log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E PF2E like D&D 4e?

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
What I liked about 4e:
  • swarms, minion, standard, elite, & solo monsters: giving monsters depth of challenge at each level.
  • monster roles
  • easy to make killer encounters and not worry if the players could take it.
  • powers in general (exploits, tricks, spells, prayer, etc.) and "basic" attacks (we are looking at adding them to our 5e game)
  • AEDU structure and then the options to not use that structure too (Essentials line)
  • spells by character level
  • stances
  • healing surges (which we expanded and called heroic surges - great concept, just need to be pushed further, we use these in our 5e game)
  • skill challenges (I like the concept, but the explanation & execution needed work, we still use these)
  • action economy (though I prefer some aspects of 5e & PF2e now)
  • character paths (epic destinies, etc.)
What is AEDU? Don't even recall that. At the same time I don't need or like any kind prescribed structure. I did not like the Controller-Defender-Damage dealer structure at all.

Monsters weren't terrible, though eventually became weak as my players mastered the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




dave2008

Legend
What is AEDU? Don't even recall that.
As @Eyes of Nine stated: At-will, Encounter, Daily, & Utility
At the same time I don't need or like any kind prescribed structure.
In general I don't either, that was on thing I like about the flexibility of the AEDU armature - it made it easy to do away with the rest of the structure. I mean, I prefer to not have classes all together.
I did not like the Controller-Defender-Damage dealer structure at all.
In general I agree, but you can see that philosophy throughout D&D and Pathfinder. One thing that was nice about 4e was most Archtypes had a variety of options on the roles they cold play. You could play a "defender" fighter or a "controller" fighter or a "striker" fighter.

Monsters weren't terrible, though eventually became weak as my players mastered the game.
The evolution of monster design as it the game progressed was interesting. By the time the MM3 came about they had definitely improved somethings. However, 4e monsters suffer from the same issue 5e monsters do, the don't do enough damage. Once you adjust for that, even high level solos can be quite entertaining.
 

dave2008

Legend
Ah. I despised those. Any game that puts something like that in the game, I will never buy. It would literally be an automatic avoid. That paradigm for character power was so anathema to storytelling in my experience.
In generally I really enjoyed it; it really began to sing for us when we add heroic surges (aka healing surges). We allowed you to recharge an encounter power by spending a HS or a daily power by spending two. It tied you ability to do exploits into your endurance / exhaustion / healing mechanic. Made the most sense to me of any D&D mechanic ever really.

EDIT: content removed as it is not relevant in a PF2e thread
 
Last edited:

vpuigdoller

Adventurer
Ah. I despised those. Any game that puts something like that in the game, I will never buy. It would literally be an automatic avoid. That paradigm for character power was so anathema to storytelling in my experience.
That was my favourite part about it. Lol. To me Pf2 feels very different than D&D4e but been honest I really like both.
 

Teemu

Adventurer
One major trait of 4e was that everyone got things in the same way at the same pace. You all got 4 powers at 1st level, a utility at 2nd, an encounter at 3rd, etc.

In 4e, everyone's AC, saves, and attack bonuses advanced at the same pace as you leveled. A low level goblin could never hit a high level PC, even if that PC was naked and blind, because the math scaled automatically. It's very similar in PF2. Because the GM never has a reason to let you face a 'normal' goblin at high level, you get this odd situation where anybody you DO face at that level is just as powerful as you, and you never get a chance to actually feel powerful. Your numbers are going up, but the narrative effect of those numbers is minimal.
Not all 4e classes get powers at the same levels. Classes like thief, slayer, knight, hunter, scout, and elementalist don't get daily powers. Some classes like bladesinger don't get additional encounter powers, or get power points to be used with at-will powers, like ardent and psion. Some classes get additional features at higher levels. Your class could grant you a feature power at level 1, so you might get more than 4 class powers at level 1, like divine classes and channel divinity, or warden or druid or wizard or scout, etc. So no, you don't get everything at the same pace in 4e.

A naked level 12 fighter in 4e, with 13 Dex (because of heavy armor), would have an AC of 17, but blinded you grant combat advantage, so the enemy has a +2 to attack rolls. A level 1 goblin sniper minion has a +8 attack bonus, which would be +10 with combat advantage, so the measly level 1 goblin minion is hitting the naked and blind level 12 fighter most of the time.

