Good thoughts, I'll look at this stuff when I get to playtest. I like the idea behind the four tiers of success and I agree with the stated reasons for the math rework but the proof will be in the pudding when the playtest comes out.
On the topic of bonuses specifically I agree that I would prefer a more flavorful name but at the same time it seems so useful to be able to easily backtrack where bonuses come from so I like that aspect. Maybe a more flavorful name for each type would work but I don't know what that would be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Umm.... Level isn't a known thing in-setting in 2e either.... I don't really get how things like items having levels is an issue since all it does is make the crafting system much easier to deal with.
2) The reason why bonuses don't have all those fancy names anymore is because if you give them all separate names, then they would have to go through and specific which stack and which don't through a giant table when the intent is that there are only: Proficiency + Ability + Item + Circumstance + Conditional, and each of them stack.
3) Mathematics were overhauled so that the game didn't break at high levels and so that the gap between PCs isn't so drastic that the issue of "there is no point in anyone attempting x skill aside from that designated skill person" is removed so everyone has options in all different situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the diagetic explanation for a crafter not being able to craft an item because of that item's level is something like "I don't know how to do that yet, I will have to think about it." Which to me makes a lot more sense than the level 1 character with a single rank in Craft (armor) attempting to make Full Plate Mail. That this person can eventually succeed is more an unrealistic quirk of the math than "no level 1 alchemist will attempt to make sleep poison" from where I sit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure I understand the artificiality complaint — while various prestige classes and feats don’t reference level, they do reference skill ranks and base attack bonuses by number, which is no less “game-y.” Given that skill ranks has a direct one to one correlation to level, they’re quite related in reference.
As for the mathematic overhaul, they would not have overhauled it if they didn’t feel it needed it. You have to remember, this iteration of d20 has been active for almost TWENTY YEARS now; Paizo kept this system supported when WotC abandoned it ten years ago, and in their eyes, they’ve taken it as far as it can go without revision. Unless the plan is to turn it into an E6 or E8 system variant, without sharply curtailing bonus progressions, the system as-is gets very unbalanced outside of low levels - by the teens, some saves and attack bonuses are so lop-sided that the die roll doesn’t matter any more. When one character is rolling 1d20+30 to attack, and 1d20+25 for saving throws, how does that play against the partner who’s rolling a 1d20+12 for attacks and a1d20+8 for saves, with both at level 7 or 8? As I’m sure Paizo probably found out two or three years ago when they started, once you start tweaking a few things to fix it, there’s an avalanche effect as the small tweaks start necessitating larger and larger tweaks to fix the whole thing. What you end up with are wholesale changes that no one foresaw at the outset.
I’m not critiquing your opinion - i’m just trying to offer an explanation for why it might feel like proverbial baby was tossed with the bath water.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Put me on the list of those who will be glad not to be stopping the game and poring through books or webpages figuring out "Is this an insight bonus, or a morale bonus, or a sacred bonus, or a luck bonus, or...?"
The new categories are prosaic but practical.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL; DR: You've got some opinions in here which are legit because they are your own perspective, but a lot of your complaints feel unfounded because Paizo has explained themselves way more than you give them credit for.
I hope this post doesn't read as an attack; I'm just trying to be informative.
Aspects of the system seem artificial
Some aspects that we've seen of the system feel that the design framework is being laid bare, without any flavour around it.
One big strength of the Pathfinder system is that in-universe, a character's "level" or a monster's "challenge rating" is not known to the universe's inhabitants.
Even entry to prestige classes never directly references level. Nor do prerequisites for almost every feat. PF2 bucks this trend by giving literally everything with a formatted description a level, at least as far as material released by the blogs. Somehow, Sleep Poison is "level 3" whereas a smokestick is "level 1". Just reading this makes me feel straitjacketed by the system.
This is pretty much entirely a matter of personal sentiment, so I can't tell you that you are wrong about it. Suffice to say, it is a sentiment I don't share and others have touched on why.
Bonus types have been changed from descriptive terms such as "enhancement", "circumstance", "insight" to the horribly bland "item" or "feat" bonus type. (This is exactly what D&D4e did).
See above.
The fact that Death Saving DCs are based on the enemy who knocked you down also feels artificial.
