• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

CapnZapp

Adventurer
The Crunch constraint is part of what makes 5E better than prior D&D... to a point. After 10th level, the 12-16 abilities (and 10-15 spells memorized) hit a saturation point for many. I thought I was relatively rare, but the success of Pugmire (which keeps the same upper metric on Proficiency Bonus, but rescales to 10 levels) says I'm not alone.
Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.

But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)

So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Because you are dissatisfied with the little crunch there is in 5E...?

I believe there is a market opening for a dndian game with more crunch.

I do not believe there is a market for the various and many kinds of silliness 3.x/d20/PF offers.

The difference? 5E.

It might be simple (too simple), but it comprehensively represents an upgrade of 3E without falling into the 4E pitfalls.

WotC could not have made that unless the failure of 4E sharpened their focus and allowed them to ignore the naysayers.
Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition.

It makes me nervous Paizo is listening to PF fans, some of which haven't even played 5E and thus can't see that you CAN design a fun game where martials and casters feel familiar yet different. (That is, what 4E couldn't offer)
How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2! :mad:

I would have felt a lot less nervous if Paizo had exhibited clear tendencies to look at 5E and learn from it. Yet, most PF2 chatter I hear are about PF1 and 4E - two of the *least* appropriate games to build your future on in my opinion.
Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.
 
Last edited:

LordEntrails

Explorer
How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2! :mad:
Except go ask someone in marketing or advertizing, customers are notorious for not knowing what they will actually spend their own money on.

Sure yea, you have to engage your customer base and make them feel loved, but you have to give them what they want (and will spend money on), not want they ask for.
 

aramis erak

Explorer
Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.

But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)

So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope
Let's attempt to cure some of your ignorance...

Pugmire is a 5E OGL variant using a simplified versionof 5E, which has had 4 successful kickstarters, It rescales proficiency bonus to fit 10 levels, rather than 20, makes all class features feats (and thus avoids multi-classing by making it totally unneeded), and uses Dogs (and in Monarchies of Mau, Cats) as the species. It's got a very vancian post-tech post-recover-after-holocaust setting concept.

The rest of your post is utter bollocks...

I know a number of folks who grudgingly play PF despite hating its crunch level... Specifically because the published adventure paths are setting wise awesome, and leave the mechanics to the GM. My wife happens to be one such. She's played more PF than me, because the group she plays with runs PF; She feels 5E is too heavy at times, so she's clearly no fan of crunch.

In my experience, about a third of the people I know playing PF would rather play a simpler engine in Paizo's settings, but have GM's who like PF.
 

Hussar

Legend
/snip

Without knowing for sure, I feel the vast majority of prospective gamers of this generation has already been recruited.
/snip
Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.

For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon. If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition.
You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.

Hint: it's not to only discuss scientifically proven facts.

If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.

How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous!
You really need to stop taking it personal.

I didn't come over to your house and strangled your kitten. I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.

Relax.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.
It was probably Tony Vargas.

On the other hand, he sees 4th edition in everything everywhere, so I've learned to simply ignore that.

Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there.

All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.

For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon. If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.
The peak can still have been reached.

Unless you want to argue that as long as a single new gamer joins up, it hasn't. OTOH that's absurd.

Now then; let me flag that's all I have to say on that particular tidbit. Please do tell your thoughts on the rest of my post.

I mean, you focused in on such a small detail it's almost weird. I'm not going to reply further on that - it's simply not very relevant to my larger points.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.

If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.
It's not like I am the only person who calls you out on your BS in this thread and others. It amazes me that you haven't slowed down even when others have noted your penchant for BSing about the game market, PF2, and such. Any time people direct you to actually examine PF2 for yourself, you don't. Any time people people do your work for you about what the game does, you ignore it so you can continue doom-speaking dung-posting. So you keep making unsubstantiated claims in the game and your worries. If you are so concerned about Paizo's strategy and what they are doing as you claim, then why do you not even put in a modicum of effort to actually look up what Paizo is doing in PF2?

I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.
If only that was what you were doing and you were actually doing it well, but alas...
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there.

