Pathfinder 2 - Spiritual Successor to D&D 4th Edition


Playtest

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

HP actually looks more bloated in P2 than it did in 4e (which is quite a feat). Also DOMA is back.


Also, like you said, I think you'll find the p2e game categories of Exploration, Melee, and Down-Time in no way submit to 1-time powers.


Here is my response to the damage on a miss issue. It has some quoted parts from Mark on why he feels it doesn't count as damage on a miss and you can scroll up for further details.

That said, if the game was to have damage on a miss, this is the most palatable version of it.


Really, the PF2 fighter Damages On A Miss is almost negligible... I mean, you can still really miss if you make a critical failure. And really, you do minimum damage... in a system were the focus is on extra dices instead of static bonus, that change a lot.
When you have a damage roll of 5d10 + 5 dmg, the minimum is 10dmg, vs a max of 55dmg and an average of 32dmg... It won't be like in PF1 when you had 1d10 + 30 to dmg...

BTW, 5d10 + 5 to dmg roll could happen with a magic Sword + 2 and Power Attack (at a level that grant +2 dices) and with 20 STR. Doing 10dmg to a power attack that miss is cool, but not game breaking in the slightest. Also, that 10dmg cost me 2 actions.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
HP actually looks more bloated in P2 than it did in 4e (which is quite a feat).

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

So...I'm legitimately not sure what you mean by 'more bloated than 4E'. Pathfinder already gave out more HP than 4E per level. Unless you want to compare to a 15th level Cleric since 4E had 30, in which case the above Cleric would have 94 HP and be right around the same as the PF2 Cleric.

Unless you're counting Healing Surges, in which case, no, the new HP total does not equal the total HP healing surges facilitate.

There are definitely more HP than in PF1, but damage may also be higher, and I'm just not at all clear how this is reminiscent of 4E.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Also DOMA is back.

Huh? Is this 'damage on a miss'? Because it's in a pretty wildly divergent context.


Richard Crawford wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Which elements of new pathfinder do you believe are similar to 4e?

I think, perhaps, you overstate your case:

1. Maybe. We'll have to wait and see.
2. Resonance exists and is based, in part, on Level but it seems to function rather differently.
3. Keeping with Tolkien (and several PF1 favored class bonuses). Also, do elves ignore DT now? I don't remember reading about that.
4. I fail to see the similarly even without getting into the qualitative differences between trained and untrained.
5. Recommended in PF1 and, I believe, required in PFS.
6. I don't remember how Shift worked, but suspect the PF2 version will work differently since the the action economy and thus incentive to move will be different.
7. Dying was always a condition in all, but name.
8. Will have to wait and see. Thus far we've only seen a Lesser Shadow on Glass Cannon and it didn't score any Critical Hits under the new mechanics.
9. Assuming PF2 is anything like PF1, Surprised and Flat-footed aren't necessarily the same thing.
10. Not sure what you're talking about. Resting seems comparable to PF1 and the Medicine skill only allows HP recovery will Skill Feats IIRC.
11. Dragonborn, to my knowledge, weren't a mascot.
12. Will require a wait and see approach. In any case, lots of games aren't compatible (PF1 and Bunnies & Burrows, for example)
13. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Enemies who haven't acted yet flat-footed in PF1 as well?
14. Reaction is, by definition, in response to an action or condition. In any case, Nimble Dodge doesn't appear to have a specific trigger (though it is useless if you're not attacked).
15. Just as similar as PF1 rolling spot and listen together.
16. A bit early to say. Jason's comments on Glass Cannon did seem to hint that if something were actively hidden/hiding, rolls might be required (albeit by the GM so players won't know the results)
17. I've heard nothing to that effect thus far.
18. Already true of PF1 in a broad sense.
19. Don't know who those are. Probably irrelevant.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

One thing that was a major problem for 4th edition was the WBL adherence and how Magical Items was supposed to be doled out.

With Crafting done at full price, and the supposed mark up to purchase items (that was universally ignored by most GM's) and all PC's only able to sell magical items for half price, the system was designed to keep the character poor. The only way to actually get an item that the character needed was to do the suggested choice hand out of items that the character happens to need at the time.