While damage and negative HP is probably a better option for verisimilitude, I don't think it is as good for balance. It means you are MUCH more likely to die at higher levels, and that blast spells which pool there damage into one big hit are much more likely to kill you. This could be especially dangerous with the new crit system.
For starters, it's what prevents direct, simple conversions from Pathfinder to PF2. If the mathematics weren't overhauled like this, then converting existing Pathfinder content (both player options and published adventures) would be much, much easier.Looking at the aspects of the system that I like (the action system, the handling of initiative, the layout of some of the classes), they are all aspects that do not require the mathematical overhaul that seems to being pushed in.
I don't think backwards compatibility should be a primary goal. Most of the changes you like have already been added to Pathfinder 1 in Unchained. I'm using the revised action economy right now and it is awesome. The goal is to make as good an engine as possible, not continue to be shackled to legacy math which breaks so hard.
That being said, Jason converted Crypt of the Everflame on the fly during the GCP podcast, and has assured us more than once it is VERY easy to do. As long as an individual monster's "CR" doesn't change too much between editions it seems pretty easy to get those monsters in, and the new monster creation system will make it much simpler to convert stuff that doesn't make it into the first bestiary. Jason IIRC also said he decided to create a monster on a whim midgame to add, and it was a breeze.
By changing the mathematics, it is effectively obsoleting all existing content. If Paizo wants to do this, and retain their existing customer-base, they need to explain why this is necessary.
They have absolutely done this. Mostly in forum posts (not blog posts, forum posts) and interviews. Do a little googling for the Know Direction interview with Jason and Erik, or the Game Informer interview. Or look through Mark Seifter's posts-- he provides a wealth of insight into the design process. Or try that twtich stream they have going.
It is clear that modifiers are going to be tightened up. The Flat-Footed condition is applied under a multitude of circumstances, and none of these stack:
Having not acted yet in combat
Being flanked
Being proneThis is exactly the same as the Combat Advantage condition in D&D 4e, up to and including the +2.
This means that there is not much of a reward for good planning, good training, and good coordination. Rather, the random component is much more pronounced.
There are still going to be a variety of ways you can gain advantages, but numerical and qualitative. Buff spells will exist (albeit the best will be reined in) and there are lots of ways to coordinate efforts. It will be easier for martials to inflict conditions, especially Fear and Enfeebled. You can disarm people an enemy or use shield feats to block for allies.
In Pathfinder, one feels that one can attempt anything - even if it would normally be nigh-impossible for someone to succeed at it. But with an appropriate tailwind (magical assistance, multiple people aiding you, myriad circumstantial bonuses), you are able to achieve it.
A big part of their goal seems to be tightening up the math so you don't NEED all those bonuses. High level PF1 partially needs all those bonuses because the difference on various rolls can vary by +30 or more.
That being said, I'm relatively certain cirmcustance bonuses to skill checks will still be a thing.
With modifiers so tightly bound to level, it appears that all else being equal, higher level enemies will both do more damage, and also be more likely to critical. This is going to cause combat to be largely more deadly. With so many abilities riding on pulling off criticals, I can see this being unpleasant.
I'm not sure I see how "more powerful enemies are more deadly" is a design flaw. Honestly, the CR system was a mess for actually determining how deadly a fight would be. It just looks easier to predict what an appropriate encounter will be now.
Also, let's not forget that you won't always be fighting higher level enemies. You will also fight lower level enemies, and your PCs critting all the time will make them feel badass.
As for combat being deadlier, this is mitigated by the new dying rules and higher HP. If negative hit points were still a thing you'd be right, but that's one reason they are gone.
In addition, what they have shown is that more powerful effects are being gated behind "enemy must critical fail or you must critical hit". Take Quivering Palm: to cause the advertised effect you must start by hitting, then follow up with taking an action to force a save, which needs a critical failure to cause lasting effect. The fact that you can try again (assuming the enemy didn't succeed the saving throw) the following day will so rarely come up that the entire ability seems more of a lemon that the Pathfinder Monk's Quivering Palm was.
Gonna absolutely disagree with you here. Stunning a foe for a round might as well be killing them in many circumstances. And while being able to use it again the next day is strictly speaking an upgrade from the PF1 version even if it is niche.
