Insight's page

Ahoy! I apologize for the order cancellation!

It appears that a number of the AV5E preorders got improperly caught up in a mass cancellation of dead/invalid orders and were quietly and completely wrongly canceled. This included your order.

I have uncanceled your order. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention because finding your order also brought a bunch of others up. Now we can take care of those folks as well! :D

-cosmo

I had already noticed the cancellation and had renewed my order manually. Now it looks like I have two pre-orders. Any chance I could get the duplicate one cancelled?

Concur. Thanks for all the input.

A PC recovers from Drained 1 after a full night’s rest. The same is true of Fatigued. Hence my original question about whether Curse of Death is intended to apply a Fatigue that is only removed after a full night’s rest (as is normal for fatigue) or if it immediately falls off after the curse expires.

This mostly matters for when an NPC witch curses a PC (who otherwise might want to continue adventuring for the remainder of the day without a persistent -1 to AC/saves), versus a player using it against a monster (where it would typically only matter until the end of the encounter anyways).

There is an AP I’m running where a witch NPC will be able to really hamper the party depending on how it is interpreted.

https://2e.aonprd.com/NPCs.aspx?ID=1473

…Yet nothing states that it is damage or that it persists beyond the duration of any ongoing affliction causing it (like a poison or disease, not immediate effects)….

It seems that all types of Conditions end at the end of the duration of what caused them, with several exceptions which are specifically noted in the creature or spell's entry.

Thank-you for the response. In that case, can you help me interpret this general rule on afflictions from the PF2 CRB (“Conditions from Afflictions”, CRB pg. 458):

“An affliction might give you conditions with a longer or shorter duration than the affliction by. For instance, if an affliction causes you to be drained but has a maximum duration of 5 minutes, you remain drained even after the affliction ends, as is normal for the drained condition.”

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=368

Here's what I found about poisons and conditions that 100% clears up the issue.

Some poisons apply the Flat-Footed condition. If the condition remained after the poison, you just have to apply it once and the target would be permanently flat-footed, as there are 0 ways to remove that condition.

As for Curse of Death, the duration is "sustained up to 1 minute". The curse states "This curse ends immediately when the spell ends". So when the spell ends any effects caused by the curse end (except the damage of course.)

What about a condition like Drained 1? Would the Drained persist after the affliction expires or would it end when the poison does?

Sorry to necro this thread, but found a similar issue with affliction durations I need a ruling on:

For the witch's Curse of Death hex (focus 5), how long does the fatigue inflicted at stages 1+ last?

A) Until the target rolls a sucess at stage 1 and reduces the curse to "stage 0";

B) until the witch stops sustaining the hex or 1 minute expires (whichever comes first); or

C) until the target takes a full night's rest (as is normal for fatigue)?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=794

Please cancel all of my subscriptions. Working on my budget right now and unfortunately don't have the money for Pathfinder right now.

Thanks.

I like the post from the guy who said the people who say PF2 is copying off of 4E should have a debate with the people who say PF2 is copying off of 5E.

Obviously copying off of 4E would be a terrible idea. Since, even its publishers abandoned it after only a few years.
I feel like PF2 will be... PF2.

Looks like they are actually having that debate in the PF2 Goblin preview on EnWorld over here: https://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6498-Here-s-A-Pathfinder-2E-Gobli n&page=2#comments.

IMO, the 4e people are winning the debate.

Well if they don't use dex then you'll likely see your character start with 18 Int and 16 Str.

For my first alchemist, that was my plan anyways.

BTW, are alchemist bomb attacks made with Dexterity or Intelligence?

If having an 8 or 10 in Strength is so detrimental to running an alchemist, perhaps you could put enough points into it to (12-14) to get the heavier weapon and additional gear. You could take these points from one of Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom, since it appears there isn't the same complaint about these stats leading to a non-functional character if they were dumped to 8.

Unless you also believe that having an 8 or 10 in Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom would also be unduly detrimental to the class?

I also want to quibble with the "adjust down in areas of high humidity" on the low end of the spectrum. When the temperature dips into that arctic range, there is no appreciable humidity since air that cold just won't hold water.

Sure, if it's -40 and you're soaking wet you're dead but what you want to watch out for in extreme cold is not humidity but wind.

The footnote only applies to those temperatures marked with an asterisk.

