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

[Don Durito]

The original post has been disected and demolished by numerous people (myself included) and shown to bear very little resemblance to reality. From the starting point of Pathfinder 1e Pathfinder 2e goes in the literal opposite direction to 4e most of the time. The parts like "Fun, cool and evocative" feats that CapnZapp bolded in a post on this page about were in several cases lifted almost directly from 4e, which has feats that are very like the 5e half-feats. In the ways he is talking about 5e followed the paths laid down by 4e and Pathfinder 2e definitively turned its back on.

It even asks the ridiculous question why Pathfinder doesn't turn itself into a 5e clone, giving away any sense of distinctiveness or reason to play it rather than 5e.

The thesis of the original post isn't pining for the fjords of better discussion. It has joined the archive undiscussable. It is an ex-hypothesis, thoroughly demolished by numerous posters.

I think if you look back at the post you've quoted you'll see that "the original' post where it appears is in a sentence that directly follows on from one that mentions "my original post". The definite article in this case referring back to the aforementioned subject of the previous sentence (although I can see why the confusion might arise) and not to the OP of the entire thread.

In any case I think I'm done this thread.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Look I'm not going to debate countless examples. For one thing I'd have to dig out a bunch of books and pour through countless prestige classes and paragon paths just to try and win an argument on the interent.

In any case this thread wasn't particularly about 4E. My original post which is the source of this digression wasn't really about 4E.

If anyone wants to go back and actually engage with the original post in a more worthwhile way then has been done to date then I'm happy to discuss it. What I'm not interested in doing is being dragged into an edition war. You were all just doing fine with that without me.

The original post has been disected and demolished by numerous people (myself included) and shown to bear very little resemblance to reality. From the starting point of Pathfinder 1e Pathfinder 2e goes in the literal opposite direction to 4e most of the time. The parts like "Fun, cool and evocative" feats that CapnZapp bolded in a post on this page about were in several cases lifted almost directly from 4e, which has feats that are very like the 5e half-feats. In the ways he is talking about 5e followed the paths laid down by 4e and Pathfinder 2e definitively turned its back on.

It even asks the ridiculous question why Pathfinder doesn't turn itself into a 5e clone, giving away any sense of distinctiveness or reason to play it rather than 5e.

The thesis of the original post isn't pining for the fjords of better discussion. It has joined the archive undiscussable. It is an ex-hypothesis, thoroughly demolished by numerous posters.

 

[Don Durito]

The original post has been disected and demolished by numerous people (myself included) and shown to bear very little resemblance to reality. From the starting point of Pathfinder 1e Pathfinder 2e goes in the literal opposite direction to 4e most of the time. The parts like "Fun, cool and evocative" feats that CapnZapp bolded in a post on this page about were in several cases lifted almost directly from 4e, which has feats that are very like the 5e half-feats. In the ways he is talking about 5e followed the paths laid down by 4e and Pathfinder 2e definitively turned its back on.

It even asks the ridiculous question why Pathfinder doesn't turn itself into a 5e clone, giving away any sense of distinctiveness or reason to play it rather than 5e.

The thesis of the original post isn't pining for the fjords of better discussion. It has joined the archive undiscussable. It is an ex-hypothesis, thoroughly demolished by numerous posters.

That seemed like something of a non-sequitor.

I think you've mistaken the referent of a definite article.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm now very confused. In a post 33 minutes ago Don Durito has managed to quote me from 21 minutes ago. He's also quoted the same post again six minutes ago, this time working in linear time?

Enworld, what's going on?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Time bandits on this board...

 

[pemerton]

I'm now very confused. In a post 33 minutes ago Don Durito has managed to quote me from 21 minutes ago. He's also quoted the same post again six minutes ago, this time working in linear time?

Enworld, what's going on?

I assume that there was an edit of the post that you quoted about not debating countless examples. My view is that examples are pretty relevant to the strength of claims about what a RPG system is or isn't like, or does or doesn't permit, but to each their own.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And having feats and options and magic items that really make a difference is mostly fun and cool and evocative. Not something that must be repressed and controlled, like in both 4E and PF2

And as you're still trying to nail that parrot of yours to the perch I thought I'd point out that the 5e feats were direct descendents of 4e feats and Pathfinder 2e took them in the opposite direction.

In specific a 5e feat is worth roughly two good 4e feats - or a 5e feat that also gives you +1 to a stat is worth a 4e feat. A 4e feat is normally bigger than all but the biggest 3.5 feats and frequently worth at least two of them. And a Pathfinder 2e feat is smaller than a 3.5 feat.

