Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

CapnZapp said:

If you're saying that 5E's implementation of Concentration isn't perfect I agree.

But this discussion isn't about the fine-tuning of 5E. Going back to the overall issue, we were discussing the fact that Concentration-or-something is what finally fixed d20. That Paizo is making a mistake if they give us yet another jumble of 3rd edition bits and pieces with far too few constraints on casters.

Then I made the point that adding a Concentration mechanic (again, or something else) isn't enough. You must also ensure almost every spell is bound by that restriction, or it is meaningless. All that would accomplish is allowing a narrow set of spell choices to dominate, and utterly relegate the vast majority of alternatives to irrelevance.

In that light, I would submit that yes, while 5E might not be perfect, they at least took a giant leap towards actually fixing things compared to the useless refaffing that was 3.5 and "3.75".

By that I mean that Pathfinder might have enormous value because it allowed d20 to live on. But coming close to actually fixing LFQW? (Or even fixing the problems they bragged about fixing) Nope. To me, 3.0, 3,5 and PF are same same but different. Sure 3.0 might have even more imbalances than later models (details about monster damage resistance, psychic combat, what else?), but compared to 5E they're all equally outdated.

If nothing else the existence of 5E should mean no publisher will ever publish a D&D:ish game again without its fundamental upgrades to the magic framework. But the PF2 playtest isn't exactly filling me with confidence Paizo have learned the lessons taught by 5E.

Or even that they have tried to learn them...

Click to expand...

Concentration isn't the be all and end all of balancing spells. In B/X for example a lot of the problem spells just don't exist, and buff spells in AD&D were rare and mostly a +1 bonus (aid, bless, prayer). Buff spells are even more rare in B/X.


Spell design (even 4E tried that in a way) and the way they work with things like saves and spell resistance are other factors as well.

Zardnaar said:

Concentration isn't the be all and end all of balancing spells. In B/X for example a lot of the problem spells just don't exist, and buff spells in AD&D were rare and mostly a +1 bonus (aid, bless, prayer). Buff spells are even more rare in B/X.


Spell design (even 4E tried that in a way) and the way they work with things like saves and spell resistance are other factors as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not saying Concentration is the only solution.

I am, however, saying that unlike 3.5 and PF, 5E provided a solution that actually worked. Why? My personal guess: it was the first time the sacred cows didn't hold back the design.

Not convinced Paizo is able to repeat that... Concentration or no Concentration.

CapnZapp said:

Sure.

I just made the point that just introducing the mechanic isn't nearly good enough, if it isn't then applied to enough spells.

Heck, if we removed Concentration from as little as nine wizard spells, one per level, that would probably suffice to remove its restrictive influence from the class entirely!

Click to expand...

This is very true. The mechanism can either be used to restrain a few powerful spell to be used together (and then the impact is pretty limited) or, as you say, be very ruthless in its application.

The logic seems to be "a caster can only do one "big thing" at a time". And when I think about it, it's an action economy thing. If a control-focused wizard is suppressing a bunch of foes with say, hypnotic pattern, and then in the second round was to use another control spell while still using hypnotic pattern (ie there is no concentration), there are two consequences:

1. it's super powerful. Using a control spell to incapacitate half the foe is a fight winning move - or at least a fight evening move. But if you can just keep layering them on, by round 3 *every foe* is controlled, and that's just too much!

2: The action economy: In round 2, your are getting the action from round 1 "bleed" over to round 2! A fireball chucking wizard, or a fighter swinging her sword, they have to keep spending action to do things. It's not like "ok, the enemy takes 8d6 damage from my fireball, and another 8d6 from the fireball I tossed last round!". So concentration is the "price" you have to pay for having that action from round 1 persist.

I'm all for it because it imposes an important limit on what casters can do, but it also makes spell choice more important and interesting. What will you use your concentration slot on? What non-concentration spell do you have in your backpocket? Do you want to use your concentration on a movement spell, a defensive spell or a control spell?

Wizards can still layer defenses, but these defenses are not incredibly potent. You can have mirror image, mage armor and shield together, but no longer do you have these "haha I'm immune to everything" casters running around... and that's a good thing IMO

ANYWAY

To get back on pathfinder - they are using a concentration mechanism of sort, tied to the action economy (making explicit what 5e did). But, as you said, the real question will be how ruthless they are in applying this mechanism.

Erekose said:

I'm sure this must have been talked about before but I can't find a relevant thread . . . it just occurs to me that given that Pathfinder became a haven for people that didn't want to move from 3.xE D&D to 4E, what will happen if "most" buyers of Pathfinder products stay with 1E rather than moving to 2E?

This isn't really a question about the relative merits of 1E and 2E so much as a query about where the bulk of Paizo's revenue comes from for Pathfinder. If it's the adventure paths rather than the rulebooks, then wouldn't low sales of 2E mean they might continue with 1E adventure paths?

That said, it's seems likely that the new adventure paths will be designed such that you can play them easily with either edition . . . so maybe it's a moot point?

Click to expand...

Going back to the original topic...

Yes it's a real risk PF2 will turn off both groups.

PF1 fans because the incompatibility and maybe lack of sacred cows.

5E fans if they find out that PF2 means a return to the old bad days of linear fighters, quadratic wizards. And NPCs that take hours to build (and equip) but mere rounds to kill.

I think there's a real opportunity and a huge market for a game with 5E's sensibilities but a much richer charbuild experience (without drowning the DM in prep work), more complex high-level gameplay, and robust magic item pricing

As for the original thread, definitely PF1. However, if Paizo can create an easy conversion system, I'm willing to try. As an adventure path subscriber from the start, I'd rather not change the ruleset unless it is easily adaptable to the next. One of the reasons I never played 4e.

Conversion systems are overrated.

CapnZapp said:

Conversion systems are overrated.

Click to expand...

Why?

MockingBird said:

Why?

Click to expand...

The only conversion system that really works in all cases is this:

1. Look at your old-system character sheet.
2. On a blank paper using basic English only, write down what the character can do. Use no numbers and no game terms. Focus on what the character actually does most of the time, and not the things it can theoretically do but usually doesn't.
3. Burn the old character sheet.
4. Create a brand new character in the new system, using the plain-English description from step 2 to guide you.
5. Done!


Every attempt to map specific game mechanisms and numbers from one system to another is bound to fail eventually, and is likely so cluttery and complex all it accomplishes is giving off a veneer of accuracy while still not giving acceptable results half the time.

Even for relatively close systems, like AD&D to Pathfinder, or d20 to 5E for example.

It's not worth it. Just go with my system instead. It has the benefit of always working, no matter which systems are involved!

CapnZapp said:

Conversion systems are overrated.

Click to expand...

What's more overrated is scrapping an entire library (and hundreds of $$$) for a new rules system that is not backward compatible...

Just my opinion...

Taliar said:

What's more overrated is scrapping an entire library (and hundreds of $$$) for a new rules system that is not backward compatible...

Just my opinion...

Click to expand...

And not just you.

I agree so far as: IF they break compatibility, which they seem firm on, they better make a game that appeals to customers used to 5E sensibilities.

As you yourself illustrate, just appealing to PF1 fans might not be good enough, especially given the lack of backwards compatibility.