Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Zardnaar]

5E was the first social media edition.

Technically it existed with 4E but things like critical role didn't exist and YouTube etc were very new. And the social media that was being used was to bury it in any event.

An edition fans like plus social media plus less rules heavy game=success.

 

[Hussar]

They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes. Then again, their at-will baseline is higher, too.

But, the at wills don't even come close to what the martial classes can do. We're talking about half as much damage with maybe a rider - which martial classes often get as well. An 11th level caster at will is doing 3d10 at best. That's literally half what the fighter types are doing.

 

[Parmandur]

You don't say?



Seemed like it was picking up c2012, to me, just as D&D was going on hiatus. That's been slowly building since the 90s.
But it's been a nagging question: why couldn't D&D catch that bandwagon?
Maybe because M:tG diverted the usual demographic in the 90s? Clearly because of the toxic atmosphere of the edition war...
What stopped 3e, IDK, but the d20 phenom did seem a very hobby-insider thing?

Or, it might be what 5e consciously evokes, since doing just that was an avowed goal of Next in the playtest.

Right, and I would suggest they chose consciously to do that because their research determined that is what people wanted...and I would go so far as to say that was the missing piece for 3.x, failure to get that fantasy genre feel just right.

 

[Parmandur]

As long as they present 'L' sub-classes as equally-weighted choices to "Q" ones, the issue will remain.

5 sub-classes, are definitively non-magical in the PH.
I hope I mentioned it in the context of CoDzilla or effective spells/day, or BA.

They do actually need to contrive a 5MWD, yes. Then again, their at-will baseline is higher, too.
SQUIRREL!

The "non-magical" Level 20 Champion is regenerating health constantly and firing 40 arrows in a minute, which have a 15% chance of critical hitting their target. Any high level character is Avengers/Justice League material.

 

[Parmandur]

As a PF1 fan who absolutely hates 4E...I want to play PF2e so badly. While I've loved my years with Pathfinder since our group ditched 4E (and thank God for that), the game is starting to really show its flaws with age. Whether it's one of the DMs finding building encounters a pain, another DM's frustration about balance, a player's annoyance at trap options, or my own desires to not have to sacrifice out of combat utility or stick to stringent guides just to not feel underwhelming in said combat.

At first, the group showed little interest in it...but as the months have passed on, and our frustrations with PF1e's flaws have grown, the group's listened more and more to the details I've been able to provide about PF2e, and there's some level of excitement, to at least give it a proper look into. One DM in particular thinks the game could be a fine enough game to bring new players in without having to go 5e.

For me, the game's been looking like the perfect middle ground between PF1e and 5e that I've needed. I won't know for sure until we play, but I haven't been this excited for potentially swapping systems since I first looked at Pathfinder when 4e's flaws were really starting to grate on me.

Not trying to invalidate that PF1 fans are looking forward to PF2: but what percentage?

 

[Zardnaar]

Forums are negative but so was the lead up to 5E.

Playtest wasn't good, my wife really liked the PF2 Bard so buying the PDF and see how it goes from there. Getting the players will be the hard part, they all want to play 5E.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

LOL.

I don't really think it's a sea of change. Some of the changes that curb LFQW a bit were just common sense ones that basically many of the post-3e d20 lines also did, such as removing auto-scaling spells, bonus spells based on attribute, and curtailing magic items, etc. These are three factors that had previously contributed to the sheer through-put efficiency of spellcasting in 3e and PF1.

However, 5e to its credit also sought to prevent buff stacking through its one-concentration-spell-per-time rule. (This says nothing of the Neo-Vancian system; however, I would suggest that Neo-Vancian spellcasting favored spellcasters in that LFQW by making up for lost efficiency through increased flexibility.) These changes are tweaks to the spellcasting system. They are tweaks that add up to more than the sum of their parts, but they are tweaks nevertheless.

 

[Zardnaar]

LOL.

I don't really think it's a sea of change. Some of the changes the curb LFQW a bit were just common sense ones that basically many of the post-3e d20 lines also did, such as removing auto-scaling spells and bonus spells based on attribute, curtailing magic items, etc. These are three factors that had previously contributed to the sheer through-put efficiency of spellcasting in 3e and PF1.

However, 5e to its credit also sought to prevent buff stacking through its one-concentration-spell-per-time rule. (This says nothing of the Neo-Vancian system; however, I would suggest that Neo-Vancian spellcasting favored spellcasters in that LFQW by making up for lost efficiency through increased flexibility.) These changes are tweaks to the spellcasting system. They are tweaks that add up to more than the sum of their parts, but they are tweaks nevertheless.

I think removing auto scaling damage spells being a mistake.

The warmage wasn't remotely broken in 3.5. Damage dealing spells mostly suck in 5E especially with the way saves work.

 

[Imaro]

I think you have missed Tony Vargas' point.

I don't think I did at all...

D&D has huge brand name recognition, at a time where TT games are have been experiencing a surge in popularity.

Never disputed this... though I would go so far as to say 5e seems responsible for the majority of that surge. Something I thinkg would have been impossible if people didn't enjoy the actual gameplay.

The game is fun, and relatively easy to get into.

Again I agree... though I would ask where in Tony's post is this mentioned?

Most new players aren't playing 5e because of the rules differences from prior editions. As long as WOTC put out a game that wasn't too different from 3e, but lighter, and enjoyable, they would have had a big success. I don't think Tony was saying it's just doing well because it's a fad. Where did you get this from his post?

Emphasis mine... how do you know this? I mean you're contradicting your first statement in this very paragraph and calling out it's differences from 3e (a past edition) as one of the reasons for it's success... so which is it?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Forums are negative but so was the lead up to 5E.

Playtest wasn't good, my wife really liked the PF2 Bard so buying the PDF and see how it goes from there.

Y'know, with the exception if one player who liked the Next playtest Sorcerer, nobody I knew seemed to ike it, much, but, they're mostly fine with the finished product.