It was a horrible system that I hope PF2 does not even come close to repeating.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

Well done. Most people have t done the math on 4e HP and so it has this stigma of having lots of HP because of level 1 (I had done the math ages ago but forgot what level it evened out at. I didn't realize it lagged behind as early as level 10).

Also yes. DOMA is damage on a miss (I believe the post directly above mine referenced it). In my follow up post I have more information on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
HP actually looks more bloated in P2 than it did in 4e (which is quite a feat).

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

So...I'm legitimately not sure what you mean by 'more bloated than 4E'. Pathfinder already gave out more HP than 4E per level. Unless you want to compare to a 15th level Cleric since 4E had 30, in which case the above Cleric would have 94 HP and be right around the same as the PF2 Cleric.

Unless you're counting Healing Surges, in which case, no, the new HP total does not equal the total HP healing surges facilitate.

There are definitely more HP than in PF1, but damage may also be higher, and I'm just not at all clear how this is reminiscent of 4E.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Also DOMA is back.
Huh? Is this 'damage on a miss'? Because it's in a pretty wildly divergent context.

And shouldn't that be "DOAM"?

Shadow Lodge

Damage On Missed Attack.


The proficiency system is not copied from the 4e?
D&D 4e has seems the same, it lacks only the mastery and legendary expertise and some other small thing.


Brondy wrote:

The proficiency system is not copied from the 4e?

D&D 4e has seems the same, it lacks only the mastery and legendary expertise and some other small thing.

I think they're sufficiently different with any resemblance very superficial (if there at all).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they are almost the same in the same way baseball and basketball are almost the same. They use a ball and they have rules.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

Wait, am I missing something? I get 58 for 12 Con cleric 10 in PF1, 68 with FCB.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:

To be clear, 5e does not have universal automatic bonus progression, where everything about your character, from skills to saves to AC (whether trained or untrained) progresses at a flat rate based upon your level. 5e proficiency is similar, but is a scaling “Trained” bonus more analogous to 4e’s +5 “Trained” bonus or PF2’s “Ranks.” The underlying background for 5e has no universal automatic progression, as that would not be compatible with the flat bounded accuracy.

Also, several 4e classes ended up with 100s of powers to choose from. That is some pretty good customization that the initial PF2 class options probably won’t match at first.

Insight - Uh, yes, 5e totally has Universal Automatic Bonus Progression - The Proficiency System *is* Universal Automatic Bonus Progression.

It is a bonus to everything...
It is automatically updated when gaining levels...
It universally applies to everything from combat, to skills...

That IS the literally definition of "Universal Automatic Bonus Progression"

And it appears that PF2 has it as well.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Insight wrote:

To be clear, 5e does not have universal automatic bonus progression, where everything about your character, from skills to saves to AC (whether trained or untrained) progresses at a flat rate based upon your level. 5e proficiency is similar, but is a scaling “Trained” bonus more analogous to 4e’s +5 “Trained” bonus or PF2’s “Ranks.” The underlying background for 5e has no universal automatic progression, as that would not be compatible with the flat bounded accuracy.

Also, several 4e classes ended up with 100s of powers to choose from. That is some pretty good customization that the initial PF2 class options probably won’t match at first.

Insight - Uh, yes, 5e totally has Universal Automatic Bonus Progression - The Proficiency System *is* Universal Automatic Bonus Progression.

It is a bonus to everything...
It is automatically updated when gaining levels...
It universally applies to everything from combat, to skills...

That IS the literally definition of "Universal Automatic Bonus Progression"

And it appears that PF2 has it as well.

Close, but universal and automatic imply that it applies to everything, no matter what. In 5e, you have to choose those things that you are proficient in. The +2 to +6 represents your increasing proficiency with those things you are specifically trained in. A 20th level wizard doesn’t get the +6 to his long sword attacks, not will the non-stealthy Paladin get the +6 bonus to stealth.

In 4e and PF2, the universal automatic bonus progression ensures that high level characters have bonuses in absolutely everything, even those things they are not specifically trained in. The same level 20 wizard gets a +10 bonus to his untrained long sword attacks in 4e and the untrained wizard gets a +18 bonus in PF2.

This is what the phrase Universal Automatic Bonus Progression is referring to.


Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

Wait, am I missing something? I get 58 for 12 Con cleric 10 in PF1, 68 with FCB.