The basic gear from an alchemist weighs 4 bulk (6 light) which is far enough under a Strength 10 character’s max of 5 bulk (9 light) given what all the basic gear includes (including armor, tools, and formula book, amongst other gear). That’s enough extra capacity to carry another weapon or item of 1 bulk, or you could just select up to 13 additional light bulk items without being encumbered.

The alternative to using advanced alchemy is using quick alchemy; they are not mutually exclusive.

Well... a reagent used for advanced alchemy is one that can’t be used for quick alchemy and vice versa. I don’t think there is an avenue that allows the alchemist to use a reagent for advanced alchemy and also use that same reagent later for quick alchemy. Eating your cake and still having your cake afterwards is kind of the definition of mutually exclusive.

However... an alchemist with 10 Strength won’t have an issue equipping herself with the basic required tools and adventuring gear.

Insight wrote:

Voss wrote:

1 gp to $100 really doesn't match up with any sort of economic history (nor does a better standard of living in preindustrial societies).

That's honestly $200 shovels and backpacks, and $80 for a clay pot. That's even less functional than the default assumptions of PF1.

My campaign doesn’t assume a historical standard. ).

I can't speak to your campaign, beyond pointing out example consequences like the $200 shovels.

But the general assumptions of the game do assume (or imply) a vaguely historical standard (or at least an attempt at them), so that seems more relevant.

I mean, does it? Apparently not, IMO.

1 gp to $100 really doesn't match up with any sort of economic history (nor does a better standard of living in preindustrial societies).

That's honestly $200 shovels and backpacks, and $80 for a clay pot. That's even less functional than the default assumptions of PF1.

My campaign doesn’t assume a historical standard. It assumes not only that magic is relatively prevalent (and has a “trickle down effect” to those not fortunate enough to have their own magic, but also that people in general are smarter, hardier, and more efficient workers (which they’d have to be in a world in which zombies and monsters are real). So, not medieval Europe, but more like storybook and fairytale context (the hobbits in LotR, for example, are pretty much at the bottom of my scale, and they don’t look like they are in poverty, in general).

So, $100 per day in expenses is $36,500 a year, which is about twice what is affordable on minimum wage (a category only 2% of Americans fall in apparently). However, hard for me to speak to as my kid’s daycare and tuition is almost that much on its own and my annual mortgage, utilities, and non-discretionary exceeds that.

Even if you assume that the 1 gp income is before expenses are taken out for lifestyle rather than discretionary/savings (which is a reasonable assumption), in world the intake/outflow is not on a literal day to day basis, but monthly.

The peasant takes his trade to the village market day each week and sells it for 5 to 10 gold, depending on how well he does that week (and this is born out by the mundane equipment prices in the PHB). He might immediately spend some of his gold at the village market, but at the end of some months, he might alternatively take the 30 or so gold he earned that month to spend at a larger city.

And when the bandits jump him, it helps explain how they are able to outfit another of their band (or distribute the gold amongst their members for the PCs to loot later). A DM might only place silver pieces in the pouches of NPCs the players encounter, but I find that less realistic. Otherwise, how are the bandits affording their bow, arrows, armor, and sword, which together can approach 100 gp in value depending on whether they favor longbows and which type of armor they wear.

I find it best to use the following analogue to our own economy: a copper piece is equivalent to $1, a silver piece is $10, and a gold piece is $100. So, worthwhile and desirable, but not something an average person wouldn’t encounter, even those living paycheck to paycheck so to speak. It also helps that I assume a lower level of wealth disparity in my campaign than the real world, and that your average farmer has a relatively acceptable lifestyle and standard of living and wouldn’t even necessarily consider himself in “poverty.” My NPCs are generally happy, well-fed, and due to magical curtailment of potential epidemics/pandemics or other widespread problems of the real Middle Ages, fairly healthy (that is when not being attacked by goblins or dragons, for which a great deal of villager wealth goes to “wandering security experts”).

In 5e, a single mundane meal is around 5 sp and subsistence costs are measured in gold pieces. Clearly, gold in these magical medieval societies isn’t as rare as we think it is (kind of reminds me of that 1,001 Ways to Die in the West scene where all the farmers are astonished to see a man with a real life dollar bill). In my campaign, even the poorest turnip farmer averages a gold a day in wages, so 300 to 400 gp a year. And most everyone else makes far more than that. So a guard’s equipment, even for a well equipped one, is *not* far more than he sees in salary for a year, let alone a lifetime.

