Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[Staffan]

Someone made a comment about wizards in 5e being hobbled by attunement slots and concentration, but I can't find it...

I think that this is a necessary step to reduce the linear fighter, quadratic caster problem.

I think something like concentration is necessary. Concentration as-is takes things a little bit too far, I think, but the error in that direction is much smaller than the error in the other direction used to be.

I have a memory of reading a blog from a D&D designer (pre-5e - it might have been Rich Baker, but I'm not sure) who floated an idea about casters being able to maintain two spells at once, one offensive and one defensive/enhancing. That sounds roughly right to me. That would still keep wizards from being invisible, flying, hasted, and stoneskinned, but would allow them to have fly and hold person up at once.

 

[Staffan]

What I meant was this: if each bonus lowers the hit ratio by 5pp (percentage points), once you reach 30%, maybe each bonus only lowers the hit ratio by 2pp, and once you reach 15%, only by 1pp. (Not saying this is practical for a simple game).

Armor in WoW works something like this, or at least it used to (although with damage reduction rather than hit probability). It uses a formula which looks like armor has diminishing returns, but works out so that adding the same amount of armor always adds the same percentage increase in "effective health" (if you have 100 hp and your armor reduces damage by 50%, you have 200 effective hp). So if N armor gets you 50% damage reduction, 2N armor gives you 67% and 3N armor gives you 75% - at least in theory, I think there's a cap of 70% or so as well.

Of course, something like that would be totally unworkable in a pen-and-paper RPG, but it's a neat idea.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think something like concentration is necessary. Concentration as-is takes things a little bit too far, I think, but the error in that direction is much smaller than the error in the other direction used to be.

I have a memory of reading a blog from a D&D designer (pre-5e - it might have been Rich Baker, but I'm not sure) who floated an idea about casters being able to maintain two spells at once, one offensive and one defensive/enhancing. That sounds roughly right to me. That would still keep wizards from being invisible, flying, hasted, and stoneskinned, but would allow them to have fly and hold person up at once.

What 5e has tried to do is to thread that needle by having both concentration and non-concentration spells. It's an interesting approach, and it imposes difficult choices on casters. It is possible to layer non concentration defensive spells, but they aren't very potent... although if you have mage armor, mirror image *and* shield in your back pocket, you should be safe for a little while!

Having 2 concentration slots, but only one for offense and one for defense, sounds difficult.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yes.

Or something.

I don't think 5E's particular solution is necessary.

My point is that 5E finally did something that actually fixes LFQW.

That is the necessary part: fixing it.

If someone doesn't think LFQW is a problem I have nothing in common with that person.

If Paizo fixes it another way that would be fine too. What is entirely insufficient would be the PF1 approach; claiming to have fixed 3E while in reality being indistinguishable from it in any way that counts.

Pre-5E such an argument could be dismissed. Not so now, when I know for a fact 5E has implemented certain comprehensive fixes to the D&D framework, without which no DnD game should ever be published.

Doesn't need to be the same solutions, as long as it's real solutions.

What I think there is a minimal market for, is a Pathfindery game with all the flaws and merits of PF1 while offering zero compatibility.

If you want a d20 game, Pathfinder 1 is for you. If you want PF compatibility, Pathfinder 1 is for you.

But if you want something new, you'd better realize we live in a post-5E world.

A PF2 game with all the pre-5E flaws regarding spells and magic would come across as horribly antiquated. A relic out of touch with current reality.

I'm not saying that Concentration and atunement slots is the only way to fix it (btw, I think atunement slots are great but they aren't there to fix LFQW, but an other problem, but I digress). I'm sure there are other clever ways...

But concentration is rather elegant. AND LFQW has been a problem for ages! (note, can't comment on 4e). If it was an easy problem to fix, it would have been fixed earlier. Finding another good solution might be *very* challenging.

 

[Aldarc]

Unless it has been changed, I believe that PF2 will require that spellcasters will require using at least one of their three actions per round to maintain a concentration spell.

 

[CapnZapp]

Why not? Captain America can. Conan the Cimmerian can. Media is full of people - not even magic people - who would really rather not get stabbed, even though they are perfectly aware of the fact that they can survive it.

