# Meet Pathfinder 2's Cleric; Plus Spellcasting Basics!



## Morrus (Apr 24, 2018)

The latest *Pathfinder 2nd Edition* preview takes a look at the Cleric! Plus we get some insight into meta magic feats and spellcasting basics. As always, this information will be added to the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Compiled Info Page!



​


+2 Wisdom boost at 1st level.
Spell DC is 10 + level + Wis modifier.
*Class features* --
Deity and Domain (favoured weapon, domain access, domain powers - special spells which use Spell Points, which are equal to the cleric's Wisdom).
Anathema (acts against the deity's will).
Channel Energy (see below).
Divine Spellcasting (see below).
Proficiency rank with divine spells goes to expert at 13th level, master at 16th, legendary at 19th.

*Divine Spellcasting* --
2 x 1st level spells at 1st level.
+1 spell per even level.
+1 spell level per odd level.

*Channel Energy* --
3 + Cha modifier uses of_ heal _or _harm _per day, heightened to your highest available spell level
Deity choice determiners whether you can _heal_, _harm_, or get a choice.

*Class Feats* --
Communal Healing (1st level) -- gain HP when you heal others.
Turn Undead (1st level) -- undead who critically fail saves against your _heal_ must flee.
Expanded Domain (1st level) -- gain initial power from a second domain; can select this again for a third.
Advanced Domain (4th level) -- gain advanced power from your domain.
Channeled Succor (8th level) -- instead of _heal_, you can also_ remove curse, remove disease, remove paralysis,_ or _restoration_.

*Metamagic Feats* --
Reach Spell (1st level) -- add Somatic Casting action to add 30' range.
Command Undead (4th level) -- change _harm_ effects to undead control effects.
Heroic Recovery (8th level) -- add an action to_ heal_ to also give attack and speed bonuses.
Metamagic Channeler (20th level) -- apply metamagic to_ harm_ and_ heal_ without adding an action.

It looks like metamagic feats often cost an extra action.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 24, 2018)

What's the point of PF2 if casters end up as OP as in PF1?

Luckily for us (but maybe not for Paizo) we have 5E. It has proven beyond a shadow of doubt you can create a game with better class equality AND still have popular casters.

It would be very sad indeed if they go through all this trouble and STILL* fix none of 3.0s endemic issues; caster supremacy and spell dependency being one of the worst.

Both 3.5 and PF was sold on the promise of fixing d20 but none of them came even close. 5th edition now sets the bar; finally and truly fixing most if not all of d20. In comparison 3.0, 3.5 and PF look frigging *identical* - they may differ in some of the details, but have exactly the same set of huge unsolved issues.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> What's the point of PF2 if casters end up as OP as in PF1?



What's the point of your soapbox tirade evangelizing 5e when it's clear that the parity between casters and mundanes will be less than it was in PF1 due to some significant nerfs that Paizo is making? It's honestly getting tiring. 



> Both 3.5 and *PF was sold on the promise of fixing d20* but none of them came even close. 5th edition now sets the bar; finally and truly fixing most if not all of d20. In comparison 3.0, 3.5 and PF look frigging *identical* - they may differ in some of the details, but have exactly the same set of huge unsolved issues.



No, it wasn't. Not particularly. It was mostly sold on the continuation of the 3.X d20/OGL system, the publisher and fan dissatisfaction with WotC and 4E, and backwards compatibility.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Apr 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Luckily for us (but maybe not for Paizo) we have 5E. It has proven beyond a shadow of doubt you can create a game with better class equality AND still have popular casters.



Who is "us"? If you meant to say "Luckily for me and other 5e fans", then yes. You're very lucky to have the game you like. And it proves that a lot of people don't like a lot of change. If PF2 only creates another version of 5e just to make the 5e fans happy, what is the point? Or even a clone version of PF1? If it's not different enough, then it's not really worth the effort. 5e is just different enough to be the cleanest version of D&D to date, but not inspiring to everyone. 

PF2 gains my interest because it shows me something new with every preview. Will the end product grab my full interest? That remains to be seen. But I for one am already more invested in what could be great than what I've already seen reprinted for decades. Good news is there is room for both.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 24, 2018)

The spell DC formulae change is *huge*.  DC is *not* dependent on spell level, but PC level.  

First, this means that at high hevels, low-level spells like hold person are still a threat.

Second, this is very similar to 5e, where the DC is caster level dependent, not spell level dependent.  BUT there is no bound accuracy!  So a high level caster spell DC will be *brutal*.  The gap between the spell DC and your "bad save" may be tremendous.


----------



## Ghal Maraz (Apr 24, 2018)

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]:

- the expert proficiency in divine spellcasting is at 12th level, not 13th;

- it's strongly implied that, when getting a new spell level, you get two spell per day;

- 10th level spells aren't gained at 19th level: details are still unknown.


----------



## zztong (Apr 24, 2018)

I'm of mixed and unsettled feelings about Anathema.

On one hand those kinds of codes are really cool when a player chooses to make them part of their character. On the other, I dislike them being specified and required by the game system. Given a blank slate, players come up much more interesting variations that take into account a wider and richer personality.

Plus, I don't really see "the gods" as choosing to micromanage their followers. Its much more interesting for "the gods" to be imperfect beings that are more interested in bickering among themselves. When I run the game, I can of course choose if and how to deal with Anathema. Like the Paladin code, I would likely choose to ignore them. Otherwise interpretations of these "contractual" behaviors typically become sore spots between player and DM enough to discourage people from playing those classes. My observation has been that under some DMs who strictly enforce the Paladin code, players rarely (if ever) play Paladins. This isn't perhaps what you want for the Cleric class given that many games depend on healing being available on demand.

Yet, Anathema restrictions do add flavor to the class.

I guess there's plenty to ponder.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 24, 2018)

I'm starting to see how PF1.0 advocates are going to be very unhappy with the new 2.0.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 24, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> I'm starting to see how PF1.0 advocates are going to be very unhappy with the new 2.0.




I don't know why; PF2 classes are looking a lot more modular than PF1, essentially allowing you to build your own class. It's better this way than finding archetypes that trade out the features you don't like and hoping they will give you ones you do.


----------



## Nutation (Apr 24, 2018)

> Expanded Domain (1st level) -- gain initial power from a second domain; can select this again for a third.






I hope this isn't a big source of cherry-picking. In PF1, some domain powers were obvious favorites (e.g., Liberation). You had to take the whole package, though, including spells and deity. We'll see how this plays out.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Apr 24, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I don't know why; PF2 classes are looking a lot more modular than PF1, essentially allowing you to build your own class. It's better this way than finding archetypes that trade out the features you don't like and hoping they will give you ones you do.




My experience with Pathfinder was that players who really enjoyed it liked having lots of features and options, such as extra spell slots, lots of metamagic feats, the talent trees and other features that give them lots and lots of fiddly bits. The new system is very appealing (to me), but almost every hardcore Pathfinder fan I know is expressing a lot of angst over the implied and outlined design decisions, which feel to them like the game is moving closer to 5E design structure and away from the more articulated design that system mastery as a design concept supports.

So...I like where PF2.0 is going, and suspect it will be a game I like. But I may not have anyone locally willing to play it.

(BUT! This is based on their reading playtest columns and getting annoyed at things like spell slot reduction. Forum posters who like to make comments about how that helps reduce caster-domination in the game are always forgetting that for every person who got put off by caster domination there was another player who never noticed this as a problem, and a third guy who noticed it and thought it was a feature, not a bug.)

(Second BUT! I also find it interesting that many of these same local PF1.0 fans have lots of reservations about Starfinder's design changes, too. Some likening them to 4E design choices, which is practically accusing Starfinder of blasphemy around my neck of the woods. Sigh. These are the same players who are building up huge levels of antipathy toward even the idea of Pathfinder 2.0 being a thing. So a lot of this is probably cherry picking specific design elements....like limiting slots for spells...as proof of their grander worry.)


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 24, 2018)

My problem with all the salt over on the Paizo forums is that the number of spell slots tells you _nothing_ without knowledge of how the spells are designed.  If the spells are stackable hour long buffs that give you 1-action special attacks for high damage or control, who cares if you only get 3 per day?

Just like in 5e, while the smaller number of slots is noticeable, it's not remotely as impactful as the concentration mechanic.  You can't do "this system rules" or "this system sucks" when 90% of the design is still a black box.


----------



## Toriel (Apr 24, 2018)

One thing I find strange is that the proficiency rank with spells goes up only in the upper levels (all after level 10) instead of regularly throughout the 20 levels. Wouldn't it make more sense to have them at something like level 6, 10, 13, 17?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> What's the point of PF2 if casters end up as OP as in PF1?



 It'll be as popular as PF1?  I mean, if their fans had liked balanced martial & caster classes, they might have just made the transition to 4e.

Not that the above looks to pose nearly that risk of caster/non-caster balance.  Rather, it looks more like they're outfitting the class designs to fit to a shorter day than 5e's 6-8 encounters, perhaps because, realistically, that's what folks actually do?



> Luckily for us (but maybe not for Paizo) we have 5E. It has proven beyond a shadow of doubt you can create a game with better class equality AND still have popular casters.



 Laughable.  5e hypothetically balances casters on a 6-8 encounter day basically no one uses.  You get to claim balance in theory, while enjoying D&D's traditional tier-1 caster supremacy, in practice.  I'm sure PF2 will deliver the same thing.



> It would be very sad indeed if they go through all this trouble and STILL* fix none of 3.0s endemic issues; caster supremacy and spell dependency being one of the worst.



 Again, the whole point of PF was to retain those things.



> Both 3.5 and PF was sold on the promise of fixing d20 but none of them came even close.  5e now sets the bar;



 When was that promise ever made?  PF was sold on the promise of /being/ 3.5, again, all it's 'endemic issues' intact, unlike 4e, which fixed them pretty hard.

With 5e back to delivering the same traditional class dynamics D&D had in 3.5 & earlier, PF2 can't simply be an alternative to the anathema of balance in D&D, it has to either find something else unacceptable in 5e to not be - or come up with something desirable (to it's existing fan base, who, by definition, loathe balanced classes) to keep PF customers engaged & subscribed.  Paizo has a proven track record.  I'm a little surprised to see any suggestion of 'nerfing' casters be a part of that, but I suspect they'll make it up somewhere else...


Ancalagon said:


> The spell DC formulae change is *huge*.  DC is *not* dependent on spell level, but PC level.
> ... this means that at high hevels, low-level spells like hold person are still a threat.
> So a high level caster spell DC will be *brutal*.  The gap between the spell DC and your "bad save" may be tremendous.



...that didn't take long.   




Jacob Lewis said:


> Who is "us"? If you meant to say "Luckily for me and other 5e fans", then yes. You're very lucky to have the game you like. And it proves that a lot of people don't like a lot of change. If PF2 only creates another version of 5e just to make the 5e fans happy, what is the point?



 Vainly hoping to sell to the largest RPG market since the fad years of the 80s?

Thing is, D&D fans, newly-minted, ongoing, or returning, are happy with 5e, it's as D&D as D&D has ever been, 3.5 D&D in all it's glory, included.  It seems unintuitive to try to sell to them with a 5e clone, at least until WotC comes up with a 6e that 5e fans feel betrayed by, and who knows when that'll happen...


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 24, 2018)

Yeah, the thing is “people who don’t want to play 4e” is an unsustainable market to cater to in a world where 5e exists. Their options are pretty much either to appeal to 4e fans who don’t want to play 5e, or to try to attract a new demographic based on PF2’s own merits instead of aping whatever Edition of D&D the latest edition snubbed. So far, it looks to me like they’ve been trying to do a bit of both.


----------



## Wrathamon (Apr 24, 2018)

I think they would like to appeal to their pf1 fans, bring back any pf1 fans that moved on to 5e and bring in any new fans.

They probably know that a portion of the pf1 fans wont move on, not all pf1 fans will move back and they know new fans will be added. They probably have a benchmark they need to hit for profitability to sustain a new line.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, the thing is “people who don’t want to play 4e” is an unsustainable market to cater to in a world where 5e exists. Their options are pretty much either to appeal to 4e fans who don’t want to play 5e,



 4e fans were the ones willing to give a new edition a fair try, so we're mostly playing 5e, at least when not playing 4e, as well.   I'm like "where's my Warlord!?!  It's been years!" but I'm still playing it.  OK, running it, specifically, in my case. 


> or to try to attract a new demographic based on PF2’s own merits instead of aping whatever Edition of D&D the latest edition snubbed. So far, it looks to me like they’ve been trying to do a bit of both.



That's worked exactly never in the history of RPGs - OK, not fair, lots of RPGs have carved out niches for themselves, that way.  I'd expect Paizo to aim higher than just another "like D&D, but better!" fantasy heartbreaker, though.  



Wrathamon said:


> I think they would like to appeal to their pf1 fans, bring back any pf1 fans that moved on to 5e and bring in any new fans.



 New RPGers tend to try D&D first, so any new fans would have to be drawn from the sub-sub-set of potential new fans disappointed by D&D enough to look for a better RPG, but not repulsed enough to just walk away from the hobby for good.

It seems to me that Paizo has an excellent relationship with their existing PF1 fan base, I'd think they'd want to build on that.  They've certainly done a great job of managing that market, so far.


----------



## Ancalagon (Apr 24, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm a little surprised to see any suggestion of 'nerfing' casters be a part of that, but I suspect they'll make it up somewhere else...
> ...that didn't take long.




I was thinking about that... we don't know how the saves work.  If *all* saves go up by 1 per level, it won't be so bad... but it will make the BBEG's control spells very potent, and the party's control spells best left for the mooks...

the +1 save, +1 DC looks like a threadmill that goes no where, but it does make the difference between levels more significant.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> the +1 save, +1 DC looks like a threadmill that goes no where, but it does make the difference between levels more significant.



Heh.  Treadmill if you only fight things of exactly your level, never go 'slumming' vs some lower-level foes.  Otherwise, clear sense of advancement.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Laughable.  5e hypothetically balances casters on a 6-8 encounter day basically no one uses.  You get to claim balance in theory, while enjoying D&D's traditional tier-1 caster supremacy, in practice.  I'm sure PF2 will deliver the same thing.



You've either confused me for another poster, or you're having a really bad day...  

You know I'm one of the hardest critics of 6-8 days, precisely because that never happens.