It also presents the monk with a very interesting narrative tool (something martials often lack.) You may not actually want the target dead, but you may want them knowing you can kill them no matter how far they run. In some cases, that might as well be a Geas spell.
It feels that the amount of effective daily resources available to PCs is also being really tightened up. With spells no longer scaling with caster level, but rather requiring them to be cast (and maybe prepared?) from higher spell slots, many of these will be less effective as levels rise (this isn't like D&D4e, it's like D&D5e). Not having bonus spell slots available from high ability scores also cuts into the amount of resources available. Resonance is another obvious indication of this.
One question I asked Jason about was how long he thought the adventuring day should be. The 3.5e concept of "four to five encounters per day" hasn't been officially a thing in Pathfinder, but seems to keep coming up. By limiting daily resources, maybe the dynamic has shifted the other way. Jason stated that this is really group-dependent. Which raises more questions than it answers.
I'm not entirely sure what to expect for resource management and the length of the adventuring day, but I have some guesses. We know that they have intentionally reworked spells so your highest level spell slots will be your most powerful, most disruptive resources. Lower level spells will have much less ability to trivialize encounters thanks to the lack of caster level scaling, and the limited top tier spell slots means you can't count on the top spells to always get you through.
In PF1, your lower level spells retained the ability to trivialize encounters into pretty high levels. And you just had sooooo many slots to use. This meant that to make a caster sweat, a GM either had to run them through a gauntlet that is so long it would probably get boring, or make the encounters incredibly deadly. This problem got worse and worse as you get higher in the levels.
Now, you've only got 5-6 spells at your highest spell slots no matter what level you are, while your lower stuff will probably be devoted to utility. This evens out the play experience and makes it easier for a GM to make the caster sweat without falling into the traps mentioned above. You don't need 6-10 encounters before the caster is starting to worry about gassing out.
But to even this out the caster gets scaling cantrips and powers that will let them utilize relevant magic in every round of combat. Even when they have fully used up their tank.
.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some stuff I agree with and some stuff I disagree with.
While I am glad the number of types of modifiers has been reigned in - did we really need all of armor, natural armor, enhancement, deflection, dodge, morale, luck, insight, competence, inherent, racial, resistance, trait, size, base (attack/save), sacred, profane, alchemical, AND circumstance? - it does feel maybe they cut it down too far and made the names too bland. I have an inherent profane morale penalty to my reaction to "item bonus" in particular. :p I'm fine with less bonuses but make them more flavorful, and please allow some stacking. Some amount of optimization is a big part of the fun of building an NPC or monster to me as a GM, and obviously a lot of players love that too.
I intensely HATE that stabilization / death saves are based on the level of the opponent who knocked you down. If they want to get rid of negative HP and make it save based, fine, I can see the benefits! But the save DC should be based on some fraction of the damage that took you out, not something as meta as the level of the opponent. Especially since making it based on level means the GM has to figure out how to assign a level to THE WORLD, when a PC is knocked unconscious by something like falling damage, a cave in, a heat wave, etc. Whereas if this was based on the damage, it's instantly grokkable and I don't have to refer to a table or pull numbers out of my butt.
I don't agree that level prerequisites are inherently a problem. PF1 and 3.x had them in the form of skill rank or BAB prerequisites, this is just more direct. And actually more favorable to the PCs in some cases, since it reduces the need to multiclass for stuff like a BAB-locked feat key to your build.
For the specific case of item levels, well, items effectively had levels based on their price or bonuses anyway, and some items literally were level locked based on a metric of "you can only make an item granting +X bonus if your level is X*Y." Buuuut I still think you should be able to make stuff above your level, even if only a few points above your level. I don't see a problem with a level 1 character making level 3 items, or a level 10 character making level 12 items, and I hope there is provision for that in the rules.
Conditions being cleaned up is a good thing. Flat-footed in particular being cleaned up is a good thing, even if I still think it should be called "Off Guard" rather than "Flat Footed."
The degrees of success system is wonderful to me, tbh. For years now I have formally or informally houseruled better successes on beating a skill DC by 10 or worse failures on failing a skill DC by 10, and seeing that formalized in the actual rules and extended to literally everything works just fine by me and reduces the number of house rules I have to keep track of. Applying it to attacks is a clean way of getting rid of critical hit confirmation rolls and tying into the thematic that a superior warrior should get criticals more often.
