|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Fair enough, apologies for the assumption of malintent. I've dealt with enough nonsense in various places that sometimes something comes off too readily as negative, despite my generally trying to avoid assuming the worst of others.
To be honest, one of the reasons I'm mainly a lurker and not a poster is because writing posts in threads over the Internet is way off to be a perfect way to communicate and misunderstandings are quite common. As Mark Seifter wrote in another post, lack of context is the prime suspect, I believe.While I can advocate for myself and not wanting to be malicious, my past posts surely was not perfectly written so I'll try to get better - and to convene a tone more adequate for this forum.
As to continuing the suggestion, I'm honestly not sure. I feel like opinions on both sides have been pretty well stated and expounded on, along with some potential in-between options. I think at this point it's at more of an agree to disagree point than anything.
But we can agree that we need more spoilers!
One thing I will add on it though, I think comparing PF1 and PF2 Sorcerers beyond a certain point is a mistake.
True - again, I feel guilty as the one who started it by calling out 5E.But I want to return to this topic for one second, hoping to not derail.
The first time I called out "5E spellcasters" was not a comparison made in the light of "power level" or "play level" or even "play experience" of Sorcerers per se. I was not trying to compare Sorcerer between different editions of different RPG.
The thing I tried (badly) to focus on was how the system is ingrained at the rules level: how spellcasting works in 5E is, in itself, universal, with the same rules for every one and how in my experience the simplicity of the system seems to be, again in my personal opinion, one of the best version of the Vancian spellcasting for every class in 5E - as I write this, I'm aware I don't know how spellcasting really is in PF2 and even I can't know if the new spellcasting will be a better experience for me and/or my group, but again, I created this thread to speculate and gain information, so having people with different opinions are most certainly welcomed.
When we look at what we know about PF2, my major concern how expressed in other posts is how rules for spontaneous casters seems different for various design reasons, that surely cover things like "analysis paralysis" and balance, and the things that I keep can't grasp is how, in the scales of PF2's developing, this points generated more weight then others - and all of this I find as the source of my most aggressive answers, a mix of what we know and don't know, of what will, could and won't be in the final version of the game.
Most of my anxiety surely went away by knowing that by design the game can be more adapted to different tables, helping people transitioning to one system to the other and to grant the best experience to everyone without creating a cascade effect on rules and balancing inside the game itself if a rule, like how spontaneous spellcasting works, is changed. Something that, always in my opinion, I don't find true in other TTRPGs.
I put a lot of hope and comfort in this.
[...]but it just felt to me like it was mostly that Gawain was someone who's very passionate and feels really strongly about sorcerers in a way that might have caused him not to be thinking from other viewpoints as much when he worded that post, and so I responded in kind. We're all gamers and we love Pathfinder[...].
Eheh. I pass as a very chill guy in real life and I surprise even myself for the times I get so passionate for what is, after all, a game.
I think there really isn't much benefit in comparing cross system after all. Perhaps even detrimental given that one of the impetuses to make PF2 was that PF1 was weighed down by 3.5 baggage and constantly worrying about how the new compared to the old. Looking back at PF1 and other systems can give us a frame of reference and an idea of what to look for in terms of progress, but I don't think direct comparisons add much.
The focus should instead be on how the class looks in its own world, wholly separate from PF1.
How good does the class feel to play? That includes everything from how varied and impactful its options feel to how difficult and complex it is to figure out and so on.
How well does it fulfill its own fantasy? Does it feel like your character is tapping into arcane secrets in their blood to unleash devastating magic?
And finally, how well does it compare to its peers, primarily the wizard, secondarily other full casters and tertiarily every other class.
Admittedly kind of hard since we only have a limited picture of what the final project, but my point is that "This is better than in PF1" or "This is worse than in PF1" don't mean a lot on their own because lots of moving parts have changed and PF1 sorcerers are never going to be competing against PF2 sorcerers anyways.
These are excellent points. I add: this post by tqomins shows all the Multiclass Archetypes feats, that we can use as a reminder and to expand on the questions rised by Squiggit, expecially in the compare part.