D&D 2E What PF2E means for D&D5E

[Aldarc]

Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. PF's reputation is exactly as you say. 5E, in contrast, is running with very few releases, 14 books since mid 2015. I'm wondering whether PF2 will see a change in release cadence as well, or whether their existing model can continue to be (I presume) successful.

Thank you for the clarification, and it will be interesting to see how the mechanical structure of PF2 engenders a different release structure, particularly around "player crunch." PF1 releases involved a lot of experimentation, such as its use of archetypes (an influence on 5e subclasses), alternate racial features, new base and hybrid classes, etc. But if PF2 adjusts to more fluid archetypes available to multiple classes, racial/class feats (talents), etc. that increases a lot of flexibility within classes, then there may be less need for pumping out the same degree of new classes. This was clearly part of the design philosophy within 5E, though I would argue that WotC succeeded better with some classes rather than others in that regard.

 

[Jer]

My players have switch fairly effortlessly between Fate, D&D 5e, Fantasy Age, Cypher System within the span of a few months, and they are mostly casual players. I am thinking of running either a Savage Worlds or Pathfinder 1E one-shot by them, and I don't think it would take much for them to grasp the system.

My players are the same on both counts - open for new game systems and also casual players. I think that their casualness impacts their willingness to try different systems - they have no desire to achieve "system mastery", don't spend time learning the ins and outs of the rules, don't spend time trying to min/max characters, etc. Consequently there's a lower investment in any particular set of game rules and a willingness to switch to other systems.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I will be interested in seeing how monster design is impacted by PF2's neo-4e monster design paradigm. I think I have seen Mike Mearls say he doesn't like the 4e monster roles (although non-caster legendary=soldier, most monsters in 5e=brute, celestials=skilled*, and lichs/beholders=spellcaster), but if PF2's monsters are popular, I wonder if that will influence his thinking. It seems to me that "how soldier your brutes are" could be one of those dials they talked about back in the 5e playtest.

* I think 5e is pretty opposed to skilled monsters (and spellcasters), at least in terms of things you can summon/conjure, which is probably for the best, given the shenanigans that tend to be associated with this in previous editions; I wouldn't be shocked if profane gift is one the things that "mysteriously" gets lost in the move from PF1 to PF2. Celestials fit the skilled bit, but you give up a lot of CR to summon them compared to other conjure/summon monsters.

 

[Ganymede81]

They say PF2 isn't based on 5e, but the description of their new game concepts screams otherwise. They have a unified proficiency system that replaces BAB, save bonuses, and skill ranks, just like 5e's proficiency bonus. They also have a new character building paradigm (race/background/class) similar to 5e. They even take a cue from 5e's recent evolution and incorporate the idea of race, background, and skill feats.

To me, it seems like the "this isn't 5e the way Pathfinder was 3e" is more a way to preserve their own individual identity than an accurate description of the new game system.

 

[Aldarc]

They say PF2 isn't based on 5e, but the description of their new game concepts screams otherwise. They have a unified proficiency system that replaces BAB, save bonuses, and skill ranks, just like 5e's proficiency bonus. They also have a new character building paradigm (race/background/class) similar to 5e. They even take a cue from 5e's recent evolution and incorporate the idea of race, background, and skill feats.

To me, it seems like the "this isn't 5e the way Pathfinder was 3e" is more a way to preserve their own individual identity than an accurate description of the new game system.

Not sure if I agree, or, rather, I think that the similarities exist primarily on a superficial level, particularly as some of these "5e ripoffs" have precedent in later mechanics and variations of Pathfinder. What we are more likely seeing is convergent evolution of conceptual ideas.

 

[Jester David]

They say PF2 isn't based on 5e, but the description of their new game concepts screams otherwise. They have a unified proficiency system that replaces BAB, save bonuses, and skill ranks, just like 5e's proficiency bonus. They also have a new character building paradigm (race/background/class) similar to 5e. They even take a cue from 5e's recent evolution and incorporate the idea of race, background, and skill feats.

To me, it seems like the "this isn't 5e the way Pathfinder was 3e" is more a way to preserve their own individual identity than an accurate description of the new game system.

Having listened to Paizo discuss 5e, it's pretty clear they haven't played much 5e at all... if any. Trying to use 5e as the basis would be problematic since they would first have to learn the game. It's simply an example of parallel design, possibly mixed with people on their forums discussing 5e elements.

 

[gyor]

They have a new blog post and its clear how different it is from 5e. All leveling is 1000xp.

There are 3 groupings and 1 subgrouping of feats. Class Feats, Ancestory feats, General Feats, and Skill Feats that are a subset of general feats.

You gain feats every level. One level it might be a class feat, another a skill feat, another an Ancestory feat, and others general feats (you can take a skill feat whenever it says take a skill feat or general feat).

Examples of feats for the cleric are extra domains, turn undead.

Multiclassing with have its own table. For primary spell casters its like usual, start off with 1st level spells, gain 3rd level spells by 3rd level, ect..., which suggests 10th level spells are epic.

 

[BookBarbarian]

They say PF2 isn't based on 5e, but the description of their new game concepts screams otherwise. They have a unified proficiency system that replaces BAB, save bonuses, and skill ranks, just like 5e's proficiency bonus. They also have a new character building paradigm (race/background/class) similar to 5e. They even take a cue from 5e's recent evolution and incorporate the idea of race, background, and skill feats.

To me, it seems like the "this isn't 5e the way Pathfinder was 3e" is more a way to preserve their own individual identity than an accurate description of the new game system.

I'm not up on oll the games out there. Is 5e the only game that uses a unified Proficiency bonus style or Background?

 

[Ganymede81]

I bet Google knows the answer.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

The resonance idea from http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...-5E-Discussed&postid=7369241#comments_7369241 seems interesting and something to consider as a replacement for atunement:

"There is a concept called "Resonance Score", it is Level + CHA. Whenever you activate magic items or drink potions, you use up your resonance. Once it at 0, you have to start making checks to use items/drink potions. If you fail the check causing the use of the magic item to fail, and if you fumble it, you are cut of from magic items for the rest of the day. Potions no longer do anything. When you start the day, you do whats called "Investing", where you put on your magic items, and invest your resonance so they are good all day. Even if you are cut off, you keep your bonuses (I believe). If you find a magic items that have active effects, each use of that appears to use a resonance as well (example given was a sword that can shoot a ray of fire, each ray would cost one point of resonance). .The check after you resonance is done appears to be a "flat check", which means its a d20 with no modifiers. Starts at 10, goes up by one each time your "overspend". Again if you fumble you are cut off, which means you would need to roll a 1 on your second one to be cut off for the day."

Of course if that was in 5e that would make the artificer a cha user instead of an int user (forcing the magic into an item instead of "programming" it in).....