Different Ability Scores to Saves

[glass]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

The problem is you bring in too many of it's features and the new game will feel like a revision of 4th ed. Currently we have:

Let see...

* At-will spells that scale. At Will attacks in 4e "scale" once (they gain an extra die of damage at 21st level). Based on what we know, it looks like PF2 scaling will be rather different from that.

* Cantrips potentially no longer need preparing but are just known, even for prepared casters. "Potentially"?

* BAB has been removed from the game. I will give you that one, although it is not a 4e things so much as a "every RPG & edition except D&D 3.0, 3.5, and PF1" thing.

* All classes follow the same universal level-based bonus to Saves, Attack Rolls, Skills (and potentially AC and magic attacks) No, it looks like spell will still predominantly inflict saves rather than requiring attack rolls.

* Races have been incredibly stripped down to a minimal differentiation with racial powers/feats being the only significant difference. There are still stat bonuses too, but even if there weren't "racial powers" and "feats" is hardly "minimal differentiation".

* Passive skills are in the game. I have not seen this one, but OK.

* Ritual magic is in the new game. And based on the little we know so far, the implementation does look quite 4e-ish.

* Significantly increased HP at level 1 is now in the game. Less significantly than 4e, and PF2 still adds Con bonus every level. Not really the same.

* Magic items have a universal limit on how often their "daily" powers can be used. 4e restriction was minor, unnecessary it turned out, and removed by errata years ago. And when it existing it was on top of the individual once per day limits of the items, not instead of them. PF2's system is looking very different.

* Skill Powers are going to be in the game (under the name of skill feats). And under the name of skill tricks they were in 3.5 (and lots of other games have similar things). Not really a 4e thing.

* Basic melee attack is being replaced by specific, mutually exclusive attack powers (I believe Power Attack is one example). Not sure what you mean by that one, but I don't recognise it as a 4e thing.

* Cure X Wounds have been replacing by a minor action healing power to allow healing and hitting in the same turn. Healing and hitting on the same turn is an inherent consequence of the action economy, which is utterly unlike 4e's, and nothing to do with minor actions, which do not even exist in PF2. Comprehensively false.

* Skills are being reduced even further than they were in PF1e with very 4th edish names (Dungeoneering vs Knowledge (dungeoneering). This is kinda true, but once again the specifics are rather different.

* The bonus for untrained skills autoscale with level.Again true, although again the specifics are different.

So, lots of true-on-the-surface-but-different-implementation, with only a couple of instances of not-even-close-to-true, and even a couple that were (based on what we know so far) unequivocally correct. Well above average for someone talking about 4e on the Internet!

_
glass.

[glass]

glass wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

The problem is you bring in too many of it's features and the new game will feel like a revision of 4th ed. Currently we have:

Well above average for someone talking about 4e on the Internet!

That could be taken as condescending (OK, it was a bit), but it was also sincere. A lot of the time when somebody talks about D&D 4e on the Internet (especially here), they get virtually everything wrong.

So apologies John Lynch if you felt I have been picking on you. It is just that there is so damn much misinformation about D&D 4e out there, and it is (along with Pathfinder) one of my favourite games, so I like to correct misconceptions about it when I can. You have born the brunt of that a couple of times recently, but you are obviously not the typical edition warrior repeating nonsense talking points that was everywhere in 4e's heyday, and still pop up from time to time.

_
glass.

[gustavo iglesias]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Huh? We have zero indications of this. I mean, it could be true since it hasn't been specifically and explicitly contradicted, but there's also literally no evidence for it.

Hence the use of the word "potentially". But in your rush to contradict me, you missed my point. Which is: The more rules you have in Pathfinder 2e that were also in 4th ed, the greater the risk you have of people who dislike 4th ed being turned off from PF2e.

The thing is, I can build a more than solid argument that everything you listed in your post is in 5e.

And 5e is not, does not looks like, does not feel, and cannot be mistaken with, 4e. At all. They are in fact pretty different.

So what does that say about your list and PF2?

