Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Campbell]

In general range bands just jive with how I think about relative distance. I tend to interact with the world more intuitively, and when improvising or describing things will tend to use relative distances like those supplied by range bands. I really need something like a battle map or graph paper to process measurements in feet. Also I do not tend to run many dungeon crawls or make detailed maps that often. When I use something like a grid or 5' based system I'm pretty much drawing maps as I go.

I think while it is far to say that 5e is a simpler game than Pathfinder and 4e it is still at heart a tactical game. It certainly is still mostly focused on overcoming challenges, rather than exploration of character.

 

[Parmandur]

It's also part of the Cypher System and a few other games that I play. Not sure if I heard of them referenced that way before. I prefer distance bands as well, though not because of any glorification of one mode of play (theater of the mind) over another (square grids), but simply because it's less book keeping and work. Regardless of my preferences that does not mean that square grid play without merit or strengths.

Oh, for sure, it has benefits: we did use it in one game in college when things got bonkers. But forcing reliance on that method to the exclusion if going without can be a major turn-off.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But forcing reliance on that method to the exclusion if going without can be a major turn-off.

Meh, no RPG really /forces/ reliance on a play surface. Actually, it took me a while to divine why people were claiming 5e 'supports TotM,' - I mean, 13A /actually supports/ TotM, there are rules that specifically facilitate that mode of play, making it easier to run and taking advantage of it, and 5e doesn't have those sorts of rules.
But I finally did manage to grok the claim:

5e doesn't include rules that facilitate TotM, rather, it omits rules that leverage having a play surface. For instance, in 3e, you had templates so you could easily (relatively) snap an AE to the grid and see who's in it - didn't work without a grid, but was darn convenient when you were using one. 5e doesn't. It has AEs that are the same size and notional shape as they were in 5e, but no tools to facilitate using them on a grid - so grid or no grid, it's about the same: ergo you don't need the grid.

So, like, if you go all SARN-FU on 4e, or - like I did in the 90s - run Champions! without a battlemat, you loose some precision & convenience, and things that are kinda cool, like slides or Knockback or the like when you have that precision are sidelined or de-emphasized, so you 'loose' that coolness. 5e, OTOH, omits such things more or less entirely (except for the odd spell, of course), so you don't miss them when you play TotM - because you also don't have them when you use the grid.

Less is more!

Ok, actually, it's less, but it's a less that isn't any less than the less you started with because you didn't have the more that becomes less when you don't use the thing that gives you more.

More or less.



So, to maintain the pretense that I have any business being in this thread: how does PF2 handle using play surfaces or the lack thereof? Scale inches? (like 1e) People tubes? (like GURPS) Trigonometry? (like 5e) Teseracts? (j/k) Range Bands? (like 13A) ...
Or, oh, IDK - 5' Squares? (like PF1? If so, how do you count diagonals? I mean, that's, like a burning question, how do you count diagonals, the fate of your game could rest on the right answer...)

 

[Parmandur]

Meh, no RPG really /forces/ reliance on a play surface. Actually, it took me a while to divine why people were claiming 5e 'supports TotM,' - I mean, 13A /actually supports/ TotM, there are rules that specifically facilitate that mode of play, making it easier to run and taking advantage of it, and 5e doesn't have those sorts of rules.
But I finally did manage to grok the claim:

5e doesn't include rules that facilitate TotM, rather, it omits rules that leverage having a play surface. For instance, in 3e, you had templates so you could easily (relatively) snap an AE to the grid and see who's in it - didn't work without a grid, but was darn convenient when you were using one. 5e doesn't. It has AEs that are the same size and notional shape as they were in 5e, but no tools to facilitate using them on a grid - so grid or no grid, it's about the same: ergo you don't need the grid.

So, like, if you go all SARN-FU on 4e, or - like I did in the 90s - run Champions! without a battlemat, you loose some precision & convenience, and things that are kinda cool, like slides or Knockback or the like when you have that precision are sidelined or de-emphasized, so you 'loose' that coolness. 5e, OTOH, omits such things more or less entirely (except for the odd spell, of course), so you don't miss them when you play TotM - because you also don't have them when you use the grid.

Less is more!

Ok, actually, it's less, but it's a less that isn't any less than the less you started with because you didn't have the more that becomes less when you don't use the thing that gives you more.

More or less.



So, to maintain the pretense that I have any business being in this thread: how does PF2 handle using play surfaces or the lack thereof? Scale inches? (like 1e) People tubes? (like GURPS) Trigonometry? (like 5e) Teseracts? (j/k) Range Bands? (like 13A) ...
Or, oh, IDK - 5' Squares? (like PF1? If so, how do you count diagonals? I mean, that's, like a burning question, how do you count diagonals, the fate of your game could rest on the right answer...)

I think that you are fundamentally right there: as I said, 5E plays how my friends played in College, but more smoothly. Based on what WotC has said based on their research, that leveraging the map is not popular in particular, but they didn't know that because it was popular with people at WotX and at conventions and forums. I always thought my group was weird, but nope.

 

[Tony Vargas]

they didn't know that because it was popular with people at WotX and at conventions and forums

And yer FLGS, yeah. That makes perfect sense, actually. At cons, stores, and the like, there'll be a play surface, even if you yourself don't have so much as a card table at home, /and/ you're there to wring everything you can out of the experience you're paying for.

And, of course, Forumites are usually pretty deeply ensconced in the TTRPG rabbit-hole, anyway... Can't trust a thing we go on about.

.

I always thought my group was weird, but nope.

Oh, don't worry, gaming & nerd culture still haven't msinstreamed to the point you can't count yourself as weird!

 

[Mistwell]

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

Just like Highlander 2 was the best Highlander ever made?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just like Highlander 2 was the best Highlander ever made?

Highlander 2 was, ironically, truest to the books.
The books were just awful.

But, no, more like how Bella Lugosi was the best actor in Plan 9.

...no, better: how ALIENS was the best action movie of a wet-horror franchise. That really sums it up.

 

[Parmandur]

Highlander 2 was, ironically, truest to the books.
The books were just awful.

But, no, more like how Bella Lugosi was the best actor in Plan 9.

...no, better: how ALIENS was the best action movie of a wet-horror franchise. That really sums it up.

...

There were books???

 

[Zardnaar]

...

There were books???

The quote is there can be only one (ducks).

 

[Tony Vargas]

...

There were books???

Unsubstantiated rumor.

But it was funny.