Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Campbell]

This might be more to the on-topic point than CapnZapp's views on specific details: PF2 is being positioned regarding the virtues of it's mechanics, unlike 5E. Lots of mechanics. Not necessarily what the market is looking for, if you look at some of the top modern RPGs like 5E and Star Wars (with the funny narrative dice).

I have Edge of the Empire. It is not a simple game by any stretch.

 

[Parmandur]

I have Edge of the Empire. It is not a simple game by any stretch.

No TTRPG is "simple" as such: but the rules involved in Star Wars are more...fluid...than PF2, more symbolical and less numerical.

 

[Staffan]

LFQW, though, actually refers to the progression of classes as they level. A classic beatstick fighter increments his chance to hit every level. He might get a better magic weapon now and then. He eventually gets more than one attack per round. His DPR steadily increases. That's the LF. The caster, OTOH, starts out with 1 spell of 1st level cast at 1st level ability and as he levels gets more spell, higher level spells, and all those spells scale, so his power balloons at an accelerating place. That's the QW (Q for quadratic, and it might be better to say geometric or hyperbolic or something else, depending on how big a math geek you are and how precise you need your metaphors to be). You might think that a 5e caster's spells scaling some things, like damage, with slot instead of character level addresses that, and it does, a bit - but, then, so did 3.5 scaling save DCs & capping damage with slot rather than caster level, and that didn't help much, either. (Bottom line, though, low level spells stay useful in both eds: 3.5 for spells without saves like utility spells, 5e for spells /with/ saves. The coefficients are slightly different, but it's still metaphorically "quadratic.")

There is a more subtle change in 5e that helps a little with the LFQW issue: the number of spell slots.

In 3e, your spell slots for most levels followed a predictable pattern (for prepared casters): first you get 1 slot when you first learn a new spell level, then you have 2 slots for two levels, then 3 slots for 3 levels, and then 4 slots. The exception is 8th and 9th level spell slots which are accelerated a little (for 8th) or a lot (for 9th) in order to give you 4 slots of each level at level 20. In addition, you will probably have 1 or more additional slots per level from a high casting stat, and if you're a cleric or a specialist wizard you will have an extra slot per level that can only be used for a domain spell or a school spell. So the daily slots for a 10th level specialist wizard will likely look like this: 7/6/5/5/4.

But in 5e, things are different. You start out with more slots at lower levels (2 slots for spell levels 1 through 3), but you don't get any additional slots for stats, domains, or school specialization. And only 1st level spells only get to 4 slots. The others max at 3 (for 2nd through 5th level), 2 (for 6th and 7th level), or 1 (for 8th or 9th level). So a 10th level wizard will have a slot progression of 4/3/3/3/2. That's like half the slots of the 3e wizard, rounded up. Some classes (wizards and land druids) get a feature to recover some slots on a short rest once per day, but that basically translates into one additional top-level slot that can only be accessed after a short rest.

Of course, neo-Vancian casting combined with cantrips that are weak but not a joke means that you can probably use your slots more efficiently, but it's still a factor to consider.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm hardly wrong when you are just quibbling at semantics because I don't praise 5e hard enough to your liking. What you describe is 5e tweaking the 3e system.

The reason is that by calling it a tweak you undercut my entire argument: if 5E is a sea change compared to 3E it can't be a mere tweak.

 

[CapnZapp]

LFQW, alone, means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.

Okay this proves you have no interest in understanding the success of 5E, because this reveals you haven't tried it, and only look at it from your bitter shipwreck of 4E.

It's time to move on.

 

[Parmandur]

LFQW, alone, means anything but a full caster is a trap, the only question is how many levels before it's sprung.
BA guarantees that even the least optimal character can make the occasional warm-body contribution via a good roll on an unmodified d20.

In 5E, that trap doesn't spring by level 20, and WotC has set 20 as a hard limit to the game, probably for this very reason (beyond people not playing much into third Tier levels).

By that point, the Champion is the Wolverine, gaining 5 HP every turn when below half health, and hitting a critical about every other round. The Assasin has their Sneak Attack possibly doubled on a given target due to Death Strike, and has an "unfailing" ability to move hidden in society without magic. High level martials are the stuff of legend in 5E, and still masters without major resource usage.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, if by Paizo's 4e you mean the best edition of the game ever made.

