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

[CapnZapp]

That seems obvious enough. Both 4E and PF2 were designed in direct response to the (perceived) failings of 3.x, so it's natural that they'd hit on the same sorts of solutions to those problems.

Why would Paizo when going from PF1 to PF2 replicate the same mistake WotC made when going from 3E to 4E? Your answer is as if 5E didn't exist.

 

[CapnZapp]

And frankly, I’d say it’s a very smart move.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Failure is not inevitable in PF2.

If that's the case, then I haven't seen it. Like I said, it certainly seems like the math will make you fail on a regular basis.

Why would Paizo when going from PF1 to PF2 replicate the same mistake WotC made when going from 3E to 4E? Your answer is as if 5E didn't exist.

PF2 isn't a reaction to 5E. It's a reaction to PF1. I would no more expect Paizo to take 5E into consideration, than I would expect it to take Savage Worlds, or that Star Wars system (with the funky dice) into consideration. They are targeting an entirely different audience.

Whether or not they replicated the failures of transitioning from 3E to 4E will depend heavily on what you think those failures actually are. There were a lot of good ideas in 4E, which actually did fix some of the problems of 3E, and they would be remiss to ignore those.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why on earth did Paizo replicate the ingredient for failure from 4E (as discussed in my OP)? How could they fail to learn the lessons of 5E?

One could view Paizo's success with Pathfinder 1 stemmed from their attempt at capturing an audience that D&D left behind. Maybe they thought they could do the same with something similar to 4e?

While I think short term a crunchier 5e style game would have done great - if that caught on too much there would be nothing keeping D&D from getting crunchier on it's own. So perhaps what they created was best bad option out of the bunch?

 

[FrogReaver]

I would no more expect Paizo to take 5E into consideration

...this is at your expense and I apologize in advance...

but, you win the most absurd comment of the day award

 

[Charlaquin]

Because of 13th AGE? Over time PF1 became caught between 5e (a semi-retro-clone of itself) and 13th Age (a post-4e-d20). Not much room left to maneuver.

Ehh, 13th age is cool, but it’s a far cry from the evolution of 4e many of us 4e fans would like to see.

 

[Charlaquin]

Damn, can’t argue with that logic.

 

[FrogReaver]

They’re angling to fill a different niche rather than directly compete. And frankly, I’d say it’s a very smart move.

A crunchier game could have won me over. But theirs isn't the kind of crunch I wanted. I wanted like 5e but more crunch. I think a lot of us wanted that.

I can see why they would have not made that game - but I'm not sure their current game really hit the mark either.

 

[Charlaquin]

A crunchier game could have won me over. But there's isn't the kind of crunch I wanted. I wanted like 5e but more crunch. I think a lot of us wanted that.

Yep, I’m right with you there. PF2, unfortunately, brought all the right crunch in all the wrong places. Or maybe it was the wrong crunch in the right places? Whatever the case may be, they had the right idea but missed the mark for me.

I can see why they would have not made that game - but I'm not sure their current game really hit the mark either.

Oh, for sure. I think trying to keep a core audience they built on the promise of “3e, but new” kinda hamstrung them there.

 

[CapnZapp]

If that's the case, then I haven't seen it. Like I said, it certainly seems like the math will make you fail on a regular basis.

Again, a given die roll might succeed, and might fail.

The difference is that 5E is more generous.

But individual rolls fail in both games. Yet heroes win challenges and combats 99% of the time in both games. Go figure.