That does not change my assessment of 5E one bit. And I have veeery optimized players. If casters had had even some of the humongous imbalance advantage from d20, do you think they'd still play martials? 

I don't think so. If the caster martial balance hadn't been fundamentally and comprehensively shifted I would never have said it had.

But it has. It really has. 5E has really truly shifted that balance in a monumental way.

In a good way. I believe it is a strong draw of the edition.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You've either confused me for another poster, or you're having a really bad day...
> 
> You know I'm one of the hardest critics of 6-8 days, precisely because that never happens.
> 
> ...




Lots of people play weaker classes simply because they like them more.  Even among optimizers.  I'd go so far as to argue that optimizing mechanically flawed or weaker classes is where optimization really shines.  It's easy to make an OP Cleric or Druid or Wizard.  It's a little bit more work to optimize a fighter.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> You know I'm one of the hardest critics of 6-8 days, precisely because that never happens.
> And I have veeery optimized players. If casters had had even some of the humongous imbalance advantage from d20, do you think they'd still play martials?



 Sure!  It's an engaging optimization challenge.  No one in my 3.x group ever played a wizard or Druid, for instance:  too easy.



> But it has. It really has. 5E has really truly shifted that balance in a monumental way.
> In a good way. I believe it is a strong draw of the edition.



 Compared to 4e, it's shifted away from balance, and, yes, it's a strong draw of the edition.  'Real D&D' isn't really balanced.  



shidaku said:


> Lots of people play weaker classes simply because they like them more.



 Yep.  The disfavored classes, balance-wise, are often the ones that represent the most popular and/or approachable archetypes.



> Even among optimizers.  I'd go so far as to argue that optimizing mechanically flawed or weaker classes is where optimization really shines.  It's easy to make an OP Cleric or Druid or Wizard.  It's a little bit more work to optimize a fighter.



 And you get a viable character out of the exercise, rather than a campaign-wrecker.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 4e fans were the ones willing to give a new edition a fair try, so we're mostly playing 5e, at least when not playing 4e, as well.   I'm like "where's my Warlord!?!  It's been years!" but I'm still playing it.  OK, running it, specifically, in my case.



I’m still running 5e too, but only because there isn’t a better alternative that’s currently supported. PF2 is looking like it could be that alternative, for me and a lot of other 4e fans.



Tony Vargas said:


> That's worked exactly never in the history of RPGs - OK, not fair, lots of RPGs have carved out niches for themselves, that way.  I'd expect Paizo to aim higher than just another "like D&D, but better!" fantasy heartbreaker, though.



I don’t really agree, on either count. Plenty of games attract players on their own merit, and “D&D, but better” has always been Pathfinder’s shtick.



Tony Vargas said:


> New RPGers tend to try D&D first, so any new fans would have to be drawn from the sub-sub-set of potential new fans disappointed by D&D enough to look for a better RPG, but not repulsed enough to just walk away from the hobby for good.



I don’t expect PF2 to bring new players into the hobby. 5e is a MUCH better game for that purpose. PF2 is looking like a game with its own appeal, for people who enjoy RPGs but want something a little crunchier and more option-rich than D&D. Which is exactly what I’d hope it would be.



Tony Vargas said:


> It seems to me that Paizo has an excellent relationship with their existing PF1 fan base, I'd think they'd want to build on that.  They've certainly done a great job of managing that market, so far.



The problem is, again, that market isn’t sustainable. If it was, I don’t think Paizo would be making a new edition of Pathfinder, or if they did it would have a much stronger emphasis on backwards compatibility.

The PF1 fans who played it because they wanted to play D&D but didn’t want to play 4e have already left. The ones who played it because they want to play 3.X forever are never going to be happy with a new edition. The ones who just love everything Paizo does aren’t going anywhere. What Paizo needs to do (and seems to be doing) is to stop trying to be D&D and start trying to be Pathfinder, and to hope the people who want to play whatever they decide Pathfinder looks like outnumber the people who want to play D&D 3.X forever.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Apr 25, 2018)

Wow, the one post here really cast the bait and wasn't it taken? Wouldn't it be good if threads actually just talked about the information posted? Thread derailing seems to be happening a lot earlier now 

Anyway, I play 5E, I am interested in anything D&D (in Pathfinder 2). I like these snippets. I hope it is another great game for us to enjoy (or even borrow from for your own favourite game).


----------



## Connorsrpg (Apr 25, 2018)

People should also stop trying to define what other people play. I like all editions and am still interested in all advancements. Anyhoo, now I am completely off the topic of this news post about clerics! Sorry.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep.  The disfavored classes, balance-wise, are often the ones that represent the most popular and/or approachable archetypes.
> 
> And you get a viable character out of the exercise, rather than a campaign-wrecker.




Eh, I think 3.5 Fighters are perfectly viable right out of the box.  I don't expect to ya know, be breaking the game with one, but I think they're fine.

As I've written about, campaign wrecking depends on several variables.  Obviously capability is one of them, but you can build an insanely OP Cleric, Druid or Wizard right out of the Core Rulebook (or PHB).  Some campaigns (read: DMs) are capable of handling this.  It's _not_ hard to handle highly optimized characters.  You just optimize your fights, problem solved.  Tactical enemies with a couple class levels go a long way to making fights significantly harder.  Some campaigns are more "breakable" than others.  The older, sloppy math tended to produce two results: either very narrow campaigns that fixated on a specific "power level" and anything deviating from that broke the campaign, BUT it also could also generate highly fluid games where any level of power was tolerable.  Thirdly, your need to have the _desire_ to wreck a campaign.  All the capacity in the world is meaningless if you don't _use it_.  

That aside, I've built some fairly OP fighters.  My DM made the mistake of letting me play a Minotaur for a few sessions once.  Level 10, right in that sweet spot before casters get crazy.  I built a Bull-Rush-based character.  Hit 'em, knock 'em back, move up, hit 'em again, knock 'em back; rinse and repeat until I ran out of iterative attacks.  Even had Pounce thanks to a dip in Barbarian.  

Yeah, I've also built some level 20 Druids who can turn into Colossal Dragons an unlimited number of times per day, but around level 10, I made all those silly spellcasters wish they had a big fat hammer to hit things with instead of a holy symbol.  

Fortunately this DM's campaign was fairly durable, and he could optimize with the best of us.  

--------------------

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I'm a bit of a stickler 4E'er.  If it doesn't have AEDU powers, it ain't playing to me as a 4E'er.  Simplified math is great, but that's a natural reaction to RNG-weariness over time.  People get tired of getting a raw deal on HP, people get tired of the d20 meaning too little (3.5 high levels) or meaning too much (5e the whole way).  

I LIKE that 4E is this weird different beast of D&D.  It's still my favorite edition of D&D.  Every time I see attempts to balance Vancian casting I just roll my eyes and go "Here we go again..."


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

On topic, I hope the free 3+Wis castings of heal/harm end up getting rolled into Spell Points, or that they just go back to Clerics always being able to channel a prepared spell into a heal/harm. Cause having to track spell slots, Heals/Harms, _and_ Spell Points would seem to defeat the purpose of unifying the various X/day class features into one Spell Point system.


----------



## wakedown (Apr 25, 2018)

So I've played plenty of 3e and Pathfinder.   Thousands of hours, at least half the APs and probably 75% of the organized play scenarios.

Right now PF2e is running so close to 5e, most of the core gamers I socialize with would rather just switch from PF1e over to 5e than PF2e.  Each person has their own reasons, but the general sentiment is along the lines of "if I'm gonna have to learn a bunch of new stuff, might as well learn them in the more mainstream game".   Probably 2/3rd of these are folks that haven't played 5e yet, but were happily playing PF1e in some sense up until the PF2e announcement.

That's the biggest dilemma is the "switch cost" is so high right now.  Very little remains that's a natural re-application of the system mastery of 3e/PF1e.  How you manage your actions.  How you build your chars (abil pts coming from boosts from ancestry, class).  How you run basic fighter-based combat.  How you even speak ("stride" vs "step" vs "strike" actions).   The system feels like a 90-degree turn that has a lot of new things to learn and that's what's straight up scared away many of my players to either entrench further into PF1e or simply want to soldier through the 5e learning curve.

5e wins that decision point for them hands down because they'd love to return to the settings, deities, proprietary monsters (beholders, mind flayers), etc.

If some third party were to jump in at this point and pick up the torch and ship a 3.85e set of books, I can guarantee they'd end up with $100 of purchases (assuming 2 $49 books) from over a dozen gamers who are wondering what their 2019 and beyond gaming looks like.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> So I've played plenty of 3e and Pathfinder.   Thousands of hours, at least half the APs and probably 75% of the organized play scenarios.
> 
> Right now PF2e is running so close to 5e, most of the core gamers I socialize with would rather just switch from PF1e over to 5e than PF2e.  Each person has their own reasons, but the general sentiment is along the lines of "if I'm gonna have to learn a bunch of new stuff, might as well learn them in the more mainstream game".   Probably 2/3rd of these are folks that haven't played 5e yet, but were happily playing PF1e in some sense up until the PF2e announcement.
> 
> ...



Honestly, hearing way more of this than anything else: destroying backwards compatibility is a very strange decision for Paizo here.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> If some third party were to jump in at this point and pick up the torch and ship a 3.85e set of books, I can guarantee they'd end up with $100 of purchases (assuming 2 $49 books) from over a dozen gamers who are wondering what their 2019 and beyond gaming looks like.




Thanks to the OGL, that'll always be a possibility...


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.


----------



## wakedown (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Honestly, hearing way more of this than anything else: destroying backwards compatibility is a very strange decision for Paizo here.




The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, believing they can always inch backwards from that if its not well received.

I could probably find those citations.

Presumably things inch back towards a more reasonable system for PF1e-to-PF2e conversion as they roll back a lot of the systems that will end up being rejected by playtesters as it becomes too cumbersome to convert an in-progress Carrion Crown (or what-have-you) campaign over.

So much of their adventure material for PF1e has adversaries with class levels, a huge change to class-based mechanics makes it really hard to run those.  If it was all mostly monsters who stayed in CR bands, then it's easy to run.


----------



## wakedown (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.




I'm OK with this on the player and GM side.   I know some folks who really enjoy the point-buy or rolling though.

All the small races they've previewed I believe have a bonus to Charisma, which is a bit wonky.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I’m still running 5e too, but only because there isn’t a better alternative that’s currently supported. PF2 is looking like it could be that alternative, for me and a lot of other 4e fans.
> .



That would be deeply ironic...



wakedown said:


> The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, ...
> 
> Presumably things inch back towards a more reasonable system for PF1e-to-PF2e conversion as they roll back a lot of the systems that will end up being rejected by playtesters .



 ...This, OTOH, sound plausible.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, believing they can always inch backwards from that if its not well received.
> 
> I could probably find those citations.




That would be cool if you don’t mind. That doesn’t surprise me, but I’d be interested in seeing the comments in context.



Tony Vargas said:


> That would be deeply ironic...



Indeed it would.


----------



## barasawa (Apr 25, 2018)

zztong said:


> I'm of mixed and unsettled feelings about Anathema.
> 
> ...I dislike them being specified and required by the game system. Given a blank slate, players come up much more interesting variations that take into account a wider and richer personality...
> 
> ...Plus, I don't really see "the gods" as choosing to micromanage their followers.





Even in 1st edition, the clerics were supposed to be following the gods rules, but since it wasn't specifically listed, most didn't do so. The Paladins code was more explicitly stated though vauge, so I've seen plenty of games where the Paladins got away with almost anything. Then again, I've also seen nearly as many Paladins that were so heavily restricted that if they so much as farted indoors they were likely to lose their powers.  Having a clear set of do's and don'ts helps everyone imo. 

Besides, the religions always have rules, and the deities also have minions, the least of which are probably the souls of those faithful that now serve their god.
No micromanagement needed, that's what the divine bureaucracy is for.


----------



## Lylandra (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> I'm OK with this on the player and GM side.   I know some folks who really enjoy the point-buy or rolling though.
> 
> All the small races they've previewed I believe have a bonus to Charisma, which is a bit wonky.




Yeah, I'm not too fond of the small = charismatic equation. There should be un-charismatic smallfolk, especially for those who like Hobbit-like characters and I'm not sure whether Goblins should have a baseline Cha bonus. Also, I'm a bit afraid that this leaves the medium sized or larger ancestries with no high-cha option which would be really sad.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 25, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> That does not change my assessment of 5E one bit. And I have veeery optimized players. If casters had had even some of the humongous imbalance advantage from d20, *do you think they'd still play martials? *
> 
> I don't think so. If the caster martial balance hadn't been fundamentally and comprehensively shifted I would never have said it had.



I recall that the Fighter was actually the most popular class in PF1 according to survey done by Paizo and d20pfsrd. I don't think that the popularity of a class is entirely dependent on its power level. 



Parmandur said:


> On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.



It's an interesting way to "build" a character such that who you are and what you did matters. But it could make it more difficult to play against type, though this may also be possible with the appropriate backgrounds and floating ancestry modifiers.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Honestly, hearing way more of this than anything else: destroying backwards compatibility is a very strange decision for Paizo here.



While I'm not unhappy about their decision, I admit it's not what I expected them to do.  My assumption was always that a PF2 would be more of a "Pathfinder Unchained" for a new set of core classes, sort of a rebuilt greatest hits of their previous releases.  I never though they would do a full system rebuild, because backwards compatibility was too important.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> The designers have basically suggested that they took the most radical/controversial option for any particular decision and went with that in the Playtest, believing they can always inch backwards from that if its not well received.
> 
> I could probably find those citations.
> 
> ...




I'm gonna be "that guy" for a moment and say this: everything you see in the pre-release is final.  Nothing will change.  What you see is what we'll get.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'm gonna be "that guy" for a moment and say this: everything you see in the pre-release is final.  Nothing will change.  What you see is what we'll get.




I'm also skeptical of their "nothing is set in stone" stance. I believe small tweaks here and there based on the playtest might be possible, but major design elements aren't going anywhere.


----------



## TwoSix (Apr 25, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm also skeptical of their "nothing is set in stone" stance. I believe small tweaks here and there based on the playtest might be possible, but major design elements aren't going anywhere.



Yea, they've already said they've been working on this project for multiple years and have already tested multiple iterations.  They're not going to radically change anything at this point.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> If some third party were to jump in at this point and pick up the torch and ship a 3.85e set of books, I can guarantee they'd end up with $100 of purchases (assuming 2 $49 books) from over a dozen gamers who are wondering what their 2019 and beyond gaming looks like.




