Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Remathilis]

Strangely enough, it makes sense how Pathfinder define the stealth concepts. This one is just codifying what (basically) existed in 3E before it.

Unnoticed - you don't even know the monster is there. You're flat-footed against it, and some abilities it has work against you (assassination, I guess).
Undetected - you know the monster is there, but not which square it's in. You have to choose the right square to attack, and there's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Hidden - you know the monster is there and where it's standing, but you can't see it. There's a 50% miss chance, and you're flat-footed against it.
Observed - you can see the monster. Normal rules!

Meanwhile there's
Invisible - You're undetected until someone notices you (with Seek), then you become Hidden.
Concealed - You can't see the monster clearly. 20% miss chance.

Because Pathfinder like pinning down stuff, you also have Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly and Helpful for NPC attitudes.

Cheers!

It seems like a lot of keywording for keywording's sake. Unnoticed, Invisible and Undetected are basically variants of Hidden with a minor adjustment to exactly how you try to find them. In specific, there is no difference in Undetected and Hidden except the guesswork of choosing a square to attack (either you have an educated guess and they are Hidden or you don't and they're Undetected). It appears a correct guess on an Undetected foe just makes them Hidden, and a fireball where you think they are ignores the difference completely. That is some fine-hairs to split, especially for something so corner-case that they 90% of the time play out the same.

More importantly, I suspect there will be plenty of Unnoticed/Undetected mixups due to their similar names and very minor difference in effect; and I totally suspect some would-be assassin is going to think he gets death attack because his cloak of hiding gives them the undetected status (while death attack requires the unnoticed status) as an example. Hell, I played 3x for 10+ years and I can't tell you the mechanical differences in shaken, frightened, and panicked without the SRD open.

I just feel that level of precision is maybe better suited to some sort of computerized play (either in the form of an hyperlinked SRD, a virtual TT, or a video game) because I couldn't fathom trying to keep those states straight using just my memory and a hardback book...

 

[FrogReaver]

So I've finally had a chance to look at a number of pathfinder 2e rules. Many active feats have a d&d 4e at-will power style feel. Many give you the ability to attack + do something slightly extra.

That said I don't think the game evokes the same 4e feel as hp scaling and vanician casting are still intact.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, therese at least one area where PF2 resembles 4E design.

Creating lots of choices that are minor variants of the same theme, and then putting the effort on giving them fanciful names.

For instance, instead of having just one generic feat that lets you use another skill bonus for a given action, each skill-action pair gets its own such feat.

To me, that's nothing short of spam. Yes, it allows you to fill up splatbook after splatbook with endless versions of essentially the same thing, but
1) it is a mechanical focus that doesn't meaningfully assist role-playing and personality characterization
2) it's clutter that is mostly hard to remember.

After all, it doesn't amount to more than a "bounded accuracy" bonus, since you get to use your better skill bonus in place of a worse one (but you can't improve upon your already best bonuses).

(cont'd)

 

[CapnZapp]

The same design idea also shows in some magic items, particularly so-called "talismans".

You gain an incredibly minor and circumstantial bonus, you gain it for a single turn only, AND you must prepare it in advance.

That's just... It means spending time on incredibly minor things.

I mean, a potion of invisibility that lasts a minute, or a potion of water breathing that lasts 10 minutes, that's something you can work with. It's something worthwhile to remember you have on your character sheet. It completely transforms some specific challenge from impossible to possible.

But getting some bonus to jump or extra speed or defense for a single turn?

That's clutter.

If Pathfinder 2 was a computer game, and there was a "equipper" AI that you could tell "please auto-equip my consumables prioritizing offense/defense/mobility" that let me forget about the particulars (whether I got +50% speed this turn or last), then just maybe.

Even then, you would likely just tell the AI to treat it as vendor trash, just auto-selling it all...

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyway, in this regard I see pages after pages cluttered up with incredibly small hyper-specific variants of essentially the same thing.

And that right there is the bland fussy design I remember as one of the things I liked the least about 4E.

So please, Paizo, please stop.

There's a reason people like individually powerful - fewer but discrete - items of d20 and 5E!

 

[S'mon]

Anyway, in this regard I see pages after pages cluttered up with incredibly small hyper-specific variants of essentially the same thing.

Yeah, going over my friend's PF2 corebook, this was also my impression.
Anyway she's going to make all our PCs for our playtest, so hopefully we can just focus on learning the core mechanics.

 

[Kaodi]

Talismans just make no sense to me in general. I hardly understand why they even have gold prices, because you would have to be completely insane to craft or buy one. I think the only way they would make sense is if they were an exception to the rule about Assurance and bonuses, i.e. if you knew what numerical result they would net you.

 

[darjr]

Looking at the Amazon chart of the PF1 core it seems to me that sales were steady until 5e dropped. Then they cratered. So it wasn’t Paizo bloating PF1. Or at least that bloat didn’t hurt the core book sales. And that sales rank at 5es release was about the same when 4e sales dived under Pathfinder sales.

I think 5e was the catalyst. Obvious? Shure.

Also, even out of stock, the new pathfinder setting guide is maintaining a decent sales rank. That to me says that non PF2 folks are buying it? Maybe?

Finally, at least for the last few days, the PF2 core seems to have stabilized at about 2200 in sales rank. I wonder if that’ll sustain there and if it’s enough to have a Paizo. I think so?

What do I know?

 

[zztong]

Creating lots of choices that are minor variants of the same theme, and then putting the effort on giving them fanciful names.

D&D 3/3.5 and PF1 has the same issue. Skill Focus was +3 to one kill (you pick), but all of the variations of "Two Skills are +2" had names and filled up pages in books and player/DM mind-space. (Example: "Stealthy Feat.")

 

[Carmen Sbordone]

Looking at the Amazon chart of the PF1 core it seems to me that sales were steady until 5e dropped. Then they cratered. So it wasn’t Paizo bloating PF1. Or at least that bloat didn’t hurt the core book sales. And that sales rank at 5es release was about the same when 4e sales dived under Pathfinder sales.

I think 5e was the catalyst. Obvious? Shure.

Also, even out of stock, the new pathfinder setting guide is maintaining a decent sales rank. That to me says that non PF2 folks are buying it? Maybe?

Finally, at least for the last few days, the PF2 core seems to have stabilized at about 2200 in sales rank. I wonder if that’ll sustain there and if it’s enough to have a Paizo. I think so?

What do I know?

Yes. I know while i have no interest in P2 rules, i will pick up the setting book to mine for ideas. Settings and adventures are always of interest to me