They've explained their reasoning re math changes multiple times actually in various blogs and interviews and podcasts. I do think it may be a little TOO tight, and I still think there is room for +2 bonuses instead of a bunch of piddly +1s which don't "feel" as good. That "feel" should be given more weight, a +1 may be mechanically okay but doesn't "feel" satisfying and can have a huge impact on player enjoyment. I think Expert, Master, Legendary would be much more satisfying as +2, +4, +6 instead of +1, +2, +3. I'm going to be watching that closely with my players in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the level stuff it helps remembering that level just represents experience. A level 3 item? That just requires a more experienced crafter or is expected to be found in the hands of a more experienced character then a level one character. Much like the old skill rank requirements required your character to be sufficiently skilled before taking that prestige class.
As for the maths, if you aren’t rebuilding the system from the ground up why even make another edition. I think they have done a good job explaining why they wanted to start over. The adventures can be converted on the fly but all the class, race and feat options will have to stay locked in PF1 until they are updated in future books. It’ll be interesting to see the pace in which they release those classes.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level has always been deeply artificial. At least now it's consistently artificial so you can actually use it to measure things in a meaningful fashion rather than going by guess and by God.
And the math was deeply screwed up in PF1, especially for high level play. It needed fixing, and I'm overjoyed that they're doing so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they didn't change the mathematics from Pathfinder, the four degrees of success would be really good. It would allow DCs to be spread out more and make encounter design more interesting. It would reward PCs who invested heavily in certain aspects of their characters.
They couldn’t do four degrees of success without overhauling the maths. If they kept the current -10 to + 10 range then those old bonuses would mean at higher levels some characters would automatically critical succeed while others automatically critically failed because the difference between characters was vastly more then 20. If you change the -10 +10 to something else like -20 to +20 then the d20 has much less impact on the result and you still have the auto succeed and fail between the party.
It would make martial characters more quadratic in their damage output, and makes critical focus feats more attractive. Suddenly the fact that they have +16 against the opponent's AC18 is meaningful, even if they aren't able to take iterative attacks.
Unless you are fighting something lower level you are always going to want extra to-hit to get those crits. I’m not sure if you are aware that level isn’t just added to Attack, it’s also added to AC. So it’s your modifier and weapon proficiency and item/spell bonuses that will make all the difference in a fight.
It would reward characters who are able to stack conditions on their enemies. Why shouldn't a rogue attacking a flat-footed, prone, flanked enemy have a higher chance to pull off a critical than attacking one who is merely flat-footed?
This I agree with, it’s a bit like advantage in 5E where you can advantage for 5 reasons and disadvantage for 1 so they all cancel out. +6 may be too OP but maybe +2 for prone or flanked but +3 for prone AND flanked and +4 total for prone, flanked and otherwise flat footed.
If they need 3 to hit AC then 13 or higher is a crit so it’s 40% chance of crit on the first swing and a 90% chance to hit. On a second attack it’s 15% chance to crit and 65% to hit and on the 3rd attack is 5% crit and 40% chance to hit.
For the caster needing 13 to hit they would only have the 5% chance to crit, 40% hit on the first attack, 15% chance to hit on the second and would only hit on a natural 20 on the 3rd.
So on the first attack the fighter is over 2x likely to hit and 8x likely to crit then a caster and by the third is 8x likely to hit.
We’ve often been told the 3rd attack is not going to be bad enough to make a fighter consider doing something more productive like raise a shield or re-position but that would be the starting point of a caster. It’s too big of a gap. Give them their first attack as good as a fighters second attack and at least they can get one semi-good hit in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the skills, there are certain things locked behind skill ranks so if building a bridge is considered something an inexperienced can’t even attempt they can either lock it behind an expert skill rank or higher item level.
Most of the skills in the game benefit if everyone in the party can attempt them. It’s not much fun if you are the only one who can sneak through an area or swim across the river. Often if you can’t do it as a group then you can’t do it. Now being good (expert, master? I don’t recall) at sneaking allows you to help your party sneak so you can lead your party past whatever you wanted to avoid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not been convinced that this is a bad thing. Some things a trained, skilled person should be able to automatically succeed on, where an untrained person would be unable to meaningfully contribute.
