Take A Look At Pathfinder 2's Revamped Magic System!

This blog post got me hyped! Everything in here looks awesome, especially the formatting of the spells, which is very nostalgic for me as a 4e fan.

 

[houser2112]

Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.

Care to explain...?

I can't speak for Erdric, but PF2 is looking like it's very different than PF1, more like a completely different game than a patch on the old game. Whether this is a good thing is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure this can really be disputed the more we learn about it. For a game that basically came into existence because of 3.x nostalgia, I can understand where people who were big fans of 3.PF are coming from.

 

[DaveMage]

It is kind of weird how much this edition seems to be taking the good parts of 4e and 5e. If they really haven't looked at 4e or 5e much, parallel evolution is a hell of a thing.

Well, some of the people who worked on 4E now work at Paizo, so.....

 

[CapnZapp]

I can't speak for Erdric, but PF2 is looking like it's very different than PF1, more like a completely different game than a patch on the old game.

Yeah, well, just like AD&D and 5th edition aren't directly compatible doesn't mean they aren't the same game.

(And so is Pathfinder)

It's time to let d20 go. If you absolutely must play that specific ruleset, I recommend 3E (and PF1).

Thanks for clarifying, though.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I can't speak for Erdric, but PF2 is looking like it's very different than PF1, more like a completely different game than a patch on the old game. Whether this is a good thing is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure this can really be disputed the more we learn about it. For a game that basically came into existence because of 3.x nostalgia, I can understand where people who were big fans of 3.PF are coming from.

The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.

AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5
2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat.
3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.
4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.
5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.

I liked first edition, read all the books for 2nd but didn't run it. Liked third edition, didn't see the point of Pathfinder. Loved 4th edition, and my opinion of 5th is neutral. I see the point of Pathfinder 2 and I'll probably choose that over 5e but jury is out. Generally, I don't like rules lite. On one hand it's good because it simplifies things, but on the other it can lead to sloppy abstraction.

What I'm seeing of PF2 looks like it could provide a good framework for a GM to build off of and not have to detail every abstraction for the rules set to feel right at his or her table for his or her reasons.

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

 

[houser2112]

Yeah, well, just like AD&D and 5th edition aren't directly compatible doesn't mean they aren't the same game. (And so is Pathfinder)

I'll grant that these games share a lot of vocabulary, but under the hood, they are very different.

It's time to let d20 go.

Do you say this to the fans of even older systems?

If you absolutely must play that specific ruleset, I recommend 3E (and PF1).

I imagine there are going to be many players that do just that.

 

[Parmandur]

The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.

AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5
2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat.
3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.
4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.
5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.

I liked first edition, read all the books for 2nd but didn't run it. Liked third edition, didn't see the point of Pathfinder. Loved 4th edition, and my opinion of 5th is neutral. I see the point of Pathfinder 2 and I'll probably choose that over 5e but jury is out. Generally, I don't like rules lite. On one hand it's good because it simplifies things, but on the other it can lead to sloppy abstraction.

What I'm seeing of PF2 looks like it could provide a good framework for a GM to build off of and not have to detail every abstraction for the rules set to feel right at his or her table for his or her reasons.

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

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? Then again, the fully bought-in crowd for Pathfinder 1E is probably not a growth market at this stage, from a business sense. Which is what the same folks were more or less told by WotC in 2008, so #triggered.

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. It seems to be alienating the 3.x purists, while maintaining some of the least enjoyable parts of 3.x. Time will tell how that works out in the market.

 

[Morrus]

Goodbye, Pathfinder, nice knowing what you used to be. Now they've become their own RPG system completely irrelevant to the last.

I’ve never heard anybody refer to theirself as “the last” before. Is that a new thing the kids are doing?

 

[houser2112]

The game was successful because of the 3.x crowd, but it came into existence because Paizo saw a good business opportunity and jumped all over it.

This seems like a distinction without a difference. The "good business opportunity" was the existence of legions of 3.x fans that suddenly became unsupported.

AD&D is to BECMI as Pathfinder is to 3.5
2nd edition was a serious change from AD&D if you were actually following the RAW of AD&D Combat.
3rd edition was a serious change from 2nd edition if again, you looked at combat.
4th edition was a near rewrite of 3rd edition, again looking at combat.
5th edition pretty much told everyone that liked 4th edition that they were wrong to like it as it rolled back some things to a mix of all editions prior and streamlined things.

From a rules standpoint, other than streamlining the hit tables into THAC0, I don't see much difference between 1E and 2E. From what I've seen, you could use 1E books in a 2E game without any effort. Fluff-wise, wasn't 2E where TSR did the whole tanar'ri/baatezu hogwash?

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.

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.

I am such a loyalist, but I'm undecided about PF2 at this point, because I haven't seen enough to make that judgement. The only thing I've seen that I really don't like is Resonance. The entire point of magic items, to me, is they are a non-character-based resource.

 

[Kobold Boots]

This seems like a distinction without a difference. The "good business opportunity" was the existence of legions of 3.x fans that suddenly became unsupported.

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.

From a rules standpoint, other than streamlining the hit tables into THAC0, I don't see much difference between 1E and 2E. From what I've seen, you could use 1E books in a 2E game without any effort. Fluff-wise, wasn't 2E where TSR did the whole tanar'ri/baatezu hogwash?

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.

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.

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.

4e to 5e is not a soft landing for those who like 4e. But I do see your point of view.

I am such a loyalist, but I'm undecided about PF2 at this point, because I haven't seen enough to make that judgement. The only thing I've seen that I really don't like is Resonance. The entire point of magic items, to me, is they are a non-character-based resource.

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.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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? Then again, the fully bought-in crowd for Pathfinder 1E is probably not a growth market at this stage, from a business sense. Which is what the same folks were more or less told by WotC in 2008, so #triggered.

People age out of playing these games. It's the rare crowd (probably aligns well with those on this forum) that feel the pain of new editions. Still, I think that this rare crowd can be and may likely be the bridge between generations insofar as that provides value.

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. It seems to be alienating the 3.x purists, while maintaining some of the least enjoyable parts of 3.x. Time will tell how that works out in the market.

Sure. I can definitely see that. For the time being, I'll sit in the "I like imperfect cause part of the fun is making it right for my group" camp. If it stinks, I'll likely move closer to your point of view.

 

[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.

 

[Stereofm]

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.