All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.
Paizo does not exist as a company to give you that 5e dream product you want nor will they have necessarily failed, should they fail, because of the reasons you say. (Seriously, if Paizo fails, it will not be because the market cares about LFQW. That's laughably absurd as a hypothesis.)

So why not work on your 5e crunch product yourself? You are the only person who seems to know what you are looking for. So who could know better than you? Who could design this better than you? For a number of people, I have seen them look at PF2 as a product that exists in a similar design space, though you have seemingly already written it off because you don't like how they did it. It doesn't seem to matter if it fits the niche you have called for or not, because you you don't like its "feat soup" approach. (That's more player-side crunch by the way.) So why not make a thread where you outline what you want in your dream RPG product and how you would go about doing it? Then you could also see get a tentative sense, albeit from a small population size, about how popular those choices would be.
 
As either [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.
Doesn't sound too much like the winged one, but it certainly wasn't me. Yes, 5e kept a lot of little mechanical details of 4e that were straight-line evolutions or simplifications of 3e, and bowdlerized a few 4e innovations, but, it's mostly true to the classic game in how it actually plays: it's the DMs game, through & through.

No, if you've heard me go on about 5es great accomplishment, it's this: it threaded the needle between being acceptable to the most nerdrage-prone segments of its fan base, and accessible to a sufficient fraction of the mainstream to sustain real volume.

Even in an era of nerd chic, with a dramatic TT gaming renaissance underway, that's a huge, and rare, accomplishment.
 

Hussar

Legend
Nope, that would be me. The greatest trick WotC pulled off was reskinning 4e and selling it as 5e. Because, frankly, there's so much of 4e in 5e mechanically. 4e was just as much the DM's game as 5e was since so much of 4e was about reskinning, refluffing and page 42. I mean, good grief, I never even opened the 4e monster manual because writing up my own monsters was faster and easier. Something I wish they had kept in 5e.

But, yeah, I'm watching it right now - a long time 4e player stepping into a 5e table for the first time and being able to pick it up almost instantly. So much of it is immediately familiar. They just worded things differently.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Nope, that would be me. The greatest trick WotC pulled off was reskinning 4e and selling it as 5e.
Citation needed. ;)

Because, frankly, there's so much of 4e in 5e mechanically. 4e was just as much the DM's game as 5e was since so much of 4e was about reskinning, refluffing and page 42. I mean, good grief, I never even opened the 4e monster manual because writing up my own monsters was faster and easier. Something I wish they had kept in 5e.

But, yeah, I'm watching it right now - a long time 4e player stepping into a 5e table for the first time and being able to pick it up almost instantly. So much of it is immediately familiar. They just worded things differently.
Well, it's good that you're back to the fold!

But, honestly, as someone who skipped 2e, 3e, AND 4e as being "not D&D enough" and came back to 5e ... I have to say that this is in the eye of the beholder.

If it's close enough for you to 4e, AWESOME! It's close enough to 1e for me.

....I think that might have been the point.
 

Hussar

Legend
Citation needed. ;)



Well, it's good that you're back to the fold!

But, honestly, as someone who skipped 2e, 3e, AND 4e as being "not D&D enough" and came back to 5e ... I have to say that this is in the eye of the beholder.

If it's close enough for you to 4e, AWESOME! It's close enough to 1e for me.

....I think that might have been the point.
Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics. 2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes). Very little niche protection. Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's. And that's just off the top of my head.

When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at? Mechanically, it's a completely different game. So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics. 2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes). Very little niche protection. Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's. And that's just off the top of my head.

When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at? Mechanically, it's a completely different game. So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?
Is it though?

Completely different?

I mean, I'd start by noting that just above us, [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] states he's playing 5e because it resembles d20 (3e) without the annoying crud, so there's that.

But for my terms, using the DMG (slow natural healing) combined with self-restraint at the table (archetypes from the 1e PHB) and no variant rules from the PHB (no feats, no MCing) leads to a very 1e-feeling game, so much so that we pretty much run 1e adventures exclusively.

