|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Mmmmm. On the one hand, I'd like to point out that the topic magnuskn is talking about is specifically rules-based. As in, how the specific rules interact with the story relative to the old specific rules. You can't be focused too much on the rules when you're talking about the rules....
In closing, yes, I agree that there's absolutely a gargantuan style difference in PF2 spells that have to change the feel of magic on Golarion, based on what we've been shown so far. Maybe James has seen something different. Dunno. But beyond incredibly dampened feel, I suspect he's very right that the spirit of most stories - not the literal word of them - could be told with PF2. Runelords in PF2? Well, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Doesn't matter than in the previous edition everyone was a beholder. << Sorry for the edition-crossing monster reference.
Yes, he's talking about rules. But he's saying you can't run the world and the stories with those rules. I say balderdash. I could run any AP in existence using 13th Age, Swords and Wizardry, 4th Edition D&D, Savage Worlds, Fate, Rolemaster, Warhammer FRP, Palladium Fantasy, Fantasy Age, GURPS, or just about any other fantasy RPG available. Some would take more work than others, but as long as characters can use magic, you can make it work.
As it is, what the PCs have access to in PF1 varies greatly based on the classes they choose. If your primary spellcasters are an oracle and a summoner your tools to solve problems are going to be very different than a bard and a cleric. The APs never assume the PCs have any particular solution to a problem, unless its in the form of a magic item they definitely receive along the way.
Anyway, as far as the playtest goes, my experience from the first playtest is they test out the limits of how far they can push changes, and they will scale back and be more conservative when it comes to the final product.