PF2 has the bigger differences between high and low level creatures, since it's got the +1 per level. 4e only has +1 every other level.
Ah. I despised those. Any game that puts something like that in the game, I will never buy. It would literally be an automatic avoid. That paradigm for character power was so anathema to storytelling in my experience.
Do you play 5e? It has the same recharges: at-will, short rest (encounter), and long rest (daily).
 

dave2008

Legend
Not all 4e classes get powers at the same levels. Classes like thief, slayer, knight, hunter, scout, and elementalist don't get daily powers.
I don't remember all of those, but some of them are from 4.25e (aka Essentials). I lot of people forget or didn't know about those revisions and how they made the game more similar to older editions. It doesn't sound like @Celtavian is very familiar with 4e, let alone the Essential revisions.

Do you play 5e? It has the same recharges: at-will, short rest (encounter), and long rest (daily).
He/she did, but left it for PF2e (or earlier). All D&D games, including PF1 & 2 have at-will and long rest (daily) abilities.
 

dave2008

Legend
Ah. I despised those. Any game that puts something like that in the game, I will never buy. It would literally be an automatic avoid. That paradigm for character power was so anathema to storytelling in my experience.
I get you, I had a similar reaction to 3e/PF1 and now I fear PF2. I am really trying to fight those first impressions though by immersing myself in these threads and seeing what people think of the game. Particularly those you play it. I hope to give a good try at some point.

As a player, I have a question for you (and @CapnZapp and @Campbell and anyone else who is playing PF2e): How do rogues/thiefs play in PF2e? That is the class I pick 90% of the time and I really haven't heard about anyone playing one in PF2e. Just curious. Thanks!
 

BryonD

Hero
Ah. I despised those. Any game that puts something like that in the game, I will never buy. It would literally be an automatic avoid. That paradigm for character power was so anathema to storytelling in my experience.
That is the kind of thing you have to watch out for.
Big solid game experience presumptions which may appeal to 30% of the audience, make no difference to 60% and drive away 10%. No game can afford to drive away 10% of the audience with one mandate. Because you are only going to get some fraction of the remaining people every time. So losing 10% isn't just -10%, it is ten percent off the top and then you still have to win every fan you can get from the remaining 90%.
If you start stacking things that each drive off a few people, you sink fast.
 

Porridge

Explorer
I get you, I had a similar reaction to 3e/PF1 and now I fear PF2. I am really trying to fight those first impressions though by immersing myself in these threads and seeing what people think of the game. Particularly those you play it. I hope to give a good try at some point.

As a player, I have a question for you (and @CapnZapp and @Campbell and anyone else who is playing PF2e): How do rogues/thiefs play in PF2e? That is the class I pick 90% of the time and I really haven't heard about anyone playing one in PF2e. Just curious. Thanks!
In my experience, Rogues in PF2 are great. They're the undisputed skill-masters -- getting twice as many skill boosts and skill feats as any other class, and are able to advance to high levels of proficiency at earlier levels. And they're very good in combat -- it's easy to flank now that most creatures don't have AOO, so getting their sneak attack damage is easy to do.

On the Paizo forums, early opinion varied regarding whether they're overpowered or just very good. Then again, informal polls of people who have played various classes regarding their perceived power level and enjoyment level found people rating Rogues in the middle of the pack power-wise, and at top of the pack enjoyment-wise.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
In my experience, Rogues in PF2 are great. They're the undisputed skill-masters -- getting twice as many skill boosts and skill feats as any other class, and are able to advanced to high levels of proficiency at earlier levels. And they're very good in combat -- it's easy to flank now that most creatures don't have AOO, so getting their sneak attack damage is easy to do.

On the Paizo forums, early opinion varied regarding whether they're overpowered or just very good. Then again, informal polls of people who have played various classes regarding their perceived power level and enjoyment level found people rating Rogues in the middle of the pack power-wise, and at top of the pack enjoyment-wise.
It will be interesting as I haven't played a PC since 1e, and I don't ever remember wanted to get my thief engaged in combat. Spending a bit of effort to set up the backstab. Not sure how to play one that can do that easily! I hope a I don't drag the group down!
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Not all 4e classes get powers at the same levels. Classes like thief, slayer, knight, hunter, scout, and elementalist don't get daily powers. Some classes like bladesinger don't get additional encounter powers, or get power points to be used with at-will powers, like ardent and psion. Some classes get additional features at higher levels. Your class could grant you a feature power at level 1, so you might get more than 4 class powers at level 1, like divine classes and channel divinity, or warden or druid or wizard or scout, etc. So no, you don't get everything at the same pace in 4e.

