4e and Pathfinder 2e

[Particle_Man]

Hi all,

I am wondering what 4e fans think of Pathfinder 2e. I had a theory that the game designers might be targeting the 4e market with their game, but I could be wrong.

[Mendicant]

There are definitely some similarities--spellcasters basically have at-will, encounter, and daily powers, customization more firmly locked behind class doors, and multiclassing is via feats, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're aimed at a specific niche other than people who want more crunch than 5e, but not too much.

[NomGarret]

I like a lot of the ideas behind P2; the three action system, combat maneuvers as skill checks, and so forth. It’s the execution I find lacking. The individual abilities are almost all too safe and unexciting for my tastes. One of the things I enjoy about 4e is how willing they were to be brash and awesome. Crunchy, tactically interesting, cinematic combats were what drew me in.

P2 is certainly crunchy. It hasn’t struck me as nearly as cinematic. Now at this point that’s a matter of presentation as I haven’t had a chance to play it yet. I did get the feel of how cinematic 4e could be from its presentation, however, so there’s that. As far as being tactically interesting goes, the chassis is certainly there. The overly conservative options and the level gating make it hard to enjoy, though.

I don’t think it’s particularly aimed at a 4e base. I do think they continue the trend of game companies using the lessons of 4e, including an awful lot it was right about. Rituals should be a thing, for instance.

[MeeposFire]

Not a fan of PF2 at all (granted not a fan of PF1 either). I actually do not care for the three action system. Yes it is better than the original 3e system but that is faint praise as the 3e system is terrible. Honestly 5e has more 4e mechanics hidden it that many would think and I find that to be much more enjoyable (really I think 5e takes more from 4e than 3e though it presents it looking a lot more like 3e and then tops it off with a more older version feel).

Part of my problem with PF 1+2 is that it is way more work than I get fun out of it. Paizo seems to live to make that happen. 4e is a crunchier system but it is much easier to run and I find that it does tactical play better than almost anything and so it has a set niche for me. PF games tend to be much more work and I do not get enough fun out of it to make up for the extra work (3e has the same problem now for me). I would much rather play older D&D, AD&D, and 5e where I can get the same sort of experience and enjoy it much more with much less work.


About the only thing I like to do with a 3e style system anymore is to make a random character to see what I can get. I do not often actually want to play it (I find creation in that system more fun than actually playing the character).

Sadly Paizo seems to make IMO the same sort of mistakes such as making something require way more choices than needed for something simple or a glut of a bunch of options that give tiny little bonuses rather than doing something actually fun and if you take something fun it probably makes your character weaker due to not taking those bonuses (4e does this too and it is something I actually now wish it did not have so much but doing so would take a fair bit of a rewrite so I just deal).

[ScrivenerofDoom]

Hi all,

I am wondering what 4e fans think of Pathfinder 2e. I had a theory that the game designers might be targeting the 4e market with their game, but I could be wrong.

What 4E market?

I don't think Baizuo would target a market that doesn't really exist - and I say that as someone for whom 4E is his favourite edition. I think they just needed something that wasn't 5E.

(snip) Part of my problem with PF 1+2 is that it is way more work than I get fun out of it. Paizo seems to live to make that happen. 4e is a crunchier system but it is much easier to run and I find that it does tactical play better than almost anything and so it has a set niche for me. PF games tend to be much more work and I do not get enough fun out of it to make up for the extra work (3e has the same problem now for me). I would much rather play older D&D, AD&D, and 5e where I can get the same sort of experience and enjoy it much more with much less work.

(snip)

Sadly Paizo seems to make IMO the same sort of mistakes such as making something require way more choices than needed for something simple or a glut of a bunch of options that give tiny little bonuses rather than doing something actually fun and if you take something fun it probably makes your character weaker due to not taking those bonuses (4e does this too and it is something I actually now wish it did not have so much but doing so would take a fair bit of a rewrite so I just deal).

Paizo's designers really struggle with mechanical design, IMO and IME. I cannot help but think of Gygax who inevitably chose complication when something needed to be simple, and simplicity when something needed a bit more meat on its bones. Paizo designers tend to do the same and, I assume, do whatever minimal playtesting of new mechanics in an echo chamber. Then again, there's a market for those sorts of crappy mechanics - look at the OSR and the success of PF 1E.

Sure, the new edition got a tonne of external playtesting but the published version differs markedly from the playtest versions in many ways. Was the final round of playtesting in their traditional echo chamber or did they finally get it right? Personally, I haven't formed an opinion yet as I have yet to fully read the book in a thorough manner. I want to like it simply because I think the market needs something other than 5E.

[Morty]

There are some elements that are very much like 4E, but other design goals are in direct opposition to it. Non-casters have no expendable resources and all their abilities come through feats. Per-encounter mechanics of any sort have been greatly reduced. So I wouldn't say it aims towards the 4E market, such as it even is. There are some very important parts of 4E that PF2E lacks or purposefully distances itself from.

[Rhedyn]

I think 4e accomplishes every goal PF2e set out to accomplish, but 4e does it better.

I like PF1e, PF2e is not appealing to me.

[ve4grm]

Yeah I don't know that if it's targeted at 4e fans, though it may include some things we like.

I think it may suffer from both trying to please the designers and their attempts to introduce new, modern mechanics, and a fanbase that declared their allegiance back at the end of 3.5e and is largely defined by their unwillingness to change systems. (Admittedly, there are also people who came into the hobby with PF and may be ready for something new, but the old guard of PF is very vocal.)

We'll see how it does. I'm more willing to give it a try than I would be to play PF1 these days, but it's not really something I'm watching at all.

[Theodoxus]

So, I built a hybrid between 4E and 5E that works pretty well. I had originally taken some concepts from PF2 as well, as I thought they'd add just the right amount of spice to the overall mixture. I was wrong. My players, thankfully a very resilient bunch, tossed the PF2 bits on the ground and stomped on them.

I haven't had a chance to actually play unmodified PF2, so I can't speculate how much it'd be attractive to the 4E crowd... by the responses here, it appears pretty hit or miss, though not because of similarity, but just system differences.

[Tvtyrant]

So, I built a hybrid between 4E and 5E that works pretty well. I had originally taken some concepts from PF2 as well, as I thought they'd add just the right amount of spice to the overall mixture. I was wrong. My players, thankfully a very resilient bunch, tossed the PF2 bits on the ground and stomped on them.

I haven't had a chance to actually play unmodified PF2, so I can't speculate how much it'd be attractive to the 4E crowd... by the responses here, it appears pretty hit or miss, though not because of similarity, but just system differences.

Can you send me your stuff? I have been working on a similar project off and on for a while.