Level 2-10: 5 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 54

Level 1: 8 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 9
Favoured Class Bonus: 10 = 10

Total: 54 + 9 + 10 = 73

It's a bit cheeky counting favoured class bonus, but to be honest I'd look at a CON 14 cleric which is effectively the same thing (it only increases the 4th ed cleric to 70).


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As a further example, there are many games that give you a +x bonus when you train in a certain skill (like 4e’s +5 bonus to trained skills, PF1s rank points (+1 to +24), and PF2’s +1 to +3). 5e has the same type of trained bonus (just +2 to +6). It does not have the automatic universal bonuses that 4e and PF2 have.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Damage On Missed Attack.

thanks


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

Wait, am I missing something? I get 58 for 12 Con cleric 10 in PF1, 68 with FCB.

Level 2-10: 5 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 54

Level 1: 8 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 9
Favoured Class Bonus: 10 = 10

Total: 54 + 9 + 10 = 73

It's a bit cheeky counting favoured class bonus, but to be honest I'd look at a CON 14 cleric which is effectively the same thing (it only increases the 4th ed cleric to 70).

Ahhh! Rounding up, ok yeah that makes up the 5 difference. I thought conventional wisdom was to use 4.5 for d8.


4E went to level 30 and its in the later half folks got tired of the HP inflation and slog fest fights. Not saying 5E is the same, just saying why some folks felt 4E had too many HP. You have to get into more of the AEDU mechanics to get the nuances of the feel which isnt as simple as saying too many HP.

Its interesting to discuss this because you need longer fights for tactics to matter. 4E had a lot of gamey stuff that was fun tactically, but made fights long. 5E sped things up significantly, but lost a lot of tactical choices, particularly with martials.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Brondy wrote:

The proficiency system is not copied from the 4e?

D&D 4e has seems the same, it lacks only the mastery and legendary expertise and some other small thing.
I think they're sufficiently different with any resemblance very superficial (if there at all).

It does not seem superficial.

- They have the same name.
- If you are trained or expert, unlock new uses of skills.
- You can use weapons, armor and other items that match your level of proficiency without penalty.
- For each proficiency step you get a small bonus to the modifier.
- If you are an expert you do not need to roll the dice for certain actions as if you were taking 10.

totoro wrote:
I think they are almost the same in the same way baseball and basketball are almost the same. They use a ball and they have rules.

It's more like comparing Basketball with Street-Basketball.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

One thing I distinctly remember in 4e were level 1 monsters with 26 hp, and a level 19 wizard power that did 4d6 damage - meaning a level 19 wizard could have trouble one-shotting level 1 foes.


More like ping pong and tennis.


I dropped 4E pretty quickly, but I believe most complaints of HP Bloat were directed at monsters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ryric wrote:
One thing I distinctly remember in 4e were level 1 monsters with 26 hp, and a level 19 wizard power that did 4d6 damage - meaning a level 19 wizard could have trouble one-shotting level 1 foes.

Monster stats was another thing that was meant to change with PC level. (In my experience, this was an even more contentious feature of 4E and it’s definitely not in PF2 so not a lot of point going into it to far. Nonetheless, the same Kobold who was elite when you were level one would be a regular monster at level five and would certainly be a minion at level 19. A lot of the 4E-PF comparisons miss some of the fundamental differences between the systems - not helped by the fact both games used identical terms for differing concepts).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crayon wrote:
I dropped 4E pretty quickly, but I believe most complaints of HP Bloat were directed at monsters.

Yeah the problem was the enemies had massive hit point totals and did pretty pathetic damage. So combats took ages but the party was never in any real danger.

The fixes generally involved leaving PC hp unchanged and halving monster hp whilst multiplying their damage (or similar).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
ryric wrote:
One thing I distinctly remember in 4e were level 1 monsters with 26 hp, and a level 19 wizard power that did 4d6 damage - meaning a level 19 wizard could have trouble one-shotting level 1 foes.
Monster stats was another thing that was meant to change with PC level. (In my experience, this was an even more contentious feature of 4E and it’s definitely not in PF2 so not a lot of point going into it to far. Nonetheless, the same Kobold who was elite when you were level one would be a regular monster at level five and would certainly be a minion at level 19. A lot of the 4E-PF comparisons miss some of the fundamental differences between the systems - not helped by the fact both games used identical terms for differing concepts).

