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.