log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2: Spells!

Adso

First Post
This goes a long way. I appreciate the response.

for me it has to do with reading things like "first introduced in ..." "never played 5e so not aware of what they are doing" paraphrasing

but as a video game designer for 20+ years ... I play everything. And, I am honest when we get inspired by other games.

If I read an article, or interview mentioning hey yes we loved some of the changes that 5e & 4e did and we feel our spin on those same ideas is what's good for pathfinder, then I might be more interested in it.

I've read more of we're doing our own thing and yet those ideas are so similar that it feel disingenuous to me. I dont care if they are similar, or complete clones of mechanics. Good idea is a good idea. I just want to feel like it's not paizo being afraid of the backlash if they mention the other game as inspiration or do you truly believe that PF2 is completing designed in a pathfinder 1 vacuum?

I have to admit ... I normally do not have negative emotional feelings when a new game comes out. If anything I'm the opposite. I am actually not having any bad feelings about the game designs I am reading. It's the PR.

thank you for your time

Hmmm. In nearly every interview I've had on P2 I've talked about my experiences working on 3.x, 4e, Star War Saga Edition, Pathfinder, and Shadow of the Demon Lord. I've also talked about my experiences playing AD&D (both editions) and 5e. I play in a reasonably regular 5e game (War cleric...he kicks some serious ass, thank you very much), and the fact that some of my favorite designers and good friends worked on that edition and I think they did a great job.

I'm also very inspired by other games that I play. Lately, I've been very inspired by the games that come out of Studio Tomahawk in France. They are historical miniatures games, but some of the best designs are coming from miniature wargame studios. You are right. Inspiration is interaction. I'm often inspired by movies, TV shows, books (both fiction and non-fiction) and talks with good friends. I jump on any chance I can get to talk with Robert Schwalb and James Lowder. I feel smarter after a conversation with those folks.

And I'm just a piece of that puzzle. One of the great things about Paizo is that we all see things from different points of view and backgrounds. Some of us love Magic: the Gathering, Pokemon Go, Indy RPGs, Cosplay, Dr. Who, various anime, and other things that I respect, but just can't get into. And we try to synthesize those views to make great games. We are all a bundle of influences, not mad scientists brewing up something from nothing.

Don't confuse some aspects of marketing speech as the actual territory. We are proud of what we are doing. We all stand on the shoulders of various giants that we enjoy. We each love being the shoulders other will stand on to push forward their own inspiration and design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Arakasius

First Post
I think he's holding too much to a comment made about the magic system in that it was one of the first things made for PF2 3 years ago when D&D 5e was also in development. I think it was Mark who said that he didn't play 5th but ended up getting to a similar type system.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Mark also made a comment about having been too busy working on PF2 to have paid attention to what WotC was doing with 5e in response to comments about the Proficiency system being similar to 5e’s. Which is weird to me since the PF2 Proficiency system looks totally different from the 5e Proficiency system in my opinion.
 

Adso

First Post
To be fair, I don't think Mark is disingenuous. He's a pretty honest fella. I think he was talking about his experiences during the project.
 

Mark Seifter

First Post
I think he's holding too much to a comment made about the magic system in that it was one of the first things made for PF2 3 years ago when D&D 5e was also in development. I think it was Mark who said that he didn't play 5th but ended up getting to a similar type system.

That's true, but even then, as Stephen said, everything is based on a mixture of influences and ingenuity. In the same post, I mentioned that I was influenced in various little bits by magic systems for various RPGs I have played, including the 3e Unearthed Arcana spell point system and the augment system for 3e psionics. No idea is ever totally brand new, even if we all put our own twists on how they come together, so I'm not surprised 5e used some of those ideas in their spellcasting system as well; after all, 5e was designed by a really talented team, and in my opinion, it's a particularly fun idea! :)
 


Wrathamon

Explorer
I would love to see more comments like this from the designers. I love seeing how you are influenced.

My feeling is ...

If for some reason the designers decided to use the advantage system for PF2 (I would be fine, as long as it felt like it would be good for your game). I feel the playtest public messagewould be something like "in this product we made" we had a mechanic where you rolled 2 d20s and picked the best one, or during early playtests 5 years ago we had an edge system where you rolled 2 d20s instead of +2 to hit when flanking and we're going to bring that to PA2... and then people would ask "uh that sounds like 5e advantage" and the response would be something like I've never played 5e. <-- I can't possible believe that someone did not read the competitors PHB and play at least once to see what the industry leader is doing next.

What I would like to see more of is ... players seem to love rolling more d20s in 5e, so we decided to try it out in our playtest to see if pathfinder fans love it. If not, we won't use it! or here is our take on a similar system to see if fans have an interest in something like this. Here are the differences. ... and then ask the fans. I dont know maybe I want more transparency?

I also want the designers to do what is best for their vision of the game and ultimately what their fans will enjoy.

Like I said it's the business/pr/marketing speak that is coming out ... and yes some of the things others have posted above. It's not the actually design. I think the shield idea is pretty cool. I like less complexity than I have been seeing, but they're not bad ideas.