$1200? That won’t go far.


----------



## wakedown (Apr 25, 2018)

Morrus said:


> $1200? That won’t go far.




Ha! That's just from the gamers I'm gaming the most with in 2018, who so far their only purchases in the current year include a copy of Xanathar's and some missing packs of Paizo's Adventure Card game.

So at least among my closest circle, that'd be a 24X increase in spending.


----------



## Morrus (Apr 25, 2018)

wakedown said:


> Ha! That's just from the gamers I'm gaming the most with in 2018, who so far their only purchases in the current year include a copy of Xanathar's and some missing packs of Paizo's Adventure Card game.
> 
> So at least among my closest circle, that'd be a 24X increase in spending.




Well that’s the cost of the covers sorted. Just 700 pages of art and text and editing and layout to go!


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

It seems that the rules are baking in the flavor that every religion has to be a polytheistic religion. That is unfortunate.

Please, keep the rules setting neutral − especially the cleric class. Allow the cleric to make sense in other kinds of settings.

Clerics of philosophies and abstract forces are part of D&D tradition, especially 3e.

Please word the rules in a way that invites the diversity of ways of human spirituality: monotheism (as an abstract compassionate ethical force), animism (like shamanism), philosophy (like Buddhism), force (like the ‘dao’, ‘love’, ‘light’, ‘lifeforce’, or so on).

Put the Golarion setting in a sidebox that explains its objective polytheism and the placement of clerics there in the Golarion setting.

Keep the core rules usable for nonpolytheistic settings.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> Yeah, I'm not too fond of the small = charismatic equation. There should be un-charismatic smallfolk, especially for those who like Hobbit-like characters and I'm not sure whether Goblins should have a baseline Cha bonus. Also, I'm a bit afraid that this leaves the medium sized or larger ancestries with no high-cha option which would be really sad.




Yeah, goblins are pretty much the opposite of charisma. They are simultaneously unappealing and not taken too seriously.

Going by folklore, make the goblin stats inferior to a human − weaker, dumber, more frail, more obtuse − but then give them magic ability to compensate.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> On topic, it is interesting to see that Pathfinder 2 is definitely going with a life path character generation for abilities: Ancestry, Background and Class for abilities rather than point buy.




I like linking stats to narrative, and visaversa, so for me it is a plus to generate scores via choices. At the same time, I hope customization is easy to do within this system.


----------



## Lylandra (Apr 25, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Yeah, goblins are pretty much the opposite of charisma. They are simultaneously unappealing and not taken too seriously.
> 
> Going by folklore, make the goblin stats inferior to a human − weaker, dumber, more frail, more obtuse − but then give them magic ability to compensate.




They even had a CHA flaw in PF1, so I don't think it makes too much sense to give them a boost now. If they wish to include the Goblin in PF2 core, I guess they'll need to fit the +2 to 2 stats (one mental, one physical), -2 to 1, +2 flex pattern. So why not +2 to Int to make them better alchemists?


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> They even had a CHA flaw in PF1, so I don't think it makes too much sense to give them a boost now. If they wish to include the Goblin in PF2 core, I guess they'll need to fit the +2 to 2 stats (one mental, one physical), -2 to 1, +2 flex pattern. So why not +2 to Int to make them better alchemists?




I still think Wisdom is the score to give them +2 in, (and Charisma the one to give them -2 in) but since I’m tired of arguing about it, I’ll say I’d rather their mental boost go to Intelligence than Charisma.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'm gonna be "that guy" for a moment and say this: everything you see in the pre-release is final.  Nothing will change.  What you see is what we'll get.



Well, I dunno how much reason there is to believe there will be no change. Both PF1 and 5E made significant changes from public playtest feedback. But, their response to naysayers in public is not promising in regards to an open and critical process. So, in all likelihood, they will push forward with an incompatible system, which doesn't strike me as good business.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I like linking stats to narrative, and visaversa, so for me it is a plus to generate scores via choices. At the same time, I hope customization is easy to do within this system.



It's interesting, but unlike random generation it does seem like it will lead to backstory optimization...which is weird.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It's interesting, but unlike random generation it does seem like it will lead to backstory optimization...which is weird.




Heh, as long as players are even thinking about backstories, I am happy.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It's interesting, but unlike random generation it does seem like it will lead to backstory optimization...which is weird.



 Might lead to at least /thinking/ about backstory more.  

I've used systems like that, before, and they can deliver pretty good characters in the hands of RP-first types, and pretty good backstories in the hands of optimizers.  
I say 'can,' not 'will,' or 'always' - they need to be pretty straightforward and neatly balanced to do so at all consistently...


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I still think Wisdom is the score to give them +2 in, (and Charisma the one to give them -2 in) but since I’m tired of arguing about it, I’ll say I’d rather their mental boost go to Intelligence than Charisma.




If you mean ‘Wisdom’ in the sense of a good sense of smell, maybe.

But if by ‘Wisdom’ you mean courageous and making sound judgments, then Wisdom seems highly improbable for a goblin. Heh, unless you count Yoda as a goblin.

If P2 symmetry forces goblins to get a mental score boost, Intelligence seems the only surviving score left.

In folklore, goblins are fairy creatures, known for magic, who make potions.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> It's interesting, but unlike random generation it does seem like it will lead to backstory optimization...which is weird.




It’s worth noting that they have said there will be an option for rolling to generate ability scores, and that they’re planning to include that option in the playtest book so people can see it (though they want playtesters to use the Ancestry, background, class method for the purpose of testing it.)



Yaarel said:


> If you mean ‘Wisdom’ in the sense of a good sense of smell, maybe.
> 
> But if by ‘Wisdom’ you mean courageous and making sound judgments, then Wisdom seems highly improbable for a goblin.




Right, and the “having a good sense of smell” interpretation of Wisdom is supported by the mechanical effects of wisdom, where the “being courageous and making sound judgments” interpretation is not. In my assessment, anyway.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 25, 2018)

I'm reading the blog post on Paizo, and this comment from Mark has me dismayed:



			
				Mark Seifter said:
			
		

> ...and if you think you'll need more healing than this provides, you can always prepare more heal spells using your normal spell slots...




It sounds like old vancian casting is sticking around. I was really hoping that this sacred cow would be slaughtered and the pieces scattered among the cosmos for good.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm reading the blog post on Paizo, and this comment from Mark has me dismayed:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like old vancian casting is sticking around. I was really hoping that this sacred cow would be slaughtered and the pieces scattered among the cosmos for good.



Pretty sure Vanciab casting being in has been well broadcast: not sure why you thought that would go away?


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm also skeptical of their "nothing is set in stone" stance. I believe small tweaks here and there based on the playtest might be possible, but major design elements aren't going anywhere.




Yep.  We're 3 months out from their release date.  There is, realistically, no time to make substantive changes.

We might see a +2 or -2 move around a bit, maybe some fine-tuning of the text, but there's not going to be any fundamental changes.



Parmandur said:


> Well, I dunno how much reason there is to believe there will be no change. Both PF1 and 5E made significant changes from public playtest feedback. But, their response to naysayers in public is not promising in regards to an open and critical process. So, in all likelihood, they will push forward with an incompatible system, which doesn't strike me as good business.




I'm gonna say, I think the "incompatible system" arguments are a bit thin.  The point of a new game is to sell a new product.  An incremental change over a previous product isn't going to do that.  That's why 4E was such a change from 3.5, why 5E was such a change from 4E (if similar to 3.5) and why PF2 will be different as well.


----------



## Adso (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Yep.  We're 3 months out from their release date.  There is, realistically, no time to make substantive changes.




Three months until the release of the playtest document. We have a lot more time when it comes to the finished project and more than enough time to make substantive changes. 

Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Senior Game Designer
Paizo, Inc.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Yep.  We're 3 months out from their release date.  There is, realistically, no time to make substantive changes.
> 
> We might see a +2 or -2 move around a bit, maybe some fine-tuning of the text, but there's not going to be any fundamental changes.
> 
> ...



We are not three months from release, we are three months from the start of their playtest, which will last a year or so. Feedback during that period will undoubtedly have an impact on the final 2E product.

Backwards compatibility is a major value for much of their core audience: it is a risk, and a 1E/2E AD&D change was something they could have done. What they are doing means that PF1 material is, broadly, useless moving forwards and PF2 material is not useful to people who want to keep playing the old game. While the point of an edition is to bring in new blood, Pathfinder alienating their core demographic with an edition change is ironic.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

Adso said:


> Three months until the release of the playtest document. We have a lot more time when it comes to the finished project and more than enough time to make substantive changes.
> 
> Stephen Radney-MacFarland
> Senior Game Designer
> Paizo, Inc.




Well color me mistaken then.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Right, and the “having a good sense of smell” interpretation of Wisdom is supported by the mechanical effects of wisdom, where the “being courageous and making sound judgments” interpretation is not. In my assessment, anyway.




Unfortunately, D&D Wisdom is a nonsense stat.

It has ‘perception’, which moreso belongs to Intelligence. And it has ‘willpower’, which moreso belongs to Charisma.

Heh, what D&D Wisdom lacks is a mechanical way to represent ... ‘wisdom’.

The D&D game is in desperate need of rethinking the abilities scores. The game improves by using Intelligence and Charisma for the mental stats − and eliminating Wisdom.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Backwards compatibility is a major value for much of their core audience: it is a risk, and a 1E/2E AD&D change was something they could have done. What they are doing means that PF1 material is, broadly, useless moving forwards and PF2 material is not useful to people who want to keep playing the old game. While the point of an edition is to bring in new blood, Pathfinder alienating their core demographic with an edition change is ironic.




Some people will _always_ want "the old game".  Maybe I'll like PF2.  I like 5E, but I still play 3.5 (and I'd play 4th more if I could get people to play it).  

PF2 material _can't_ be useful to people playing the old game.  They might as well not bother making it if it's going to be 99% the same system.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, D&D Wisdom is a nonsense stat.
> 
> It has ‘perception’, which moreso belongs to Intelligence. And it has ‘willpower’, which moreso belongs to Charisma.
> 
> ...



Intelligence is mental Strength, Wisdom is mental Dexterity and Charisma is mental Constitution. Makes good sense as is, no need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

For P2.

Please make the supersenses (smell, hearing, eagle eyes) a bonus to SKILL. Avoid referring to ability scores for such a thing. Please, no more bats and deer with Buddha-esque Wisdom.

Heightened physical senses are a kind of skill bonus, and only if applying the relevant sense (smell, sound).


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 25, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, D&D Wisdom is a nonsense stat.



Too true



Yaarel said:


> It has ‘perception’, which moreso belongs to Intelligence. And it has ‘willpower’, which moreso belongs to Charisma.



I guess? Honestly I don’t think either of those things is a good fit for the actual English definitions of those words. The six abilities really aren’t fit to bear the load of being the fundamental categories into one of which everything that could conceivably require a d20 roll must fit. Wisdom is just the most egregious example of the problems with the six abilities because it picked up the most unrelated rolls in the switch to 3e. 



Yaarel said:


> Heh, what D&D Wisdom lacks is a mechanical way to represent ... ‘wisdom’.
> 
> The D&D game is in desperate need of rethinking the abilities scores. The game improves by using Intelligence and Charisma for the mental stats − and eliminating Wisdom.



I’d give it a far more thorough rethinking than that. But generally speaking, yes, I agree.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Intelligence is mental Strength, Wisdom is mental Dexterity and Charisma is mental Constitution. Make good sense as is, no need to reinvent the wheel.




In my eyes, those popular parallels fail under scrutiny and never work mechanically.

For example, alternatively. Wisdom could easily be explained as willpower and sanity, thus  be mental health and Constitution. Or Intelligence could be explained as quick thinking and mental agility, thus be Dexterity.

The truth is, the ability scores are vague and inconsistent and redundantly overlapping, and unrealistic.

D&D is in desperate need of rethinking the ability scores. (But I doubt P2 will the edition to do it.)


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 25, 2018)

For my own tastes there are only four ability scores.

• *Athletics* − melee attack roll, movement (speed, run, jump, climb, balance, fall); reflex
• *Toughness* − melee damage, size, reach, heavy weapons, heavy armor, hit points; fortitude
• *Perception* − shooting attack roll (bow, gun), senses, investigation, stealth, knowledge, deception, steady-hand manual dexterity; perception
• *Empathy* − magic and spellcasting, social skills, sense of self, art and esthetics; willpower


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'm gonna say, I think the "incompatible system" arguments are a bit thin.  The point of a new game is to sell a new product.  An incremental change over a previous product isn't going to do that.



 1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 were pretty incremental, but sold well enough.  

OTOH, Paizo probably doesn't want anyone feeling PF2 is a 'cash grab,' like 3.5 was accused of being for a while.  They are very conscious of their fans, and, in a sense, owe them to WotC making mistakes like that.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 25, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> For my own tastes there are only four ability scores.
> 
> • *Athletics* − melee attack roll, movement (speed, run, jump, climb, balance, fall); reflex
> • *Toughness* − melee damage, size, reach, heavy weapons, heavy armor, hit points; fortitude
> ...




A Fighter stat, a Rogue stat, a Wizard stat, and a Cleric stat?


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 25, 2018)

shidaku said:


> Some people will _always_ want "the old game".  Maybe I'll like PF2.  I like 5E, but I still play 3.5 (and I'd play 4th more if I could get people to play it).
> 
> PF2 material _can't_ be useful to people playing the old game.  They might as well not bother making it if it's going to be 99% the same system.



Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.



I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they _are_ designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Intelligence is mental Strength, Wisdom is mental Dexterity and Charisma is mental Constitution. Makes good sense as is, no need to reinvent the wheel.




More like Int -> Dex (manipulation), Wis -> Con (sturdiness), Cha -> Str (force)


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, it could be, if they designed with compatibility in mind, or at least conversion. They are not doing that, which they could. It's a bold move business wise, given who their core audience is and what the market looks like.




I'm still not really seeing this "lack of compatibility" ya'll keep talking about.

If you're talking about "compatibility" in the sense of "everything will match right up", yeah, ya ain't getting that.

But fundamentally, the difference between what has been shown for PF2 and PF1 is the difference between PF1 and Starfinder.  That is to say: very little.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 1e->2e and 3.0->3.5 were pretty incremental, but sold well enough.
> 
> OTOH, Paizo probably doesn't want anyone feeling PF2 is a 'cash grab,' like 3.5 was accused of being for a while.  They are very conscious of their fans, and, in a sense, owe them to WotC making mistakes like that.




