So LFQW does matter to you? Interesting, because my entire argument is that I believe it matters to every PF2 customer that has experienced 5E.
LFQW matters to me, but I still don't think that you have a solid argument here. You haven't actually demonstrated or provided any evidence that your assertion in this last clause has any factual basis. I don't think that we can make so puerile of a reductionist argument that people leaving PF1 for 5E is evidence for your claim either. There are many contributing factors for game choice. Laying this at the feet of LFQW is redonkulous.
Many playtesters for 5e, for example, also did not express much care about LFQW balance either, though they did want the exesses of spellcasting from 3.X curbed. 5E also won over many Old School fans, and these are fans who largely don't give a shart's care about LFQW. It also won over many new fans who know jack shart about LFQW. Read ENWorld threads around 2014-2015, and people were still talking about how 5e reintroduced LFQW to D&D. Most people though didn't care about this sort of class balance.
I consider this a bad-faith argument. Who cares about 4th edition? It did a lot of things. None of them matter.
You can consider it whatever you want to, but (1) that doesn't necessarily make it a bad faith argument, and (2) it doesn't change the fact that 5E rolled back on the balance changes that 4E contributed to fixing LFQW. Regardless of however I or you may feel about LFQW, it's not necessarily even in the top 10 preference reasons for some systems over others for most people. Sorry. Hard truth.
Sorry this is not relevant to the issue discussed. LFQW is fixed by 5E. Comprehensively and fundamentally. Nothing about components change this.
I disagree. LFQW is still present in 5E - the utility power of wizards remains astronomical compared to fighters - but the curvature for wizards' power has been somewhat reduced, mainly through the removal of autoscaling, lack of bonus spells, reduced duration for buff spells, and newer concentration rules.
More nonsense I'm afraid. That Wizards revert back to the bad old days is hardly an argument to let them keep their stratospheric tier.
Your other argument, well, I will leave it without comment. It's embarrassing.
5E provides Wizards a greater degree of flexibility and power than PF2 affords them in this regard. I am not using this to justify "[keeping] their stratospheric tier," but, rather, pointing out how wizards in PF2 will suffer limitations that 5e wizards do not experience. Spontaneous prepare-casting was a fairly huge boon for wizards in 5e, and actually mostly a net positive for them between 3e to 5e.
However embarassing you may think that my comment is, you should be more embarassed by the fact that you demonstrate no actual knowledge of the PF2 playtest and its rules despite your boisterous criticisms of the game.
Let me cut you short there, since I'm sure you're not really trying to argue PF2 won't have very powerful spells...
Who cares a specific first level spell is less powerful. I'm absolutely convinced it will be easy to find PF2 spells that are more powerful than their 5E couterparts. This tells us nothing.
It tells us that you can't just judge the power level of spellcasters between systems based on things like concentration alone. We have to look at how spells are written and function within their respective systems. Some spells will requiring being purchased with class feats: you will have to take a wizard feat to gain a single 10th level spell slot. 10th level spells include Wish, Time Stop, and Gate. This means that in 5e a wizard can cast Wish at 17th level, whereas in PF2, the wizard will need to be 20th level and take the appropriate capstone feat to do so. Yes, PF2 has added 10th level spells to the game and divided spells more evenly between these 10 levels. The Fly spell, for example, is now a 4th level spell in PF2 as opposed to being a 3rd level spell in 5e. (Also, worth noting, since you mentioned it that Invisibility is a concentration spell that lasts up to 1 HOUR in 5e. In PF2 playtest, it is not a concentration, but it only lasts for 1 MINUTE. Same is true for Improved Invisibility, which is just Invisibility heightened to 4th level.)
But a bigger issue is this.
I would say a bigger issue is that you haven't put in any actual effort to understand PF2 nor do you demonstrate much of a knowledge-base to factually criticize it any actual form. This wouldn't be a problem if you either (1) showed any honest intent to follow-up on researching PF2, or (2) shut your yapper about it.
None of you have said Paizo should keep LFQW.
Not even once have anyone lept to the defense of LFQW. To me, that's very telling.
WHat it tells me is that we live in a post-5E world, and that Paizo will be ridiculed if their PF2 game only pays lip service to the notion of curbing LFQW.
The idea that not defending LFQW is indicative of us living in a post-5e is essentially a non sequitor. It's a spurious assertion that is unconnected to the actual findings and requires a jump in logic or reasoning. Many of us would not have defended it in 3e either, a decade before there was even a 5e. It tells you that people aren't keen to defend LFQW. Nothing more. It was not exactly a secret that 3.X drastically increased the power level of spellcasters. It was not a secret that Pathfinder 1 inherited the base 3.X system. It was not exactly a secret that 4e fixed LFQW by presenting balanced martial and spellcasting classes. It was not exactly a secret that 5e rollbacked that balance. But it's not as if 5e was the messiah system that came and delivered us from LFQW. Most people are content with LFQW in 5e since it curbed its excesses from 3e while being an easy-to-run system.
The only way to prevent LFQW is to make it impossible for Wizards to do the whole buffing game, and to force them to make hard choices every single step of the way. I'm sure that's a hard sell to the core PF1 aficionados, but that is likely because they haven't experienced 5E. They can't imagine D&D without LFQW.
Let us hope against hope that Paizo can imagine Pathfinder 2 without LFQW. Mark my words.
You are ignoring the BIGGEST change that 5e made to spellcasters that actually helped curb spellcaster power level: removed the autoscaling of spells and bonus spells. As [MENTION=29840]Steffan[/MENTION] already explained, PF2 is making similar changes. I'm not sure why your eyes keep glossing over this fact.
Also I think that your idea that "the core PF1 aficionados" haven't experienced 5e is also unsupported ramblings. Go to the Paizo message boards any? Many of them have played 5e. There are a number who have played 5e and also intend to play PF2. There are a number who have played 5e and intend to play PF1. There are a number who have played 5e and intend to play Starfinder. It's not necessarily because they can't imagine a world without LFQW, but, rather, because they just prefer the system(s) even with its flaws more than what 5e offers. I know that you think that the sun shines eternal out of 5E's arse, but not everyone prefers it (or its "fixes") the way that you do. The sooner that you recognize that fact, the sooner you will be able to enjoy games on their own merits and stop trying to make PF2 into 5e.