The all in cost to be a simple farmer is 100s of gold once you account for animals, tools, equipment, feed, etc. They must be familiar with gold pieces. Of course, in PF 2 the standard has dropped a tier, so silver becomes the equivalent of the old gold and gold pieces are now more like platinum, which is something that an average peasant very rarely (but not never) interacts with.

And if a player wants to try an impromptu or improvised use of a skill, that’s usually covered. For example, if a player wants his character to discern the cause of death at a crime scene, the DM could call for the Recall Knowledge use of a Medicine check, choosing an appropriate DC based upon the nature of the forensic evidence available.

Someone else made the comment about integrating new releases into DDI. I never had a complaint with it, even when it went online only.

Functionally, though, I don't think anyone has matched the initial DDI tools in terms of integration of new books and errata.

Actually... as much as I like DDI, D&D Beyond for 5e is even better. The way the hyperlinking and pop-ups work not only between and within game elements, but also in their adventures (to jump quickly between art, maps, statblocks, and adventure text flawlessly and seamlessly, not to mention the blogs and articles and home brew tools). The big downside is the incredible cost, far more than DDI ever was.

This train of thought now has me wondering... as value added as these types of tools were for 4e and 5e, their application in Pathfinder 2e would be a dream. Imagine reading an AP volume and being able to pull up in line stat blocks, have condition rules pop-ups in spell descriptions, make notes on the maps, reference the adventure text DCs against your PCs skill bonuses (as their characters would obviously have been built for your campaign file using the integrated PF2 character builder... character creation would be a breeze to search and cross reference what will no doubt be hundreds of backgrounds, Feats, spells, etc).

A World of Warcraft d20 game has already been done:

World Of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game (d20 3.5) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1588467813/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Da7lDb4GYXZYP

Turns out it’s pretty hard for a book publisher to get into digital content delivery. I’m still waiting on Pathfinder Game Space and Pathfinder Online (as a Kickstarter backer, even). ;) Nevertheless, I still have my 4e DDI subscription, and I’m still suitably impressed by it. As for the WoW/MMO push, don’t forget the heavy marketing through Penny Arcade as well, which I’m sure also contributed to millions of sales (DDI got relatively close to a million subscribers, so the book sales *must* have been a multiple of the digital content). If PF2 “flops” as badly as 4e, Paizo will be a happy company indeed.

You don’t have to buy it again in Fantasy Grounds. You can input that data yourself (this is true even of the rules and supplements). However, this can be labor intensive for full automation (although I’ve got pretty quick at inputting the effects that enable the automation). At any rate, for those of us that do use Fantasy Grounds it comes down to Do I want to spend several hours prepping this AP, or do I want to pay SmiteWorks $7 to do it for me?

If the rankings are for individual books, I also suspect part of the reason PF1e is not in the top 5 is because all the books it has available. As far as I know, none of the mentioned top 5 have a lot of books to buy from (compared to PF1e).

The end of life thing is also probably a factor. People rarely go for something that is ending, unless they plan to later resell at a profit to collectors (or nostalgia).

Actually, for the ICv2 rankings, it is the combined sale (during that quarter) of products for the brand, including prior releases. This is part of the reason D&D 4e was able to stay near the top of the charts at the end of the run, despite releasing zero products for the last several quarters. It would seem that brands with more individual products would be boosted by this method, not curtailed. Similarly, I suspect that 5e could skip several quarters of releases and still be #1 in sales, just by virtue of continued sales of the PHB alone.

Oh it is definitely 5e at the top with a chasm between it and the others and has been since release. The 5e PHB reached top 3 status on Amazon’s book chart (overall books, not just gaming books) and is still number 65 overall, so even in 2019 it has many, many multiples of sales of any “competitors” (5e supplements such as Xanathar’s and Waterdeep: Dragon Heist similarly perform well in the overall book category).

Pathfinder was number 3 as recently as Spring of 2018, prior to the Playtest, so the announcement of the Playtest probably did have a large effect on PF’s fall off the list. However, Paizo did release a number of PF products during 2018, so the decline was not simply due to a curtailed release schedule. Probably, Paizo anticipated an eventual decline and started working on PF2 ahead of the curve, so to speak. Looks like PF 2 will be just in time for them jump back into it, at least for a little while (depending on reception).