That's in part, because 2E was a needed evolution from 1E that fixed stuff.  The same is true for 3.0->3.5
What you're missing here (and I think this is funny because it's so obvious) is that 2E-3X sold really well, even though 3X was not an incremental change to 2E.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> More like Int -> Dex (manipulation), Wis -> Con (sturdiness), Cha -> Str (force)




See, I’d say the best fit is:
Int -> Str (directly increases mental/physical ability - Str increases to-hit and damage with most weapons, Int adds bonus languages and skill points).
Wis -> Con (directly increases resistance mental/physical assault - Con increases HP and adds to Fort saves, Wis adds to Will saves and Sense Motive checks)
Cha -> Dex (improves subtle physical/mental manipulation - Dex adds to stealth-related rolls and Cha adds to social rolls)

The fact that three different people come up with three different interpretations of how the physical and mental abilities map to each other goes to show that it’s a poor analogy.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they _are_ designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers.



In the long term, it is a good bold decision if it works, and if not...

I don't particularly care, I'm fairly disinterested except as game industry theory.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

shidaku said:


> I'm still not really seeing this "lack of compatibility" ya'll keep talking about.
> 
> If you're talking about "compatibility" in the sense of "everything will match right up", yeah, ya ain't getting that.
> 
> But fundamentally, the difference between what has been shown for PF2 and PF1 is the difference between PF1 and Starfinder.  That is to say: very little.



I don't play PF1, nor will I play PF2, so I ain't getting anything no matter how we cut it. The question is more theoretical to me.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> In the long term, it is a good bold decision if it works, and if not...



Sure, but _not_ overhauling the system would undoubtedly be a bad decision in the long term, because again, “people who don’t want to play 4e” is not a sustainable market, and “people who want to play 3.x forever” is a market that is very difficult to satisfy while also attracting new customers, and getting more difficult the older 3.x gets. Sure, what they’re doing with PF2 carries a risk of failure, but continuing to barely iterate on the same system that was already starting to show its age when I first started playing D&D in high school will lead to certain (if slow) failure. Is it better to take the path that you know ends in certain death, but is at least a very long road there, or the path that might end in swift death but might end in a long road to prosperity? I’d say the latter is obviously better, but I guess YMMV.



Parmandur said:


> I don't particularly care, I'm fairly disinterested except as game industry theory.



Indeed, Paizo’s journey has been and continues to be a fascinating one. Any way PF2 shakes out, it will be fun to watch.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 26, 2018)

mach1.9pants said:


> On the Paizo comments a lot of people are annoyed that classes get less than PF1, less class features and have to pay feats to get them back. The counter argument is that you get those feats instead of class features, just meaning you can chose how you want your class - rather than stuck with what is written.




This makes me excited about ranger 3.9. I can *not* take the spellcasting feat? Thank you. (With my luck, spellcasting will be "baked in".)


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> I don't play PF1, nor will I play PF2, so I ain't getting anything no matter how we cut it. The question is more theoretical to me.




So you're what, wasting our time?  Trolling?  Poo-posting?

Now now before you're all "Ugh, you shouldn't have to like a game to talk about it!" Yeah, well you should at least play it.  Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

shidaku said:


> So you're what, wasting our time?  Trolling?  Poo-posting?
> 
> Now now before you're all "Ugh, you shouldn't have to like a game to talk about it!" Yeah, well you should at least play it.  Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time.



I'm just talking, this is after all a public forum. I'll likely read through the free document to good around with the life cycle in theorycrafting, but I have no use case for this game. It isn't doing anything that D&D isn't already doing for me.


----------



## Aldarc (Apr 26, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, D&D Wisdom is a nonsense stat.
> 
> It has ‘perception’, which moreso belongs to Intelligence. And it has ‘willpower’, which moreso belongs to Charisma.
> 
> ...



Fantasy AGE broke up the three mental stats into four separate stats: Communication, Intelligence, Perception, and Willpower.


----------



## Lylandra (Apr 26, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I'm reading the blog post on Paizo, and this comment from Mark has me dismayed:
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like old vancian casting is sticking around. I was really hoping that this sacred cow would be slaughtered and the pieces scattered among the cosmos for good.




I really hope it is more in league with what we're seeing in 5e: You can prepare spells, but they are your spells known for the day. If you could then simply use them with your spell slots the way you'd like to (see: heighten is now free for all), then you could have a good amount of flexibility. 

What I really want to see die in a fire though is the per-slot fire&forget spells we're still seeing with the PF1 wizard, cleric etc. The alchemist could be the one exception to this rule as he actually brews physical objects.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 26, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> I really hope it is more in league with what we're seeing in 5e: You can prepare spells, but they are your spells known for the day. If you could then simply use them with your spell slots the way you'd like to (see: heighten is now free for all), then you could have a good amount of flexibility.
> 
> What I really want to see die in a fire though is the per-slot fire&forget spells we're still seeing with the PF1 wizard, cleric etc. The alchemist could be the one exception to this rule as he actually brews physical objects.




Apparently not, because in that Cleric thread someone quoted another blog:



			
				Spells Blog said:
			
		

> Heightening a spell works much like it did previously, where you prepare a spell in a higher-level slot (or cast it using a higher-level slot if you're a spontaneous caster).






			
				Jason Bulmahn in Game Informer said:
			
		

> At its heart, like every system, [the magic system] still works the way you’d expect. If you’re a spellcaster, you can prepare your spells every day so you know what spells you can cast and once they’re cast, they’re gone. We kept what is called Vancian spellcasting. There are still spontaneous spellcasters who don’t quite work that way but are close. They have spells that they know that they can cast from a certain amount of slots.




So paleo-vancian casting is here to stay. I had such high hopes, because Paizo had already given the blueprint for neo-vancian casting with the Arcanist, and then 5E gave it to all the full casters in that game.


----------



## Lylandra (Apr 26, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> Apparently not, because in that Cleric thread someone quoted another blog:
> 
> 
> 
> So paleo-vancian casting is here to stay. I had such high hopes, because Paizo had already given the blueprint for neo-vancian casting with the Arcanist, and then 5E gave it to all the full casters in that game.




Meh. 

So while there is still hope that this might change due to playtest responses, I guess I'll be stuck with spontaneous casters or the arcanist again. I really don't understand how anyone could be in favour of old-school vancian casting but with fewer spell slots. 

Just give sorcerers, bards, oracles, arcanists (and martial characters) their own cool stuff to make them versatile and interesting and get rid of fire&forget casting altogether.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Unpopular opinion: Fire-and-forget Vancian is better than 5e Vancian. In fire-and-forget, every single use of a spell is a limited resource, whereas in 5e Vancian, only the spell slot is a resource, as with spontaneous casters. And there’s nothing inherently _wrong_ with that, but then what’s the point of “preparing” a subset of your spells each day?

I don’t see spell preparation as an interesting thing on its own. But at least in a traditional Vancian system it serves a purpose. It forces you to think not just about how many 3rd level spells you have left, but about how many _fireballs_ you have left. The preparation is an added layer of complexity that you put up with because it makes for a deeper casting system. But in neo-Vancian, preparing spells is just this vestigial extra step with no benefit. Everyone’s a spontaneous caster, but some of them have to choose their list of spells they can spontaneously cast at the beginning of the day. But for what benefit? Why not just make everyone true spontaneous casters at that point? What do you achieve by making some classes decide which subset of their spells they can cast each day?

Either embrace Vancian casting or drop it. Or choose on an individual basis which classes can cast spontaneously and which classes have to do Vancian spell preparation. But 5e Vancian is just the worst of both worlds. All the added busywork of spell preparation with none of the interesting resource management that’s supposed to come with it.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 26, 2018)

The 5E spell system is as old of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. That was the first time I remember a magic system with prepared spells of the day that could be expended in slots also limited per day.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Unpopular opinion: Fire-and-forget Vancian is better than 5e Vancian. In fire-and-forget, every single use of a spell is a limited resource, whereas in 5e Vancian, only the spell slot is a resource, as with spontaneous casters. And there’s nothing inherently _wrong_ with that, but then what’s the point of “preparing” a subset of your spells each day?
> 
> I don’t see spell preparation as an interesting thing on its own. But at least in a traditional Vancian system it serves a purpose. It forces you to think not just about how many 3rd level spells you have left, but about how many _fireballs_ you have left. The preparation is an added layer of complexity that you put up with because it makes for a deeper casting system. But in neo-Vancian, preparing spells is just this vestigial extra step with no benefit. Everyone’s a spontaneous caster, but some of them have to choose their list of spells they can spontaneously cast at the beginning of the day. But for what benefit? Why not just make everyone true spontaneous casters at that point? What do you achieve by making some classes decide which subset of their spells they can cast each day?
> 
> Either embrace Vancian casting or drop it. Or choose on an individual basis which classes can cast spontaneously and which classes have to do Vancian spell preparation. But 5e Vancian is just the worst of both worlds. All the added busywork of spell preparation with none of the interesting resource management that’s supposed to come with it.



Gives Wizards/Clerics/Druids more versatility than Bards/Sorcerers/Warlocks without creating imbalance in play: they have access to huge numbers of spells, though still only so many at a time. This allows Wizards to do things like research and look for more spells (cf. Caleb in Critical Role Campaign 2).


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> The 5E spell system is as old of Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. That was the first time I remember a magic system with prepared spells of the day that could be expended in slots also limited per day.




Sure, wherever it’s from. Its age isn’t my issue with it, my issue is that “preparing spells” serves no purpose in that variant. If you don’t have to manage how many times you cast a particular spell, only how many spells of each level you’ve cast, then the “preparation” is an unnecessary step. Just tell me how many spells from my spell list I’m allowed to prepare and I’ll prepare the same ones every day. Boom, now I’m a spontaneous caster. Might as well go full Vancian if you want that extra layer of resource management, or full spontaneous if you don’t want that extra layer of complexity. The style 5e uses, wherever it originally showed up, is dumb because it retains the added complexity of Vancian but does away with the added resource management. It’s sacrificing the depth to keep the complexity, which is the opposite of what good game mechanics should strive to do.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> Gives Wizards/Clerics/Druids more versatility than Bards/Sorcerers/Warlocks without creating imbalance in play: they have access to huge numbers of spells, though still only so many at a time. This allows Wizards to do things like research and look for more spells (cf. Caleb in Critical Role Campaign 2).




Sure, but you could accomplish the same goal with known spells instead of prepared spells. All that preparation accomplished in that style of magic is allows the player to change their list of known spells each day. Which is something you could easily introduce as a class feature without having to bake a spell preparation concept into the magic system. It’s just unnecessarily complicated for such little payoff. Traditional Vancian is complicated, but at least that complexity serves a purpose.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Unpopular opinion: Fire-and-forget Vancian is better than 5e Vancian.



 It's a better system for a game where casters are attempting to appear balanced with non-casters.  It's strictly inferior in the sense that the 5e neo-Vancian caster is in all ways more flexible than the old-school Vancian one - before we even get into at-will cantrips.  







> In fire-and-forget, every single use of a spell is a limited resource, whereas in 5e Vancian, only the spell slot is a resource, as with spontaneous casters. And there’s nothing inherently _wrong_ with that, but then what’s the point of “preparing” a subset of your spells each day?



 As opposed to just spontaneously casting any spell on the Cleric or Druid list or absolutely any spell in your spellbook at any time?

I guess there's not much of a point, the level of flexibility/versatility (and thus Tier 1 power) is already unprecedented, why not drop that last scrap of a limitation? 

The only way to go after that to make casters even less limited for D&D 6e or PF3 would be to just have one giant spell list, and let everyone cast spontaneously from it, I guess...



> I don’t see spell preparation as an interesting thing on its own. But at least in a traditional Vancian system it serves a purpose. It forces you to think not just about how many 3rd level spells you have left, but about how many _fireballs_ you have left. The preparation is an added layer of complexity that you put up with because it makes for a deeper casting system.



 It seemed like a big part of the challenge - and thus interest and fun - of playing a magic-user back in the day.  

It also puts a much greater limitation on the caster classes than have later editions (except, ironically, I guess, for 4e), nor was it the only limitation on casting from the early days that has fallen by the wayside, almost without comment.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 26, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> Fantasy AGE broke up the three mental stats into four separate stats: Communication, Intelligence, Perception, and Willpower.




Yeah but the extra splitting that FAGE does, results in somewhat unequal stats. For example, the Intelligence is relatively ineffectual.

By contrast, I lump them as follows:

• Perceptiveness ( ≈ FAGE Perception+Intelligence)
• Empathy ( ≈ FAGE Willpower+Communication)

So each of the two is effective and frequent.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but you could accomplish the same goal with known spells instead of prepared spells. All that preparation accomplished in that style of magic is allows the player to change their list of known spells each day. Which is something you could easily introduce as a class feature without having to bake a spell preparation concept into the magic system. It’s just unnecessarily complicated for such little payoff. Traditional Vancian is complicated, but at least that complexity serves a purpose.




If I understand what you are saying.

• Every spell caster chooses which spells are known, only while leveling.
• These known spells are permanent.
• [ The caster can change the known spells while leveling. ]
• The caster can use slots to cast any known spell spontaneously.
• This is the normal way for casting spells for all caster classes.

• As an exception, a separate feature can swap in different known spells, per long rest.



So if I understand correctly, I basically agree.

Yet at this point:

• I would get rid of slots entirely, and use spell points as the new normal.
• Instead of swapping known spells per rest, simply let a wizard cast directly from a spellbook.

The wizard gets extra known spells if and only if casting from the spellbook.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, wherever it’s from. Its age isn’t my issue with it, my issue is that “preparing spells” serves no purpose in that variant. If you don’t have to manage how many times you cast a particular spell, only how many spells of each level you’ve cast, then the “preparation” is an unnecessary step. Just tell me how many spells from my spell list I’m allowed to prepare and I’ll prepare the same ones every day. Boom, now I’m a spontaneous caster. Might as well go full Vancian if you want that extra layer of resource management, or full spontaneous if you don’t want that extra layer of complexity. The style 5e uses, wherever it originally showed up, is dumb because it retains the added complexity of Vancian but does away with the added resource management. It’s sacrificing the depth to keep the complexity, which is the opposite of what good game mechanics should strive to do.




