Pathfinder 2E PF2E like D&D 4e?

[JmanTheDM]

I think if there is a major problem with PF2e currently, it's actually gatekeeping more than anything else. Driving others away from the game simply because they are not part of your crowd.

I'm a total newb here. I've had a membership for years but really only lurked on the main page until PF2 came along - where I started dipping, very tepidly into online chat. honestly, my contributions were more centered around (Save for a couple obviously sarcastic ones) "if Jman were seeing these threads for the first time, what would I think", and offering a counter argument that was slightly more positive in light and tone for the lurkers.

One would certainly get a sense that things were bad, if you only read the PF2 forum posters here.

I have never gotten the sense that there is a clique to break into. nor have I gotten a sense that enworld (in particular) for PF2 discourse is a wide-open expansive landscape of Newbs entering and discussing. its a small group of passionate people (on both sides of any argument), who have over years created a kind of "culture".

I honestly don't even know what "gatekeeping" means in the context of PF2 and enworld. pushback - yeah, I see that. some with hardened defenses (perhaps due to years of online?), but I'm not experiencing any "go away, this is my game" attitude?

but if there is and due to my own blindspots I'm contributing to a feeling of exclusion, I apologize. I'd LOVE to have more meaningful conversations around here except for the BORING on-going talks about a) how PF2 is "broken" and b) how PF2 caused Paizo to collapse as a company.

Cheers,

J.

 

[payn]

I've playtested PF2 and am about to give it a go with an AP. The play didnt really remind me of 4E much. From a glance, the +1/lvl and crappy hybrid multiclassing looks very 4E. Chargen also feels like, pick a primary and secondary stat and forget the rest. You can be a sneaky rogue or a thuggy rouge, but not both. That feels 4E.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

That's a great writeup, thanks.

Unfortunately nearly everything in the "Contrasts" section turns me off. One of my biggest attraction to 4e was on the DMing side. Monster statblocks were small, they had unique rules/powers, building encounters/statblocks/etc was formulaic but fast, encounter budgets, etc. This doesn't sound like that. Also more conditions is not what I want to hear.

For what it's worth, the top reason I like PF2E as a GM is because its monster statblock design is eerily similar to 4E's method of monster design, which I loved.

 

[FrozenNorth]

For what it's worth, the top reason I like PF2E as a GM is because its monster statblock design is eerily similar to 4E's method of monster design, which I loved.

They definitely should have brought back Soldier, Minion, Leader, Lurker, Skirmisher and Brute tags for monsters.

 

[Justice and Rule]

They definitely should have brought back Soldier, Minion, Leader, Lurker, Skirmisher and Brute tags for monsters.

Hard like on this.

 

[Teemu]

For what it's worth, the top reason I like PF2E as a GM is because its monster statblock design is eerily similar to 4E's method of monster design, which I loved.

Really? I find PF2 and 5e creatures to be a lot more similar than PF2 and 4e creatures. 4e has the roles, which both PF2 and 5e lack, and 4e monsters also have the secondary roles (minion, elite, standard, solo), which 5e has the remnants of (legendary monsters and lair actions), while PF2 lacks them completely. And of course both PF2 and 5e include spells as monster abilities quite liberally, but 4e is (in)famous for not using PC powers in monsters at all. Even more true for NPCs.

Encounter building in PF2 resembles 5e a lot more than 4e also. You can have an easy or moderate fight with a dozen kobolds in 4e at level 1, which is impossible in PF2 and 5e, both of which assume a single monster as the default for building an encounter (CR 1 is a moderate fight vs a party of four level 1 PCs, about the same in PF2).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Chargen also feels like, pick a primary and secondary stat and forget the rest. You can be a sneaky rogue or a thuggy rouge, but not both. That feels 4E.

In the example in question how? All 4e rogues are sneaky - they are all dex primary with stealth trained. Also there's a significant incentive to pick a tertiary stat as your saves are on three stats. If you mean a thuggy rogue or a charming rogue you don't even have to choose between them in 4e; you have enough stat points for 14s in both starting stats (and an 18 in dex) and athletics, intimidate, and bluff all trained.

It does feel very 3.5 to be forced to make those trade-offs to me however. Where you needed separate skills for hide and move silently, separate skills for open lock, disable device, and sleight of hand, and separate skills for climb, jump, and swim. PF1 improved a bit on this but not as much as 4e. And one of the few ways PF2e feels like 4e to me is that they've both trimmed the skill list to 17 skills, allowing more than token breadth in what characters are competent at.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sure I've already said as much but PF2 plays much more like 3E/PF1/5E than 4E.

Full stop.

That doesn't mean I don't see similarities in design and presentation, though.