PF2: Spells!

[houser2112]

The business opportunity was the abandonment of the 3x rules framework and existence of the OGL creating a vacuum that could be exploited. The "existence of legions" had to be proven through taking the risk of pursuing the opportunity. There's plenty of examples should we look for them of folks complaining about something and not converting that angst into real spending.

I'd say the existence of unhappy 3.x fans was more important to the success of Pathfinder than the OGL. The existence of the OGL would have been useless without the demand for product utilizing it. They would have been harder to satisfy without an OGL, but not impossible.

Go back to 1E and read how combat flowed from an initiative standpoint. (10 phases to a round etc.) Then read 2e. Completely different flow.

I seem to remember segments being a thing in 2E, but I'll take your word for it. I have no desire to delve into 2E arcana.

Out of combat is informed by combat. So if you say - I'm going to go with map based combat only and structure AEDU, then that resolution format will affect everything else. D&D is a combat game. 4E was far more of a radical shift and required to be different from Pathfinder and the previous rule set to show value against the competitor.

So you agree that 4E substantially changed both combat and out-of-combat.

I agree regarding resonance. Right now it doesn't make much sense to me, but it depends on if there are other structures that essentially treat living things like mana batteries. If it's the only available use of the mechanic it sounds silly, but if the mechanic is a small part of how magic works in the game system then I'm ok with it. Just has to be consistent.

I think 5E's solution to the spells-on-a-stick "problem" is more elegant than what I've seen of Resonance.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules?

Presumably new gaming experiences under the auspices of a potentially better gaming system that is more conducive to consumer preferences.

From a 5E perspective, I don't see much value in a system that does the same thing I already have (heroic fantasy), but without the best parts (Bounded Accuracy, for instance) and more math and paperwork.

From what I gather from Paizo's statements, this is a different flavor of "heroic fantasy" than what 5E caters to. Similar, but distinct. Pathfinder 2 appears more oriented towards "epic heroic fantasy" with more larger-than-life characters capable of fantastic physical feats of dashing and daring, such as the high level fighter who jumps 6 meters up in the air or cutting through an army of orcs. Bounded Accuracy is the "best part" of 5E if you want the game aesthetic that Bounded Accuracy fosters, but that aesthetic should not be regarded as universally desirable. I also think that Pathfinder 2 will have its own set of "best parts" that 5e will lack as well so I am all for the innovations that it brings.

4E was a complete rewrite of not just combat, but out-of-combat as well. It was also with 4E that WotC explicitly said "you're wrong to like the old D&D", rather than the very soft landing of 5E.

It is worth lifting your point up here because Paizo has not said "you're wrong to like the old Pathfinder." If anything, they have been incredibly happy that people still like and play it. However, I think that as a company they would like the opportunity to turn their innovations and insights made in the 10 subsequent years of publishing 3.PF materials into a more cohesive system that reflects where they are now as a company and their own changing consumer market. I think that it is less about abandoning the d20 system, but instead about having a chance to modernize the d20 system with 18+ years of experience under their belt.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well, if someone already has all the material they need from a lifetime of gaming, what is the value proposition in a new, incompatible set of rules?
.

What's the value of a new ruleset?

It could be better. I had stopped running 3.x games (too time consuming) and I didn't like 4e. 5e brought me back to d&d. For my needs and tastes, 5e is better. PF2 may be better for other people.

 

[Arakasius]

I play in two different PF1 campaigns (one as DM) and we throw out way too much of the PF1 ruleset to realistically say its a good system out of the box. Heavily modded it works well enough until math/etc just breaks down past level 10. From what I'm seeing they're keeping the complexity of builds (perhaps even making builds more complex) while simplifying the game play experience.

That being said this spells blog is pretty much very similar to PF1. In the end what really changed here? Level 10 spells won't matter to 99% of players so it's really just free heightened spells and how it ties in with the action economy. So far spells is the least changed part of the PF1 game system. It's subtle improvements, but nothing huge.

 

[houser2112]

That being said this spells blog is pretty much very similar to PF1. In the end what really changed here? Level 10 spells won't matter to 99% of players so it's really just free heightened spells and how it ties in with the action economy. So far spells is the least changed part of the PF1 game system. It's subtle improvements, but nothing huge.

I think the change to make saving throws more granular is a pretty big change. I think I recall one of the Paizo people saying that it's better to use a spell that has a higher chance for a critical fail over another that may have more base damage. That affects the calculus of spell choice considerably.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I'd say the existence of unhappy 3.x fans was more important to the success of Pathfinder than the OGL. The existence of the OGL would have been useless without the demand for product utilizing it. They would have been harder to satisfy without an OGL, but not impossible.

Of course, but then you're moving goal posts. The success had from taking advantage of an opportunity is not the same thing as the opportunity existing or taking the risk in the first place.

I seem to remember segments being a thing in 2E, but I'll take your word for it. I have no desire to delve into 2E arcana.

Yes, but worst roll moving first is not 2e. It is 1e.

So you agree that 4E substantially changed both combat and out-of-combat.

It had to. However, from a design viewpoint that's an emergent property of combat changing so significantly that it affected every other part of the system.

I think 5E's solution to the spells-on-a-stick "problem" is more elegant than what I've seen of Resonance.

Can't really say you're right or wrong without seeing the whole system once PF2 is final. If resonance ends up being a term that sets up a way to enable depth in the magic system I'm down with it. If it's the equivalent of "how many hit points does a wall have", I'm going to have a problem with it.

 

[Parmandur]

What's the value of a new ruleset?

It could be better. I had stopped running 3.x games (too time consuming) and I didn't like 4e. 5e brought me back to d&d. For my needs and tastes, 5e is better. PF2 may be better for other people.

I'd agree; I was speaking to why a PF diehard who is still basically playing 3.X might be less than thrilled with the break that PF2 is shaping up to be.

 

[Minicol]

I am dubious about this new system.
While this seems a good idea on paper, I see a lot of potential for abuse. I also really dislike the four lists

 

[Morrus]

I'd say the existence of unhappy 3.x fans was more important to the success of Pathfinder than the OGL.

The Dragon/Dungeon magazine subscription carrying over to Pathfinder was the instrument of Pathfinder’s rocket ride to success. Nobody else could have done it.

 

[houser2112]

I am dubious about this new system.
While this seems a good idea on paper, I see a lot of potential for abuse. I also really dislike the four lists

I think the idea of the four lists is elegant, at least in theory (I think it should be even more granular). Doing it this way makes the system more extensible in the future, especially for 3rd party content. I've run into this when compiling all of the 3E psionic content and trying to port it into PF. Porting powers created when there were only 3 manifesting classes into a system where there are more is problematic. You either have to accept that Psions, Wilders and Psychic Warriors have huge power lists compared to Cryptics and Dreads, or you have to individually evaluate every power to determine which class power lists it's appropriate on. I see this new way as a good way to mitigate the problem.