In your opinion. Others do not want that level of resource management. What you call a bug, some call a feature. No system will satisfy all comers. There is no One True Way.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 26, 2018)

• Athletics
• Perceptiveness
• Empathy
• Toughness



MichaelSomething said:


> A Fighter stat, a Rogue stat, a Wizard stat, and a Cleric stat?




Yeah. Yet notice, in this case.

• Athletics → Fighter (melee, reflex, athlete)
• Perceptiveness → Rogue (sniper, stealth, perception, steady-hand manual dexterity)
• Empathy → Wizard (!) (caster, mental spells, willpower)
• Toughness → Cleric (!) (tough, lots of hit points, heavy armor, one-man army)

These four narrative tropes − jock guy, smart guy, heart guy, big guy − can flesh out in different ways. The Fighter-Rogue-Wizard-Cleric is an effective way to do it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's a better system for a game where casters are attempting to appear balanced with non-casters.  It's strictly inferior in the sense that the 5e neo-Vancian caster is in all ways more flexible than the old-school Vancian one - before we even get into at-will cantrips.   As opposed to just spontaneously casting any spell on the Cleric or Druid list or absolutely any spell in your spellbook at any time?



No, as opposed to having a fixed subset of your spell list that you can cast from by expending spell slots. So, same system as 5e, only without the pretense of your subset of spells you can cast being “prepared” on a daily basis.



Tony Vargas said:


> I guess there's not much of a point, the level of flexibility/versatility (and thus Tier 1 power) is already unprecedented, why not drop that last scrap of a limitation?



Caster/martial balance isn’t really my bugbear. Though, I do think giving martial characters more cool stuff is a better way to go about addressing it than restricting casters.



Tony Vargas said:


> The only way to go after that to make casters even less limited for D&D 6e or PF3 would be to just have one giant spell list, and let everyone cast spontaneously from it, I guess...



Sure, if your goal was to make casters as flexible as possible. That’s not my goal though.



Tony Vargas said:


> It seemed like a big part of the challenge - and thus interest and fun - of playing a magic-user back in the day.
> 
> It also puts a much greater limitation on the caster classes than have later editions (except, ironically, I guess, for 4e), nor was it the only limitation on casting from the early days that has fallen by the wayside, almost without comment.



I agree, which is why I prefer traditional Vancian casting... Have you considered the possibility that whoever you’re arguing against is made of straw? They’re certainly not me either way.




Yaarel said:


> If I understand what you are saying.
> 
> • Every spell caster chooses which spells are known, only while leveling.
> • These known spells are permanent.
> ...



I’m saying that would be preferable to the system used in 5e, yes. It would be functionally identical, but would remove the complexity of having a “spell preparation” concept baked into the system. Alternatively, going back to traditional Vancian where you have to prepare each spell individually would also be preferable, because then the spell preparation would serve a purpose- namely, making the resource management game deeper, by forcing the caster to think about “how many fireballs do I have left?” AND “how many counterspells do I have left?” instead of “how many third level spells do I have left?”




Yaarel said:


> So if I understand correctly, I basically agree.
> 
> Yet at this point:
> 
> ...



Sure, that sounds like an even better take on the no-spell-preparation style.



jmucchiello said:


> In your opinion. Others do not want that level of resource management. What you call a bug, some call a feature. No system will satisfy all comers. There is no One True Way.



And that’s fine. I’m not saying that having that level of resource management is superior. I’m saying if you don’t want that level resource management, why even have the pretense of spell preparation? It’s just an unnecessary layer of complexity. There’s nothing wrong with a more flexible casting system, but spell preparation doesn’t add anything meaningful to such a flexible casting system. Either embrace Vancian prep or dump it, either is a valid choice. But what 5e does is dumps the part of Vancian that makes the complexity of spell preparation worthwhile (for those who like resource management) and keeps the spell preparation for no reason.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but you could accomplish the same goal with known spells instead of prepared spells. All that preparation accomplished in that style of magic is allows the player to change their list of known spells each day. Which is something you could easily introduce as a class feature without having to bake a spell preparation concept into the magic system. It’s just unnecessarily complicated for such little payoff. Traditional Vancian is complicated, but at least that complexity serves a purpose.



OK, I agree, all it accomplishes is to allow the player to change their list of known spells each day. And it is a Class feature already. That would be the point, to provide the narrative feel of "Wizard" or "Cleric" as opposed to "Bard" or "Sorcerer."


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> If I understand what you are saying.
> 
> • Every spell caster chooses which spells are known, only while leveling.
> • These known spells are permanent.
> ...



Heterodox opinion RE: Spell points: neo-Vancian Slots already are large grained spell points.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 26, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> So if I understand correctly, I basically agree.
> 
> Yet at this point:
> 
> ...



Spell points are more intuitive than slots, which were not very intuitive in traditional Vancian (if I just memorize 1st level spells, shouldn't I be able to memorize /more/ of them, in total? - what I came up with at the time was they were the most 'efficient' arrangement and you could swap around spell-levels at half efficiency), and are just completely arbitrary in neo-Vancian.



Charlaquin said:


> I agree, which is why I prefer traditional Vancian casting... Have you considered the possibility that whoever you’re arguing against is made of straw?



 I'm afraid I may have been agreeing with you a little too contentiously.   



> I’m saying that would be preferable to the system used in 5e, yes. It would be functionally identical, but would remove the complexity of having a “spell preparation” concept baked into the system.



 I guess the question there is, base spells known on spells known or on spells prepared.  The former makes the Wizard stronger, the latter weaker.  



> Alternatively, going back to traditional Vancian where you have to prepare each spell individually would also be preferable, because then the spell preparation would serve a purpose- namely, making the resource management game deeper, by forcing the caster to think about “how many fireballs do I have left?” AND “how many counterspells do I have left?” instead of “how many third level spells do I have left?”



 That's what I was doing such a bad job of agreeing with!


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 26, 2018)

Parmandur said:


> OK, I agree, all it accomplishes is to allow the player to change their list of known spells each day. And it is a Class feature already. That would be the point, to provide the narrative feel of "Wizard" or "Cleric" as opposed to "Bard" or "Sorcerer."



It’s a class feature in the sense that some classes have to prepare spells and others don’t. But preparation is included as part of the spellcasting rules for the classes that do it. I’m saying, instead of having four slightly different versions of the spellcasting rules, each spelled out in full in each class entry, just have one unified spellcasting system - the one that sorcerers and bards use -and have classes that break that mold spell out the exceptions. Druids and Clerics would have a feature that lets them change out any of their known spells for any other spells on their class spell list when they finish a long rest. Wizards would have a feature that lets them swap out their known spells for any other spell in their spellbook when they finish a long rest. Functionally identical, but without the need to introduce a concept of spell preparation for no payoff.

Or just use old school Vancian. I’m fine with either option, I just think it’s silly to make spell preparation a thing if it doesn’t actually do anything but allow what amounts to a spontaneous caster to swap out their known spells.


----------



## Parmandur (Apr 26, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s a class feature in the sense that some classes have to prepare spells and others don’t. But preparation is included as part of the spellcasting rules for the classes that do it. I’m saying, instead of having four slightly different versions of the spellcasting rules, each spelled out in full in each class entry, just have one unified spellcasting system - the one that sorcerers and bards use -and have classes that break that mold spell out the exceptions. Druids and Clerics would have a feature that lets them change out any of their known spells for any other spells on their class spell list when they finish a long rest. Wizards would have a feature that lets them swap out their known spells for any other spell in their spellbook when they finish a long rest. Functionally identical, but without the need to introduce a concept of spell preparation for no payoff.
> 
> Or just use old school Vancian. I’m fine with either option, I just think it’s silly to make spell preparation a thing if it doesn’t actually do anything but allow what amounts to a spontaneous caster to swap out their known spells.



I'm really not seeing the point here: the preparation is itself the payoff, in narrative terms. Wizard's gotta study, Cleric's gotta pray. The non-unified mechanics are a feature for modularity and versimilitude, not a bug to be fixed.


----------



## jmucchiello (Apr 27, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> • Athletics
> • Perceptiveness
> • Empathy
> • Toughness
> ...




Are you sure that isn't?

Athletics - rogue (nimbleness, wall climbing, etc)
Perceptiveness - wizard (sees beyond the material layer of the universe to reveal the arcane mysteries)
Empathy - cleric (healing, caring for the sick, stewards of societal ethics)
Toughness - fighter (brute, brawn, muscle)

You can make most sets of adjectives apply to a set of nouns in multiple ways.


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> The PF1 fans who played it because they wanted to play D&D but didn’t want to play 4e have already left. The ones who played it because they want to play 3.X forever are never going to be happy with a new edition. The ones who just love everything Paizo does aren’t going anywhere. What Paizo needs to do (and seems to be doing) is to stop trying to be D&D and start trying to be Pathfinder, and to hope the people who want to play whatever they decide Pathfinder looks like outnumber the people who want to play D&D 3.X forever.




Not sure why Pathfinder needs to stop being DnD.  

But in any case, it seems that less spells per day may be balanced with uncapped cantrips.  More information needed, cautiously pessimistic.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 27, 2018)

jmucchiello said:


> Are you sure that isn't?
> 
> Athletics - rogue (nimbleness, wall climbing, etc)
> Perceptiveness - wizard (sees beyond the material layer of the universe to reveal the arcane mysteries)
> ...




The design of this foursome − Athletic, Tough, Perceptive, Empathic − goes beyond vague adjectives to identify the mechanics that see high frequency use, then cluster them thematically.



It is possible to make an Athletic rogue, emphasizing mobility and melee, and deemphasizing lock picking and perception.

A tanky fighter can be Tough, hitting less often but hitting harder when making contact. And so on.


----------



## Consona (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Thing is, D&D fans, newly-minted, ongoing, or returning, are happy with 5e, it's as D&D as D&D has ever been, 3.5 D&D in all it's glory, included.



Really? Things like Concentration feel straight anti-DnD to me, rather than "DnD in all it's glory".



Charlaquin said:


> The fact that three different people come up with three different interpretations of how the physical and mental abilities map to each other goes to show that it’s a poor analogy.



Exactly.



houser2112 said:


> So paleo-vancian casting is here to stay. I had such high hopes, because Paizo had already given the blueprint for neo-vancian casting with the Arcanist, and then 5E gave it to all the full casters in that game.



Tbh, if I like PF2 enough to play it, I will house rule that every palaeo-vancian caster is actually neo-vancian caster. 



Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see spell preparation as an interesting thing on its own. But at least in a traditional Vancian system it serves a purpose. It forces you to think not just about how many 3rd level spells you have left, but about how many _fireballs_ you have left.



I remember during our 2e days, all the people had to wait for the spellcasters who were memorizing spells every morning like "Do I need one Fireball or two? Let's think about it for like 10 minutes, then there's this Magic Missile spell, how many of those do I really really need this day..."  Honestly I cannot believe old-school Vancian was able to survive for such a long time. The system itself was ok in the sense that it had its purpose, I agree with that, I think limitations can bring some good creativity. But the implementation, the amount of slots, made it crazy.


----------



## Szatany (Apr 27, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Unfortunately, D&D Wisdom is a nonsense stat.
> 
> It has ‘perception’, which moreso belongs to Intelligence.




My dog disagrees.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Spell points are more intuitive than slots



Just a cautionary note: spell points is MUCH more versatile and therefore powerful than slots. 

To everyone: Do not use unless you know what you're doing.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> Not sure why Pathfinder needs to stop being DnD.



Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.


----------



## zztong (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.




Very true.

This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.

Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Consona said:


> Really? Things like Concentration feel straight anti-DnD to me, rather than "DnD in all it's glory".



 Concentration has been in the game in one form or another for a long time, in 1e, it was necessary to concentrate to cast any spell at all, and some required it throughout (possibly with severe consequences for breaking it), and any damage broke concentration, automatically.  3e had a concentration skill that could be optimized to the point you'd rarely face a meaningful chance of it breaking.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.



No, Pathfinder is a fix for broken or abandoned D&D.

If they keep that in mind, and skip the hyperbole and hubris, Paizo will do alright.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> No, Pathfinder is a fix for broken or abandoned D&D.




That’s what Pathfinder _was_. When, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 4e had abandoned them, Pathfinder stepped in to offer them a way to keep playing D&D. But like it or not, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 5e is D&D. So Pathfinder can no longer survive on the promise of “keep playing D&D” because D&D is offering that again, and doing a better job of it because it can actually have beholders and mind flayers and Drizt and all that other D&D stuff. Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood. Simply being D&D just isn’t enough any more. Pathfinder needs to find its own identity or it is going to fail. Paizo knows that, which is why PF2 is looking so unappealing to the people who just want it to be D&D. Especially to the ones to whom “being D&D” means being a direct evolution of D&D 3e’s design.



zztong said:


> Very true.
> 
> This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names..



Indeed, the fall of 4e and the rise of PF1 proved that “D&D” is more than just a brand name. But the rise of 5e and the fall of PF1 is proving that the brand name does contribute to what makes D&D, as do its proprietary settings and monsters.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

zztong said:


> This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D"
> ...and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.
> Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.



That's not weird at all.  PF1 was an outright clone of D&D 3.5, it was D&D in all but name.  

It's funny because for decades, the conventional wisdom was that D&D was the big fish in the small TTRPG pond because of it's hallowed 'First RPG' status in the hobby, and because it was the only TTRPG with mainstream name recognition, that the D&D name, alone, allowed it to consistently beat out the many 'fantasy heartbreakers' that were essentially like D&D, but better in some ways (and no worse in others, generally), not to mention the many games that were far better as games, but quite different, all_* in spite of* D&D being a backwards dysfunctional imbalanced system far behind the times._

That conventional wisdom was wrong in one small but significant detail:  "...in spite of..."

What 4e (D&D name, balanced mechanics) & PF1 (imbalanced D&D mechanics cloned without the name) performing so closely in the ICv2-measured segment of the market (some quarters D&D in the lead, some PF, until D&D went on hiatus) indicated was that D&D's popularity didn't just rest on the D&D name, but on the system imbalances that had come to be not merely tolerated, but demanded, by it's established fan-base.  

5e has clinched that:  having returned to a more traditional iteration of the system that restores the classes to their old pecking order and returns to built-in rewards for 'skilled play' (though not quite so much for system mastery, as 3.5 had), and, of course, still enjoying the benefits of the D&D name, it is once more the unquestioned leader in the hobby.  

