"My Pathfinder Spoiler" Glimpses At Pathfinder 2

CapnZapp · Jun 14, 2019

Aldarc said:
But what is the metric you are using? How close does the martial-caster balance in PF2 have to be for you to consider it sufficient? What if it is less than 5e but still far more than 3e?

My concern is that LFQW will basically remain. Thank you for agreeing to the basic premise, by the way - that it has no place in a 2019 game.

It takes a concerted effort to really banish LFQW (to 5E-like levels).

Just reading about the basic rules for magic tell us nothing, unfortunately. All we can glean from that is that LFQW isn't assured.

The important question is if any limitations can be circumvented by canny players. The two hot-spots will be high-level wizard (or equivalent, such as "prestige" class) abilities (look out for anything resembling "you may cast this spell without adhering to [X limitation]") and individual spell descriptions (can this spell be cast without [Y limitation], perhaps using a higher-levelled slot?)

In other words, we need to know the entire system before we can tell whether Paizo pulled it off. Loud cries of "my wizard is underpowered!!" is a good sign. It likely isn't underpowered - it's a frikkin' wizard after all - but that the route to OP is not obvious is good.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 14, 2019

CapnZapp said:
"A game published in 2019 needs at least the same level of caster-martial equality as 5th Edition has proven can be done while still keeping the Dungeons & Dragons experience or its reception will consider it out of date".

That assumes D&D 5E is keeping in the D&D experience, which is not an opinion that's universally held. It also assumes that D&D 5E has casters and non-casters that are roughly comparable in their abilities, which is equally contentious.

Granted, the balance of 5E is much better than the balance of PF1; and 5E feels more like D&D than 4E or PF2 (playtest) does; and it would be a mis-step if PF2 was much worse than 5E in either of those categories. But saying that PF2 needs to match or beat 5E in those categories is setting the bar absurdly low.

Aldarc · Jun 14, 2019

CapnZapp said:
My concern is that LFQW will basically remain. Thank you for agreeing to the basic premise, by the way - that it has no place in a 2019 game.

I haven't agreed with that though. Me saying that I prefer LFQW does not mean that I agree "that it has no place in a 2019 game."

The important question is if any limitations can be circumvented by canny players. The two hot-spots will be high-level wizard (or equivalent, such as "prestige" class) abilities (look out for anything resembling "you may cast this spell without adhering to [X limitation]") and individual spell descriptions (can this spell be cast without [Y limitation], perhaps using a higher-levelled slot?)

In other words, we need to know the entire system before we can tell whether Paizo pulled it off. Loud cries of "my wizard is underpowered!!" is a good sign. It likely isn't underpowered - it's a frikkin' wizard after all - but that the route to OP is not obvious is good.

But as I already showed, 5e also has ways to circumvent some of the restrictions on spellcasting, not all but a fair number.

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

Saelorn said:
Granted, the balance of 5E is much better than the balance of PF1; and 5E feels more like D&D than 4E or PF2 (playtest) does; and it would be a mis-step if PF2 was much worse than 5E in either of those categories.

That's exactly my point!

But saying that PF2 needs to match or beat 5E in those categories is setting the bar absurdly low.

I take it you don't love 5th Edition...?

But seriously, I'm a bit impressed - I haven't been accused from that particular angle before!

So you're saying PF2 should strive to feel much much more like D&D than 5E, and that it should scrub out LFQW much much more thoroughly than 5E does?

Whelp, that certainly makes my position look very plain and vanilla. Reasonable, or dare I say unremarkable, even! Thank you!