Pathfinder 2e. Meanwhile there is quite a lot of 4e in 5e even if it's horribly watered down in most cases (with the subclasses being one thing bulked up). This is in no ways even an attempt to make something like 4e.

If they had made something similar to PF1 maybe. Did they accomplish that?

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a pretty simple test on the hypothesis of "did the PF2 creators design with intent toward capturing the play paradigm, and therefore the advocates of, 4e D&D?"

Do the major advocates of 4e, the folks that played it and advocated for it stem to stern and who are not simultaneously fans of PF, play PF2?

That a fair point. Doesn't disprove that they attempted to make a more popular 4e style game - just that they failed again (this time by compromising too much) and even managed to alienate 4e fans while they were at it.

Overwhelmingly, the folks that I know who loved 4e have been playing indie games or hacks (of which Strike! is basically an indie hack of 4e) for the last half decade.

k?

And that doesn't mean that PF2 isn't a swell game. I'm sure it is. I just don't remotely see it as anything resembling the holistic play experience of 4e D&D.

I'm not sure anyone has said it resembled the holistic play eperience of 4e D&D. Maybe that is a strawman you are fighting against.

 

[FrogReaver]

I miswrote - I meant to write CapnZapp's opening post, sorry. And you did not disprove a thing.

Claiming that someone said there are no similarities between two versions of D&D is a pure strawman - the same six stats, the same basic dice types used, armour class, etc. are obvious similarities. That doesn't mean that the design of one derives from the other - just both from a common ancestor.

Common ancestor is a evolution / genetic term. There was no common ancestor or evolution here - at least not in that sense. You agreed just a post ago but have came full circle back to the idea.

Now tell me where does 4e influence the design of Pathfinder 2e?

If you claim it has then you should be able to do this. And the answer should be things that weren't taken from Pathfinder.

Already answered: 4e named powers = PF2 named attack feats

1: No I'm not
2: What exactly does it do to empower the DM? As a DM I find 5e gives me very little - if I want empowerment I go to 4e or something Powered By The Apocalypse. Because they actively help me.

You are the only one I've ever heard claim 4e has more dm empowerment than 5e. It's simply not a notion I find worthy of spending any time on. It's that outlandish.

Yes it is.

I mean it fell under the 4e banner - but it was a different game and IMO helped contribute to the downfall of 4e by changing direction too much. The Essentials direction was one I disliked for 4e (and many others) - even though I liked 4e quite a bit - and at the time gave it credit for solving alot of my 3.5e issues.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Neonchameleon

you said

My hypothesis is that the only people saying PF2 is like 4e are those who neither like nor understand 4e and want to put two things they dislike into the same box.

Please stop pretending you didn't say this.

 

[Neonchameleon]

3.5e didn't have feats that granted named attacks that were strictly superior to the basic attack. That's a 4e thing as far as I can tell.

What feats were those? Because if they existed at all I can't think of any.

4e basic attacks were a very specific thing - with specific uses.

Meanwhile 3.5 had feats that replaced your basic attack with something better like Manyshot and Whirlwind Attack. Pathfinder doubled down with Vital Strike which took your iterative attacks and replaced them with a single more powerful attack. Pathfinder 2e doing this through a feat is entirely down that path - and through feats like Shield Slam.

The point is that PF2 wasn't made in a vacuum. 4e and 5e both were around to influence it. This stuff about immediate successor requires the idea that the game was made in a vacuum which is utterly nonsense.

Apocalypse World was around to influence it. Fate was around to influence it. Dungeon Crawl Classics was around to influence it. Yet I don't see the claims of ancestry from those. Just because other things exist doesn't mean that they were paid any more than subconscious attention to.

If they had made something similar to PF1 maybe. Did they accomplish that?

They made an explicit successor game to Pathfinder 1 using a whole lot of Pathfinder 1 design assumptions and that tried to build on what they were doing with Pathfinder 1.

Common ancestor is a evolution / genetic term. There was no common ancestor or evolution here - at least not in that sense. You agreed just a post ago but have came full circle back to the idea.

