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.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s also worth noting that this 4 lists thing is still speculation. When directly asked, Siefter didn’t confirm or deny it, but kind of vaguely hinted that they might be doing something along those lines, but that there will be some surprises. Which is notably different from the response when folks correctly guessed the Proficiency system (to which he said simply, “you’re on the right track.”)

 

[Wrathamon]

the designers of pathfinder are great at story & presentation ... and great at presenting wotc designs as their own.

I use to love paizo ... but, they are trying too hard to spin and dont feel honest to me. They lost me as a customer.

 

[Adso]

the designers of pathfinder are great at story & presentation ... and great at presenting wotc designs as their own.

I use to love paizo ... but, they are trying too hard to spin and dont feel honest to me. They lost me as a customer.

Well, that's a bit harsh considering some of use used to work for WotC and designed some of that source. Just say'n.

I would also challenge anyone to say that I either spin or am not honest...but you know, your feelings are your own, and I hope that we will regain you as a customer some day. In the end, the only thing we really want to do is make fun.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Pathfinder RPG Senior Designer
Paizo, Inc.

 

[Arilyn]

I really like the direction Paizo is taking with spells. The new ideas seem more interesting and streamlined. I like the scaling, and the decision with the components. Components have always felt tacked on, and don't actually interact smoothly with the caster's magic. Looks like this new system will change this in a good way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do hope that spells that do use material components have some example components, if only for the fun of it.

 

[Blue]

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.

You want a fully available example of parallel evolution, look at how much 5e mimics 13th Age. 13th Age is a d20 game by Jonathan Tweet (one of the 3.0 lead designers) and Rob Heinsoo (4e lead designer). They solved a bunch of problems. Then 5e came around, and solved the same bunch of problems in mostly the same ways.

This isn't anything new - PF has close genetics to D&D, and that include inheriting the same class of problems.

 

[TwoSix]

You want a fully available example of parallel evolution, look at how much 5e mimics 13th Age. 13th Age is a d20 game by Jonathan Tweet (one of the 3.0 lead designers) and Rob Heinsoo (4e lead designer). They solved a bunch of problems. Then 5e came around, and solved the same bunch of problems in mostly the same ways.

This isn't anything new - PF has close genetics to D&D, and that include inheriting the same class of problems.

I'll be honest, while I see them sharing the same heritage, they actually seem like they go in fairly different directions from the shared 3e/4e base. I'm curious as to what you see as the strong parallels between the two.

If nothing else, 13th Age has a great warlord-esque class, so it has the most important distinction from 5e.

 

[Blue]

I'll be honest, while I see them sharing the same heritage, they actually seem like they go in fairly different directions from the shared 3e/4e base. I'm curious as to what you see as the strong parallels between the two.

If nothing else, 13th Age has a great warlord-esque class, so it has the most important distinction from 5e.

If you look at where 3ed and 4e where, from there to 13th Age and from there to 5e are very similar.

Some of the issues they solved was extreme streamlining in order to play faster. Removal of tactical play from the base and moving to theater of the mind. They both came up with upcasting spells in higher level slots to keep them relevant.

Again, thsi isn't saying it plays exactly - they don't and neither will PF & 5e (or PF & 13th Age -- just that their DNA shapes a lot of the positive that they kept, and shaped a lot of negative that came up with parallel solutions.

Many of the 13th Age unique points come not from that shared ancestry, but from concepts that evolved in more narrative games, like their One Unique Thing, and Backgrounds. 5e tried this some with Inspiration. (Though the Escalation Die was purely a solution to combat grind and pacing that is easily yoinkable and used in 5e.)

 

[Charlaquin]

If you look at where 3ed and 4e where, from there to 13th Age and from there to 5e are very similar.

Some of the issues they solved was extreme streamlining in order to play faster. Removal of tactical play from the base and moving to theater of the mind. They both came up with upcasting spells in higher level slots to keep them relevant.

Again, thsi isn't saying it plays exactly - they don't and neither will PF & 5e (or PF & 13th Age -- just that their DNA shapes a lot of the positive that they kept, and shaped a lot of negative that came up with parallel solutions.

Many of the 13th Age unique points come not from that shared ancestry, but from concepts that evolved in more narrative games, like their One Unique Thing, and Backgrounds. 5e tried this some with Inspiration. (Though the Escalation Die was purely a solution to combat grind and pacing that is easily yoinkable and used in 5e.)

I don’t really think “extreme streamlining” is a solution to a problem. “The game needs to be streamlined” is a problem, and 5e and 13th age solve that problem in different ways. For example, 13th Age streamlines skills by removing the idea of a skill list entirely and using backgrounds, which players put points into and the GM and player work together to determine when a background’s bonus is applicable to the roll. 5e kept the skill list, but instead streamlined skills by removing the concept of assigning points in favor of a binary trained/untrained system. Same problem, different solutions, both of which lead to a streamlining of the game.

 

[Jhaelen]

Perhaps I have missed something, but how is that different from getting Wish from 9th level spells in PF1 or D&D?

Mostly this:

XP Cost: The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

In my experience (sic!) players were quite reluctant to cast spells with an xp cost.