The “nice things about 4E” thread has me thinking about the connections of 4E to #Pathfinder2E. Stephen ( @DelveRPG ) and I worked on both games, and both had perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of 4E. So we pulled forward good parts that aligned with Pathfinder’s style.

One of those being giving GM robust tools to build things and to understand the game engine. PF1 has the 3E “build a monster like a character” thing which needs a lot of finesse and time to have it work correctly at the table. There’s a lot of “how,” but far less “why.”

We did shift the round-by-round tactics vs. resource management vs. character building balance of the editions quite a bit. P1 had a LOT of importance in character building, often hyperfocusing on a routine and limiting encounter tactics (especially if you needed full attacks).

So we deliberately made tactical decisions more of an emphasis with more freedom in the actions you can take and a smaller numerical scale to avoid the ability to stack bonuses as high.

There were also 4Eisms that we didn’t go in intending to replicate, but made it in in some form. Focus spells are similar to encounter powers in many respects, but came about as a way to reinforce your core thematic shtick more frequently without it crowding out all other things.

One of the things I found unsatisfying about 4E was how dry the player stuff can be. Going back to read those books, especially the early ones, can be real boring. If I’m not actively *selecting* a power, reading it isn’t going to be interesting.

So in the focus spells example, there’s an explanation for how they work and how they cycle. You can get back a focus point by doing something relevant to your class: meditating, praying, etc. There’s a character beat that reinforces the meaning for your character.