Hmmm.... having said all that, two things occur to me:


  I'm a bitter, deeply cynical, old grognard who should probably just STFU. (I expect lots of XP and selectively-quoted agreement with that one!)
  Paizo does have a possible path to keeping PF going:  rewards for system mastery.  5e has the D&D name and is back to the traditional mechanical feel of D&D.  But, 5e's slow pace of release and reigned-in 'player entitlement'/emphasis on 'DM Empowerment' make the chargen/level-up optimization meta-game much less engaging and rewarding than it's always been in 3.x/PF.  I mean, haven't we all built characters to an optimization target or concept for 3.x or PF that we never had a chance, possibly never even intended, to play, because it's just an entertaining exercise in its own right?
 _Edit: I've forgotten how to use list tags...
_
_ ...that's better. _


----------



## zztong (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm a bitter, deeply cynical, old grognard who should probably just STFU. (I expect lots of XP and selectively-quoted agreement with that one!)




Gosh, please don't shut up. Its nice to have at least one forum where I can rub shoulders with folks of similar experiences. I'm weary of overly fan-fueled places like the Paizo forums or the bizarre down-vote culture of Reddit. I'm new to these boards, but so far it seems more like a place where folks can kick around things as if it were over beers.

Regarding trademarks, D&D isn't in the same situation as say "Xerox" or "Klennex", but to many laymen "D&D" is any RPG.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s what Pathfinder _was_. When, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 4e had abandoned them, Pathfinder stepped in to offer them a way to keep playing D&D. But like it or not, in the eyes of most D&D fans, 5e is D&D. So Pathfinder can no longer survive on the promise of “keep playing D&D” because D&D is offering that again, and doing a better job of it because it can actually have beholders and mind flayers and Drizt and all that other D&D stuff. Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood. Simply being D&D just isn’t enough any more. Pathfinder needs to find its own identity or it is going to fail. Paizo knows that, which is why PF2 is looking so unappealing to the people who just want it to be D&D. Especially to the ones to whom “being D&D” means being a direct evolution of D&D 3e’s design.



I don't see how that does not make PF2 just a big-budget heartbreaker game. Why would I need yet another "doing D&D but better" clone that really is fixing nothing and instead adding layers of crud?

To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D. 

If Paizo wasn't so big I could have understood the allure to create a game in D&Ds shadow, like Tunnels or Trolls, Numenera, or 13h Age. 

But Paizo not gunning for continued parity with WotC by ensuring compatability with and building on D&D, I'm struggling to see.

This game sound more and more like Pathfinder in name only. To me, that sounds like Paizo has deluded itself into thinking people will come for their brand alone. When in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D.
> ...in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".



 That sounds plausible.  What if, instead of PF2 being a free-standing game, it were a rich expansion of 5e, delivering all those player options that 5e has been slow to publish?


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> I don't see how that does not make PF2 just a big-budget heartbreaker game. Why would I need yet another "doing D&D but better" clone that really is fixing nothing and instead adding layers of crud?



Uhh... “doing D&D but better” is exactly what Pathfinder was built on, and is exactly the thing I’m suggesting they evolve beyond.



CapnZapp said:


> To me their obvious opportunity is to do "advanced dungeons & dragons" since it's clear WotC doesn't care about their hardcore market (anyone beyond carebear level, really). To me they seem to forget they're a symbiote on the tree of D&D.
> 
> If Paizo wasn't so big I could have understood the allure to create a game in D&Ds shadow, like Tunnels or Trolls, Numenera, or 13h Age.
> 
> But Paizo not gunning for continued parity with WotC by ensuring compatability with and building on D&D, I'm struggling to see.



How are “selling their game on its own merits” and “gunning for continued parity with WotC” in any way mutually exclusive? I would argue that the former is absolutely necessary in order to accomplish the latter. As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,” it’s going to continue to fall further and further behind as the demand for a 3e clone continues to shrink. Now that Pathfinder can’t sell itself as a refuge from 4e any more, it needs a new selling point.



CapnZapp said:


> This game sound more and more like Pathfinder in name only. To me, that sounds like Paizo has deluded itself into thinking people will come for their brand alone. When in reality, the strength of "Pathfinder" is only true as long as it means "D&D, but crunchier".



The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game. Because no one will come for “D&D, but still 3e” any more either. “D&D, but crunchier?” Sure, that’s a good selling point - crunch is something the current edition of D&D is lacking in, which is precisely why PF2 caught my interest. But that’s what I’m saying, PF2 needs to do things D&D isn’t already doing, otherwise people will just stick with D&D. If they continue to just barely iterate on 3e’s design, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. They need to instead make a game that appeals in ways D&D 5e doesn’t. Being like D&D isn’t one of those ways.


----------



## zztong (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,” it’s going to continue to fall further and further behind as the demand for a 3e clone continues to shrink. Now that Pathfinder can’t sell itself as a refuge from 4e any more, it needs a new selling point.




Gadz, this is probably so true, yet I'd be happy to stick with a "3rd Edition But New" product. I'm not overly concerned with game system rules quality so much as comfort. If I went with game systems entirely for their rules, I'd have never stopped monkeying around with the Hero System.

Of the three PF1e games with which I'm involved, I expect one to move to PF2e, one to stay with PF1e, and one to search more widely... maybe D&D 5e, maybe C&C, maybe Traveler.


----------



## Adso (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Pathfinder’s fan base is dwindling because the majority of people who adopted PF1 as an alternative to 4e have moved on now that 4e is dead and 5e has returned D&D to form in their eyes. And nobody coming into the hobby for the first time is going to start with PF1 when 5e is so popular unless they’re brought into it by a dedicated PF1 fan. So Pathfinder has not only lost a significant portion of its existing fan base, it also isn’t bringing in enough new blood.




Wow, I wouldn't say it is dwindling nor are we not able to attract new players. We still run the largest RPG hall at Gen Con, our organized play numbers and sales numbers are strong, and the Beginner Box has been reprinted a number of times. The Humble Bundle offer of PDFs and the Beginner box we did a couple of years ago brought many people into the game. I see plenty of faces, both older and younger, when I run and see games at shows and game stores. 

5e is a fantastic game, there is no doubt about it, and my friends over at Wizards are doing a great job with it. I applaud their success, and I'm happy that so many folks are playing and enjoy RPGs, no matter what system they use. 

It seems like more folks are figuring out something most of us have known for decades. Tabletop RPGs are frick'ng fun! And are a fantastic way to engage your mind, creativity, and make great friends (even after a couple of heated rules arguments). 

The Pathfinder Playtests is our opportunity to present a game that is purely Pathfinder, with all the options and the interesting bits that our fans (past, present, and future) will enjoy, with a new sturdier architecture and more immediately playable engine. That's the goal, anyway. Game design, like any discipline, evolves. The Pathfinder Playtest is purely an evolution of the design.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> How are “selling their game on its own merits” and “gunning for continued parity with WotC” in any way mutually exclusive?



Aside from the "continued" part being gone already, as D&D has been back to out-selling PF since the moment 5e hit the shelves, we have 40 or so years of history illustrating that "selling a game on its own merits" results in, at best, a successful niche game that doesn't come any where near parity with D&D.   OTOH, selling a game to people who have been convinced they hate D&D (because it was demonized as "Roll Playing," or edition-warred against by it's own fans, for the two instances where it worked) /can/ flirt with parity with D&D... especially when D&D is already in trouble on the business side (as happened in both those instances, too).

Now, because it did also happen in the 90s, we can't say that the opportunity PF1 cashed in on was 'unique' - but it's been fairly rare.   

So, yeah, barring D&D imploding again, "sell your game based on it's own merits" and "seek parity with D&D" are mutually exclusive.  Sad but truism of the industry.



> The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game. Because no one will come for “D&D, but still 3e” any more either.



 PF had a brand name before it became a full 3.5 clone in it's own right - and a well-respected one, for producing top-notch adventures.
3.x, by virtue of the OGL, can always be cloned for those interested in continuing to play that iteration of D&D - if PF2 isn't that, someone else can take up the mantle.



> “D&D, but crunchier?” Sure, that’s a good selling point - crunch is something the current edition of D&D is lacking in, which is precisely why PF2 caught my interest. But that’s what I’m saying, PF2 needs to do things D&D isn’t already doing, otherwise people will just stick with D&D. If they continue to just barely iterate on 3e’s design, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. They need to instead make a game that appeals in ways D&D 5e doesn’t. Being like D&D isn’t one of those ways.



 I'm beginning to think, thanks to points made in this discussion, that a better course might have been to return to PF as a brand for adventures and expansions - more crunch, and more challenging adventures that let you enjoy crunching it.  So more the Judges Guild model than the Arduin Grimoire model.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> That sounds plausible.  What if, instead of PF2 being a free-standing game, it were a rich expansion of 5e, delivering all those player options that 5e has been slow to publish?




I don't think it's possible to do this since the 5E chassis doesn't have the "hooks" that you would need to do it. The multiclassing restrictions, ASIs/feats sharing the same resource, that resource being a class feature instead of a character feature, archetypes being something you can only apply once, these are just a few things holding 5E back from being "crunchy" enough to satisfy Pathfinder fans.

To me, it's not that WotC has been too slow to publish options, it's that the opportunities within the system for options are too few.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

Adso said:


> Wow, I wouldn't say it is dwindling nor are we not able to attract new players. We still run the largest RPG hall at Gen Con, our organized play numbers and sales numbers are strong, and the Beginner Box has been reprinted a number of times. The Humble Bundle offer of PDFs and the Beginner box we did a couple of years ago brought many people into the game. I see plenty of faces, both older and younger, when I run and see games at shows and game stores.



Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest interest in Pathfinder is dwindling, but that interest in a D&D 3e clone is dwindling. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, but seems to be at least part of the motivation behind your stated goal of making Pathfinder Second Edition the best version of Pathfinder it can be. Which to be clear, I applaud you for! I think focusing on what makes Pathfinder great instead of trying to capture what made D&D 3e great is the best decision you could have made going forward. 

As for the comment about not attracting enough new players, that was based on my anecdotal experience, I’ll defer to you on that subject. Whatever your reasons, I think the decision to evolve beyond just a 3e clone and make Pathfinder Second Edition a game founded on Pathfinder’s unique strengths was a fantastic one, and I can’t wait to dive into the playtest. I’ve been greatly enjoying what I’ve seen in the previews and am looking forward to adding Pathfinder Second Edition to my gaming library.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> I don't think it's possible to do this since the 5E chassis doesn't have the "hooks" that you would need to do it. The multiclassing restrictions, ASIs/feats sharing the same resource, that resource being a class feature instead of a character feature, archetypes being something you can only apply once, these are just a few things holding 5E back from being "crunchy" enough to satisfy Pathfinder fans.
> To me, it's not that WotC has been too slow to publish options, it's that the opportunities within the system for options are too few.



 5e has a lot of optional 'modules' that DMs can opt into or out of, and any number of others might be appended.  Whole new sub-systems could be added or existing ones expanded or tweaked.  Alternate MCing rules that make PrCs workable, for instance, would open up a lot of crunch, including Golarion-flavored crunch that could then be tied into the next PF AP (that could be made compatible with both PF1/3.5 & 5e)...


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

zztong said:


> Gadz, this is probably so true, yet I'd be happy to stick with a "3rd Edition But New" product. I'm not overly concerned with game system rules quality so much as comfort. If I went with game systems entirely for their rules, I'd have never stopped monkeying around with the Hero System.



Unfortunately for me as someone who’s primary interest in a game system comes from the quality of its rules design, you’re far from alone in this. Comfort is a major motivator for a lot of people’s gaming choices, perhaps even the primary motivator for many. I sometimes feel like a neophile in a hobby dominated by neophobia. I get excited every time a System I enjoy announces a new edition because I can’t wait to see all the cool new design innovations the next edition will bring. Meanwhile it seems like most folks I talk to hate Edition changes and treat any upcoming rules changes with skepticism and distrust and need significant convincing to embrace them.


----------



## Consona (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> Concentration has been in the game in one form or another for a long time, in 1e, it was necessary to concentrate to cast any spell at all, and some required it throughout (possibly with severe consequences for breaking it), and any damage broke concentration, automatically.  3e had a concentration skill that could be optimized to the point you'd rarely face a meaningful chance of it breaking.



I thought it was clear we are talking about 5e Concentration. Which is something noticeably different.


----------



## Adso (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest interest in Pathfinder is dwindling, but that interest in a D&D 3e clone is dwindling.




No worries. I guess I sorta look at it a different way. RPGs have generational bands of audiences. Two of the most excitable bands, which I'll call the older, nostalgia band and the younger-trending band) don't have the patience of some of the rigamarole and cruft sometimes intrinsic within the 3x systems. And this is for two different reasons. 

The nostalgia band of players has a fondness for a simpler time of their first spark. They shake their fists at the complex underlying formulas behind the 3x system. I have a certain amount of sympathy for this but often find that the design of such old school clones relies on information of experience or (sometimes covertly) uses a mix of new and old game design tech. 

The younger band grew up in the gaming revolution that D&D helped create. They came into the game via other games that used, discarded, and often improved on older mechanics. Their game savvy is both high and often sophisticated, even if they don't realize that they are. 

Now, the funny thing is that both of these groups love the depth of options for play, both on the character and the GM side. While Pathfinder could be seen as purely a reaction to 4e (which is often a point of frustration for me, given that I worked and I am very proud of my work on that game, though I will freely admit that mistakes were made), it has grown to be something so much more. In many ways, the Pathfinder Playtest is an attempt to smooth out the cruft, decrease the rigamarole, and capitalize on what makes Pathfinder a great game experience. 

Of course, the elephant in the room is those who look at the 3x differently than what I've just described. The other goal of the Playtest is to keep the things that most of them like while creating better tools for character and adventure design in a robust form so that we can change some of their opinions on the matter. 

The Playtest is sure to be exciting and will let us know when we did this well and what is not gaining traction. We will celebrate the former and go back to the drawing board with the latter.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Consona said:


> I thought it was clear we are talking about 5e Concentration. Which is something noticeably different.



