PF2: Spells!

[Adso]

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.

 

[Arakasius]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[MichaelSomething]

All is one; one is all?

 

[Wrathamon]

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

 

[Shasarak]

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]

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]

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.