I just get irked by marketing speak to make certain ideas seem as original thought, opposed to inspired or evolutionary. I love seeing innovations, evolutions and even homages in new products. Keep up the good work.

I'll try not to read too much into the "hype wording" and just look at the mechanics that are being presented.

Again, I thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I said was too harsh. I normally don't post negative opinions like this ... It's not easy making a game and I respect all designers, writers and artists who put their work out their to be judged.

You rolled a natural 20 on your community management skill check
:)
 
Last edited:

Shasarak

First Post
As far as other folks are concerned, I've yet to have a good chat with a 3.X loyalist that had a good argument for why they don't want PF2 other than spending money. This is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the game itself or merits compared to other versions.

Be well
KB

I guess my best argument for not wanting PF2 is that there is no PF2. There is not even any PF2 Playtest until August.

My second best argument would be Resonance but that is without even being able to see the rules yet.
 

Shasarak

First Post
Not only in your experience. That was also the main reason why we didn't care for magic item creation in 3e (okay and the fact that using myriads of exp for high level items would have made no sense at all for the creator... You wish to buy a headband of intellect? Okay, gotta slay a dragon to get enough "resources")

It used to be common to have to kill Dragons for "resources" before 3e. For example it is very difficult to make Dragonscale Armour when the Dragon is still using its Scales.
 

Arakasius

First Post
They do like rolling dice, in fact their new method for scaling magic weapons is very much like that. +1 weapon being roll an extra damage dice for the damage bonus instead of +1 static. I don’t think they’re willing to go as far as advantage. Advantage suits 5e fine, but PF does want more skilled players (or higher level ones) to have advantages. Thus bounded accuracy is not something they are going for and neither is advantage. There is still going to be static bonuses, they just won’t be as big as they were in PF1 or with as big a number spread.

I think they’ve been pretty transparent on the boards, but they’re in a tough spot. They are still working on the play test documents so they can hardly respond at the pace the Paizo forums demand it. They’ve done a good job in firefighting rabid posters there but it’s hard when they can only release the information in dribbles. Maybe it would have been better if they just had done the splurge and then nothing til the play test came out, but that wouldn’t be fun for us and would likely cost them money.

To Mark and Stephen I’ve liked pretty much all the changes you all have proposed, even resonance. (In fact I like that better than some other things) I do have a concern with feat overload and keeping track of what different levels of proficiency does but the overall mechanics of the game proposed so far (specifically actions, spells and magic items) I’m a big fan of.
 

Wrathamon

Explorer
They do like rolling dice, in fact their new method for scaling magic weapons is very much like that. +1 weapon being roll an extra damage dice for the damage bonus instead of +1 static. I don’t think they’re willing to go as far as advantage. Advantage suits 5e fine, but PF does want more skilled players (or higher level ones) to have advantages. Thus bounded accuracy is not something they are going for and neither is advantage. There is still going to be static bonuses, they just won’t be as big as they were in PF1 or with as big a number spread.

btw I wasnt suggested they do that ... it was just a hypothetical example. They should make design calls for what is best for their game based on design instincts and player data.

Getting actual play feedback is invaluable and I am sure they know that, which is why they're doing a public playtest. Watching players actually play is more valuable than any survey or random internet post.

I'm a bit curious why they didn't go for a simple inexpensive download playtest document and instead did an arted up printed book series along with the download. Seems like a lot of work, and not like people need proof in their ability to create high production products. They have a very long history of showing that.
 

Arakasius

First Post
btw I wasnt suggested they do that ... it was just a hypothetical example. They should make design calls for what is best for their game based on design instincts and player data.

Getting actual play feedback is invaluable and I am sure they know that, which is why they're doing a public playtest. Watching players actually play is more valuable than any survey or random internet post.

I'm a bit curious why they didn't go for a simple inexpensive download playtest document and instead did an arted up printed book series along with the download. Seems like a lot of work, and not like people need proof in their ability to create high production products. They have a very long history of showing that.

Well for the art I assume much of it will translate over to the real release corebook. As for the play test document there is a free pdf to download but when they did PF1 they found there was a lot of desire for a printed book because people were going out and printing 450 page document at Kinkos. It doesn’t take long for that to be more expensive than just buying a 40 dollar book, especially since the printed pages will be much lower quality.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
"Wish" in Pathfinder has a material cost (a diamond worth 25K gold) and not an XP cost. "Wish" in 5e has no associated cost other than a 9th level spell slot.
Well, having to find or acquire a diamond worth 25k gold is still a significant restriction. You cannot just cast the spell whenever you feel like it.

I've not really looked into 5e beyond the initial beta phase. So there's no way to restrict the casting of wish spells in any way? Interesting. I wonder how that works out. At least that explains why the Pathfinder 2 designers are fine with the idea, I guess.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Well, having to find or acquire a diamond worth 25k gold is still a significant restriction. You cannot just cast the spell whenever you feel like it.