Incidentally, Paizo does have an interesting (especially in hindsight) thread in the D&D 4e and Beyond subforum, started prior to 5e’s release, where Pathfinder fans posit “How many quarters will D&D 5e be ahead of Pathfinder on the ICv2 charts, if any?” It seems most of the wagers were for 1 quarter (getting the release bump, so to speak, with Pathfinder RPG theoretically taking back the top slot the following quarter)...

As of the March 2019 ICv2 report, covering the prior fall (https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/42620/top-5-roleplaying-games-fall- 2018):

1. D&D
2. Legend of the Five Rings
3. Star Wars
4. Starfinder
5. Vampire

I wouldn’t be surprised if PF2 debuts at number 1 for this Fall, but it’ll be at least #2 for sure. We’ll also be able to see the Core Rulebook ranking on Amazon, which will be an indicator, but obviously a good chunk of sales come from Paizo’s store, which wouldn’t be included.

Big fan, Logan, especially of the PHB 3. I found that the later 4e design really was its best stuff, although obviously those people that were highly turned off at the beginning wouldn’t have made it that far. Although I’ve consistently said that I find PF2 to emulate those things I love the most about 4th edition, I’ve never said that PF2 “copies” it (it is clearly its own system). However, I do believe that fans of 4th edition (and there are many, despite what some on the Paizo forums might believe) would be very attracted to this system if the word gets out to them.

Insight wrote:

However, 4e did make a ton of money *and* also led to the even more successful 5e. I suspect if WotC could do it all over again the only major deviation they would make would be to apply some sort of sunset to the OGL (or alternate protections against giving rise to a direct competitor).

You say that 4e led to 5e as if it was all carefully planned, when we can be pretty sure that wasn’t the case. 5e is WotC’s response to 4e’s failure to maintain their 800 lb gorilla position in the industry and I think one of the reasons for its success is the veering away from the carefully structured and complex dance that is 4e into something simpler and more flexible.

And if WotC were able to do it all again, maybe they’d have a sunset clause in the OGL (though we’d all be the poorer for it), but I’m pretty sure they’d also jump right over 4e in order to land on 5e.

Peter Adkison, former CEO of WotC, has been quoted as saying that 4e sold very well. PHB1, 2, and 3 were all on best seller lists at higher spots for longer periods of time than any subsequent Pathfinder supplements (really one of the only metrics we have to compare). My 4e DDI subscription still indicates that there are over 70k unique subscriptions for the service (down from over 700,000 at its peak IIRC). Skipping 4e might have a butterfly effect that not only cost them the substantial 4e profits, but also kept them from creating the 5e they went on to create.

Besides, DeadManWalking provided a handful of problems (from his point of view) that curtailed 4e’s ultimate success. I’m sure that he’d agree that he could enumerate a similar or longer list for Pathfinder that explains why PF was not only not able to prevent to rise of 5e as dominating the industry and market share of new and old players alike, but why PF hasn’t even been able to maintain a spot in the top 5 of tabletop RPGs. Imagine a scenario (though admittedly unlikely) where PF2 actually eventually displaces 5e at the top; I doubt it would be the sentiment of Paizo that “they’d jump right over PF to land at PF2.”

So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless.

The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.

However, 4e did make a ton of money *and* also led to the even more successful 5e. I suspect if WotC could do it all over again the only major deviation they would make would be to apply some sort of sunset to the OGL (or alternate protections against giving rise to a direct competitor).

I use FG to create all of my NPCs and monsters (really I need to to ensure that their stat blocks work with Fantasy Grounds built in automation features; ie recharge, Concentration, saves, damage reduction, immunities, etc).

I’m only seeing five activities under the Medicine Skill: 2 under the Untrained heading (Recall Knowledge, Administer First Aid) and 3 under the Trained heading (Treat Disease, Tread Poison, Treat Wounds). Assuming that Craft suffices for all of these uses, is there an example of an Expert or higher activity, other than Skill Feat prerequisites?

I think one of my posts got lost in the bulk discussion. Any comments on the below?

So the chirurgeon can use Craft instead of Medicine as long as he or she is Trained in Medicine. My reading of this extends to use of Craft instead of Medicine when fulfilling prerequisites for Skill Feats. For example, a chirurgeon Legendary in Craft and Trained in Medicine would be able to take that Legendary feat that let’s you bring people back from the dead. Does anyone concur with my interpretation? If you disagree with the RAW, do you think it seems likely that the RAI is that Craft replace Medicine for all intents and purposes for the chirurgeon?

