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

[CapnZapp]

I still don't understand how anyone can legitimately push back at the idea that 4e was very samey.

I still don't understand how anyone can still talk so much about 4E

It is the fact PF2 feels samey despite the failure of the last edition that tried sameyness I'm interested in!

 

[CapnZapp]

This makes the rather huge and not-always-correct assumption that people see character build as a relevant part of play; or 'build choices' beyond the most basic of things as anything but an annoying chore.

Just let me do 10 minutes worth of dice rolling and scribbling to generate a character, and during play it'll build itself.

I believe the assumption is correct that significant numbers go "5E is great and all, shame it doesn't offer deeper build crunch".

I also believe 5E has brought in huge crowds of casual gamers that do not share this outlook.

To return to the subject of Pathfinder 2:

• Pathfinder 2 decidedly does not do anything for this type of casual, so if 5E is too rich for you, Paizo definitely won't get a customer either
• I consider far too many decision points I'm asked to make in Pathfinder 2 "an annoying chore" because the available choices aren't meaningfully differentiated

 

[CapnZapp]

I see nothing of the 4e style balance in PF2 btw - PF2 and its presentation must be just too unfamiliar to me.

Are you talking nice protection and roles?

The thing I talk about in my OP could be referred to as "4e style balance". If so, that refers to the fact that in Pathfinder 2 there's no way to sacrifice abilities in one area to get ahead in another. You can shuffle figures around so your +11 (or whatever) applies to this skill instead of that, but you can't get a +13 even if you want to pay a cost for getting it.

4e balance can mean other things. For example, PF2 is way more traditional when it comes to spells (thank god). There is no 4e style balance when it comes to how magic operates vs weapon attacks.

 

[Charlaquin]

This makes the rather huge and not-always-correct assumption that people see character build as a relevant part of play; or 'build choices' beyond the most basic of things as anything but an annoying chore.

Many people do.

Just let me do 10 minutes worth of dice rolling and scribbling to generate a character, and during play it'll build itself.

That’s great for you, but your preferences are not universally shared.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still don't understand how anyone can still talk so much about 4E

You’re the one who brought it up...

 

[Garthanos]

Are you talking nice protection and roles?

That is part of it yes...

The thing I talk about in my OP could be referred to as "4e style balance". If so, that refers to the fact that in Pathfinder 2 there's no way to sacrifice abilities in one area to get ahead in another. You can shuffle figures around so your +11 (or whatever) applies to this skill instead of that, but you can't get a +13 even if you want to pay a cost for getting it.

In 4e I can become a god of a particular skill by background feat etc expenditure.

4e balance can mean other things.

That i can tell the only thing I find attractive as a 4e fan over 5e is having more details on what can be accomplished with skills and that isn't huge nor is it evidently balanced against the utility that spells can create or combat ability so meh on all fronts.

 

[Maxperson]

That is incredibly false Max. Many, many things break up games without it being a single players choice.

That's fairly disingenuous. While some campaigns might break up at 10th or below for other reasons, if a group really wants to play to high levels, the majority of the campaigns will reach 16th-20th level. I know, because while occasionally my campaigns die early, the vast majority make it because we are all on board to play the game to those levels.

For example, an online game of mine just ended. We started at level 5 and got to level 6. It ended because we had multiple players not show up and the DM decided to can the game. We are starting a new campaign with new characters so we can bring in new players.

If you are going to play with complete strangers, rather than friends, this sort of thing will happen more often. Strangers don't have nearly as much investment in things.

 

[Garthanos]

That’s fair. Like I said, I don’t think we’ll be able to reach an agreement on this, and that’s ok. Diversity of opinions is good.

I think the subclasses sort of give the feel but not entirely sure they give the function ie that cavalier is still just a fighter without significant amounts of defending an awful lot of an 8 encounter day and for a lot of levels worth of play.

Perhaps with feat investment more so.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the subclasses sort of give the feel but not entirely sure they give the function ie that cavalier is still just a fighter without significant amounts of defending an awful lot of an 8 encounter day and for a lot of levels worth of play.

Perhaps with feat investment more so.

I guess this raises the question of what folks mean by “feel.” To me, if it doesn’t play different, it doesn’t feel different. Sure, the Cavalier (for example) has the aesthetics of a defender - you read it, you see a handful of abilities that seem like they’d be something a character who defends their allies would do. But in actual play, you have mostly the same decision points and take mostly the same actions as any other fighter.

In contrast, an attack that does 2[W] damage and shoves the target 5 feet might not look that different from an attack that does 2[W] damage and lets the attacker shift 5 feet (just random examples off the top of my head), but in practice they feel different to me because they’re useful in very different situations and affect how the encounter proceeds in very different ways.

 

[Garthanos]

I guess this raises the question of what folks mean by “feel.” To me, if it doesn’t play different, it doesn’t feel different. Sure, the Cavalier (for example) has the aesthetics of a defender - you read it, you see a handful of abilities that seem like they’d be something a character who defends their allies would do. But in actual play, you have mostly the same decision points and take mostly the same actions as any other fighter.

In contrast, an attack that does 2[W] damage and shoves the target 5 feet might not look that different from an attack that does 2[W] damage and lets the attacker shift 5 feet (just random examples off the top of my head), but in practice they feel different to me because they’re useful in very different situations and affect how the encounter proceeds in very different ways.

That is why I was differentiating Function. The feel part for many is based on flavor and presentation. I happen to agree with you.