Well, the big reason is that two people who both did a significant amount of investment in the same thing can have such differing scores that the person with the lower one might as well not roll - literally more than +20 bonus difference. And that's not even counting the other people with even lower bonuses.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have not been convinced that this is a bad thing. Some things a trained, skilled person should be able to automatically succeed on, where an untrained person would be unable to meaningfully contribute.
The issue, as Cyouni notes, is that you can easily have more than a 20 point swing in PF1 even between people who are both 'good' at the skill in question.
Heck, I'm pretty sure you can readily get a 40 point swing. Maybe as much as 70 with the Mythic Rules
Why should a skilled engineer only have a 25% better chance of designing a bridge than someone just out of highschool?
A skilled engineer in PF2 probably has Expert Lore (Engineering) and the Assurance Skill Feat (plus decent Int). He can auto-succeed at anything DC 15 or less, and assuming he's 4th level, probably has +7 minimum on Lore (Engineering) and might easily have a +10. We'll call it an average of +9 or so for 'skilled'.
Someone just out of high school probably isn't level 4, and certainly doesn't have that Lore trained. But let's assume they are level 4, that'd give them (Int Mod +2) as their Proficiency bonus. Assuming they're bright we'll call that a +4 bonus total.
At DC 10, the Engineer has a 100% success rate while the High School Grad has a 75%...but that's a really easy check. It's unsurprising that the High School Grad has decent odds of success.
At DC 15, the Engineer still has a 100% chance while the High School Grad has dropped to 50%. Still not a super hard check, and the Engineer still auto-succeeds, and has double the chance of success of the Grad.
At DC 20, the Engineer now only has a 50% chance of success...and the High School Grad has only a 25% chance. So the Engineer still succeeds twice as often (the Grad also critically fails 25% of the time on this one, which is bad and five times as often as the Engineer...the Grad has the same chance to critically fail as to succeed).
At DC 25 the Engineer is now down to a 25% chance of success and a 25% chance of failure. This is getting beyond him, and a very difficult check. The High School Grad can only succeed 5% of the time by blind luck and will critically fail 55% of the time to boot. He should under no circumstances attempt anything risky with this DC.
.
.
.
Also, designing a bridge is 'practicing a trade' and you can't even make checks like that unskilled. All of the above checks would almost certainly be for analyzing or recognizing engineering work. Actually doing the design the High School Grad can't even attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A skilled engineer in PF2 probably has Expert Lore (Engineering) and the Assurance Skill Feat (plus decent Int). He can auto-succeed at anything DC 15 or less, and assuming he's 4th level, probably has +7 minimum on Lore (Engineering) and might easily have a +10. We'll call it an average of +9 or so for 'skilled'.
Someone just out of high school probably isn't level 4, and certainly doesn't have that Lore trained. But let's assume they are level 4, that'd give them (Int Mod +2) as their Proficiency bonus. Assuming they're bright we'll call that a +4 bonus total.
And the "skilled engineer" can survive a gunshot (crossbow bolt) wound point blank to the face because he has PC levels of toughness just by virtue of going to school?
He also has a +4 over every high school graduate in skills not related to his field of study, including picking pockets, identifying monsters, sneaking around, etc.
Yeah, 3.P has issues with skill scaling, but an entirely new system was NOT needed. We could have plugged a LOT of holes by simply banning certain items, feats, etc.
We know NPCs can be built as PCs, but we also know they can be built independently. Now, we know that one of the ways that they are built independantly is through the bestiary monster creation guidelines, but it seems perfectly reasonable that they can be created through neither, but still be leveled the same way as other beings. Now, this doesn't mean that they have class levels (and thus class HP), but that they still get +X to their skills, ect.
