Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[MockingBird]

I wholeheartedly agree as much as I enjoy 5e, I'm really a person who likes a little more crunch and a few more options. 5e past level 3 you make so few meaningful character choices unless you multiclass that fundamentally by the time level 5 or 6 comes around who your character is doesn't change very much outside of a few classes(Bard and warlock and now the artificer which coincidentally are some of my favorite classes for that reason). Then compounding this issue of so little choice is the glacially slow pace of content release, so I notice the lack of options even more. Also Wizards is really ticking me off with how they are doing releases now with 1 or two subclasses in books instead of larger rules and PC and DM books. I don't want to be nickeled and dimed like that. Then there are the digital offerings like D&D Beyond which I refuse to ever pay for because if that company goes under all "my" content goes away with it which means it wasn't mine to begin with.

That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book. 5e is very modular and more character Options or mechanics could possibly be added to support those who like the crunch. I understand yalls opinions though and I cant fully disagree with them because competition is good. I just feel a lot of good stories were missed by folks unwilling to dig through the complexity of PF1e.

 

[CapnZapp]

I like that there are alternate systems out there for D&D style fantasy. I want to see gaming companies do non-5e things successfully. I want to see healthy competition in the market. I know a lot of people who played 5e and increasingly find it stale and have moved on. Paizo being another sheep in the flock does nothing to address that.

Me too.

My point is merely that 5E has heightened the bar for all dndish games, and that Paizo better make games that listen and learn.

In no way do they have to be another sheep in flock to do that.

It just means that I am convinced 5E has brought an utter unacceptance from the market of another rehash of 3E era caster-martial balance or NPC build complexity

 

[CapnZapp]

That's why I suggested Paizo could make an advanced 5e Options book.

This. Very much this.

 

[Aldarc]

Me too.

My point is merely that 5E has heightened the bar for all dndish games, and that Paizo better make games that listen and learn.

Where I differ from you CapnZapp is that I don't think that 5e somehow "solved" the game. I think that it provided a solution - that happened to have the official WotC D&D logo - and many people found it tolerable enough to their liking. (As you occasionally hear on these forums, 5e is often everyone's second favorite edition. ) Even then, not everyone agrees that it's a good solution. Some may not even believe that there was a problem that needed to be solved. I think that it is important to recognize that 5e is not the end-all-be-all of d20 game design for D&D style fantasy and not everyone shares the same hang-ups that you fixate on (e.g., LFQW, etc.).

I often get the sense from some of these threads that some people are pulling for PF2 to fail because 5e is their pet system that they want to see "win" rather than pulling for Paizo to succeed in creating a new, innovative fun game that can exist alongside 5e in a healthy diverse market. (It seems that the edition wars never went away; they only got a face lift and changed how the war is fought.) If this attitude turned me off from D&D during the d20 3.X era, it sure as hell does now in the 5e era.

It just means that I am convinced 5E has brought an utter unacceptance from the market of another rehash of 3E era caster-martial balance or NPC build complexity

I think that you are overstating the importance of this while also ignoring how 5e brought LFQW back, even if its 3e excesses have been curbed.

 

[CapnZapp]

while also ignoring how 5e brought LFQW back, even if its 3e excesses have been curbed.

Tony Vargas also keeps reminding me. And while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.

That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, since 4E lies still on the garbage heap of history.

The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.

 

[CapnZapp]

I often get the sense from some of these threads that some people are pulling for PF2 to fail because 5e is their pet system that they want to see "win" rather than pulling for Paizo to succeed in creating a new, innovative fun game that can exist alongside 5e in a healthy diverse market. (It seems that the edition wars never went away; they only got a face lift and changed how the war is fought.) If this attitude turned me off from D&D during the d20 3.X era, it sure as hell does now in the 5e era.

I'm sure you have ample reason for your concern.

Me however I would LOVE if PF2 ended up as an alternative for all of us wanting more playerside crunch than 5E can provide. Just a functional utility-based magic item economy alone would be very welcome!

 

[Aldarc]

Tony Vargas also keeps reminding me. And while I'm sure it's technically true it is also entirely irrelevant.

That is the reason I'm not bringing it it. I simply don't care about 4E. They could have cured cancer and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, since 4E lies still on the garbage heap of history.

The only comparison relevant to me is if PF2 will come across as a modern or retrograde game, seeing as we now live in a post 5E world.

Look, I'm not talking about 4e or your garbage opinions about it. I'm talking about how 5e brought LFQW back. If 5e brought LFQW back, then that means that 5e retains LFQW. That's the actual point that both [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and I have been making which somehow gets lost. 5e has LFQW. For someone who puts up a fuss about LFQW, you turn a conveniently blind eye to its presence in 5e. It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."

 

[CapnZapp]

LFQW is unmanageable too large in 3E/PF1.

LFQW is manageably fixed and contained in 5E.

How can it be difficult to understand "I hope, for Paizo's sake, PF2 is like 5E and not like 3E"...?

I'm only talking about a game's level of LFQW. Not that one game needs to resemble another on any other plane.

And why are you having trouble with me not bringing 4E into this equation. What 4E does or do not do simply isn't needed to make the above point.

 

[Imaro]

It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."

Please stop spreading this misinformation. It's edition warring nonsense.

 

[Parmandur]

Look, I'm not talking about 4e or your garbage opinions about it. I'm talking about how 5e brought LFQW back. If 5e brought LFQW back, then that means that 5e retains LFQW. That's the actual point that both [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] and I have been making which somehow gets lost. 5e has LFQW. For someone who puts up a fuss about LFQW, you turn a conveniently blind eye to its presence in 5e. It even furthers that trend from 3-4e by saying, "if magic is so good, then let's just give it to everyone."

4E is the edition that solved the caster/martial gap by flattening the playing field and making everything samey. 5E went back to an asymmetrical design, which is more pleasing, and then made that work.