D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[CapnZapp]

I think the argument the OP was trying to make was fundamentally less about balance and more about DM empowerment, or more accurately, trust in the DM. Balance is a concern in 5e, yes, but 5e allows itself more wiggle-room in terms of how closely the various options are balanced, trusting the DM to make up the difference. 5e trusts the DM to distribute treasure magic items however they feel is right for their game instead of having an expected progression of wealth and magic bonuses by level. 5e trusts the DM to set DCs and assign advantage/disadvantage as they feel is appropriate instead of trying to develop a comprehensive system of fixed DCs and situational modifiers. There was a dramatic shift in thinking from 4e to 5e away from trying to use the rules to prevent the DM from screwing things up and towards giving the DM the tools to make the game work for them. And that shift is the #1 reason why I prefer it over 4e, as much as I do like 4e. It’s also probably the root cause of most of what keeps me from liking PF2 as much as I had hoped.

Well, sort of. The OP (me )sees Pathfinder 2 repeat a lot of the same mistakes (or at least things I believe are mistakes) 4E did. The OP suggests this is because both games share the same fundamental philosophy.

In Pathfinder 2, I see things like a thousand feats to gain a +1 modifier or shift your skill bonuses around. But all characters of a certain level, let's take level 10, will have +19 in their best abilities or very close to it. Or ways to make two attacks in one action. And you can't change up your weapon proficiencies, your AC or your saves, not even by multiclassing. So all these choices ultimately doesn't change much, even though there are at least two choices each level, and you have hundreds and hundreds AND HUNDREDS of options to sift through. Apart from "fundamental striking runes" there are no magic items on the level of 3E and 5E, which can transform a character.

It makes me tired. And it makes me sad, because we saw 4E try that, and we all know how that went.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it's you who doesn't understand what "meaningful difference" means. There are ways to differentiate characters and abilities beyond raw TTK. Characters can have rough parity in terms of raw damage output, while being meaningfully differentiated by the things they can make happen, the ways other than simple damage that they can affect the encounter.

Sounds like an argument a 4E proponent would make.

All I'll say is I fear that argument is as popular now (in the age of Pathfinder 2) as it was back in the age of 4E.

 

[CapnZapp]

If you want, I could explain the difference. It's huge.

 

[ccs]

ಠ_ಠ

Don't make your sad face or whatever that is at me.
Look, 4e is a game. One I don't enjoy. One I don't think "feels" enough like the game its purporting to be. If my saying that makes you feel bad? Makes you feel invalidated?? Then you should probably go talk to a shrink about it as your attaching waaay too much importance to my opinion of a game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, no, we're not suggesting there should be one class that sucks so the other classes can shine.

We suggest developers stop fretting about making sure each and every choice available to you have the exact same mathematical impact, since that leads to the feeling your choices don't matter.

Maybe.
However even when 5e was relatively new, there were people decrying the lack of balance in 5e options like class builds, feats, and other options. Some of them got really unpleasant about it; to the point of making personal attacks, accusing the developers of laziness etc.
While most of us laughed off that level of nerdrage as just hyperbolic internet posturing, maybe Paizo believes that there is a market for a more balanced D&D-like game. D&D is pretty big right now, and so poaching a segment of its more numbers-obsessed playerbase may well make economic sense.

 

[Lanefan]

That is pretty much disgusting in every context I can imagine it. Basically you feel you have to make some class or category *(in this case of hero) be not special so you can feel special.

Or just special in a different way, or good at a different thing.

Comes back to strong niche protection (strengths) and significant weaknesses being good things. I'm really good at this, you're really good at that, she's really good at something else, and together we cover off each others' weaknesses except we're all awful at the fourth thing; we'd better go recruit someone who can do that for us.

 

[Garthanos]

“if everyone is special, no one is,” all I can hear is “I don’t want non-casters to have nice things.”

But even casters look at the threads, seem to get well so much spell list overlap shrug they arent particularly distinct are they? (yes I just agreed with Lokey sue me)

Or just special in a different way, or good at a different thing.

Which is completely not what was said... and that differing but useful is what roles and distinct approaches to roles ensure.

 

[CapnZapp]

a market for a more balanced D&D-like game

Sure, but "a more balanced game" is not how I would describe 4E or PF2. More like "a game hyper-obsessed with mathematical equality".

Remember my point about philosophy in the OP?

That means that taking a game like 5E and refining it is one thing. Ignoring all its advances and doubling down on the core tenets of 4E is decidedly another.

 

[Nagol]

Sure, but "a more balanced game" is not how I would describe 4E or PF2. More like "a game hyper-obsessed with mathematical equality".

Remember my point about philosophy in the OP?

That means that taking a game like 5E and refining it is one thing. Ignoring all its advances and doubling down on the core tenets of 4E is decidedly another.

My guess is they looked at 5e's positioning with respect to the OSR crowd and felt it was way too overcrowded a market. The less served market was between 5e and 4e and so that's where they aimed. It's also possible that their addiction to APs leads them to want a system that more strongly supports presenting situations that need to get resolved in a particular order / preferential way and tight mechanics works towards that

 

[CapnZapp]

My guess is they looked at 5e's positioning with respect to the OSR crowd and felt it was way too overcrowded a market. The less served market was between 5e and 4e and so that's where they aimed. It's also possible that their addiction to APs leads them to want a system that more strongly supports presenting situations that need to get resolved in a particular order / preferential way and tight mechanics.works towards that

Thank you. It is possible they came up with the genesis of PF2 already when the success of 5E wasn't a given, but that still doesn't expalin why they didn't course-correct...

I still suspect hiring former 4E devs was a trojan horse and Paizo will suffer for it though...