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

[Neonchameleon]

I am not saying PF2 is like 4e. I am saying there is an underlying design philosophy common to both games - read the original post.

And yes, I dislike that so I'm putting the two games in the same box. I understand them both just fine.

I have read the original post. I've also eviscerated the original post. The parts you see as commonalities are because 4e and Pathfinder have a common ancestor in 3.5 - and that common ancestor is the one that actively e.g. distrusts DMs. (4e actively trusts and empowers them more than most other games in my experience, especially 5e).

Encounter focus? That's D&D since 1985. Balance focus? E. Gary Gygax had a huge focus on balance and has explicitly said on these boards that parts e.g. of Unearthed Arcana were to improve balance. 3.0 claimed to be the most balanced edition of D&D ever and did a lot to put everything onto a common core. (They then screwed up badly by playtesting only using 2e veterans and tactics which turn out to be ... sub-optimal in 3.X). One of the big claims of 3.5 to be something other than the shameless cash grab that it was was that they improved the balance (and in some cases it was a genuine improvement).

So to put it bluntly most of your claims about Pathfinder 2e being like 4e are either claims that 2e is like 4e are either (a) wrong (not trusting the DM), (b) comments that Pathfinder is a part of the D&D family, doing things that all editions of D&D openly tried to do for 35 years until 4e was the only one to really deliver, or (c) because they are both successor games to 3.X.

Meanwhile when I look at the distinctive things I've seen so far of Pathfinder 2e I see an obvious successor game to Pathfinder that takes all the ways Pathfinder differentiated itself from 4e and doubles down. Off the top of my head:

1. 4e had a powers structure and worldbuilding that assumed magic was a part of the world and not something reserved for the elite few. Pathfinder 2e meanwhile kept the spellcaster/muggle separation. In worldbuilding Pathfinder 2e continued with this. Likeness to one of the key distinguishing features for 4e from Pathfinder? Nope
2. 4e gave everyone a rack of encounter and daily powers to prevent doing the same thing every turn and to accentuate the difference in fighting styles. 3.5 and Pathfinder used feats that could always apply so you could and frequently did do the same thing over and over. Pathfinder leans hard into 3e.
3. On a related note 4e ditched iterative attacks and -5 to hit for doing extra attacks. Pathfinder 2e doubles down on them, giving them to everyone.
4. 4e made feats bigger and more influential as part of a character, meaning they were something more meaningful. Pathfinder added literally over 1000 mini-feats in the form of traits to the game. Pathfinder 2e has doubled down on this mini-feat direction with petty feats that have been discussed in this thread.
5. 4e characters have inherent endurance in the shape of healing surges, and most forms of hit point recovery are about allowing characters to draw on their own resources. 5e has a watered down version of this in the form of hit dice. Pathfinder seems to reject this endurance model entirely.
6. 4e was above all kinaesthetic with a lot of movement and a lot of forced movement. Pathfinder 2e ... isn't so far as I can tell.

So where they are similar it's because they are both direct successors to 3.X games that have stuck within the traditions of D&D. But literally everything I would consider to be indicative of 4e is something Pathfinder 2e appears to have rejected. Many of which were incorporated into 5e in one way or another.

So no I entirely reject the assertion that Pathfinder 2e has any ambition to be like 4e. Instead it shares a common ancestor and it is that you are seeing. Nothing about 4e that makes it good and distinguishes it from D&D 3.5 in a positive way appears to be present in Pathfinder 2e. Meanwhile ways Pathfinder distinguished itself from 4e seem doubled down on. It's trying to be the most Pathfinder that it can be - a game made in reaction against 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Caster privilege" has nothing to do with what I'm after, which is one (but prefereably several or even many) class(es) that's mechanically dirt-simple to create and play such that when playing it one can ignore mechanics entirely and still be halfway effective, either because the mechanics get in the way of immersion or because one isn't interested in learning them.

Quick question: what would your opinion on a character like the 4e Elementalist be?

Assuming you aren't aware of it, it's a very limited spellcaster that can spam one type of elemental magic but doesn't have a lot of complexity.

A rough old school translation would be to give it a rogue's ability to wear armour and attack tables and the wizard saving throws. The spells however would be extremely limited. A fire elementalist might get the following:

• Resistance to fire. Either half damage or ignores the first ten points of fire from any attack. Inherent ability; fire elementalists don't burn well unless they want to.
• Firebolt (at will) from first level. Does fire damage (magical) about equal to that of a specialist archery fighter and scales (so it's keeping up with an archery
• Affect Normal Fires (at will). Because fire elementalist. Can do the same to magical fires at level 7.
• Burning Hands or "mini-fireball" on a short recharge, where the mini-fireball is a 10 or 15 foot diameter circle. You can do one of these every fight or so. (The advantage of burning hands is you can use it in melee).
• Cloak of Fire at 4th or 5th level. This is an at will ability that they can turn on. It provides some protection from incoming arrows - and means that enemies who try to melee them get hurt. As do allies standing next to them. Also makes the elementalist even harder to burn.
• At 7th level they pick up the one of burning hands or the mini-fireball they don't have.

And at 9th level they get a sacred fire or some other reason to retire in the way of the wizard's tower.

Only slightly more complex than a fighter here. And it took a depressingly long time for the 4e version to turn up.