Which skill is the hired merchant using to perform his contracted task to find this item? That’s right Diplomacy, probably using the Gather Information activity, but also potentially other uses of Diplomacy as well.

Kasoh wrote:

Focus powers are encounter powers

I've seen this comparison made before, but I don't especially agree with it. How easy was it in 4e to use an encounter power twice in the same encounter? Because it doesn't look like it's going to be difficult at all to use the same Focus power twice or even three times in the same encounter in PF2.

4e Essentials characters had a pool from which they could use their Encounter powers, using the same power multiple times in the same encounter if desired. Some classes prior to Essentials also used this model, primarily most of the classes in PHB3, which similarly had pools of points to use their Encounter powers that they could recharge during a short period of rest.

Dynamic lighting is a core feature of Fantasy Grounds Unity, which completed a very successful (10x) Kickstarter a couple of months ago.

Probably the filming itself was just a fraction of the production day. My guess is 2 or 3 episodes filmed per day, with the portion that was filmed edited down a bit.

I second the pitch for Fantasy Grounds. The all in cost is cheaper, FG is more feature-rich (for sure as of Unity), and the ownership is more responsive to the customer-base.

So the chirurgeon can use Craft instead of Medicine as long as he or she is Trained in Medicine. My reading of this extends to use of Craft instead of Medicine when fulfilling prerequisites for Skill Feats. For example, a chirurgeon Legendary in Craft and Trained in Medicine would be able to take that Legendary feat that let’s you bring people back from the dead. Does anyone concur with my interpretation? If you disagree with the RAW, do you think it seems likely that the RAI is that Craft replace Medicine for all intents and purposes for the chirurgeon?

I know that everyone is excited about the Mountain Stance but I kinda like the Wolf one, I just don't really know what the trip trait do, but if it's that every time that you are flanking it let you try one trip attempt when attacking then it's awesome.

And with Flurry of Blows it would be two trip attempts that I think can combine with Stunning Fist, looks really fun.

In the playtest, the trip trait allowed the following three things:

-You could use the trip weapon's reach and add its item bonus to your Athletics attempt to trip (using an action as normal).

-You didn't need a free hand as normally required.

-If you critically failed your Athletics check, you could drop the weapon (if possible), rather than fall prone.

So I can already see some rules ambiguities here. Perhaps the rules will make it explicitly clear how Strikes are defined and how abilities that grant Strikes or modified Strikes interact with each other (like 4e's definition of 'Basic Attack'), but I'm imagining several scenarios involving the monk abilities spoiled here and not sure which are legal.

For example, is the following three action sequence intended to be allowed? Enter Mountain Stance (1st Action) - Ki Strike using Flurry of Blows with two Falling Stone Strikes at +1, dealing 2d8+2d6+8 if both hit (2nd Action) - Falling Stone Strike again (3rd Action).

If Flurry of Blows or Ki Strike can't be used with Falling Stone Unarmed attacks from the Mountain Stance, can one or both be used with other types of named Strikes, such as Wolf Jaw attacks or Lashing Dragon's Tail? Or are the stance attacks mutually exclusive with the Strikes granted by Flurry of Blows and Ki Strike?

Finally, with Ki Strike, do "the Strikes" deal 1d6 extra damage total (since they are combined for damage purposes for Flurry) or does each of the Strikes that hit deal an extra 1d6 damage (for 2d6 extra if both hit, or 4d6 extra when heightened)?

Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).

Ok, I lied, I’m back. :) Many people have noted the poor framework (flavor and distinctiveness) of initial 4e. I actually agree that the PHB1 in particular is pretty horrendous, having not only the least imaginative powers (like many have said, it seems they were spit out of a spreadsheet), but also least powerful (almost all of the options ended up *red* on the CharOp forums, meaning unplayable). However, as 4e went along, not only did the options become much more flavorful, but also far more powerful, more impactful, and more memorable (and not just damage-wise - many powers are similar to the legendary actions available in PF 2, even at lower levels). The stilted and uniform structure so often cited isn’t representative of 4e at all at this point, as each and every rule was eventually broken from top to bottom. That is partly why I am so excited about PF 2, which seems to be starting from a similar point 4e ended at... imagine the actions and powers that will develop as *this* system evolves.