[John Lynch 106]

Malk_Content wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Of course now I feel like this is some straighr 5e territory now.

Who cares! A good idea is a good idea after all!

Either you are being sarcastic

Me? Sarcastic? NEVER!

gustavo iglesias wrote:

The thing is, I can build a more than solid argument that everything you listed in your post is in 5e.

I don't actually have problems with similarities between Pathfinder and 5e. Mostly because my group hasn't touched 5e so they have no strong opinions on 5e. Pathfinder on the other hand marketed itself as "The not 4e of fantasy roleplaying games" and is the primary reason the original people in my group switched over to it. So while you won't see me arguing "but that's in 4e" I won't seriously say to people voicing such concerns "doesn't matter. Go away. We don't want you here".

glass wrote:

you are obviously not the typical edition warrior repeating nonsense talking points that was everywhere in 4e's heyday, and still pop up from time to time.

Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition was my first tabletop RPG and the game I actually preferred for many years. I played in 3 campaigns, GM'd one for a short while before it fell apart and played a crapload of LFR. Ultimately the flaws in the system showed and I came to appreciate Pathfinder more. But no. I'm not your standard edition warrior.

As for your counterpoints. You are right. Once you get down to the nitty gritty details the specifics are different. I disagree with you as to how much your disagreeing with me on certain points. But ultimately it doesn't matter (some stuff I do just get plain wrong. I haven't played 4th ed for over 5 years now so my memory is a bit faulty). Most of the features I've highlighted are largely similar enough that when combined together ex-4th ed players who disliked the game are going to have a strong likelihood to dislike Pathfinder 2e. At least IMO.

I think the rules of 4th ed could be taken and a much better game of 4th ed could be made that fixed all the flaws and made the game much more enjoyable to a wider range of people. I thought D&D 5th ed was going to do that at one point. I was wrong. However I do not think that a game with the Pathfinder name should be the game to do that.

As for BAB not existing in every game except 3e derivatives. I disagree BAB is a simplifying and tweaking of the math involved with THAC0. Once you get past the superficial differences the two systems are actually extremely similar. THAC0 was simply a codifying and cleaning up of the attack tables from AD&D 1e. The attack tables from AD&D 1e were derived from the attack matrixes from earlier editions of D&D all the way back to chainmail. I'd argue that BAB has been part of D&D since AD&D.

[LuZeke]

Browman wrote:

lets avoid going down the 4th ed road of any stat can be used for anything.

Yes please, let's avoid that as much as possible. I really did not like defenses i 4e (and melee training, int to bab instead of str). It rendered ability score allotment pointless and all characters being even more same-y.

[FaerieGodfather]

To address the OP, in Sellswords & Godwars every d20 roll adds two ability modifiers.

So Fort is CON/CHA, Reflex is DEX/INT, Will is WIS/CHA, and Maneuver is STR/DEX.

[totoro]

FaerieGodfather wrote:

To address the OP, in Sellswords & Godwars every d20 roll adds two ability modifiers.

So Fort is CON/CHA, Reflex is DEX/INT, Will is WIS/CHA, and Maneuver is STR/DEX.

I don't like the INT is similar to DEX angle that 4e introduced and this game seems to carry on. (Or this game introduced and 4e carried on, depending upon the dates.) If WIS didn't straddle the mental modifiers, the adjacent attribute modifiers technique would work better. For example (this is not a suggestion, just an observation): CON-STR-DEX-PER-INT-WIL naturally "wraps around" so that there is a mental toughness (CON+WIL), physical toughness (CON+STR), athleticism (STR+DEX), reaction (DEX+PER), awareness (PER+INT), and clarity of thought (INT+WIL). The reason this works is WIS is split into its constituent parts of perception (PER), which is most related to the physical attribute DEX and willpower (WIL), which is most related to the physical attribute CON. (As a side note, I would turn INT into intuition and get rid of intelligence as an attribute, but that is a long story.)

Another way to put it, wisdom is a combination of not-necessarily-related parts. Just because you have willpower doesn't mean you have perception. Most of the other attributes are a little more naturally siloed.