Crystal, yes. 
There are lots of little, but noticeable differences among D&D editions, that don't prevent any one edition from being still being very much D&D.  5e is about as D&D as D&D can get, without just re-printing the 1e classics (which WotC has also done), it puts a Concentration requirement on only some spells and only on maintaining them, not casting them, it has a chance of maintaining concentration when you're hit.  That's noticeably different from Concentration skill in 3.5 or concentration requirements in AD&D, but it's also quite similar to both of them.  In contrast, 4e didn't have concentration, it had 'sustain' lines on powers that required an action every turn to keep the power running, if your turn ended without you taking that action - because you couldn't (a number of conditions deprived you of most or all your actions) or another action was higher-priority - the spell dropped.  That was a greater difference, but it was the profound decrease in the number and power of daily spells (and the corresponding increase in flexibility/resource-management of non-casters), not how concentration had changed, that really helped make 4e "not D&D" in the way that opened the door to PF1.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> [5E] puts a Concentration requirement on only some spells and only on maintaining them, not casting them, it has a chance of maintaining concentration when you're hit.  That's noticeably different from Concentration skill in 3.5 or concentration requirements in AD&D, but it's also quite similar to both of them.



I think you're neglecting to mention the biggest difference that Concentration in 5E made. In past editions, spells that required you to actively concentrate on them were few and far between, and were usually divinations that you would rarely use in combat. 5E put Concentration on buffs and debuffs (things you will want to do in combat) and severely limits the number you can maintain at the same time. This is the biggest issue you have to work around as a spellcaster regarding Concentration, not how you maintain it once obtained.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 27, 2018)

Adso said:


> No worries. I guess I sorta look at it a different way. RPGs have generational bands of audiences. Two of the most excitable bands, which I'll call the older, nostalgia band and the younger-trending band) don't have the patience of some of the rigamarole and cruft sometimes intrinsic within the 3x systems. And this is for two different reasons.
> 
> The nostalgia band of players has a fondness for a simpler time of their first spark. They shake their fists at the complex underlying formulas behind the 3x system. I have a certain amount of sympathy for this but often find that the design of such old school clones relies on information of experience or (sometimes covertly) uses a mix of new and old game design tech.
> 
> ...




Thanks for sharing your perspective! I think I have a similar perspective on 3e. Whether or not it’s true that Pathfinder was in part a reaction to 4e, the perception that it was is there, and unfortunately holds Pathfinder 1st Edition back, in my opinion. While I love the depth of options, the 3rd edition cruft has kept me from adopting it. Here’s hoping that 2nd Edition is able to make Pathfinder’s strengths shine while shaking off the baggage of edition wars past. As one of that later band of players you mentioned, what I’ve seen so far has got me really excited!


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 27, 2018)

zztong said:


> Very true.
> 
> This may sound weird, but I've spent the past many years considering PF1e to be "D&D" and D&D 5e to be something else. Now PF2e doesn't seem like "D&D" either, and I'm becoming aware that between the many versions of D&D, PF, and dozens of retro-clones that perhaps "D&D" is a state of mind that transcends brand names.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just full of... silver pieces.




I am curious. To you, does D&D 1e seem like ‘D&D’ to you?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I am curious. To you, does D&D 1e seem like ‘D&D’ to you?



What kind of a crazy question is that?  1e AD&D /defines/ D&D!  

(says the guy who started in 1980, when 1e was the latest & greatest...)






houser2112 said:


> I think you're neglecting to mention the biggest difference that Concentration in 5E made. In past editions, spells that required you to actively concentrate on them were few and far between, and were usually divinations that you would rarely use in combat



 Wall of Fire and Conjure Elemental are two 1e examples I happen to remember. 







> 5E put Concentration on buffs and debuffs (things you will want to do in combat) and severely limits the number you can maintain at the same time.



 AFAIK, the limitation, where it's existed, has always been one at a time (again, as always, the exception being 'not-D&D'-enough 4e where you could downgrade actions to keep two or even three sustain:minor spells going, though you'd be doing nothing else, at all, /and/ it was likely all your dailies blown on one encounter).

The emphasis on picking one powerful buff to drop on your party & maintain, vs pre-casting layers of buffs is different from 3.5, but not so different from classic D&D, where about the only memorable buff-layering strategy was Prayer followed by Chant (which, oh, was a buff you had to concentrate on - V components throughout, even, now that I think of it).  It's probably as or more legit to say that 3.5's systematic pre-casting strategies deviate from classic D&D feel than to say that 5e concentration does.


----------



## houser2112 (Apr 27, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> houser2112 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According to this site, you are correct with _conjure elemental_, but not on _wall of fire_.


> AFAIK, the limitation, where it's existed, has always been one at a time (again, as always, the exception being 'not-D&D'-enough 4e where you could downgrade actions to keep two or even three sustain:minor spells going, though you'd be doing nothing else, at all).
> 
> The emphasis on picking one powerful buff to drop on your party & maintain, vs pre-casting layers of buffs is different from 3.5, but not so different from classic D&D, where about the only memorable buff-layering strategy was Prayer followed by Chant (which, oh, was a buff you had to concentrate on - V components throughout, even, now that I think of it).  It's probably as or more legit to say that 3.5's systematic pre-casting strategies deviate from classic D&D feel than to say that 5e concentration does.



I seem to remember clerics being able to have _bless_ and _hold person_ up simultaneously, and wizards able to have _fly_ and _invisibility_ up simultaneously.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 27, 2018)

houser2112 said:


> According to this site, you are correct with _conjure elemental_, but not on _wall of fire_.



The latter had a short duration after concentration ended, IIRC.  The former, if your concentration was broken, attacked you.
1e was very uneven, that way.

And 1e concentration didn't just lock out other concentration spells, it kept you from casting, at all, because any casting required you concentrate...



> I seem to remember clerics being able to have _bless_ and _hold person_ up simultaneously, and wizards able to have _fly_ and _invisibility_ up simultaneously.



Sure, hold person was just a fire-and-forget, save-or-else spell, and bless wasn't a critical component of a broken combos, then, either.
Fly & invisible was a little tricky in 1e.  IIRC, casting broke invisibility, and you couldn't cast while flying.  So you'd cast fly, but not use it yet, then cast invisibility, and you'd be flying invisibly - but you wouldn't be raining destruction on the enemy from points unknown in the sky without breaking said invisibility.

Really, the 5e feel is pretty close to the classic, that way.


----------



## Yaarel (Apr 27, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Indeed, the fall of 4e and the rise of PF1 proved that “D&D” is more than just a brand name. But the rise of 5e and the fall of PF1 is proving that the brand name does contribute to what makes D&D, as do its proprietary settings and monsters.




The ongoing D&D traditions flourish. At the same time they include difficulties of various kinds. 

The reason D&D 5e is ‘true’ D&D is because WotC made an extreme effort to find out what the D&D community wanted. WotC designers care about meeting the needs of players. WotC as a corporation made unprecedented outreaches to the D&D community, to discern the needs of D&D players.

Seeing 3e, I was so happy at the improvements since 1e. The systematization of AD&D rules was timely. WotC saved the D&D tradition. During 3e, I advocated nonvancian options, then delighted in the 3e (XPH) Psion. Also during 3e, I advocated passionately for balance,  especially among player classes. Also balance among ability scores, each of which is a valid archetype to choose from. 4e gave balance, albeit a rigid form of balance. During 4e, I advocated that WotC always ask what the player base wants. Then I saw WotC reaching out to meet the needs of D&D players via attentive designers − and even corporate outreaches to survey what the majority of the D&D community wants − beyond my expectations, even beyond what I thought was plausible for a ‘corporation’ to do. WotC did amazing in regard to the surveys that resulted in D&D 5e.

WotC did so many things that I value. For examples, in 5e, the spontaneous Wizard and the full-caster Bard are two classes I advocated for, and I love the 5e versions of them. The 5e Bard is mythologically accurate (or at least mythologically respectful).

5e still has desiderata for me. I need to see monotheism be a *normal* option for progressive D&D (and animism and monism, and I appreciate spiritual diversity in general), and I need to see a Charisma elf that is inherently magic, preferably a sun-and-sky-dwelling elf (accurate to Norse world views) − even better this elf be psionic − and I want to see psionics in general that extends from a person’s own consciousness be a normative part of D&D.

Despite the fact that there are important aspects that I still need to see, I respect − value − appreciate − WotC and its designers make a remarkable effort to reach the D&D community as a whole.

D&D 5e puts me in a position where I have to admit D&D under the facility of WotC makes an honest effort to meet the desires of the majority of D&D players. For certain things (like non-vancian Wizards and full-caster Bards) I am happy to share among the majority. For certain other things (like monotheism, charismatic elf, and psionics) I seem to be in a minority. Even in those places where a minority, I suspect there is room enough in D&D for these options that I care about.

In all, I care about D&D reaching the player base. It has and it does.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 28, 2018)

I’m not sure why you quoted me in that post... I mean, it’s cool that you feel that way, I just don’t really see the connection between that and my post.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 28, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> The ongoing D&D traditions flourish. At the same time they include difficulties of various kinds.
> 
> The reason D&D 5e is ‘true’ D&D is because WotC made an extreme effort to find out what the D&D community wanted. WotC designers care about meeting the needs of players. WotC as a corporation made unprecedented outreaches to the D&D community, to discern the needs of D&D players.



 That sounds great but, really, in essence, all that was just WotC finally doing what Paizo had been doing for fans of 3.5 with PF since 2009.  



> Also during 3e, I advocated passionately for balance,  especially among player classes.  4e gave balance



 Yeah, a balanced game and a empty sack is worth the sack, it turns out.



> D&D 5e puts me in a position where I have to admit D&D under the facility of WotC makes an honest effort to meet the desires of the majority of D&D players



The respondents to WotC's playtest surveys and the like were necessarily a self-selected minority of those actually playing D&D at the time - which was arguably a nadir of the game's popularity, because of the rampant negativity of the edition war - and the playtest surveys, themselves, were pretty selective in the questions they asked.  Plus, even if the game were catering to some holy-grail unified 'majority' of D&D players (at the time), what about all the lapsed players, and what about the 7.4 billion non-D&D players, 1% of whom even trying the game would blow away every record of the fad years by an order of magnitude?  

And, what about the premise that 5e was actually for everyone who ever loved D&D, not just a theoretical majority or plurality of them - if it really is game design by mob rule, why are there so many options so minority opinions can re-shape it into what they need?

5e is a well-managed iteration of the property, which neatly walks the tight-rope between acceptability to the established, vocal (sometimes viciously so) hard-core fanbase and accessibility to potential new players (if not so much to the mainstream). That's more than any edition since 1e has managed, and it hasn't left a whole lot of crumbs for Paizo/PF2 to pick up, really.  Nothing like the situation when the fanbase was divided against itself, and anyone willing to pick a side (there were at least 3) and cater to it had a captive audience.



> In all, I care about D&D reaching the player base. It has and it does.



So, the basic message is that Paizo and PF2 should dry up and die?


----------



## Shasarak (Apr 28, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Because D&D will beat them at that game. If Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive, they’ll have to figure out what it does that D&D doesn’t, and sell it based on that.




Eh, being the second most popular RPG in the world is not so bad that you should shoot yourself in the foot and go all Full New Coke.

No one should go Full New Coke.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 28, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Uhh... “doing D&D but better” is exactly what Pathfinder was built on, and is exactly the thing I’m suggesting they evolve beyond.



Evolve beyond the only reason for their existence? 



> How are “selling their game on its own merits” and “gunning for continued parity with WotC” in any way mutually exclusive?



 You completely missed the point of my examples. A game that is its own thing will probably meet with the success of Numenera et al, that is, no success at all - at least if compared to the expectations I believe Paizo have.



> I would argue that the former is absolutely necessary in order to accomplish the latter. As long as Pathfinder is just “3rd Edition but new,”



Who argued for that?

Look, if all you want is win the argument, by all means, keep setting up straw men.

Meanwhile, it's completely obvious Tony (post just above yours) got it.



> The fact that no one will come for the brand name alone is why they need to establish a strong identity for their game.



The fact nobody will come for the brand alone is... A reason not to try creating that brand.


> “D&D, but crunchier?” Sure, that’s a good selling point - crunch is something the current edition of D&D is lacking in, which is precisely why PF2 caught my interest. But that’s what I’m saying, PF2 needs to do things D&D isn’t already doing, otherwise people will just stick with D&D. If they continue to just barely iterate on 3e’s design, they’re shooting themselves in the foot. They need to instead make a game that appeals in ways D&D 5e doesn’t. Being like D&D isn’t one of those ways.



Being like D&D is the *only* reason.

If it ceases to be like D&D there is nothing left. Or do you believe anyone is interested in yet another fantasy game just because it's called something that was relevant for an edition from 18 years ago?

Why would old hardcore D&D gamers suddenly be interested in non D&D gaming??

And stop with the 3rd edition nonsense. Obviously their opportunity lies with an advanced 5th edition ish.


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 28, 2018)

Look, I'm not trying to predict PF2s failure. 

I'm saying there's a risk
1) they're completely overestimating their own importance 

While

2) severely underestimating the fundamental improvements brought on by 5th edition. 

Sure you could dismiss that game as child's play and too shallow - and TBH reading my own posts might give that impression. 

But that would be a grave mistake. The changes to casters improve the game on a fundamental level. The abandonment of monsters using PC build rules immensely improve my DMing experience. 

Futzing about with four spell lists, three actions to me suggests a design team unable to lift up their collective head to see what's needed to compete with 5E.


----------



## zztong (Apr 28, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I am curious. To you, does D&D 1e seem like ‘D&D’ to you?




Yes. White books, basic 1e, advanced 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and PF1e would be the trunk of the tree of it in my eyes. I've not yet played a 5e game, so I don't know about it.


----------



## zztong (Apr 28, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Unfortunately for me as someone who’s primary interest in a game system comes from the quality of its rules design, you’re far from alone in this. Comfort is a major motivator for a lot of people’s gaming choices, perhaps even the primary motivator for many. I sometimes feel like a neophile in a hobby dominated by neophobia. I get excited every time a System I enjoy announces a new edition because I can’t wait to see all the cool new design innovations the next edition will bring. Meanwhile it seems like most folks I talk to hate Edition changes and treat any upcoming rules changes with skepticism and distrust and need significant convincing to embrace them.




I feel for you.

One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see, and basically assist their stories. When I looked at 3e, I saw lots of house rules. Feats in 1e? Yeh, we had that, but we didn't call them that and there were only a few. Skills in 1e? Yep, we had that.

PF1e got so complex that you pretty much need automation (Hero Lab) to play it correctly. That's killed house rules, at least beyond things like "we ignore alignment."

