| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the '3.75' thing mostly stems from Pathfinder being a backwards compatible evolution of D&D 3.5, which was itself and evolution of D&D 3rd edition, while being distinctly not D&D 4th edition.
Since it's no longer derivative of D&D 3.X (or any other edition), it's just kind of... Pathfinder 2, now.
Significantly less so for PF2 than PF1. You might as well call it DnD 1.998e
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think to give the respect and love that Paizo deserves for this unique product we should all call it what it is.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very important. Let me crunch the numbers.
It's derived from a system that was itself derived from D&D 3.5. But D&D 3.5 came from D&D 3.0, which itself borrowed some elements from Ars Magica.
Now, Ars Magica came out in 1987, and if you rearrange those digits you get 8791. 8791 divided by 3.5 plus 3.0 equals approximately 2514.714.
Archetypes have their inspiration in D&D 3.0's prestige classes, but also bear similarities to AD&D 2nd edition's kits--specifically the version from Skills & Powers, or AD&D 2.5 as some know it. But they're also a refinement of the archetypes introduced in both Pathfinder and Starfinder 1st editions. 2.5 minus 1 minus 1 equal 0.5.
2514.714 multiplied by 0.5 equal 1255.357. Since the books are quadrilaterals, we'll take the square root of 1255.357, which rounds out to 35.459.
Therefore, I propose that Pathfinder 2nd edition be known forever hereafter as Advanced Dungeons & Magica 35.459.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).
I kinda of agree with this one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to describe pf1 as 3.5.5, so following that versioning scheme, 3.5.10 probably fits.
That said, if we are going full software, it should be 3.5.2
That said again, pf2 is it's own beast and I cant think of a clever versioning scheme
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a development of PF1 or D&D 3.X, rather it is its own thing. For better or worse. A new version number - PF2 - is IMO the best description. Or a new name, but they didn't go there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a development of PF1 or D&D 3.X, rather it is its own thing. For better or worse. A new version number - PF2 - is IMO the best description. Or a new name, but they didn't go there.
Yeah, pretty much that. If it was an evolutionary step then we could be messing with decimal version numbers, but it's an entirely different thing compared to its predecessor.
Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).
Now that you mention it, I'd have to go with that one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a development of PF1 or D&D 3.X, rather it is its own thing. For better or worse. A new version number - PF2 - is IMO the best description. Or a new name, but they didn't go there.
Having spent most of the last year running scenarios from 1st edition and D&D 3.5 in the playtest system, I disagree. The math is different, but I've been able to run old modules as is by just subbing in stat blocks and swapping gp for sp. (Same encounter composition, same NPC levels, etc.)
What makes a new edition vs a new game varies from person to person, but I think 2nd edition has more compatibility than some people suspect. From my perspective, it's closer to converting basic D&D to AD&D than, say, converting material between any of the last three editions of D&D (where using an old module meant having to rejigger encounters, overhaul treasure allocations, and alter the basic structure of many NPCs).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 only bares a passing resemblance to D&D 3.5, which is basically to say it's a d20 game.
Outside of that, there's not much similarity (mechanically).
So no. I wouldn't call it any of those things.
Its just PF2.
WDnDENIOT
Was DnD Enhanced Now Its Own Thing
3ActD20 (sounds like "react d20")
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
4.5
It's pretty much the same design philosophy that went into 4E and a lot of the same choices. Just leaving out or fixing some of the worst parts of 4E
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What D&D version number would you give 13th Age?
I think PF2 is nearly that far away from the main D&D line.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What D&D version number would you give 13th Age?
Anybody who doesn't refer to 13th Age as D&D 13th Edition is dead to me.
PF2 really isn't very similar to 3e - it shares as many, if not more, design elements with 4e and 5e...
I think it shares those design elements for good reason: multiple groups of designers wanted to fix the issues in 3.x, and it's understandable that those fixes would look similar. I'd say it's certainly closer to 3e than 4e was, which is the important part. I *liked* 4E, but understood that many saw it as too much of a departure. I'm hoping that PF 2E has the advances in design people have made over the last decade, while still feeling like Pathfinder, and from what I've seen so far I think it will succeed in that regard.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it’s only Third Edition if it comes from the Third Edition region of France. PF2 is more like sparkling d20s.
I could see the comparison to 4th related to classes getting abilities at various various levels. I think it has things in common with D&D 5th such as adding level to proficiency and the 3 action economy. So for me maybe 5.5.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the comparison to 4th related to classes getting abilities at various various levels. I think it has things in common with D&D 5th such as adding level to proficiency and the 3 action economy. So for me maybe 5.5.
I think we played very different D&D 5.
I guess so. With adding proficiency in 5e and no tiered progression it is more similar to 5e than 4th or 3.5. The action economies are different than each other but have more in common than the action economy of 3.5. So yup not too sure what 5e you were playing.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's proficiency system is only similar to 5e's on the most baby's-first-comparative-statement level. The fact that PF2's proficiency system is designed to ensure a high level character will absolutely destroy any number of low level enemies where 5e's makes it so that a sufficient number of town guards have good odds of slaying a dragon is one of the most important distinctions between the two systems. It sets them up as being suitable for completely different narratives.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess so. With adding proficiency in 5e and no tiered progression it is more similar to 5e than 4th or 3.5. The action economies are different than each other but have more in common than the action economy of 3.5. So yup not too sure what 5e you were playing.
The common one, where you have a few choices at character creation, exactly one at 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level depending on class, and a handful of chances to set ability boosts on fire over 20 levels,
If PF2 has any resemblance to the playtest, you've got to make multiple small (and some not so small) choices every level. That makes them pretty distinct.
So does the action economy, frankly. 5e defaults to free move + attack or spell most of the time. PF2 makes for a lot of juggling, and movement based character is going to struggle to accomplish much at the same time.