A naked level 12 fighter in 4e, with 13 Dex (because of heavy armor), would have an AC of 17, but blinded you grant combat advantage, so the enemy has a +2 to attack rolls. A level 1 goblin sniper minion has a +8 attack bonus, which would be +10 with combat advantage, so the measly level 1 goblin minion is hitting the naked and blind level 12 fighter most of the time.

PF2 has the bigger differences between high and low level creatures, since it's got the +1 per level. 4e only has +1 every other level.

Do you play 5e? It has the same recharges: at-will, short rest (encounter), and long rest (daily).
I don't play 5E, though I don't hate it. I don't agree that 5E has the same powers. They are more on demand abilities with an often long recharge. I can use the 5E paradigm to tell a story. There is more variability and powers can be used by players in a naturalistic way. The base attack is a strike, not an at will power. There are no encounter powers you have to use every encounter or they will wasted regardless of whether the story calls for it. Daily powers were fine and have been in every version of the D&D game.

Short rests also feel fine. For me the time frames given in RPG games are just a tracker for rounds to provide some semblance of a time frame to improve verisimilitude. I don't view every round as exactly six seconds. Every spell as occurring in exactly 1 minute. Every short rest as lasting exactly 1 hour. They are rough time frames that a DM can ballpark depending on what type of tension he is trying to build into the story.

But encounter powers and at will powers were artificial powers thought up to give the players something more to do. It didn't feel real at all. Someone with a sword just swings a sword most of the time. No need to get fancy with it every round. And an encounter with a kobold doesn't require the same power as an encounter with a giants, so why is the encounter power keying off the encounter rather than the threat level as D&D has been doing for time immemorial. That was just a bad idea.

Way back when we hashed this out and came to the conclusion that some people view D&D in a very gamist way and were ok with 4Es gamist mechanics. Some of us view the game as a means of story-telling and want the game to at least try to provide mechanics that fit well within a story paradigm which more often requires to be on demand when the story calls for them rather than an all the time thing. It's a different idea of what we want to be able to do with the mechanics when telling the story.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
I don't play 5E, though I don't hate it. I don't agree that 5E has the same powers. They are more on demand abilities with an often long recharge. I can use the 5E paradigm to tell a story. There is more variability and powers can be used by players in a naturalistic way. The base attack is a strike, not an at will power. There are no encounter powers you have to use every encounter or they will wasted regardless of whether the story calls for it. Daily powers were fine and have been in every version of the D&D game.

Short rests also feel fine. For me the time frames given in RPG games are just a tracker for rounds to provide some semblance of a time frame to improve verisimilitude. I don't view every round as exactly six seconds. Every spell as occurring in exactly 1 minute. Every short rest as lasting exactly 1 hour. They are rough time frames that a DM can ballpark depending on what type of tension he is trying to build into the story.

But encounter powers and at will powers were artificial powers thought up to give the players something more to do. It didn't feel real at all. Someone with a sword just swings a sword most of the time. No need to get fancy with it every round. And an encounter with a kobold doesn't require the same power as an encounter with a giants, so why is the encounter power keying off the encounter rather than the threat level as D&D has been doing for time immemorial. That was just a bad idea.

Way back when we hashed this out and came to the conclusion that some people view D&D in a very gamist way and were ok with 4Es gamist mechanics. Some of us view the game as a means of story-telling and want the game to at least try to provide mechanics that fit well within a story paradigm which more often requires to be on demand when the story calls for them rather than an all the time thing. It's a different idea of what we want to be able to do with the mechanics when telling the story.
OP requested

No matter what, please no 4e bashing.
Where I live, free speech is valued; but so is responsibility in using it. So I will strongly defend your right to speak freely @Celtavian; but also will ask you to consider the original poster's request. If you want to bash 4e, there's the "New Post" button over on the right.
 

dave2008

Legend
I don't play 5E, though I don't hate it. I don't agree that 5E has the same powers. They are more on demand abilities with an often long recharge. I can use the 5E paradigm to tell a story. There is more variability and powers can be used by players in a naturalistic way. The base attack is a strike, not an at will power. There are no encounter powers you have to use every encounter or they will wasted regardless of whether the story calls for it. Daily powers were fine and have been in every version of the D&D game.