I disagreed with your assertion about genetics. As I said evolution as a word predates Mendel by 200 years.

Pathfinder was a lightly tweaked version of D&D 3.5 - any attempt to say that Pathfinder isn't directly descended from D&D 3.5 is risible.
Pathfinder 2e is an explicit sequel to Pathfinder 1e.

Already answered: 4e named powers = PF2 named attack feats

Can you give examples please? And can you then tell me how they differ from Pathfinder 1's Vital Strike - a core feat which replaces your iterative attacks with one bigger attack. And that is fairly heavily used in the game.

I mean it fell under the 4e banner - but it was a different game and IMO helped contribute to the downfall of 4e by changing direction too much. The Essentials direction was one I disliked for 4e (and many others) - even though I liked 4e quite a bit - and at the time gave it credit for solving alot of my 3.5e issues.

I found Essentials was a really good set of splatbooks for 4e and there wasn't too much more that could be produced in the current direction.

And I have never so far as I am aware said I didn't make a hypothesis - which was then disproved by someone else. A disproven hypothesis is disproven. And something presented as a hypothesis is explicitly something I am uncertain about.

 

[Manbearcat]

That a fair point. Doesn't disprove that they attempted to make a more popular 4e style game - just that they failed again (this time by compromising too much) and even managed to alienate 4e fans while they were at it.

<snip>

I'm not sure anyone has said it resembled the holistic play experience of 4e D&D. Maybe that is a strawman you are fighting against.

2 first.

Premise:

"I think there exists a deep similarity between 4E and PF2 as regards design philosophy"

If the above premise doesn't bear out a resemblance to "the actual play experience of 4e at the table..."

I mean, if these two things aren't roughly equal, then (a) what low bar statement are we trying to tease out of the premise and, more importantly, (b) why is this low bar statement that we're teasing out of the premise even worthy of a post and then apparently controversial enough to stimulate 30 pages of subsequent conversation?

Now 1:

The burden of proof is on someone making a claim. So, until the proof shows up that there was intentiful design philosophy which endowed a "deep similarity between 4e and PF2", the evidence that 4e advocates who weren't simultaneously PF2 advocates (along with the other aspects of extreme difference that I and others have mentioned) are not playing PF2 is pretty robust.

Yes, there are some siloed kindred aspects of the two games. But that is a far cry from the lead post premise.

And honestly, I always have to wonder about how this outrage comes to be, in the same way that I wondered how the (truly staggering and embarrassing) scorched earth campaign against 4e came to be (that literally made the hobby uninhabitable...I still contest that the behavior of people during that era drove SIGNIFICANTLY more people away from the hobby than the actual game itself did). It makes no sense. The status quo is never going anywhere. Just because a new game is out doesn't mean that your prior game is gone and iteration is, at its most fundamental level, changing the status quo. If you don't like the changes, you don't have to stage a relentless peasants with torches and pitchforks revolt. Just keep playing what you're playing or play something else (which is what I've always done)!

The gatekeeping of TTRPGing (D&D in particular) is easily the worst aspect of our hobby.

 

[Garthanos]

Already answered: 4e named powers = PF2 named attack feats

Cleave a feat from 3e written thus.
As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the first and also within reach. You can only make one additional attack per round with this feat. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

An attack feat from PF2
Harrying Strike
Your attack prevents a foe from pursuing your allies. Make a melee Strike, adding the following effects in addition to the normal effects of the Strike.

Both look like something from essentials modifying a normal attack

And you are the one strictly distinguishing essentials as not 4e

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thank you And Pathfinder took the route still further as I mentioned with Vital Strike in the PHB.

Vital Strike (Combat)​

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.​

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.​

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.​

Comparing that to Pathfinder 2e's Power Attack:

You unleash a particularly powerful attack that clobbers your foe but leaves you a bit unsteady. Make a melee Strike. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, you deal an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, increase this to two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, increase it to three extra dice.​