To show this we're going to look at Alertness and Improved Initiative.

• 3.5 had Improved Initiative as one of its stand-out evocative feats for +4 to Initiative. Powerful and meaningful - and one of the most taken feats in the game because it was right on top of the power curve.
• 3.5 had Alertness as one of its most boring feats (+2 to Spot and Listen)
• 4e decided that Improved Initiative was one of the very few 3.5 feats that was powerful and evocative enough to keep.
• 4e had Alertness - +2 to perception checks and you can not be surprised. Far cooler and more evocative than the 3.5 feat.
• 5e decided to merge them into one feat - Alert. +5 to Initiative, can not be surprised, and other creatures don't gain advantage on attack rolls as a result of being hidden from you. Or roughly the two 4e feats combined.
• Pathfinder 2e took things in the literal opposite direction to 4e. Improved Initiative is +2 to Initiative.
• I think the closest to the 3.5 Alertness feat Pathfinder 2e has is Canny Acumen, allowing you to become an expert in Perception. IMO less inspiring than even 3.5.

Unfair? Let's try another:

• Ritual Caster - a well known 5e feat and fairly evocative. It allows non-casters to cast rituals.
• It was of course a 4e feat; ritual spells of this sort were introduced to D&D by 4e.
• But that's the silly way to do it in 4e; if you want to do it you take a multiclass feat - dipping your toes in the water of another class (you can only pick one other class for multiclass feats). This will not only give you ritual caster, but will give you a free skill training.

And another:

• Great Fortitude in 3.5 gave +2 to Fortitude saves - boring
• In 4e this became first Great Fortitude for +2/3/4 to fortitude (increasing by tier) - slightly better but only slightly
• Then you had Superior Fortitude for characters with high Str/Con which had the same bonus to Fortitude and gave resist 3 to ongoing damage - much cooler and more evocative. There were equivalents for Ref and Will.
• 5e went for Resilient - +1 to a stat and proficiency in saving throws in that stat [yawn]. This is about the 4e level complete with some scaling.
• Pathfinder 2e rolled this into Canny Acumen - proficiency granting and thus not terribly evocative.

And another of the evocative and popular 5e feats:

• Polearm Master comes in two parts; one part makes the polearm into a double weapon with a d4 off-hand attack. And the other allows you to make an attack of opportunity when an enemy comes close.
• In 4e the first half of that doesn't fit; the second half is a feat called Polearm Gamble (where you also grant combat advantage to the enemy until the end of their turn). The evocative part was a lift from 4e.
• Polearm Gamble was one part of a really nasty combination in 4e with spear push, polearm momentum, and IIRC Heavy Blade Opportunity. Heavy Blade Opportunity let you push on an opportunity attack Spear Push Increased the push by 1. Polearm momentum meant that when you pushed the enemy two squares you knocked them over. But this meant that there was one phrase to describe a polearm build: "Batter up!"
• 5e of course has no feat combinations remotely that evocative and synergistic although Battlemaster Fighters with polearms can at least do something. 3.5 has trippy spiked chain spam that requires a nest of feats but doesn't send anyone flying.

I'm also amused by how many of the Xanathar's Guide racial feats are neither more nor less than 4e racial features.

But with any luck this should put a final stake through any credibility the OP posting has and bury it under a crossroads.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Okay you're done - you're making up things that are easy to shoot down. You are arguing in bad faith and will waste no more time on you.

To everybody else:

This is what I actually said. Feel free to compare to Chaosmancer's feeble straw men:

Making things up that are easy to shoot down? Like "You are assuming they did not discuss taking design inspiration from 5e?" The only way you could "shoot that down" is by having their internal design discussions, which if you have that this entire thread would go in a far different direction.

And, looking at what you "actually said"

Personally I think there exists a deep similarity between 4E and PF2 as regards design philosophy that goes right to the heart as to respective games popularity or lack thereof. (1)

The difference between 3E, PF1 and 5E on one hand, and 4E and PF2 on the other, is that players aren't allowed to influence the power of their characters to any substantial degree. If everybody is special, nobody is. (2)

And having feats and options and magic items that really make a difference is mostly fun and cool and evocative. Not something that must be repressed and controlled, like in both 4E and PF2. (3)

tl;dr: I think the downfall of 4E was its overbearing controlling nature, and I see the same in PF2. This goes far deeper than merely "presentation", and even deeper than shallow gameplay comparisons. (4)

(1) You directly say you think there are similarities between 4e and PF2 that directly impact popularity. Since you have claimed 4e was a disaster, you believe this to be a purely negative comparison.