Short rests also feel fine. For me the time frames given in RPG games are just a tracker for rounds to provide some semblance of a time frame to improve verisimilitude. I don't view every round as exactly six seconds. Every spell as occurring in exactly 1 minute. Every short rest as lasting exactly 1 hour. They are rough time frames that a DM can ballpark depending on what type of tension he is trying to build into the story.

But encounter powers and at will powers were artificial powers thought up to give the players something more to do. It didn't feel real at all. Someone with a sword just swings a sword most of the time. No need to get fancy with it every round. And an encounter with a kobold doesn't require the same power as an encounter with a giants, so why is the encounter power keying off the encounter rather than the threat level as D&D has been doing for time immemorial. That was just a bad idea.

Way back when we hashed this out and came to the conclusion that some people view D&D in a very gamist way and were ok with 4Es gamist mechanics. Some of us view the game as a means of story-telling and want the game to at least try to provide mechanics that fit well within a story paradigm which more often requires to be on demand when the story calls for them rather than an all the time thing. It's a different idea of what we want to be able to do with the mechanics when telling the story.
Wow, just about everything here is, IMO & IME, wrong or different from how I view and experienced 4e & 5e. Interesting how different people can have such a different understanding and reaction to the same material - got to love the many flavors of humanity!
 

Teemu

Adventurer
I don't play 5E, though I don't hate it. I don't agree that 5E has the same powers. They are more on demand abilities with an often long recharge. I can use the 5E paradigm to tell a story. There is more variability and powers can be used by players in a naturalistic way. The base attack is a strike, not an at will power. There are no encounter powers you have to use every encounter or they will wasted regardless of whether the story calls for it. Daily powers were fine and have been in every version of the D&D game.

Short rests also feel fine. For me the time frames given in RPG games are just a tracker for rounds to provide some semblance of a time frame to improve verisimilitude. I don't view every round as exactly six seconds. Every spell as occurring in exactly 1 minute. Every short rest as lasting exactly 1 hour. They are rough time frames that a DM can ballpark depending on what type of tension he is trying to build into the story.

But encounter powers and at will powers were artificial powers thought up to give the players something more to do. It didn't feel real at all. Someone with a sword just swings a sword most of the time. No need to get fancy with it every round. And an encounter with a kobold doesn't require the same power as an encounter with a giants, so why is the encounter power keying off the encounter rather than the threat level as D&D has been doing for time immemorial. That was just a bad idea.

Way back when we hashed this out and came to the conclusion that some people view D&D in a very gamist way and were ok with 4Es gamist mechanics. Some of us view the game as a means of story-telling and want the game to at least try to provide mechanics that fit well within a story paradigm which more often requires to be on demand when the story calls for them rather than an all the time thing. It's a different idea of what we want to be able to do with the mechanics when telling the story.
Do you have the same issue with the 5e battle master short rest maneuvers? They're short rest powers! So are 5e warlock spells. Doesn't PF2 have focus abilities, and you can regain focus with a short 10 minute rest?

I'm very much a story-telling DM, it's all about the story for me. Whether that's 5e or 4e, or even PF2, maybe in the future.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
How do rogues/thiefs play in PF2e? That is the class I pick 90% of the time and I really haven't heard about anyone playing one in PF2e. Just curious. Thanks!
You didn't misspell rouge! :p

Based on our limited experience, they work entirely fine. Having lots of skills is helpful (if only to make recall knowledge checks about monster features). Every party appreciates someone (else ;)) taking point on hazards (=traps), since these are nasty in PF2. I was first apprehensive about how little sneak attack damage the class gets (compared to the heaps of dice granted by other editions), but it turns out you can work to get it on almost every attack, and that it's basically fine. It's also the game's sole build that offers a "dex fighter" (=someone that can dump Str because they get to add Dex to damage).

tl;dr: I didn't see anything that made us wary of rolling up a new Rogue
 

CapnZapp

Legend
It will be interesting as I haven't played a PC since 1e, and I don't ever remember wanted to get my thief engaged in combat. Spending a bit of effort to set up the backstab. Not sure how to play one that can do that easily! I hope a I don't drag the group down!
Believe me, you do not want to play a game where Rogues first depend on sneak damage to be effective, and then makes it difficult (or incredibly risky) to attain that.
 


Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top