At the same time I'm trying (not for the first time!) to point out that even if two characters are mechanically identical they can be made to play vastly differently at the table.

And I'm going to point out that this is true - but there are also a lot of characters that aren't the same mechanically - and that mechanics should reflect and enhance character. And the more complex the game the more they should do this.

In 1e all the non-caster classes plus Paladin and Ranger filled this simple-to-play role - Thieving skills could always be kept DM-side - but starting in later 2e more and more basic mechanics have been pushed player-side just as a matter of course.

And this "simple muggles, complex casters" I consider every bit as much a design mistake as early 4e's "Everyone should be equally complex". If I'm playing certain types of tactician they should have options and thus complexity. And the sorcerer pushing a schtick as far as they can (like the fire elementalist above) is also extremely rewarding to play in a very different way. I know a player who before 4e almost always played a fighter - but found "BURNINATE" far more fun than "Hulk Smash" but it hadn't really been an option before 4e.

 

[FrogReaver]

My hypothesis is that the only people saying PF2 is like 4e are those who neither like nor understand 4e and want to put two things they dislike into the same box.

I liked and understood 4e. Doesn't mean the system didn't have some flaws. Heck, I like 5e too and even it has some flaws.

 

[FrogReaver]

(4e actively trusts and empowers them more than most other games in my experience, especially 5e).

That's laughable

 

[FrogReaver]

Quick question: what would your opinion on a character like the 4e Elementalist be?

Was this Essentials?

 

[FrogReaver]

At the same time I'm trying (not for the first time!) to point out that even if two characters are mechanically identical they can be made to play vastly differently at the table.

Yep!

But also, shouldn't that have been a point in 4e's favor for you? Create a fighter - pick 3 random powers and have fun?

 

[FrogReaver]

So no I entirely reject the assertion that Pathfinder 2e has any ambition to be like 4e. Instead it shares a common ancestor and it is that you are seeing. Nothing about 4e that makes it good and distinguishes it from D&D 3.5 in a positive way appears to be present in Pathfinder 2e. Meanwhile ways Pathfinder distinguished itself from 4e seem doubled down on. It's trying to be the most Pathfinder that it can be - a game made in reaction against 4e.

Except evolution never occurred. This isn't genetics.

Here's what I know. There's enough people that see similarities between 4e and PF2. They aren't clones. There are differences. But there are a lot of similarities.

The issue is that genetics don't take hindsight into account. PF2 could take both 4e and 5e into account. These games were part of the environment in which it was created. Yet for whatever reason, more 4e is present in PF2 than 5e. Surely that wasn't by accident. Surely they realized that creating a PF2 to solve Pathfinder problems would lead to similar solutions found in 4e. That pretty obvious right? So I don't see how anyone can say it wasn't an intentional choice to ignore 5e and create something more similar to 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I liked and understood 4e. Doesn't mean the system didn't have some flaws. Heck, I like 5e too and even it has some flaws.

No one said it didn't. They just have little to do with FrogReaver's opening post.

That's laughable

Only if you confuse trusting the DM with burdening the DM and making them do things because you haven't fixed stuff out of the box..

Was this Essentials?

Yes. Very late Essentials at that.

 

[FrogReaver]

No one said it didn't. They just have little to do with FrogReaver's opening post.

Let's not play games about what was said. You were very clear about those saying PF2 and 4e were similar. I am one of those people pointing out the similarities. I just disproved your hypothesis.

Only if you confuse trusting the DM with burdening the DM and making them do things because you haven't fixed stuff out of the box..

I think you are alone in that opinion. 5e is known as the DM Empowerment edition. It was explicitly designed to encourage that style.

Yes. Very late Essentials at that.

Essentials is not 4e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except evolution never occurred. This isn't genetics.

And the word evolution predates Mendel by a couple of hundred years. Genetics doesn't have a lock on the word.

Here's what I know. There's enough people that see similarities between 4e and PF2. They aren't clones. There are differences. But there are a lot of similarities.

What are those similarities that are not present in Pathfinder 1e and D&D 3.5?

PF2 could take both 4e and 5e into account. These games were part of the environment in which it was created. Yet for whatever reason, more 4e is present in PF2 than 5e. Surely that wasn't by accident.

Indeed. But it has absolutely nothing to do with an absurd conspiracy theory about it being an attempt to remake 4e.

Instead "Whatever reason" is Pathfinder 2e is an immediate successor game to Pathfinder 1e. And Pathfinder 1e is a near-clone of D&D 3.5 - the game 4e is a successor to.

Surely they realized that creating a PF2 to solve Pathfinder problems would lead to similar solutions found in 4e. That pretty obvious right? So I don't see how anyone can say it wasn't an intentional choice to ignore 5e and create something more similar to 4e.

That chain of logic makes literally no sense. Where are these similarities between 4e and Pathfinder 2 that were not present in 3.5?

The choice was so far as I can tell to ignore 4e and 5e and create something similar to Pathfinder 1 that is based on what the designers of Pathfinder wanted to do with their own system - and how this is things in many cases that come from Pathfinder. I've pointed out how literally none of the distinguishing features of 4e that I can think of that made it 4e are anything I've remotely seen in Pathfinder 2e. Meanwhile there is quite a lot of 4e in 5e even if it's horribly watered down in most cases (with the subclasses being one thing bulked up). This is in no ways even an attempt to make something like 4e.