Back to your thoughts... I kind of wonder if a more modular system is possible where a GM could pick between a few different skill systems. Then you could seek out the best rules in each category and I wouldn't necessarily lose the comfort of compatibility.


----------



## zztong (Apr 28, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e has a lot of optional 'modules' that DMs can opt into or out of, and any number of others might be appended.  Whole new sub-systems could be added or existing ones expanded or tweaked.  Alternate MCing rules that make PrCs workable, for instance, would open up a lot of crunch, including Golarion-flavored crunch that could then be tied into the next PF AP (that could be made compatible with both PF1/3.5 & 5e)...




Interesting. I guess I need to read through the D&D 5e book that's been collecting dust on my shelf for years.

EDIT: I previously took part in their playtest, but since all of my regular games went PF1e they didn't see a reason to look at D&D 5e, so while I've had the book, I didn't have a reason to read it. At the time, I knew the rules from the playtest, but I've forgotten them.


----------



## Charlaquin (Apr 28, 2018)

zztong said:


> I feel for you.
> 
> One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see, and basically assist their stories. When I looked at 3e, I saw lots of house rules. Feats in 1e? Yeh, we had that, but we didn't call them that and there were only a few. Skills in 1e? Yep, we had that.
> 
> ...




That’s kinda the spirit 5e is designed around. I have other issues with 5e, but the attempt at modularity and the emphasis on rulings over rules are aspects of it I really appreciate.


----------



## zztong (Apr 29, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s kinda the spirit 5e is designed around. I have other issues with 5e, but the attempt at modularity and the emphasis on rulings over rules are aspects of it I really appreciate.




I read through D&D 5e today and recalled some of the reasons why I didn't fret when the local games stuck with PF1e. I also read through C&C today and while I like its power levels better I'm still not sold. I'm getting tempted to take the D20 3.5 SRD and just start making modifications. I did something similar years ago when I took D&D 3.5 and made my own classes. Come to think of it, I was probably happiest when I did that compared to any other FRPG rules.


----------



## CubicsRube (Apr 29, 2018)

I think capnzapp is on the money with an advanced 5e. Whether or not pathfinder will be the ones to do it, there seems to be plenty of demand for those that like the base of 5e, but want more customisation and crunch


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 5, 2018)

zztong said:


> Yes. White books, basic 1e, advanced 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and PF1e would be the trunk of the tree of it in my eyes. I've not yet played a 5e game, so I don't know about it.



5e fits prettymuch between 2e & 3e in that progression, if you take it as a progression from classic D&D-ness to more sophisticated systems, rather than the obvious, temporal progression.  


zztong said:


> One thing I really liked was the "spirit" of gaming in the 1970s and 1980s. The rules were vague and everyone had house rules. GMs picked rules to emphasize what they wanted to see



5e is all over that, calls it "DM Empowerment."


> and basically assist their stories



 No one had started saying 'stories' in the TTRPG context until the 90s. Of course, no one was saying TTRPG in the 80s, either, just RPG... 







zztong said:


> At the time, I knew the rules from the playtest, but I've forgotten them.



5e does not strongly resemble the playtest versions.


----------



## Charlaquin (May 5, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> 5e does not strongly resemble the playtest versions.




Depends which version. It’s not far off from some of the later playtest packets. The earliest ones look pretty different in some ways, but you can see the start of a lot of the ideas that made it through to the end. I think the ones that were most different from the final were the awkward middle stages where everyone used maneuver dice for everything.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 5, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Depends which version. It’s not far off from some of the later playtest packets. The earliest ones look pretty different in some ways, but you can see the start of a lot of the ideas that made it through to the end. I think the ones that were most different from the final were the awkward middle stages where everyone used maneuver dice for everything.



The last few were certainly getting closer, but it still seemed quite different, to me - different enough that a bad impression of part or even all the playtest shouldn't rule out giving 5e a fair shot.

I'm sure part of it, for me, was that I kept trying to run a whole Encounters season with the same rules, so I'd start with a playtest doc, have to ignore the next few, then start up with whatever was current the next time.  I'd check 'em out, but the ones I actually ran obviously left more of an impression.


----------



## mellored (May 6, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> My experience with Pathfinder was that players who really enjoyed it liked having lots of features and options, such as extra spell slots, lots of metamagic feats, the talent trees and other features that give them lots and lots of fiddly bits. The new system is very appealing (to me), but almost every hardcore Pathfinder fan I know is expressing a lot of angst over the implied and outlined design decisions, which feel to them like the game is moving closer to 5E design structure and away from the more articulated design that system mastery as a design concept supports.



I'm still seeing plenty of fiddly bits.  They are just divided up into different resource pools.


27 always-useful spell slots + 10(?) always-useful healing spells + 5(?) always-useful cantrips + 10(?) always useful spell points + 10 class feats + a 5(?) ancestory feats

= 67 options.  More than 3 fiddly bits per level.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (May 6, 2018)

mellored said:


> I'm still seeing plenty of fiddly bits.  They are just divided up into different resource pools.
> 
> 
> 27 always-useful spell slots + 10(?) always-useful healing spells + 5(?) always-useful cantrips + 10(?) always useful spell points + 10 class feats + a 5(?) ancestory feats
> ...




I absolutely agree, but the guys I know who don't appear to dislike the changes being made.


----------



## mellored (May 6, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Look, I'm not trying to predict PF2s failure.
> 
> I'm saying there's a risk
> 1) they're completely overestimating their own importance
> ...



PF won't beat 5e at being 5e. The only way for them to stay relevant is to be *different* than 5e.
And since 5e is "shallow", then PF needs to go "deep".

Also, PF went very much the same direction as 5e did with the spellcasters. Nearly identical number of spells, spell progressions, a diety specific spell to casts, and stat + character level scaling DC's.
I don't see any issue reducing the 8 spell schools to 4.
Nor anything big about simplifying action/move/minor/reaction into 3 actions/reaction. It just makes things more flexible.


If you took 5e and gave out 3 times more backgrounds, 3 times as many feats, 3 times more weapon and armor properties...

So yea... PF2 is looking a lot like 5e, with 3 times as many fiddly bits.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> 2) severely underestimating the fundamental improvements brought on by 5th edition.



 One thing I've found myself debating since 5e came out has been whether, overall, it's a bit better or a bit worse than 3.5...


----------



## CapnZapp (May 7, 2018)

Tony Vargas said:


> One thing I've found myself debating since 5e came out has been whether, overall, it's a bit better or a bit worse than 3.5...



It's generally far superior to 3E imo since it actually solves its issues the way 3.5 and PF purported to do but never actually came close to doing.

That does not mean it's perfect. The main issue is how softball everything is in 5E, with essentially no support for high level games with veteran gamers getting the most out of the options given by the PHB.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 7, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> It's generally far superior to 3E imo since it actually solves its issues the way 3.5 and PF purported to do but never actually came close to doing.



I'm not sure what you mean by 'solves its issues?'  The issues of the immediately-preceding half-ed?   If so, I'm afraid that's not a lot clearer to me, because I also found it hard to tell if 3.5 was really an improvement, overall, compared to 3.0 - initially it couldn't help but be, as it removed, for practical purposes, the little bit of bloat that had already begun to afflict 3.0, but obviously, that didn't last long.  Some 3.5 changes did seem like improvements, by themselves, others quite the opposite, and, overall, it made some arguable problems with 3.0 worse.  It took a long while of playing 3.5 before I had to admit that 3.0 was actually the slightly better edition, especially as some of the things 3.5 'fixed' were more issues of interpretation that, were it not for the 3.x/PF community's reverence for RAW, could've been handled by the DM.  

5e relatively to 3.5 I find similar.  It /is/ a greater departure from 3.5 than 3.5 was from 3.0, of course, but it still mixes some details that look like clear improvements in isolation, while being less clearly so overall, with some countervailing new issues of its own.  

But, mainly, the huge glaring difference between 3.5 and 5e is one of attitude.  The natural-language presentation, frequent invocation of DM rulings by the 'RAW,' limited player options, and slow pace of supplementation of 5e all conspire to support it's mandate of DM Empowerment, putting a burden on the DM as onerous as that of 3.5 but, IMHO much more engaging & rewarding.   In contrast, 3.5's wealth of options and its community's sanctification of RAW made it a very player-Empowering edition.  
If I had only every played, it'd be easy to conclude that 3.5 is the better of the two.   If I had only ever DMed, it'd be easy to say that 5e is, especially if I was sick of the 'player entitlement' of the WotC era to that point.  




> The main issue is how softball everything is in 5E, with essentially no support for high level games with veteran gamers getting the most out of the options given by the PHB.



It's part of the tightrope-walking WotC did to make 5e acceptable to those veteran gamers and their ilk, while still keeping it accessible to new & returning players.  It seems to have worked really well:  'warring' against 5e is vanishingly slight, so it must be at least minimally acceptable to the critical minority of fans willing to go to such extremes to register their disapproval; the number of players is growing rapidly, so it's presentation is not intimidating or disconcerting enough to keep new/returning players from trying it, at all.  The result is very good for the brand.

But, the resulting system is really kinda ill-defined and "softballed,' yeah.  It's up to the DM to choose a shape for his 5e campaign, remove from or add to 5e until it fits that mold, and polish it to the spedific luster preferred by his group....

3.5, OTOH, is what it is, by the RAW ('Rule 0' notwithstanding), love it or grudgingly respect it.


----------



## Aldarc (May 8, 2018)

CubicsRube said:


> I think capnzapp is on the money with an advanced 5e. Whether or not pathfinder will be the ones to do it, there seems to be plenty of demand for those that like the base of 5e, but want more customisation and crunch



One of the core problems, IMHO, is that 5E failed on delivering on the degree of modularity it promised in its initial pitch. And the uneven class structures has been one of the greatest impediments to modularity, customization, and balance in the game, despite the improvements that it did make. 



mellored said:


> I don't see any issue reducing the 8 spell schools to 4.



From what I can tell, the 8 schools of magic are still around. Paizo is only really using the whole 4 Essences thing to give more rhyme and reason to the physics of magic and class spell lists. But I also suspect that even then it may be something of an incoherent mess when it comes to assigning new or more coherent spell lists due to the persistent baggage of tradition.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2018)

Aldarc said:


> One of the core problems, IMHO, is that 5E failed on delivering on the degree of modularity it promised in its initial pitch. And the uneven class structures has been one of the greatest impediments to modularity, customization, and balance in the game, despite the improvements that it did make.



Unfortunately, 4e managed to turn the community view of a unified class progression into a bug, not a feature.   Which is a shame, if the 5e class progression was more unified you could actually port subclass features between classes with a minimum of fuss.


----------



## CapnZapp (May 8, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> Unfortunately, 4e managed to turn the community view of a unified class progression into a bug, not a feature.   Which is a shame, if the 5e class progression was more unified you could actually port subclass features between classes with a minimum of fuss.



Have you tried starting a campaign at 3rd level?

You should be able to switch out subclasses there.

You'd still have to resolve specifics, but you already knew that. At least it no longer matters whether you got your subclass at level 2 or not.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Have you tried starting a campaign at 3rd level?



 At the tail end of the playtest it was becoming clear how sub-classes & such would work, and it honestly seemed like starting at 3rd should've been the default - that levels 1 & 2 would've been there only for multi-classing purposes, so you could have an old-school Fighter/Cleric/MU or Fighter/MU/Thief at the start of play, while still using 3.x/5e style MCing.

It's a testament to the power of ordinal numbers (and organized play) that anyone starts a 5e campaign at 1st.  



Aldarc said:


> One of the core problems, IMHO, is that 5E failed on delivering on the degree of modularity it promised in its initial pitch. And the uneven class structures has been one of the greatest impediments to modularity, customization, and balance in the game, despite the improvements that it did make.



True, but it's not like PF2 is positioned to offer an alternative, their core fanbase is even more deeply committed to uneven class structures than 5e's. 







TwoSix said:


> Which is a shame, if the 5e class progression was more unified you could actually port subclass features between classes with a minimum of fuss.



 You probably wouldn't even need sub-classes, in that hypothetical case.  Sub-classes the way Essentials used them (which was closer the way 5e uses them than 5e is to older versions of the concept) are sort of a kludge to allow you to play a selection of narrow concepts instead of just fitting yourself to the one class straight-jacket - a kludge, really.  If 4e & 5e had continued to build upon and refine 3.x-style modular MCing there'd've been no need for such pre-fab options.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2018)

CapnZapp said:


> Have you tried starting a campaign at 3rd level?
> 
> You should be able to switch out subclasses there.
> 
> You'd still have to resolve specifics, but you already knew that. At least it no longer matters whether you got your subclass at level 2 or not.



True enough.  My issue is more that each class has differing power levels embedded in the subclass relative to the base class, so you're pretty much making ad-hoc decisions as to whether any subclass feature swap should be allowed.   Which is fine when I'm the DM, but isn't very empowering as a player.



Tony Vargas said:


> True, but it's not like PF2 is positioned to offer an alternative, their core fanbase is even more deeply committed to uneven class structures than 5e's.  You probably wouldn't even need sub-classes, in that hypothetical case.  Sub-classes the way Essentials used them (which was closer the way 5e uses them than 5e is to older versions of the concept) are sort of a kludge to allow you to play a selection of narrow concepts instead of just fitting yourself to the one class straight-jacket - a kludge, really.  If 4e & 5e had continued to build upon and refine 3.x-style modular MCing there'd've been no need for such pre-fab options.



Agreed.  SW Saga was probably the closest model to what I'd like to see, with its limited starting class options and modular talent trees.


----------



## Sunseeker (May 9, 2018)

TwoSix said:


> True enough.  My issue is more that each class has differing power levels embedded in the subclass relative to the base class, so you're pretty much making ad-hoc decisions as to whether any subclass feature swap should be allowed.   Which is fine when I'm the DM, but isn't very empowering as a player.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  SW Saga was probably the closest model to what I'd like to see, with its limited starting class options and modular talent trees.




One thing I would love to see is a balanced progression of abilities.  No more Fighter gets things at level 2, Rogue gets things at level 3, Paladin gets things at level 4.  Lets find some unique class features, roughly on equal level with each other, that every class can get at the same time.

As I've pointed out in other threads, what PF2 seems to be missing is that repetition is key to memorization.  We all know we get feats every other level because it's standard across the board.  Odd level?  Get a feat!  Simple.  Easy to remember.

It will also go a long way towards balancing classes.


----------

