Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Retreater]

The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?

5e, though highly successful, seems like largely a reaction against 4e (and to a lesser extent, the 3.x/PF model of game design). Paizo had several choices to make when it came to designing Pathfinder 2 while keeping a "D&D flavor."
1. They could try to mimic 5e D&D, though without the name recognition, market presence, corporate status, and 5 years of design that goes with 5e. Against that juggernaut, how could they compete with that?
2. They could go OSR, with streamlined mechanics and fewer options - think Castles and Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Forbidden Lands, et al. These games have their niche audiences and place in the gaming space, but none have the traction of D&D or PF.
3. They could have just done a "soft reboot" of PF and made it very similar to 3.x/PF1. They would be competing against themselves and the massive amount of material they released.
4. Or they can address the crunch and tactical combat of 3.x/4e, try to make a game that people are wanting and that they (the designers) wanted to make. Try to streamline it. Try to make a game that feels more like the classic D&D experience (as opposed to 4e).

So I think they made a game that they could enjoy, their fans could enjoy. If it's not for you, just ignore it, like I ignore Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Numenera.

 

[Remathilis]

You are deliberately skipping multiple decades worth of D&D just to make a cheap point.

1974 - 1999: less than 5e
2000 - 2014: more than 5e

25 > 14

Assuming your just counting core rules only; else the Player's Options era of 2e dwarfs them all.

 

[Parmandur]

Then you don't know choices that bring crunch.

They can make up new Backgrounds all day long, and it changes absolutely nothing: you're just recombining existing choices.

No new crunch at all.

Fluff choices are important to character creation in an RPG, possibly more important than crunch in my experience. And as has been pointed out, 5E has more crunch knobs than most of D&D throughout the history of the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

5e, though highly successful, seems like largely a reaction against 4e (and to a lesser extent, the 3.x/PF model of game design). Paizo had several choices to make when it came to designing Pathfinder 2 while keeping a "D&D flavor."
1. They could try to mimic 5e D&D, though without the name recognition, market presence, corporate status, and 5 years of design that goes with 5e. Against that juggernaut, how could they compete with that?
2. They could go OSR, with streamlined mechanics and fewer options - think Castles and Crusades, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Wizardry, Forbidden Lands, et al. These games have their niche audiences and place in the gaming space, but none have the traction of D&D or PF.
3. They could have just done a "soft reboot" of PF and made it very similar to 3.x/PF1. They would be competing against themselves and the massive amount of material they released.
4. Or they can address the crunch and tactical combat of 3.x/4e, try to make a game that people are wanting and that they (the designers) wanted to make. Try to streamline it. Try to make a game that feels more like the classic D&D experience (as opposed to 4e).

So I think they made a game that they could enjoy, their fans could enjoy. If it's not for you, just ignore it, like I ignore Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Numenera.

Please don't try to dismiss my concerns with "if not for you, try..."

What fans do you speak of? 4E fans who somehow prefer the Lost Age world?

Obviously approach #1 could have worked for them. A) they're not supposed to compete with 5E, they would supplement it! B) like it or not, unless they stay in WotC's orbit, Paizo is just another wannabe heartbreaker publisher.

 

[CapnZapp]

1974 - 1999: less than 5e
2000 - 2014: more than 5e

25 > 14

Assuming your just counting core rules only; else the Player's Options era of 2e dwarfs them all.

Good job!

Doubling down on your insistence to completely miss the point!

I guess I have to tell you the obvious: multiply each year with number of gamers and you'll see the true relevance of your posts...

 

[darjr]

False and false... But yes, choices that merely remove restrictions ....

A feat never gives you an actual edge, it only ever gives you the ability to use this other bonus in place of this here bonus. It means you get to be as good as someone who was good at it all along; but it never lets you minmax, it never gives, say, that +2 bonus that would have allowed you to "climb outside the box"...

Could you give a concrete example?

 

[Parmandur]

Good job!

Doubling down on your insistence to completely miss the point!

I guess I have to tell you the obvious: multiply each year with number of gamers and you'll see the true relevance of your posts...

That amplifies @Remathilis point, though, as BD&D is the biggest pre-5E edition by players (which had Race as Class, reducing character build decisions to one).

 

[Retreater]

Please don't try to dismiss my concerns with "if not for you, try..."

What fans do you speak of? 4E fans who somehow prefer the Lost Age world?

Obviously approach #1 could have worked for them. A) they're not supposed to compete with 5E, they would supplement it! B) like it or not, unless they stay in WotC's orbit, Paizo is just another wannabe heartbreaker publisher.

I run for several groups who would like more tactical options than what 5e presents, while still maintaining the basic feel of the d20 mechanics. 4e was a little on the bloated side for us, and it's no longer supported. Which is a real issue, as WotC really drove home the need for the online character generator. While trying to run a 4e campaign with a homebrewed online character generator, it really just fell apart.

So this is a good balance between 5e and 4e for my groups.

And I try to avoid arguing online, but yeah, I'll dismiss your concerns. Unless you're an employee of Paizo, a stakeholder in their company, you have exactly 0% of a right to complain about what direction they take their company. This is a hobby - not your job, not your career, not your family, not your personal health or well being. If it's not fun for you, do something else. Find another game. Continue to play whatever you like.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Unless you're an employee of Paizo, a stakeholder in their company, you have exactly 0% of a right to complain about what direction they take their company. This is a hobby - not your job, not your career, not your family, not your personal health or well being. If it's not fun for you, do something else. Find another game. Continue to play whatever you like.

You can't be serious. He's a consumer. Consumers complain about choices companies make constantly. In fact, go on any social media and it seems it's all consumers do.

 

[Parmandur]

You can't be serious. He's a consumer. Consumers complain about choices companies make constantly. In fact, go on any social media and it seems it's all consumers do.

I'm pretty sure that @CapnZapp complains about things that he cares about, he has every right to do so.