The slow healing takes care of the healing, and we have instituted an additional house rule (system shock of DC 15 if you get knocked down below 0hp, variant of DMG p. 273, anything below -10 is insta-death).

TBH, with that, the only real difference left is the at-will cantrips; we are currently engaged in an ongoing, and lengthy, debate about what to do with those.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at? Mechanically, it's a completely different game. So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?

I don't know what does it for lowkey13, but there's quite a bit to give it a play feel much closer to 1e/2e than either 3e or 4e.

Magic items mathematics not being baked into the system of character power-ups.
Least tied to grid since 2e (which, while not technically 1e, was pretty much 99% compatible with 1e)
Very flexible combat movement rules that match how many people played 1e (even if the formal rules weren't as flexible then)
Fewer distracting and nitpicky advancement options
Bonuses don't go stratospheric thanks to bounded accuracy, which keeps it feeling more like 1e/2e than 3e or 4e
Encounter design isn't so based on the CR du jour of the monster when it comes to making level-appropriate(ish) encounters

Like lowkey13, we too are playing with pre-3e materials in our current 5e campaign. And with the exception of the DM substituting monsters with newer stats, it feels seamless.
 

Aldarc

Adventurer
Maybe that's the success of D&D? Everyone thinks that their edition receives enough love that they can play their old games. (Though 4e's presence in 5e must be masked with hushed tones.)
 

Jer

Adventurer
Now, when I say it's close to 4e, I'm talking about the mechanics. 2 step resource recovery, a multitude of preroll mechanics, virtually all classes being built around a suite of special abilities (typically spells for most of the classes). Very little niche protection. Overnight HP recovery and virtually unkillable PC's. And that's just off the top of my head.

When you say it's close to 1e, what are you looking at? Mechanically, it's a completely different game. So, what is the 1e DNA you're identifying with in 5e?
I would add to that the fact that everyone has a single proficiency bonus that scales with level at the same rate, rather than different Base Attack Bonuses/THAC0/To-hit charts by class. 5e took the "add 1/2 your level" mechanic from 4e, changed it to (roughly) "add 1/4 your level +1" and nobody blinks at it.

The "if you're not proficient in it, you don't get to add the bonus" instead of either the traditional "flat penalty for lack of proficiency" or 4e's "you don't get to add the weapon proficiency bonus" rules is probably why, because it puts a fairly high restriction on classes stepping out of their lane while keeping the fiddly math to a minimum. But it still surprises me that a mechanic that was so contentious in 4e has come over to 5e with few complaints at all. The skill bonuses work the same way - you're still adding a scaling bonus based on level, but people seem much more fine with it than they were for 4e - maybe because the math is just less obvious? I remember laughing when I realized that in some ways, 5e just stretches out the math for what would have been levels 1-5 in 4e across 20 levels for 5e. There's a whole lot of 4e DNA in 5e, it's just very well hidden.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Heh heh... and then there's me... who has never felt the that ANY edition of D&D was some massive outlier from any other edition. 5E feels like a lot of 4E, just like a lot of 4E felt like 3E, just like 3E felt a lot like 2E, just like 5E feels like 2E, and 4E felt like 1E etc. etc. etc.

And why is that? Because I'm one within the branch of the D&D populace for whom the game mechanics are and always have seen secondary to the play experience. The story, the fluff, the roleplaying of Dungeons & Dragons and the worlds they inhabit have been exceedingly similar in EVERY edition that has been released. Which is exactly why I keep playing it. I love what D&D is away from the math.

And this is also why I have moved without issue from my start with the Red & Blue Boxes to AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3,5, 4E and now 5E and have never once felt like I had to stick with one over the other or like I was being betrayed by the people making it. Because quite frankly... specific game mechanics don't really matter and when I play them enough can grow quite stale. Which is why I'm perfectly happy with game mechanics evolving and changing with every new edition because it means I can work with new and different ways to roll dice and do math while the baseline foundation and essence of the Dungeons & Dragons game remains virtually unchanged even after 40 years.
 

Advertisement

Top