(2) You draw a line putting 3.x, PF and 5e on one side and 4e and PF2 on the other, strengthening the claim that these two games are similiar and related, and add to that a direct statement that players aren't allowed to influence the power of their characters to a substantial degree. This claim seems to be false, as shown by the discussion about 4e characters who are able to trade skill abilities for combat abilities instead. This seems to allow "substantial" influence of their character's power. Also, since the claim is again a negative (players can't do this) you again are saying that taking influence from 4e is a bad thing for PF2.

(3) You claim that 4e and PF2 repress options, feats, and magic items. Once more, saying there are similarities between the two games, and since those feats, options and magic items that "really make a difference" are all positive things (fun, cool, evocative) then clearly this is again a negative trait that PF2 is taing from 4e.

(4) You talk about the downfall of 4e, and tie what you see as the source of that downfall to decisions you see in PF2. PF2 ia copying 4e and taking the exact same design that led to 4e's downfall in your opinion. And you see this as a deep design decision.


Not directly quoting, but you have also asked repeatedly why PF2 is not copying the massive success of 5e. You have said this many times.

So, like I said. Your argument seems to be that Paizo made a mistake and is desiging PF2 based off of 4e, and that they should instead have based it off of 5e. But, you have completely ignored many, many, many examples and discussions showing that (A) 3.X was just as bad about some of these things as you claim 4e was (B) 4e was not designed in the way you seem to have claimed, with some of your examples being proven false by fans of the edition and (C) talking about why Paizo copying the industry leader too closely might be a poor financial decision.

I am not arguing in bad faith. I'm just not accepting your premise.

 

[Garthanos]

I do have the tools to describe it, they’re called DCs

Session zero where I want to decide if i pick a skill or not I do not have those... nor really the idea of what you might think is hard because I am certain based on querying people on these boards you are quite wrong virtually the same action goes form easy to near impossible without a breath in between.

That’s a definite shortcoming of 5e, no doubt. I’m terms of damage output, casters and non-casters are actually pretty decently balanced over the course of a 6-8 encounter day, but caster supremacy is definitely back in 5e and it’s one of many critiques I have of the system.

I find 3 round combats uninteresting isn't that part of those 6-8 encounter assumption some will be very nearly trivial? I would rather balance around encounters anyway and having tricks that represent deceptions you cannot pull against the same person or anyone who has seen it used twice or spells that mess up the environment so they do not work twice without purification rituals and similar things which help make encounter design guidelines spot on.

This is actually a selling point of the game.

Does not sell to me it makes characters grow less in non hitpoint ways... ie while they have hit points back to the extreme net growth from the little better than soldier to a one man army style awesome. They now lack offensively It really is the classic D&D story (5e may have restored hit point growth by portraying a fragile pre heroic tier but it squashed that same growth out of anything not impacted by hit points.

Although it does affect combat too. When you have those one man armies you use swarms to simulate squadrons of enemies anyway like the 4e Angry mob or Orc Throng or Demon Horde I really do not want to use the same mechanics. Further that high level 5e fighter doesn't race across a battlefield like a Cu Chulainn lawnmower in 5e. In 1e he might be doing 20 attacks (i know it rarely came up but it was a try).

Of note if you do the 5e Beowulf is baseline trick then those reliant on them start larger than life and do not advance much --> I think you can get that same thing in any D&D just by playing only one Tier.

But the point of balancing the magical awesome with the non still remains an issue one 4e tried to address. Maybe you tip it the opposite direction by doing some other figure as you say perhaps Beowulf and now nobody needs that breath water spell. Skill challenges were geared to make skill application as important on scale as using the right ritual. Skill powers allowed bursts of skillful effort to achieve similar extreme results choosable by the player.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In part that is the point. Why should I be asking you this in session zero and the reason is human understanding is incredibly variable. You cant even given me ballpark on broad categories of things

It’s been a long time since I DMed 4e, so can you explain how 4e and 5e are different in this respect?

P. 42 of 4e was an absolute godsend for me to understand setting DCs. It is at that point that I simply started writing Easy, Moderate, Hard (or Low, Moderate, High) across the top of my DM notes to address unexpected actions taken by my players.