Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

Tony Vargas

Legend
Those claiming 5E has many build choices clearly have never played previous editions.
Getting to pick a Background there, a subclass here, is not even close to the customization available in d20.
Backgrounds is a fluff choice with close to zero crunch.
The 5e backgrounds gives you a couple/few proficiencies - might be weapon, skill or tool - and a social perk of some sort. That's better than /some/ 2e Kits did (and not nearly as good as others, because, well, 2e Kits were wildly inconsistent, that way). And, it's more than 4e backgrounds (just a benefit with one skill, for the most part), if less than 4e Themes, and more than 3e backgrounds, on account of they didn't exist - which isn't fair, 3e Professional/Craft skills could step in and pass for backgrounds.

Most if not all subclasses added in supplements only reshuffle existing abilities and mechanics already offered by the PHB.
5e has been cautious about adding anything that can't be neatly ignored, yes.

Thing is, if PF2 does the same how can we NOT say Pathfinder 2 isn't Paizo's 4E?
4e did a /lot/ of things that the D&D fanbase nerdraged about: it balanced casters & martials, it presented clearer, more consistent rules that were less familiar to established players but easier for new players to jump in with, it emphasized out of combat challenges that engaged the whole party instead of turning on a single roll or spell from a specialist, it made DMing phone-it-in-easy with encounter guidelines that were easy to use and delivered more dependable challenge, it sidelined magic items as an only-moderately-important character build resource, it opened up concepts the game had never done or never done well through new classes, backgrounds, themes/PP/EDs, and virtually-unrestricted player-side re-skinning.

PF2 seems to have done a couple of those things, it's gotten the same XOMG! The WIzard's Been NERFED! reaction 4e did, initially, (even though the wizard remained the most versatile & sysetem-mastery-abuseable class even in 4e), so maybe it's tilted towards class balance relative to 3.5/PF1 or 5e. It has introduced some rules around skills that might make them more significant in & out of combat. ...and that's really about it.

The core issue is this: why on Earth did Paizo think the time was right for a game with ANY influences from 4E?
I think Paizo is looking at a very different market. In 2009, PF1 only had to pick up the real-D&D crown that WotC had thrown in the mud and trampled on, and it was guaranteed stunning financial success for a non-D&D game. In 2019, D&D is really-D&D again, and enjoying a resurgence in popularity not seen since the initial fad flopped, a full-bore come-back. It's choices were really to jump on that bandwagon and go back to making supplements for D&D, or strike out on their own with Golarion & PF... but, to do that, they'd have to actually make PF2 /a better game/ than PF1. Since PF1 is so much like 3.5, and since 4e was also a (largely successful) attempt to make a technically better game to follow 3.5, PF2 happens to have improved on PF1 in some of the same ways.


IMHO, jumping on the bandwagon would've been the better call. The history of the hobby is written on the bones of games that thought being better than D&D would mean success.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
That's better than /some/ 2e Kits did (and not nearly as good as others, because, well, 2e Kits were wildly inconsistent, that way). And, it's more than 4e backgrounds (just a benefit with one skill, for the most part),
4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine. (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other) - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine. (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other) - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.

4E Themes were pretty cool, that's something I'd like to see make a comeback in 5E (maybe replacing the ASI slots like Feats). PF2 does have Archetypes, which fill much of the same role, too.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
4e did have a subset of backgrounds approximately on the same order as a feat ... Additionally you could pretty much give them the benefits of 3 generic ones instead of the Forgotten Realms or the other potent group and allow any just fine. (which is my preference though others might restrict to one or the other) - Themes really are basically super backgrounds of even greater scope with multi-classing swap outs which worked very very well.
The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice.
I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?

And, yes, Themes were like Backgrounds turned up from trivial to modestly important - really, 4e Backgrounds were like 5e backgrounds, but less so, and 4e Themes were like 5e backgrounds, but more so. And both were nominally optional, anyway (even PP/ED were nominally optional).

4E Themes were pretty cool, that's something I'd like to see make a comeback in 5E (maybe replacing the ASI slots like Feats). PF2 does have Archetypes, which fill much of the same role, too.
It'd be as simple as giving Backgrounds a few perks that are level gated. They could be Feats, or they could, like feats, take the place of an ASI, without actually invoking the feat rules, thus being useable w/o them.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice.
I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?

And, yes, Themes were like Backgrounds turned up from trivial to modestly important - really, 4e Backgrounds were like 5e backgrounds, but less so, and 4e Themes were like 5e backgrounds, but more so. And both were nominally optional, anyway (even PP/ED were nominally optional).

It'd be as simple as giving Backgrounds a few perks that are level gated. They could be Feats, or they could, like feats, take the place of an ASI, without actually invoking the feat rules, thus being useable w/o them.

Now that you mention it, the Guilds in Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica are that already: Backgrounds, with Tier based upgrades.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
The original FR backgrounds seemed excessive, and one or two were even demonstrably broken and Updated with extreme prejudice.
I'm not sure what you mean by the same order as a feat reference?
Same order of potency... a feat provides anything from +3 (stackable) to a skill to 5/10/15 hitpoints (very like using a primary for hit points instead of a tertiary) and Scales of War is the other one with significant backgrounds it has a +3 to intimidation for Wandering Duellist - I consider those two sets of backgrounds on par with gaining a feat.
 

Eric V

Hero
IMHO, jumping on the bandwagon would've been the better call. The history of the hobby is written on the bones of games that thought being better than D&D would mean success.

As long as it doesn't tank the company, I'm glad they didn't. We already have one company producing a game to be popular; I'd rather they take their best shot at what they think the best play experience would be, even if it doesn't quite get there.
 

Imaro

Legend
As long as it doesn't tank the company, I'm glad they didn't. We already have one company producing a game to be popular; I'd rather they take their best shot at what they think the best play experience would be, even if it doesn't quite get there.

You act as if being popular and providing what one thinks the best play experience would be are mutually exclusive... they aren't.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top