Don't even get me started on 4e minions. Every time I fought them I felt like they were Lovecraftian extra-dimensional monsters not quite in sync with reality, because of all their oddball rules exceptions and strange interactions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think Minions would have been better realized if they had a quarter of HP of the next higher scale of monster instead of 1 or 2 HP and a bunch of rules about their continued existence.

Liberty's Edge

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

In PF2, a 10th level Human Cleric with Con 12 will have 98 HP. In PF1 they'd have 73. In 4E they'd have 69.

Wait, am I missing something? I get 58 for 12 Con cleric 10 in PF1, 68 with FCB.

Level 2-10: 5 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 54

Level 1: 8 (from class) + 1 (CON) = 9
Favoured Class Bonus: 10 = 10

Total: 54 + 9 + 10 = 73

It's a bit cheeky counting favoured class bonus, but to be honest I'd look at a CON 14 cleric which is effectively the same thing (it only increases the 4th ed cleric to 70).

Eh. Every optimization guide recommends it, and it's an HP bonus you get in PF1 you can't get in D&D4E. And it's not like Clerics get great racial FCB. But yeah, the higher the Con the more PF1 pulls ahead of 4E in HP (at 18 Con they're ahead as early as 5th level). The difference between PF1 and PF2 remains precisely the same, though it looks smaller (128 to 103 if both have Con 18).

Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
Ahhh! Rounding up, ok yeah that makes up the 5 difference. I thought conventional wisdom was to use 4.5 for d8.

Rounding up is standard for PCs since that's what PFS does and people who don't roll for HP (myself included) have mostly followed suit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thaX wrote:

One thing that was a major problem for 4th edition was the WBL adherence and how Magical Items was supposed to be doled out.

With Crafting done at full price, and the supposed mark up to purchase items (that was universally ignored by most GM's) and all PC's only able to sell magical items for half price, the system was designed to keep the character poor. The only way to actually get an item that the character needed was to do the suggested choice hand out of items that the character happens to need at the time.

It was a horrible system that I hope PF2 does not even come close to repeating.

As described here, that system is actually a close match to Pathfinder 1st edition. That system actually works for player characters.

The difference that you missed is that, in D&D 4E, PCs can only make "Common" items. Items that are "Uncommon" or "Rare" can only be found as treasure. With the "Common" items mainly being those needed to keep the combat numbers up, there seems to be no way that Pathfinder 2nd edition would or could use a system like that.


Insight wrote:
So what do you think? Do you think there is a chance that PF2 is the spiritual successor to D&D 4th Edition that 4e fans have been waiting for?

Mechanically speaking, I'd disagree. I felt that D&D 4e classes all felt the same, but with different labels. PF2e classes still look to have mechanical variety.

But I do think they both feel to me like super-hero games in a fantasy setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I dropped 4E pretty quickly, but I believe most complaints of HP Bloat were directed at monsters.

Yeah the problem was the enemies had massive hit point totals and did pretty pathetic damage. So combats took ages but the party was never in any real danger.

The fixes generally involved leaving PC hp unchanged and halving monster hp whilst multiplying their damage (or similar).

Pretty much. By the Monster Manual 3 and beyond, they fixed HP/damage ratio to make encounters more challenging. After a couple of sessions of 4E, it was a house rule change we made that made 4E work better with faster combats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insight wrote:


So what do you think? Do you think there is a chance that PF2 is the spiritual successor to D&D 4th Edition that 4e fans have been waiting for?

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diffan wrote:

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

Mark Seifter has already confirmed that healing is available via non-class-related options.

Diffan wrote:
· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

Everyone can take three attacks a round in P2e if they choose, whether they're martial or not. "Swimming across an ocean" has been mentioned as something possible for Legendary characters to do, but that's skill-related, not specific to martial classes. There's a fighter-only ability to leap 20-30 feet into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

Diffan wrote:

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

There hasn't been a spellcasting preview yet, so we don't know yet. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

Mark Seifter has already confirmed that healing is available via non-class-related options.

Cool, I didn't see that. I'm wondering if that's a Feat or other Skill option that allows you to delve further. I find that very refreshing.

Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:
· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.
Everyone can take three attacks a round in P2e if they choose, whether they're martial or not. "Swimming across an ocean" has been mentioned as something possible for Legendary characters to do, but that's skill-related, not specific to martial classes. I believe "splitting a mountain with a sword" has also been offered as something a high-level martial could potentially do in the system. There's a fighter-only ability to leap 20-30 feet into the air and smash flying foes to the ground.

Just because you can do it (hells, Wizards and PF1 could make two attacks as a full-round action) doesn't mean it can be done well or with a decent chance to hit. For example, a 4E Wizard could take Melee Training and use Intelligence for their Basic Melee Attacks, so they'd add +1/2 level + Int. mod + any other feat / weapon enhancement buffs to strike a foe. It's not going to do as much damage as a Fighter or Rogue or have the impact of a weapon-based spell of a Cleric but he still has a pretty good chance of hitting the monsters AC.

We haven't seen the numbers yet, so I'm hoping that this is similar to PF2. It'd be nice to see a wizard pull out the staff and knock some goblin heads without feeling like any attempt is a near improbably task.

Joana wrote:
Diffan wrote:

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

There hasn't been a spellcasting preview yet, so we don't know yet. :)

I am curious how they're going to do Cantrips. If they'll remain their old (nifty yet hardly game breaking) effects of PF1 OR if they'll start to get beefed up like some of the X/day features they got instead?


Now that we have the spellcasting blog, let's see what we have:


  • Your At-Will spells (cantrips) scale with level
  • Rituals: Based on skills such as Arcana, with long casting times (4e. Exactly the same)
  • Spell schools appear to be gone.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
Spell schools appear to be gone.

Uh...no. This is flatly false. All listed spells are from the Necromancy School and labeled as such.

The other points are mostly true, though.


Diffan wrote:
Insight wrote:


So what do you think? Do you think there is a chance that PF2 is the spiritual successor to D&D 4th Edition that 4e fans have been waiting for?

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

Whew! I'll take it as good news that anyone who likes 4e thinks PF2 looks unlike 4e. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Uh...no. This is flatly false. All listed spells are from the Necromancy School and labeled as such.

Presentation matters here though. The way the schools are being presented they look like 4e keywords instead of PF1e schools. We'll have to wait and see how similar PF2e schools are to PF1e schools vs not being really recognisable and don't appear to have any significant distinction from the other keywords.

totoro wrote:
Diffan wrote:

I consider 4E to still be my favorite edition and no, this doesn't feel like a spiritual successor. There's a LOT missing after reading the changes thus far.

· Non-magical healing? Do we have a way to heal sans divine magic (and not resting for a pittance of hp gain)?

· Martials having extraordinary abilities? And getting 2 attacks a round isn't the same, compared to some of the powerful first-level daily abilities Fighters got.

· At-will magic that actually does what it's designed to do, hold over casters in between bigger slotted spells?

Whew! I'll take it as good news that anyone who likes 4e thinks PF2 looks unlike 4e. :)

Might want to hold off on the celebrating until Diffan gets the whole rules in his hands:

Non-magical healing is confirmed as existing in the game (either it's confirmed it's being done by skill powers feats or it's common speculation that this is how it's being handled).

Martials are confirmed as getting something more than just a full attack. Power Attack (based on language used by the devs who've posted/blogged) appears to be a special type of attack (much like Vital Strike) rather than a feat that modifies the melee basic attack. Get too many of those types of feats and PF2e class feats are going to look like a synonym for 4th ed class powers.

At-will magic is confirmed as behaving exactly as it did in D&D 4e.


The more they release....the less interested in 2E I become.....I am starting to throw up in my mouth a bit every thing that's released.....

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
nighttree wrote:
The more they release....the less interested in 2E I become.....I am starting to throw up in my mouth a bit every thing that's released.....

You should probably see a doctor about that.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Or just stop inflicting it on yourself.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
thaX wrote:

One thing that was a major problem for 4th edition was the WBL adherence and how Magical Items was supposed to be doled out.

With Crafting done at full price, and the supposed mark up to purchase items (that was universally ignored by most GM's) and all PC's only able to sell magical items for half price, the system was designed to keep the character poor. The only way to actually get an item that the character needed was to do the suggested choice hand out of items that the character happens to need at the time.

