Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Retreater]

Here's my microcosm of experience. I was working as a freelance module writer in the 3.5 era. I had published a campaign adventure with Necromancer Games, which was pretty well received. I was about 60% complete on what would've been a massive hardcover setting /campaign book I was going to submit to NG when 4e was announced.
I started updating it to PF when that system was released. But then fast forward to "real life" happening, and I lost most of the work. Then 5E was announced.
I started rewriting it for 5E, play testing, etc. And something just felt off. I am sure I can make it fit into 5E, but honestly the OGL for 5E is so limiting that I'm going to have to build a lot of the content from scratch. And if you don't set it in the Forgotten Realms and sell on DMs Guild, you can use even less content from WotC.
Perusing PF2 and the wealth of content they have open to designers, I'm now thinking this might be the system to use to publish this adventure. There's so much more to work with than 5e from a open content perspective. And it seems a little more streamlined than PF1.

 

[Garthanos]

, but 4e Martial Practices were a lot worse!

They take more than a little fixing but I think can be quite worth it (I have a thread around here). Had they been given appropriate attention and paid attention to DMG2 skill challenge guidelines in the first place instead of left as rituals lesser cousins with no development at all.

 

[GrahamWills]

Paizo is reacting to the vocal group of players who thinks 5e is too simple and want (at least the illusion of) customization and depth. They also want to fix the inherent flaws of 3e that have plagued the game, such as magic item math and attack/save scaling. If you want to fix the inherent math problems but also keep the game with multiple choice points per level, you end up with something similar to 4e. Paizo us hoping that avoiding ADEU and including vancian magic is enough to thread the needle.

Yup; exactly this. In fact, I talked to two players who I met at a PF2 table yesterday and they both said essentially this. They liked 5E, but found it a little too simple and were looking for something more in the 3.5 style but better -- exactly where Paizo want to be. They cannot compete with 5e, so they need to offer something that is similar, but offers an advantage 5e does not.

 

[Remus Lupin]

As to the question of market fragmentation. I don't think the issue is, "Is the market MORE fragmented than it was when 4e was introduced." I think the issue is "Is the market more fragmented than when 3.5 was prominent," and 5e notwithstanding, I think the answer is clearly yes, and there is a market segment that will be attracted to PF2.

As to the relative virtues of 5e vs. PF2, I have to say that I find 5e to be really anemic with regard to class and character options. Every character is pretty much a minor variation on a core, with little opportunity for customization. What I like about PF2 is that it offers me lots more genuine options for customization right out of the box. There are LOTS of ways to be a rogue, whereas in 5e there are three or so. I like that.

I understand others may prefer it the way 5e is doing it. That's why I'm glad there are more options out there to play than just 5e.

 

[Xenonnonex]

As to the relative virtues of 5e vs. PF2, I have to say that I find 5e to be really anemic with regard to class and character options. Every character is pretty much a minor variation on a core, with little opportunity for customization. What I like about PF2 is that it offers me lots more genuine options for customization right out of the box. There are LOTS of ways to be a rogue, whereas in 5e there are three or so. I like that.

Just for the rogue -> Factor in the 5e backgrounds and this is clearly not true. Factor in the subclasses from Xanathar's and your claim is patently untrue and disingenuous.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Yeah, I don't use Xanathar's guide. Don't want to. Haven't read it. Don't want to. Furthermore, I was just pulling rogue out as an example. I could have picked any other class. It really doesn't matter, because it still stands that the PF core offers me a great deal more in terms of options and customization, and I don't need to buy another book.

But sure, go ahead and throw around terms like "disingenuous." Because its impossible for someone to disagree with you without being dishonest, oh you paragon of virtue!

 

[Campbell]

Just for the rogue -> Factor in the 5e backgrounds and this is clearly not true. Factor in the subclasses from Xanathar's and your claim is patently untrue and disingenuous.

Obviously he is trying to express something about his preference. He might not have stated his case in the best way. That does not mean he is not being earnest.

When one looks at Pathfinder Second Edition it is obvious that the developers made being able to play exactly the character you want to play a high priority. It has extremely modular character design. Some regard this as a virtue.

Fifth Edition has a less modular approach to character design. The vast majority of what defines your character resides in class and subclass. Some people also consider this a virtue.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Yeah, I don't use Xanathar's guide. Don't want to. Haven't read it. Don't want to. Furthermore, I was just pulling rogue out as an example. I could have picked any other class. It really doesn't matter, because it still stands that the PF core offers me a great deal more in terms of options and customization, and I don't need to buy another book.

But sure, go ahead and throw around terms like "disingenuous." Because its impossible for someone to disagree with you without being dishonest, oh you paragon of virtue!

When you refuse to engage with the material and then claim that 5e is really anemic with class and character options that is disingenuous. And is completely and utterly untrue.
It is the same as having come to an unchangeable and stubbornly unshakable position with only a small fraction of evidence.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Xenonnonex, ignored.

By all means, use the ignore function to avoid escalating tempers with other posters. HOWEVER, announcing you’re ignoring someone is a classic method of subverting the intent of the system.
DON’T DO THIS.

 

[Parmandur]

Obviously he is trying to express something about his preference. He might not have stated his case in the best way. That does not mean he is not being earnest.

When one looks at Pathfinder Second Edition it is obvious that the developers made being able to play exactly the character you want to play a high priority. It has extremely modular character design. Some regard this as a virtue.

Fifth Edition has a less modular approach to character design. The vast majority of what defines your character resides in class and subclass. Some people also consider this a virtue.

Rather, the vast majority of what defines a 5E PC is divorced from mechanics, and resides in personality and background detail. The mechanics bits are Race, Class, Subclass and Background (Feats, if you like that optional rule: I personally dislike Feats and prefer to never use them). The use of broad archetypes for the mechanical aspect allows for freedom on the narrative side.