I see what you did there, but no, this is about the business angle, not the game qua game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 5E, that trap doesn't spring by level 20, and WotC has set 20 as a hard limit to the game, probably for this very reason (beyond people not playing much into third Tier levels

The 'trap' is sprung earlier than the whole campaign starts to suffer from its effects, which'd be after you leave the sweet spot which reaches 11th, inclusive.
But, without some vigilance and compensation by a good DM, it'll start to wear on the trapped player long before.

But, then, 5e worked some minor miracles in Empowering good DMs for a reason.

There is a more subtle change in 5e that helps a little with the LFQW issue: the number of spell slots.

True. Like someone, maybe [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION], said, 5e 'tweaked the curve,' yeah.
LFQW returned with a vengeance in 5e, but was only back, not badder than ever like in 3e.

But in 5e, things are different. You start out with more slots at lower levels...<but top out with fewer>
Some classes (wizards and land druids) get a feature to recover some slots on a short rest once per day...
Of course, neo-Vancian casting combined with cantrips, means that you can probably use your slots more efficiently, but it's still a factor to consider.

Yep, 5e casters get more spells at low level, plus attack cantrips, but fewer high level spells, and fewer slots, overall.
They also don't blow through near as many: you don't need to stack buffs to keep up with the fighter or precast whole slates of spells for major battles. A spell,especially a concentration spell can often turn a whole encounter.
And, everyone casts spontaneously, there's no concentration to cast or loss of spells from interruption, so slots are rarely ever wasted nor go unused because you memorized something you didn't need.

None of which bears directly on LFQW, which is about progression.

In the classic game, LFQW was arguably part of a balance scheme. Fighters (and multiclass non/demi- hunans) were profoundly superior at 1st, but fell to virtual irrelevance at higher levels due to LFQW (and racial level limits).

By 3e, Mcing was the same for everyone, and casters were competitive at first level, but restrictions on casters vanished and LFQW was only slightly tweaked by damage caps and save DCs scaling with slot level.

4e, MCing is barely a thing, Races & Classes are reasonably balanced, racial level limits & LFQW are gone, and feats are a few must-haves in an insufferable cloud of chaff. Casters are on equal footing from the start (and the rules are simpler & easier on casters than ever, with AOs, but no loss for interruption only on range/area, and only wizards prepping & simply /one of two spells per slot, and at-will attack spells).

5e only made it even easier on casters, no OAs, no spell loss, all spontaneous, multiple at will attack cantrips. At first level, casters are doing just fine, even before casting one of their spells &/or after being tapped out. But it added back LFQW - even if slightly tweaked in opposite directions as 3e, by spells scaling with slot, but save DCs with level - that's an issue.
And, compared to the prior ed, in no way a fix or improvement.

 

[Zardnaar]

There's only a handful of broken spells in 5E and 4E had a heap of powers that got errated.

The main problem is when you have a lot of primary spell casters and they can combo together.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay this proves you have no interest in understanding the success of 5E, because this reveals you haven't tried it, .

I've much more than merely tried 5e, I was the only DM at my FLGS to stick with the Next playtest, I ran 5e at Encounters, ran intro games at local conventions - I championed(npi) 5e.

And, I'm quite interested in it's success, I just don't labor under the assumption that the people driving that success - new players, because it has exceeded sales that could be attributed primarily to old guard and returning fad-era players - are attracted by subtle details of the mechanical differences between 3e and 5e.

Rather, they're pulled in by the ongoing mainstreaming of nerd culture, the remarkable renaissance in TT boardgaming, and not repulsed before they can even try it by a toxic atmosphere of nerdrage.

While that may sound like little more than timing - It is more in a significant and hard to accomplish way: after the horrors of the edition war, encouraging a positive atmosphere among the established fans is nigh-miraculous (and, yes, that last has something to do with mechanical difference, but between 5e & 4e, 3.5 being, at the time, so well-served by PF1).

...

Actually, that's a thought: 5e isn't exactly hostile to 3.x fans sensibilities, just a little light on options and system mastery rewards. If PF2 /does/ alienate it's base, maybe 5e could pick them back up? Something along the lines of 'Ultimate' books but positioned so as not to confuse new players?