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

[FrogReaver]

I recall in the 4e days - it was said by 4e fans that warlords didn't swing swords because they swung barbarians instead.

 

[pemerton]

it does lead to an actual issue with this thread that is leading to it going nowhere. Is there anyone who likes Pathfinder 2e in this thread? Because what people like about something is frequently not at all what those who dislike it find it to be.

I think it's pretty clear from this thread that no one who likes 4e thinks that Pathfinder 2e has anything to do with it that resembles the starting post. But I'm curious what a Pathfinder 2e fan actually thinks the game is like and whether there's a resemblance there. And especially what a fan of both systems (if there are any) thinks.

The only poster on these boards I know who has some liking for 4e and some liking for PF2 is @Campbell. (And I'm using the phrase "some liking" not to try and understate Campbell's liking for either, but rather to avoid overstating it - it would be for Campbell to tell us the degree of any liking for either sysetm.)

 

[pemerton]

Apples and oranges.

The chance of a 1st-level fighter defeating a storm giant is extremely close to zero. But, the chance of that 1st level fighter hitting that giant on any one particular roll, while not great, are far enough away from zero to make the roll worthwhile.

<snip>

I long ago streamlined this by concatenating it all into a roll or two: the first to succeed against the rough overall odds of success (e.g. let's say 4% for the 80' slippery wall in your example), and a second to gauge roughly how far you'd got before failure if the first roll does not show success.

I'm confused how this bears on the pont. Yes, if you "streamline" multiple rolls into one then you may want to represent the resulting outcomes with more granularity than a d20. The same could equally be true of AD&D combat - someone might want to streamline it all into a single roll and then they would complain that the d20 isn't granular enough, because it gives too great a chance of a `1st level fighter defeating a storm giant, or whatever.

But how does any of that bear on the claim that a d20 doesn't permit sufficiently granular results? It clearly does, if the resolution process involves multiple rolls. And AD&D has many resolution processes that involve multiple rolls.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm confused how this bears on the pont. Yes, if you "streamline" multiple rolls into one then you may want to represent the resulting outcomes with more granularity than a d20. The same could equally be true of AD&D combat - someone might want to streamline it all into a single roll and then they would complain that the d20 isn't granular enough, because it gives too great a chance of a `1st level fighter defeating a storm giant, or whatever.

But how does any of that bear on the claim that a d20 doesn't permit sufficiently granular results? It clearly does, if the resolution process involves multiple rolls. And AD&D has many resolution processes that involve multiple rolls.

If by 'many' you mean combat then yes. But there's very few others that involve multiple rolls for the same thing, and as I've shown even some of those can be knocked down to just one or two rolls with ease.

And if granularity isn't important, why use a d20 when a cheaper and easier-to-find d6 will do?

As for the listening example mentioned earlier, just tonight I ran a solo session for my wife (we're in lockdown thus she's the only player I have!). The party Thief listened at a door* and heard noises behind it (cheering and some possible combat), though uncertain what they meant. A few moments later she listened again and heard different noises (conversation this time); a few moments later still she listened again and heard yet different sounds (someone speaking to himself, or monologuing?).

Here's an example where multiple rolls make sense, as things are materially changing behind the door as events transpire there.

When nothing changes or can change, multiple rolls do not make sense.

* - if you're familiar with the module, she'd just got inside Castle Amber and was listening at the door of the boxing room; I randomly determined there was a bout occurring when she first listened but that it had ended by the time she listened again.

 

[Eric V]

The only poster on these boards I know who has some liking for 4e and some liking for PF2 is @Campbell. (And I'm using the phrase "some liking" not to try and understate Campbell's liking for either, but rather to avoid overstating it - it would be for Campbell to tell us the degree of any liking for either sysetm.)

I haven't had a chance to play any PF2 (doesn't look likely that I will), but I like what I have read. I also enjoyed 4e.

 

[Manbearcat]

I haven't had a chance to play any PF2 (doesn't look likely that I will), but I like what I have read. I also enjoyed 4e.

I have broadly liked what I’ve read, but the 5-pronged outcome to action resolution mechanics approach (which inexplicably doesn’t include Success With Cost/Complication or Fail Forward out of the 5!) they took just kills my interest!

