Pathfinder 2E PF2E like D&D 4e?

[BryonD]

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]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I don't know, I enjoyed back in the day (like 25 years ago)