Also, yeah, the math and power levels embraced are quite different.
The base mechanics are still the same. The range is different but how the proficiency works is the same. It is not tiered approach like 3.0/3.5. It does not work like 4 e which centered on daily, encounter, and at will powers. The action economies are different but have more in common than the do with 3.0/3.5. So at it base it is similar to 5e. They are two different games though. Range and depth of character choice separate the two. I do think it has more in common at its base with how it works than 3.5/3.0 or 4th.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that PF2's proficiency system is designed to ensure a high level character will absolutely destroy any number of low level enemies where 5e's makes it so that a sufficient number of town guards have good odds of slaying a dragon is one of the most important distinctions between the two systems. It sets them up as being suitable for completely different narratives.
This is the way I judge these sorts of questions (and I agree with your synopsis).
Systems are close or far apart based on the feel of playing them in my view rather than on numerical/terminology similarities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am guessing the fact it's hard to call it D&D X.Y is kinda of a good thing for the game identity xD
Proficiency is how the game works. You add it to a d20 roll. This is how 5e works. So yes proficiency is the main similarity. But it is the core of how the games work like rolling d20. Range and character choice are different. I think they have more in common at their core than 3.5/3.0 or 4th.
PF2 really isn't very similar to 3e - it shares as many, if not more, design elements with 4e and 5e...I think it shares those design elements for good reason: multiple groups of designers wanted to fix the issues in 3.x, and it's understandable that those fixes would look similar.
It certainly helps when many of the 4e developers worked on PF2e.
I'd say its 4.5
For those saying it is it's own thing: sounds a lot like how 4e was marketed. Also Paizo use to be proud of their 3.5 roots. How the times change :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very important. Let me crunch the numbers.
It's derived from a system that was itself derived from D&D 3.5. But D&D 3.5 came from D&D 3.0, which itself borrowed some elements from Ars Magica.
Now, Ars Magica came out in 1987, and if you rearrange those digits you get 8791. 8791 divided by 3.5 plus 3.0 equals approximately 2514.714.
Archetypes have their inspiration in D&D 3.0's prestige classes, but also bear similarities to AD&D 2nd edition's kits--specifically the version from Skills & Powers, or AD&D 2.5 as some know it. But they're also a refinement of the archetypes introduced in both Pathfinder and Starfinder 1st editions. 2.5 minus 1 minus 1 equal 0.5.
2514.714 multiplied by 0.5 equal 1255.357. Since the books are quadrilaterals, we'll take the square root of 1255.357, which rounds out to 35.459.
Therefore, I propose that Pathfinder 2nd edition be known forever hereafter as Advanced Dungeons & Magica 35.459.
I see a major error in your calculation. The books are 3D, so we should find the cube root of 1255.357.
Therefore, Pathfinder 2 is actually Advanced Dungeons & Magica 10.7875399th Edition!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just put "D&D 6e" on the cover. That should boost sales.
Considering how much the game deviates from it's 3.0 or 3.5 roots, and my own personal opinions, I second whoever was arguing for dnd 2.5.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly helps when many of the 4e developers worked on PF2e.
Uh...I'm examining the credits pages on both the 4E PHB and the PF2 Playtest Rulebook. There are precisely two names in common (Stephen Radney-Mcfarland and Logan Bonner) in regards to development and design work. I would not characterize two people (out of over 20 on PF2, more on D&D 4E) as 'many'.
The actual design teams (ie: the people who come up with the core engine) have no overlap whatsoever (Logan Bonner and Stephen Radney-Mcfarland are both on it for PF2...but neither were on it for 4E).
I'd say its 4.5
There are certainly similarities, but I see at least as many to 3.5 and 5E as to 4E.
For those saying it is it's own thing: sounds a lot like how 4e was marketed. Also Paizo use to be proud of their 3.5 roots. How the times change :(
Nobody from Paizo has commented here. Taking this thread to reflect their feelings on the issue is pretty weird.
The 3.X system (Skill Ranks & BAB & Save Modifiers...) seems pretty different from the 5e's level-based Proficiency modifiers and PF2's Proficiency + Level system. I'd call that more than just terminology.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.X system (Skill Ranks & BAB & Save Modifiers...) seems pretty different from the 5e's level-based Proficiency modifiers and PF2's Proficiency + Level system. I'd call that more than just terminology.
This is fair, but in terms of skills specifically, PF2's skill system isn't very similar to 4E or 5E's either. Both of those are binary in different ways (you either have skills or you do not...there are a few exceptions in 5E who get Expertise, but it's generally a Class Feature, and even that is only three levels of skill).
PF2's mid point, with Skill Ranks, but only in limited numbers and adding level to all trained skills, plus larger bonuses at more training, has as much in common with the Skill Points of 3.5 as it does with that.
It's also a much more robust skill system than...quite possibly any other D&D/PF iteration simply because of the major subsystem that is Skill Feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic concept of how PF2 is doing skills is quite sound, if they execute it properly it'll be the best job of it in the D&D-esque crowd imo. The skill system is one of the weakest pieces of PF1 and absolutely needed to be iterated on in some way.
BAB and Saves as presented in PF1 are just the same concept of "thing goes up automatically based on character level" that proficiency is, just with a weird fractional system that doesn't make any sense to the uninitiated. A level 4 Wizard in PF1 is more accurate with a melee weapon than a level 1 Fighter assuming all other things are the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF 2E can be rewritten as the complex number:
DND 3.75 + .25i
PF 2E can be rewritten as the complex number:
DND 3.75 + .25i
So approximately 3.75832409 e^(0.0211893047 i π)?
PF 2E can be rewritten as the complex number:
DND 3.75 + .25i
only a quarter imaginary?