But as to a skilled engineer surviving a gunshot or crossbow bolt point blank, how exactly is that different from Expert X? Barring max 1st level HP, an Expert X has nearly as much HP as an X level Rogue. Which means, for any reasonable level X, an Expert is more likely to survive a crossbow bolt or gunshot point blank, than a level 1 rogue, or frankly any level 1 character. This system is no different from the old system. If you never had to deal with an Expert X taking a crossbow bolt to the face, then an NPC Engineer X taking a crossbow bolt shouldn't be really any different, even if leveled HP is a factor.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the "skilled engineer" can survive a gunshot (crossbow bolt) wound point blank to the face because he has PC levels of toughness just by virtue of going to school?
I think 'point blank to the face' is a critical. And a PC Class 4th level character likely only has 30 HP or so (with a Con 8 Elf they might have as little as 26 HP). As much a mid-level Expert. This problem is not by any means new.
We also know, from the Redcap, that NPCs can be at least one level 'higher' than their actual level for skill purposes. Maybe even more.
I also made that character example at 4th for easy math. 3rd works just as well. So you can probably make a level 2 NPC who can do all that. A Level 2 NPC can easily have as little as 18 HP (maybe lower).
He also has a +4 over every high school graduate in skills not related to his field of study, including picking pockets, identifying monsters, sneaking around, etc.
Eh. The difference between 1 and 4 is actually only +3, and if you go with the 3rd level version make that +2. It's a difference, but not as big a deal as a difference in focus at 1st.
A sneaky 1st level character can easily have +5 Stealth, while a 4th level one can have as little as +2.
Yeah, 3.P has issues with skill scaling, but an entirely new system was NOT needed. We could have plugged a LOT of holes by simply banning certain items, feats, etc.
It really was if you wanted to make high level play work, and have the party all actually playing the same game in terms of what difficulty meant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the "skilled engineer" can survive a gunshot (crossbow bolt) wound point blank to the face because he has PC levels of toughness just by virtue of going to school?I think 'point blank to the face' is a critical. And a PC Class 4th level character likely only has 30 HP or so (with a Con 8 Elf they might have as little as 26 HP). As much a mid-level Expert. This problem is not by any means new.
Indeed, the NPC classes from PF1 have the same problem; a level 5 Expert NPC who is a master Merchant/Architect/Sous Chef can easily take a crossbow bolt to the face and keep selling/building/baking. :)
A sneaky 1st level character can easily have +5 Stealth, while a 4th level one can have as little as +2.
As little as +1 even, if you have a -Dex race and don't buy that back up at char gen.
EDIT: And that's without factoring in ACP or any other passive effects that penalize your Stealth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 3.P has issues with skill scaling, but an entirely new system was NOT needed. We could have plugged a LOT of holes by simply banning certain items, feats, etc.
When you need to ban many things or with great regularity it means the underlying system is in need of some serious rebuilding
Not changing its fundamentals only ensures further frustration and more banning in the future
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the post. It's nice to hear feedback from people who actually played the game!
Improving the underlying chassis to pre-emptively solve those problems is much easier when it comes to producing more content over the next 10 years.
I don't want to sound too pessimistic but if the problem was bad designed feats, items, etc, nothing is preventing to happen again with the new system
Indeed, the NPC classes from PF1 have the same problem; a level 5 Expert NPC who is a master Merchant/Architect/Sous Chef can easily take a crossbow bolt to the face and keep selling/building/baking. :)And the "skilled engineer" can survive a gunshot (crossbow bolt) wound point blank to the face because he has PC levels of toughness just by virtue of going to school?I think 'point blank to the face' is a critical. And a PC Class 4th level character likely only has 30 HP or so (with a Con 8 Elf they might have as little as 26 HP). As much a mid-level Expert. This problem is not by any means new.
Well, Mark did say there are "Multiple paths to power". What I believe is that the core chassis of leveling up as we know it only really applies to adventurers. Monsters are close, but not quite there, and Civilian progression probably has even more differences. I wouldn't be surprised if they never get more HP/BAB/Saves and just improve their skills while staying at level 1 or something. They don't need to use the "universal" rules, as they are just for CLASSED PC/NPC.
|
|
Improving the underlying chassis to pre-emptively solve those problems is much easier when it comes to producing more content over the next 10 years.I don't want to sound too pessimistic but if the problem was bad designed feats, items, etc, nothing is preventing to happen again with the new system
No more 3.5-compatibilty should help a lot in creating a system that fully benefits from the lessons and results of almost 20 years of evolution in TTRPG design