They obviously aren't using DnD-like (including PF etc) game mechanics.

Or maybe they do, and their loss of hit points is just invisible to you.

Which is exactly how I recommend you run hp in your DnD-like games.

Why? Because arguing that each hp lost means blood was drawn simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The thing you need to accept with hp is that they are an abstract representation of many things: morale, brawn, determination, pain... and physical health of course - but that's just one aspect.

If somebody "stabs" you for 7 points of damage, the result could be anything from
- you're getting mildly irritated (you have 123 hp left)
- a momentary scare, but luckily you dodged in the last instance (you got 12 hp left)
- a nasty gash, blood pouring out, but you're not dead yet (you have 3 hp left)

The attack and numerical result is identical in all three cases (deducting seven point from your hp pool), but with wildly differing results - that don't just depend on your own status.

If that stabbing attempt was the last thing that happened in the combat, feel free to roleplay your pain and anguish. But if it was a mere opening move, and you're about to fight freely for three more rounds, obviously you don't feel the pain and the blood loss wasn't enough to make you wobbly.

Ends justifying the means here. Sorry if this comes as a shock to you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Concentration isn't a terrible thing, but I wish that you could remove concentration by using higher level slots on lower level spells. Like say a 3rd level slot on a first level spell would remove concentration, so that you could do more stuff when you need to, but consumes more resources at the same time.

I agree on that point, but I was more talking about 5e where so many things are concentration

To me, it is clear WotC is a victim of their own success.

There is nothing that says relaxed magical constraints would destroy 5th edition, but now they've tied themselves to the mast with their "the PHB is like holy write - not a single sentence can be improved" stance.

I have given up hope WotC will ever improve their game. At least until the lead devs get replaced. Which I don't see happening soon - the current situation is exactly how Hasbro wants it: lots of profit with a miniscule team.

They're not about to rock the boat just to please veteran gamers. In fact, they still dream of turning the D&D brand into a social media sensation and ultimately into a Marvel or Disney: with movies and merchandise, where the real money is.

Thinking like a ttrpg:er? Nope. It's suits and brands all the way. They aren't interested in providing a satisfying experience for veteran gamers.

 

[CapnZapp]

That would be true, if weapon attacks were the only way to interact with the game, but 95% immunity to weapon attacks is not even the same thing as 95% immunity to damage, let alone 95% freedom from consequences. As a tank, my job is to not get hit, and a failure rate of 30% is unacceptable. That's the one thing I do. We wouldn't bring a dedicated lock-picker into a dungeon, if they had a 30% failure rate at picking locks.

Sorry but now you're thinking like a player and not a game designer.

If you roll a die, and 19 times out of 20 nothing happens, that's just sucky game design.

Not to mention the reason this approach was abandoned: it makes for spiky probabilities, and a poor balancing mechanism. (If a monster is supposed to threaten you, its damage must take out a significant chunk of your hp with each bite, if that only happens very seldom. But then if it rolls 20 three times in a row you're dead and you can't do anything to prevent it.)

Not to mention the old conundrum with one party member's defense much better than the rest: either a monster challenges the others and is trivial to you, or the monster challenges you but is lethal to the others...

 

[CapnZapp]

I think something like concentration is necessary. Concentration as-is takes things a little bit too far, I think, but the error in that direction is much smaller than the error in the other direction used to be.

Again, this

 

[CapnZapp]

What 5e has tried to do is to thread that needle by having both concentration and non-concentration spells. It's an interesting approach, and it imposes difficult choices on casters. It is possible to layer non concentration defensive spells, but they aren't very potent... although if you have mage armor, mirror image *and* shield in your back pocket, you should be safe for a little while!

Having 2 concentration slots, but only one for offense and one for defense, sounds difficult.

My point is:

I sincerely hope Paizo looks at 5E, and tries to improve upon it, rather than ignoring it and "doing their own thing".

Their track record for being able to fundamentally leave d20 is not exactly stellar.

Making perfect might be difficult, but there is absolutely no reason to present a game this fall that is a throw-back to the old bad days. (If I wanted to play a LFQW game, I always have Pathfinder 1!)