It was a horrible system that I hope PF2 does not even come close to repeating.

As described here, that system is actually a close match to Pathfinder 1st edition. That system actually works for player characters.

The difference that you missed is that, in D&D 4E, PCs can only make "Common" items. Items that are "Uncommon" or "Rare" can only be found as treasure. With the "Common" items mainly being those needed to keep the combat numbers up, there seems to be no way that Pathfinder 2nd edition would or could use a system like that.

I did miss that, and I bet so did most of those that played 4th edition.

PF1 is crafted cheaper and can be sold for a bit more than what it was crafted for. The crafting in 4th was full price, and sold at half price. The crafter losses half his monies when he sells the item, even if he sells it to a fellow party member.


I played 4th ed for a few years and we never spotted that. Also 4th ed's "give players whatever they want" DM advice certainly didn't encourage such restrictions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It discouraged crafting of weapons, leaving it for the poor peasants to do and making Magic Items rare. No item shops, hence the ill advised suggestion in the rulebook to item drop for specific characters. 5th edition continues the trend, being a low magic item campaign.


Wait, what were even the mechanics for crafting weapons? I thought that was one of the big gripes. That you couldn't craft weapons and armor?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That you craft them for full price. It was still supposed to be cheaper most of the time because the items was supposed to be sold at a 10 to 40 percent markup, with a few exceptions. If you upgraded to a better item, the old one was sold for half price.

It keeps the PC poor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

The difference that you missed is that, in D&D 4E, PCs can only make "Common" items. Items that are "Uncommon" or "Rare" can only be found as treasure. With the "Common" items mainly being those needed to keep the combat numbers up, there seems to be no way that Pathfinder 2nd edition would or could use a system like that.

Do you have a citation for that? I never managed to find confirmation of exactly what characters could and could not make, so I ended up ruling that PCs in my game could make Common and Uncommon but not Rare. I had thought it was a very rare example of an unclear rule in 4e, but it might have been an accidental house rule.

totoro wrote:
Whew! I'll take it as good news that anyone who likes 4e thinks PF2 looks unlike 4e. :)

I am also a 4e fan, and I concur that based on what we know so far, PF2 is not looking particularly similar to D&D 4e. Most of the things that people have brought up as being similar are at best superficial, and in a lot of cases not actually like 4e at all.

Example:
My personal favourite was someone insisting that Resonance was taken from 4e, despite the fact that the limits on items in 4e are...body slots and gold just like in PF1.

There was an additional limitation on the number of daily item powers you could use in a day which could be said to be like resonance if you really squint (it did not involve any points or ability scores, did go up as you completed more encounters, and did not apply to consumables, non-item abilities, or anything at all apart from daily powers of magic items), but it rarely came up, was eventually deemed unnecessary anyway, and disappeared on the wings of errata years ago.

There have been a couple of relatively minor things that did remind me of 4e, but ironically they are mostly not the things that other people have raised as points of similarity.

_
glass.


glass wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

The difference that you missed is that, in D&D 4E, PCs can only make "Common" items. Items that are "Uncommon" or "Rare" can only be found as treasure. With the "Common" items mainly being those needed to keep the combat numbers up, there seems to be no way that Pathfinder 2nd edition would or could use a system like that.

Do you have a citation for that? I never managed to find confirmation of exactly what characters could and could not make, so I ended up ruling that PCs in my game could make Common and Uncommon but not Rare. I had thought it was a very rare example of an unclear rule in 4e, but it might have been an accidental house rule.

totoro wrote:
Whew! I'll take it as good news that anyone who likes 4e thinks PF2 looks unlike 4e. :)

I am also a 4e fan, and I concur that based on what we know so far, PF2 is not looking particularly similar to D&D 4e. Most of the things that people have brought up as being similar are at best superficial, and in a lot of cases not actually like 4e at all.

** spoiler omitted **

There have been a couple of relatively minor things that did remind me of 4e, but ironically they are mostly not the things that other people have raised as points of similarity.

_
glass.

I assumed they were referring to the specific example of how CLW interacts with Resonance and the (superficial) similarity to Healing Surge.

101 to 150 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder 2 - Spiritual Successor to D&D 4th Edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.