Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7641855" data-attributes="member: 5142">Let's back up. I said that PF2 appears to be tweaking the curvature of LFQW. You replied by saying: However, this is fundamentally what 5e did to 3e (in the context of spellcasting): it tweaked the curvature of LFQW. We can even talk about the particular changes that it made to spellcasting in this regard (e.g., removal of auto-scaling spells, removal of bonus spells based on ability scores, concentration rules, removal of some key spells, etc.) or even alterations that actually favor the QW even more (e.g., neo-Vancian casting, cantrips). The QW is still there in 5e, but its rate of acceleration has been changed. When I said this, your response was a non sequitur because you claimed: My statement is in no way about underestimating 5e or its popularity. My statement was a recognition of the fact that WotC took steps in tweaking the curvature of the QW in 5e. LFQW is not gone in 5e. It has been curtailed from its more egregious excesses in 3e. PF2 is working on curtailing LFQW as well. We can compare how 5e and PF2 tweak the LFQW curvature. (Or soon will be able to once we have the books.) Some of their methods will be similar. Some will be different. Spells will have different spell levels, effects, and write-ups. This will lead to different results. You may prefer how 5e does it over PF2. You may think that PF2 does not curve it enough. That's fine. But that does not change that both are fundamentally tweaking the curvature of spellcasting from its 3e/PF1 precedents, which flies against your entire point in your second quote above because 5e tweaked the curvature.</blockquote>

Verification