I have little experience actually playing 4E, so I can't comment on this in any informed manner. Which is why I generally keep my commentary on 4E to how it was received (which I have more experience with) rather than how it actually functioned in play.

Good discussion. I'll just make one more point and then bow out for now. How 4e was received on EnWorld, Penny Arcade, and the WotC forums (before they closed) was probably much different than the way 4e was received on the Paizo boards. Even at a FLGS level, the audiences became self-segregating for the most part(in many cases even before 4e released in June 2008, due to perceived disenfranchisement by WotC), and once that happened any feedback about the respective systems would have been within the confines of an echo chamber.

Obviously, I don't see 4e as much of a bomb as you do DMW. While it no doubt spawned a major competitor in a scenario that probably could have been prevented, it was still ahead of Pathfinder (per ICv2) for most of its run, and even when PF took the lead (Q2 2011-5e release), D&D still ranked second. Currently, PF 1 isn't even on the list (https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/42620/top-5-roleplaying-games-fall- 2018). I don't think a return to second place would be seen as a failure for PF2.

I do appreciate your thorough response, and all I would add is that we haven't even started with PF2, and I'm sure that there are numerous more powers to come.

But sometimes these statements about 4e are so divorced from reality that they are very difficult to engage with. It is like Mr. John Lynch's "True in theory, not in practice" response to my experience with 4e encounter tactics. Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "...2 of my last 3 characters (all high level) didn't even have any encounter *attack* powers and for the one that did, none of them were standard actions (and thus weren't competing against my other options anyways). Even if someone did build a character that had a clear encounter power hierarchy, where you could "work your way down" based on the damage level of the attacks (exceedingly rare as is), how would that be any different than a PF/3.5 fighter, especially one that had a feat that said your first attack deals 3x damage, your subsequent attack deals 2x damage, and all subsequent attacks deal normal damage. At any rate, the 4e/PF2 fighter still has objectively more options and tactics available than PF/3.5 (regardless of how much I may be overestimating the level of tactics required for *any system*).

Just that enough were to make it an issue.

Name 10. Since the 4e Compendium shows that there are well over 1,000 individual powers, the exercise should be easy. As a counterpoint, here are over a dozen powers from the Pathfinder Playtest that I might describe as "too flowery":

Dragon Totem Breath
Come and Get Me
Predator's Pounce
Quaking Stomp
Dirge of Doom
Storm Retribution
Verdant Metamorphosis
Revealing Stab
Felling Strike
Incredible Follow-up
Tiger Slash
Whirling Throw
Tangled Forest Stance
Blade of Justice
Stalker's Shot
Sense the Unseen
Twist the Knife
Cognitive Loophole
Glutton's Jaws
Ancestral Surge
Call of the Grave

If I threw "Tide of Iron" in there, it would not be out of place. And not all of those powers, not even some of the martial ones, are "At-will" but rather limited to once per minute or other frequency.

Listen, I obviously can't easily discredit all of your critiques against 4e (vis a vis PF 2), but this one in particular is low-hanging fruit.

And I admit, although I see so many similarities between 4e and PF2 to be exuberant (try to tell me that PF2 multi-classing doesn't resemble more than a passing similarity to 4e multi-classing), if I limited my comparison to just the 4e PHB1 and first year 4e releases, I might not find them that equivalent. But once I take into account 4e's evolution through to Essentials, where 4e eventually got away from the AEDU framework, divorced martial classes from the daily and encounter structure, further differentiated true spell-casting from other pools of focus-like points, evolved the way skills and skill actions worked (including, yes, ensuring that a tree is just a tree), and improved so many other things that appear to have also materialized in Pathfinder 2e, PF2 may as well be D&D 4.5.

I don't see what is so bad about that, other than some people do have a psychological interest in ensuring as few parallels as possible are drawn between the two. But to be honest, the more people try to demonstrate that the two are fairly differentiated, the more things I remember that I hadn't even considered, leading my conviction to increase even more that PF2 is a pretty good follow on to D&D 4.

DMW has a point. The 4e Powers Double Slice, Sudden Charge, or Point-Blank Shot would never cut it as the names of Pathfinder 2 powers.

Agree on the thematic, for sure. Although I will point out that 4e started heading in this direction with Essentials, for which only the magic-based classes got encounter powers.