 

[Fanaelialae]

The only poster on these boards I know who has some liking for 4e and some liking for PF2 is @Campbell. (And I'm using the phrase "some liking" not to try and understate Campbell's liking for either, but rather to avoid overstating it - it would be for Campbell to tell us the degree of any liking for either sysetm.)

FWIW, I really liked 4e and like PF2. I do prefer 5e over both, but if someone else wanted to run PF2 I wouldn't be opposed to playing it. If my players really wanted to play it, I think I'd even be willing to run it.

The same cannot be said of me and PF1 (I turned down a few invites to play that game - just couldn't do it). It's just not for me. I enjoyed 3.x but burned out hard on it towards the end. To me, PF1 is basically 3.x with more options, so I don't care for it. In fairness, I did pick up a fair portion of the PF1 books in a Humble Bundle. There are definitely some cool and interesting ideas there. It's just that I don't feel that system as a whole delivers what I'm looking for.

In contrast, I've been following PF2 with interest. I followed the playtest and updates, and have been purchasing most of the books. I think there are a lot of good ideas there and that it's a well designed game. If it weren't quite so oriented towards what I consider "fiddly math", it would actually give 5e a run for its money in my book.

 

[Charlaquin]

The only poster on these boards I know who has some liking for 4e and some liking for PF2 is @Campbell. (And I'm using the phrase "some liking" not to try and understate Campbell's liking for either, but rather to avoid overstating it - it would be for Campbell to tell us the degree of any liking for either sysetm.)

I have some liking for both.

 

[pemerton]

If by 'many' you mean combat then yes. But there's very few others that involve multiple rolls for the same thing

Turning undead. Climbing walls. Evasion out-of-doors. Listening at doors allows retries. Opening normal dungeon doors allows retries. I'm pretty sure picking pockets allows retries.

Here's an example where multiple rolls make sense, as things are materially changing behind the door as events transpire there.

I'm not sure what work "makes sense" is doing here. If what's behind a lock materially changes, the game doesn't give me a new chance to roll to successfully pick it. Nor if I buy new thieves' tools. The game says I have to gain a level.

If I lose a fight to some goblins and survive (eg I run away or my friends carry my unconscious body of the field), I'm allwoed a retry although nothing might be materially different.

I think it's very hard to find any consistency in the AD&D rules over what calls for one roll, multiple rolls with cumlative effect, the possibility of retires with or without cost (in the form, say, of wandering monster checks), etc. Which goes back to the claim that it is more flexiible than a uniform system because of its variety of sub-systems. I'm really not seeing any evidence in favour of that assertion.

if granularity isn't important, why use a d20 when a cheaper and easier-to-find d6 will do?

Well, if granularity is imporant, why not (as someone suggested upthread) use d1000? Or d10 rather than d6 for intiative or surpise? I'm honestly not sure there's any answer to this question in the logic of AD&D's design. Much of it seems rather arbitrary. (And I believe some of it was driven by a desire to sell polyhedral dice.)

One quite flexible system that I mentioned upthread is Cortex+ Heroic, which uses polyhedral dice from d5 to d12 and does have a logic to it (in the sense that both mechanical inputs and resulting effects are measured in die sizes, and stepping these up or down is an important aspect of resolution).

Of classic systems I think Classic Traveller is certainly as flexible than AD&D, and probably moreso, and it uses 2d6 as it's most common throw for resolution. It has multiple subsystems each with its own bonus structure - one feature that tends to lessen its flexibiity - but one effect of 2d6 is that even a +1 is significant. To me at least there does seem to be a clearer logic to Traveller's systems than to AD&D's.

Probably the most flexible fo the class systems is BRP/RuneQuest, and it uses d100 almost uniformally.

 

[Garthanos]

The only poster on these boards I know who has some liking for 4e and some liking for PF2 is @Campbell. (And I'm using the phrase "some liking" not to try and understate Campbell's liking for either, but rather to avoid overstating it - it would be for Campbell to tell us the degree of any liking for either sysetm.)

@Campbell has made pretty coherent well expressed descriptions of PF2