so, you might not get a good reply here.How do you feel PF2 compares\contrasts to 4e as far as feel? 4e has had a lot of influence on PF2 and I was curious how much you could tell.
4e was a LONG time ago. I was a player vs a GM, I didn't really read the rules, and i was kind of being a bit of a S@%t Disturber in game because "bah, 4e, get off of my lawn, this ain't D&D".
with that said, I personally don't find a lot of similarities, likely due to time, age, and system familiarity.
- I found 4e to be even easier mode D&D than 5e currently is. PF2 bring back the fear of combats - I like this. so having as a viable option "run like hell", appeals to my sense of play.
- 4e had daily, encounter and at-will powers and really felt to me like "ok, everyone is magical now". PF2 still feels like swinging a sword, rather than "activating" a power.
- I think that 4e had short rests between encounters? (think this is where 5e got it from). I don't really like the rest and heal in 1 hour. PF has the medicine skill that can also heal you but natural healing is much slower. my game right now, party members ARE walking around with lower than max HP due to time constraints.
- it feels to me like tactical options are similar between games.
- it also feels to be that the default is to have level appropriate encounters (which I'm not a fan of, and would modify in a home brew game, to introduce some varity including cake-walk encounters).
so, TL;DR - and only 1 man's opinion.
- combats feel deadlier than 4e
- out of combat options, including formalized "exploration" activities feel deeper
- the 3-action vs. daily/encounter/at-wills I like more. I like the difference between prepared spell casters who need to choose spell slots and spells to memorize - again, this directly stimulates the "old-school" parts of my brain that other editions moved away from.
I'm sure there is a TON more that I'm missing. comparing it to 4e is really hard for me due to how long ago. its easy to compare it to 5e, but that's not what you asked