Two thoughts on Pathfinder 2e playtest

[Parmandur]

The trick is that the formula there is almost exactly what it was in 3e, except that they've given names to all of the different kinds of bonuses and penalties.

From a game designer perspective it makes sense - you want to be as precise as possible when you're designing the game. From a game learner perspective it looks kind of ridiculous when it's spelled out like that. If the formula were written as:

number on the die + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance/conditional/item bonuses - circumstance/conditional/item penalties

it would be less weird. If it were:

number on the die + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + bonuses - penalties

It would be basically describing D&D since 3e. Though 5e worked to get rid of a lot of bonuses/penalties by introducing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic - though arguments can be made that that mechanic doesn't have enough granularity compared to bonuses and penalties.

(I do think that there's an argument to be made that the playtest rules feel like they are too "game designer" focused rather than for a more 'general audience'. I don't know if that's because it's a playtest document or if they're making the same "mistake" that Wizards did with 4th edition in that respect, but I can see it.)

The 5E formula is number rolled + Ability mod + Proficiency mod. Bonuses and minuses might apply, but those are exceptions rather than rules. So, outside of corner cases or special abilities, all that is needed is the die roll and two static numbers prominently displayed on the character sheet.

Now, a game doesn't have to be quite so streamlined and elegant, but...it is attractive.

 

[mellored]

The 5E formula is number rolled + Ability mod + Proficiency mod. Bonuses and minuses might apply, but those are exceptions rather than rules. So, outside of corner cases or special abilities, all that is needed is the die roll and two static numbers prominently displayed on the character sheet.

That's the same as PF2.

Except that the same type bonuses/penalties (item/conditional/circumstance) don't stack.


That said, I still prefer 5e's +1d4 bless over PF's +1 to bless. More fun to roll dice than add a static number.

 

[Arakasius]

Yup except the example for bonuses/penalties given by ccs is 5e. Right now since every buff in PF2 is conditional 5e is actually worse with modifiers than pathfinder. You can stack things in 5e that you can’t in PF2, and the two systems have mostly the same buffs.

 

[mellored]

Yup except the example for bonuses/penalties given by ccs is 5e. Right now since every buff in PF2 is conditional 5e is actually worse with modifiers than pathfinder. You can stack things in 5e that you can’t in PF2, and the two systems have mostly the same buffs.

Well, there's a trade off.

5e: don't need to track the bonus type. Simply add everything together.
PF2: track types to limits stacking. You can't add everything together.

 

[Parmandur]

That's the same as PF2.

Except that the same type bonuses/penalties (item/conditional/circumstance) don't stack.


That said, I still prefer 5e's +1d4 bless over PF's +1 to bless. More fun to roll dice than add a static number.

Well, both are D20 D&D. Presentation goes a long way.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, there's a trade off.

5e: don't need to track the bonus type. Simply add everything together.
PF2: track types to limits stacking. You can't add everything together.

Also, the 5E model and is very much exception based: most any given boni or Mali won't apply most of the time, and they are an open class. Flexible.

 

[GMMichael]

1) This seems like madness!

Result of a roll = number on the die + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance bonus + conditional bonus + item bonus + circumstance penalty + conditional penalty + item penalty + untyped penalties

The way I play, circumstance bonus/penalty, conditional bonus/penalty, item bonus/penalty, and untyped penalties are all rolled into one number called Difficulty. But from what I've seen, Pathfinder players are perfectly cool with that long list.

 

[ccs]

(I do think that there's an argument to be made that the playtest rules feel like they are too "game designer" focused rather than for a more 'general audience'. I don't know if that's because it's a playtest document or if they're making the same "mistake" that Wizards did with 4th edition in that respect, but I can see it.)

It's a playtest. It damn well better be game designer focused.

 

[robus]

It's a playtest. It damn well better be game designer focused.

If that’s right I would expect the front of the playtest rulebook to explore the design objectives of 2e and to summarize what the major differences are between 1e and 2e. I looked, but I didn’t find it.

 

[Parmandur]

It's a playtest. It damn well better be game designer focused.

It's a product that they have sold people and expect them to use,it gosh golly darn better be readable and useable.