D&D 2E What PF2E means for D&D5E

[GreyLord]

Keep in mind that a LOT of the things you declare as “5e rules” actually come from 4e. Like shared proficiencies between attacks, saves, and skills. Fewer magic items, and limiting magic item uses per day. The monster design.
Which also means it pre-dates Pathfinder.

Of course Paizo’s evolution of the 3.x rule set is going to evolve in similar directions to 4e/5e, because it’s responding to the same criticisms.

I know, but I think the only thing that will make a hardcore Pathfinder fan angrier (even if it is true that it is) than saying they are taking the framework of 5e to base Pathfinder 2nd edition on...

is saying that they are basing it off of D&D 4th edition....



PS: Of course having two games that are very different (ala rolemaster or rifts for AD&D/80s D&D) can still have that same background. I think that Pathfinder 2e is taking ideas directly from D&D 5e (or it could even be 4e), but I think the entire reason the designers don't want to admit it is because a lot of people who love Pathfinder wouldn't like it. They are trapped into the box where they can't actually say that...hey...5e is selling like hotcakes...maybe if Pathfinder was more like these ideas we could sell like hotcakes too!

 

[Mouseferatu]

There's no such thing as parallel development normally. that's normally a bunch of BS.

As somebody who's been working in multiple creative fields since late 2000, I can assure you that this is patently untrue.

There may indeed be times when "parallel development" is used as a cover for something else, but far more often, it's genuine. (At least in creative circles. I have no idea how it might be in tech.)

 

[Jacob Lewis]

This just in! Internet forum posters suspect that latest versions of D&D are based solely on other versions of D&D. Trouble is brewing while they try to determine which parts and which versions are being copied by other parts and versions! Back to you.

 

[GreyLord]

As somebody who's been working in multiple creative fields since late 2000, I can assure you that this is patently untrue.

There may indeed be times when "parallel development" is used as a cover for something else, but far more often, it's genuine. (At least in creative circles. I have no idea how it might be in tech.)

There are times when ideas are the same, but it's easy to tell when they are copycats, and when it is actually something both people came up with at the same time. The more things that are the same...the more likely it is a copycat. If it is just a general idea...MAYBE. If it is two things the same...chances are it's not two different ideas from two different places. If it's three things the same...normally it's a dead on ringer that one of them copied the idea of another.

In tech courts we have trademark issues (much less patent issues) when the math and rules regarding things get that similar if the two companies are not friendly to each other.

WotC and Paizo ARE friendly to each other (as far as I know), so that's not something they have to fear. Fans on the otherhand...some of them are already going crazy just at the thought...if Paizo actually admitted to it blatantly...it might not be pretty.

However, the evidence thus far all seems to point to Paizo basically taking the framework of 5e and putting their own spin on it.

If they were actually doing their own development I'd expect something a lot closer to 3.5 than to 5e in what they've been putting out.

 

[Arilyn]

There are times when ideas are the same, but it's easy to tell when they are copycats, and when it is actually something both people came up with at the same time. The more things that are the same...the more likely it is a copycat. If it is just a general idea...MAYBE. If it is two things the same...chances are it's not two different ideas from two different places. If it's three things the same...normally it's a dead on ringer that one of them copied the idea of another.

In tech courts we have trademark issues (much less patent issues) when the math and rules regarding things get that similar if the two companies are not friendly to each other.

WotC and Paizo ARE friendly to each other (as far as I know), so that's not something they have to fear. Fans on the otherhand...some of them are already going crazy just at the thought...if Paizo actually admitted to it blatantly...it might not be pretty.

However, the evidence thus far all seems to point to Paizo basically taking the framework of 5e and putting their own spin on it.

If they were actually doing their own development I'd expect something a lot closer to 3.5 than to 5e in what they've been putting out.

I have listened to podcasts of actual play, as well as interviews with the PF designers. It's really obvious that PF2 is coming off Pathfinder. It's still way crunchier than 5e, has lots of choices for character creation, numerical bonuses and penalties, etc. Paizo revolves around PF and feel it is time to make a better PF. Of course there will be some similarities to DnD, as they branch off the same tree, so to speak. Paizo is absolutely not putting their own spin on 5e. This makes no sense. PF occupies a different niche, as it's the crunchy, lots of options version vs. the lighter, looser rules of 5e. It would be stupid for Paizo to make another version of 5e, as they'd lose their current fans and not be able to compete with the DnD brand name. Other than a few areas where designers tackled problems in similar ways, the comparison between the games will only be that they are both F20 games.

I really don't understand why you believe Paizo is sneakily basing PF2 on 5e. Why would they do this?

 

[Shasarak]

Unless, of course, they are taking it from 4e and modifying it...but I think the Pathfinder fans may find that even more horrifying to their collective repulsions.

Paizo did pick up some of the old 4e staff that WotC laid off so my guess would be that would be a big influence. You can certainly see it in the Starfinder rules and on the other hand I am hoping not so much in the PF2 rules.

 

[CM]

There was no collusion!

 

[Mistwell]

There was no collusion!

But her emails! Her being Lisa Stevens, of course.

 

[Zardnaar]

But her emails! Her being Lisa Stevens, of course.

Heh heh from NZ.

 

[Aldarc]

Of course Paizo’s evolution of the 3.x rule set is going to evolve in similar directions to 4e/5e, because it’s responding to the same criticisms.

This. I also think that the accusation that they are just copying off 5E ignores influences that 5E took from PF1, influences that PF2 took from other d20 games (e.g. 13th Age, d20 Modern, True20, etc.), and how many of these criticisms of the 3.x have been well spotted, known, and thoroughly discussed before.