Let's Take A Look At Pathfinder 2's Deities & Domains!

prosfilaes · May 4, 2018

shidaku said:
Vancian casting is IMO, a drag on the system.

It doesn't matter. It just doesn't. Will the game sell better if they make such a radical change to it? That's the real question, and I'm going to go with no.

zztong · May 4, 2018

shidaku said:
Reading some of these posts sound a lot to me like: "Ugh, why didn't they account for my specific homebrew when making their game!"

Like, seriously folks?

Or, perhaps "I'm in the market for rules that could be used as a toolkit to implement my homebrew game." Why isn't that perspective serious? I think everyone gets that Paizo has reasons for integrating their game with their world. But consumers make choices based on their needs.

Sunseeker · May 4, 2018

zztong said:
Or, perhaps "I'm in the market for rules that could be used as a toolkit to implement my homebrew game." Why isn't that perspective serious? I think everyone gets that Paizo has reasons for integrating their game with their world. But consumers make choices based on their needs.

Because the language isn't "I wish this were more open to non-Golarion settings." its "What about meeeeee?"

prosfilaes said:
It doesn't matter. It just doesn't. Will the game sell better if they make such a radical change to it? That's the real question, and I'm going to go with no.

If every change, other than very minor incremental ones, is likely to reduce sales, then why make a new game?

Surely Paizo must know something we don't?

prosfilaes · May 4, 2018

shidaku said:
If every change, other than very minor incremental ones, is likely to reduce sales, then why make a new game?

Removing Vancian spellcasting is not "every change"; it's a change that's been argued over for 30 years. "We're exploring new directions" is entirely different from "we're going to remove something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E."

zztong · May 4, 2018

shidaku said:
Because the language isn't "I wish this were more open to non-Golarion settings." its "What about meeeeee?"

I'll admit that emotional part of me internally is saying "What about meeeee? If you're going to make a new game, why not make one I want?"

And the reasoned part of me is saying "I'm happy somebody will be getting something they want, but what's the best direction for me to go? I'd appreciate ease of implementation of a homebrew setting, among other things."

If anything, the PF2e announcement has been good for other companies. I've recently purchased C&C, RuneQuest, and HackMaster in order to take a look.

But anyways, we all make purchases for selfish reasons (unless we're buying a gift) so "what about meeeee" just seems natural. Or maybe I'm just nuts.

Sunseeker · May 5, 2018

prosfilaes said:
Removing Vancian spellcasting is not "every change"; it's a change that's been argued over for 30 years. "We're exploring new directions" is entirely different from "we're going to remove something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E."

Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.

I'm suggesting they go with a spell system that is more fluid and serves the same purpose, spell-points.

What they've got right now is just a horrifying mish-mash of everything.

prosfilaes · May 5, 2018

shidaku said:
Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.

Yet saying that Vancian casting is "something that is clearly reminiscent of D&D, that's one of the notable features of the game among RPGs, and that our {Pathfinder's} audience strongly rejected when it was removed in 4E" is still true. The fact that it's been in the game for two decades is a bad sign; if it was to going to win, it should have won by now. Players could use Player's Options rules (2E) or play a sorcerer (3.x/PF) or a warlock (3.5) or favored soul (3.5) or an oracle (PF) if they didn't like Vancian casting. Yet players played and play clerics, wizards and druids.

Parmandur · May 5, 2018

shidaku said:
Spell Points has been in the game for almost 2 decades now. The Psionic classes have used the system in place of vancian casting for about as long.

I'm suggesting they go with a spell system that is more fluid and serves the same purpose, spell-points.

What they've got right now is just a horrifying mish-mash of everything.

Actually, spell points gave been around since the 70's, Arneson preferred them to Gygax's system IIRC. But, Vancian has proven more popular over time on form or another, at least when computers aren't involved.

prosfilaes · May 5, 2018

shidaku said:
If you want to limit how many "big spells" a person can cast per day, put the limit on the spell, don't bake the limit into the system.

That is baking it into the system. That's an ad-hoc method of having separate pools of spell points, at which point the best direction is the sorcerer, which is not really a spell point system. If you have good general-purpose high-level spells, characters will use up all their points on their biggest spells and then wait for the recharge point. (If you don't have good general-purpose high-level spells, you're making the game much harder to play.) In the current Vancian system, you can use magic missile without it reducing the number of times you can use fireball, or after you've run out of fireball.

I'd say nova-ing is one of the biggest complaints about Pathfinder, so switching a Vancian system for a system that encourages nova-ing is not a good idea.

Charlaquin · May 5, 2018

Parmandur said:
Actually, spell points gave been around since the 70's, Arneson preferred them to Gygax's system IIRC. But, Vancian has proven more popular over time on form or another, at least when computers aren't involved.

Has it really though? I feel like this is kind of a New Coke situation, where even though the majority did actually prefer New Coke in focus testing, those who preferred Coke were much more passionate about it, and were able to sway people who hadn’t tried it or who’s preference wasn’t strong by appealing to tradition.

Like, you’d think if Vancian was more popular overall, you’d see it outside of D&D more. It’s not more popular, it’s just that it has become part of D&D’s identity, at least in the minds of some very dedicated fans, and that dedication holds more influence than a larger number of people with a weaker preference.