I've not really looked into 5e beyond the initial beta phase. So there's no way to restrict the casting of wish spells in any way? Interesting. I wonder how that works out. At least that explains why the Pathfinder 2 designers are fine with the idea, I guess.
Well... “no way to restrict the casting of wish spells” is definitely not how I would describe it. It’s simply that the restriction doesn’t come in the form of a resource cost, beyond the spell slot. In addition to the standard “the DM interprets your wish and has permission to give it unintended consequence if they want” clause, if you use Wish to do anything other than reproduce the effect of a spell of 8th level or lower, you start taking damage every time you cast another spell until you rest, your strength drops to 3 for 2d4 days (days spent doing nothing but rest count as double), and there’s a 33% chance that you’ll never be able to cast Wish again.
 

Jhaelen

First Post
Well... “no way to restrict the casting of wish spells” is definitely not how I would describe it. It’s simply that the restriction doesn’t come in the form of a resource cost, beyond the spell slot. In addition to the standard “the DM interprets your wish and has permission to give it unintended consequence if they want” clause, if you use Wish to do anything other than reproduce the effect of a spell of 8th level or lower, you start taking damage every time you cast another spell until you rest, your strength drops to 3 for 2d4 days (days spent doing nothing but rest count as double), and there’s a 33% chance that you’ll never be able to cast Wish again.
I see. That's rather harsh, actually.

As I said, I have (had) no idea, how wish works in 5e.

But that means I'm again baffled by Pathfinder 2's idea of doing away with any restrictions - unless there are some significant strings attached to casting any level 10 spell, apart from requiring a sufficiently high character level.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
@Ancalagon
The third comment by JRutterbush is very interesting. They speculate that there will be four spell lists (Mental, Spiritual, Material, Vital) and that different classes will get access to a portion of those lists.

The division of spells into four main themes − mental, vital, material, and spiritual − is something I have been doing and posting about for years (mostly at the former wizards .com forum site, but there might be some posts here too).

What they are calling ‘vital’, I call ‘lifeforce’, but the foursome is otherwise identical.

I created this thematic spell list because all D&D spells can be organized by one or more of these four themes. It works excellently because it makes users of magic *feel* different from each other. It is a marriage of flavor and mechanics.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
I feel Wish needs to be a level 10 spell that all mage classes gain.

Wizards get Wish in the sense of Wish.

Bards get Wish in the sense of artistic creation.

Clerics get Wish in the sense of miracles.

And so on. Wish is the summit of all roads to magic.
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
My requests for P2 ...

• make psionics normal, where to go for charm, divination, telekinesis-fly-force

• remove polytheistic setting assumptions, keep the cleric class setting neutral

• make gridless theater of mind easy, removing grid-required mechanics, like opportunity attacks
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Adventurer
I love magic, and 3e is good in many ways at high magic.



A fourth request for P2 ...

I hate the material component, because it always feels like the ingredients are magic, not the mage. I prefer innate magic.

4e and 5e are tolerable because you can replace material component with an implement focus like a wand.

But it would be even better, if a character can use ones own voice, or hands, or eyes, or thought, instead of the material component. Make the magic be ones own character.

Make magic feel more innate. Eschew the material component for players who hate it!



Especially eliminate the ‘costly’ material component that requires gp, or gp disguised as diamonds. Wealth is too dependent on setting, and is *impossible* to balance around. It is a nonsense mechanic that only causes problems for worldbuilder DMs.

Likewise eliminate the xp component, if any. If the entire game revolves arounds ‘spending’ xp to ‘purchase’ permanent features it might work, but for D&D, it just distorts party advancement.



Some bard concepts just *sing* (or recite poetry, or do political oration). Make sure the bard can also eschew the instrumental material component. This is especially important to me because the historically accurate skald − the viking style bard − only sings and never uses musical instruments of any kind. (The skald also associates with a kind of galdr magic that relies on improvisational chanting and translates into D&D as protective ‘abjuration’ magic including healing and resurrection, and even Wish, called ‘need’.)



Using a material component for a ritual that takes about 15 minutes, is fine, however, preferably non-consumable unless it inherently requires consumption, like drinking a glass of wine. In this case, the ritual component might substitute the use of a spell slot.

Even when creating magic items, I still want to keep gp costs out of the balancing formulas. Level appropriate magic and resonance are better mechanics for magic − including magic research.
 
Last edited:

Yaarel

Adventurer
The P2 announcements so far suggest ‘the most common combination is Verbal and Somatic Casting actions for 2 total actions’. I appreciate the absence of a material component. Make the 100% absence of a material component possible.

On a related topic, I worry about most spells requiring ‘two actions’. Where a fighter normally gets one attack per action, the wizard only gets one spell turn. Ironically, in this case, it is a case of exponential fighter, linear wizard! It is easy to imagine the fighter becoming too powerful at the highest levels and the wizard significantly less power than the fighter. Prevent the power imbalance from simply reversing with the all-powerful fighter now the problem.

I want real balance among all the classes at all levels. So players can just pick their favorite archetype, or whatever they are in the mood for, and not feel cheated because of serious imbalances.
 
Last edited:

Advanced Rules Miscellany

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top