My problem with automatic bonus progression was mostly that it actually broke the APs and bestiary monsters at high levels :p
RotR for example doesn't expect that everyone at level 17 has +5 resistance cloak +5 deflection and +6 to all stats <_<; Enemy dcs were too low for pcs to not automatically succeed and other shenanigans.
While it was optimal to get all big six items, the math didn't actually handle that very well in 1e...
I am finding this as well
Mainly with DCs.
I am in Book 4 of Hells Rebels and most of the DCs don't go higher than 20. And my group once certain spells are in effect are getting the high teens on most saves it seems
AC also seems to be something they can easily get very high to the point that certain mooks might as well not be there because they are just wasting time
Also giving all these boosts and freeing up things like cloak slots make the PCs very dangerous
All that said I am a big fan of ABP. It just means I need to apply it to most enemies using HeroLab to even make things slightly interesting (Bestiary is another matter). But that is partial consequence of many class levelled enemies being, to put it charitably, "sub-optimally" built for fighting hyper focused PCs.
Yeaaaah, applying ABP to NPCs from bestiary without class levels is hard <_< I tried it and couldn't really figure it out well
Well Herolab does it on HD which isn't perfect but it is a start
So a Bearded Devil gets:
+2 AC
+1 Attack and Damage
+1 Fort and Reflex
+2 Will
As an example
I also often do "rounding" up of stats as lots of monsters have 15's, 19's and 21's that don't do anything
I find this partially adjusts for player ABP and player 20 point buy
I haven't actually used ABP on Bestiary monsters to date as I am not 100% certain some need it as much as the class levelled NPC antagonists (although lots of those need completely rebuilding in the first place)
I switched on ABP with an Aboleth with Wizard class levels (I think only 3 wizard levels). Due to HD the results were quite horrifying. So it is more of an art than a science I think
For a more extreme example a Bone Devil gets:
+2 hit and damage
+5 AC
+ 3 Fort and Reflex
+4 Will
The AC is the clear outlier here because the creature gets an armour enhancement to it's "clothing" as well as deflection and Natural armour boosts. I would say don't apply that but that is still +3 AC
And save DCs aren't really helped in most cases (but it depends on the stat boosts applied)
ABP helps a lot but it seems mainly with PC AC.
I recently rebuilt a bunch of allied NPCs using it and some of them would have been more than 10 points lower without it and are still some way short (lower levelled ones but the point still stands)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your post perception check, it is not only my opinion but an opportunity to discuss the game. To be honest I wrote this post at the beginning for people like you and me who were considering PF2 and could find themselves on each side of liking/disliking the game.
Sorry to know that you don’t like this iteration. Maybe given time and supplements you will grow to give it another try, if not I am sure you will have PF1 that give you joy!
I am glad to see that post not being an edition war, and people giving some useful tips, and dev commenting on their design. I feel that this kind of discussion is useful on many levels, and that we can all be respectful around a passion we all got, and not just be **** about it on the internet.
I couldn't disagree with this post more. So many things you posted are simply inaccurate on so many levels. Too many to really reply to, but magic got nerfed was one that stood out. That's just flat out wrong. If anything, magic received a welcome buff. Goblins being a core race. At first this seemed odd until you realize that like 200 years has passed since PF1, so cultures and people change. Less variety in classes? Nope, far more variety. Too much to list, but I disagree with almost every point you made. It seems you really didn't have full knowledge of the game and just posted an initial feeling, which is fine, but you should really just say that instead of posting this as though it was fact, which most of your points are not.
Raise from the grave, my thread!
At least the avatar checks out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, funny to say
"It seems you really didn't have full knowledge of the game and just posted an initial feeling, which is fine, but you should really just say that instead of posting this as though it was fact, which most of your points are not"
to a comment writen just a few days after the game was published.
|
Goblins being a core race. At first this seemed odd until you realize that like 200 years has passed since PF1, so cultures and people change.Nope, there was no time skip between Tyrant's Grasp and Age of Ashes.
It has been 20 years since the Goblinblood Wars, however. Whereas it had only been a few in PF1.
That's definitely enough time for societal change, especially on the goblin end given their short generations.
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...posting this as though it was fact
To be fair, in a thread such as this everyone's thoughts are opinions. Very little is fact.
I don't think "nerf" is exactly how I would describe spell-casters, but its a fairly common opinion that they are weaker than they were in 1E. The one thing that stands out the most, IMO, is the significant lack of utility spells. The vast majority of magic is direct attack, either physical damage or "save or suck." That's fine, and I really like the new cantrip rules and the attack spells that reside in them, but it is extremely difficult to build a utility-support caster right now. We have to hope upcoming releases provide a lot of magic in that area.
As others have said, there was no time jump between 1E and 2E. We can argue about when goblins began their slow ascension to social acceptability, but they are certainly there now and it all happened relatively recently. For many Pathfinders it was rather sudden.
Its hard to argue that there is more variety in classes given the comparison between 1E and its more than a decade of material vs 2E and its less than a year. Of anything, that is probably the closest thing to a fact as there is. Though the assumption is that will change as more products are released for 2E.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that stands out the most, IMO, is the significant lack of utility spells. The vast majority of magic is direct attack, either physical damage or "save or suck."
Um...what? I'm really unclear on what makes you think this. There are certainly fewer utility spells inasmuch as there are fewer spells of all types, but as a percentage? I don't think so. Just looking through the AoN Arcane Spell List, I'm seeing a whole lot of utility, at least as much percentage wise as in PF1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that stands out the most, IMO, is the significant lack of utility spells. The vast majority of magic is direct attack, either physical damage or "save or suck."Um...what? I'm really unclear on what makes you think this. There are certainly fewer utility spells inasmuch as there are fewer spells of all types, but as a percentage? I don't think so. Just looking through the AoN Arcane Spell List, I'm seeing a whole lot of utility, at least as much percentage wise as in PF1.
I think plenty of utility exists, but the hit to spells known/prepared and durations makes it a lot harder to justify taking them. Wizards with spell substitution are the only ones who can afford to actually use much utility unless you're willing to rely very heavily indeed on cantrips for your offense and defense.
I think plenty of utility exists, but the hit to spells known/prepared and durations makes it a lot harder to justify taking them. Wizards with spell substitution are the only ones who can afford to actually use much utility unless you're willing to rely very heavily indeed on cantrips for your offense and defense.The one thing that stands out the most, IMO, is the significant lack of utility spells. The vast majority of magic is direct attack, either physical damage or "save or suck."Um...what? I'm really unclear on what makes you think this. There are certainly fewer utility spells inasmuch as there are fewer spells of all types, but as a percentage? I don't think so. Just looking through the AoN Arcane Spell List, I'm seeing a whole lot of utility, at least as much percentage wise as in PF1.
Maybe at low levels, but I feel like utility is usually what lower level slots get used for after a while.
Well, some low-level slots retain their value as you level (true strike), but at higher levels you have enough slots to spare for utility.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, just as in PF1 scrolls and wands exist and are very useful for utility spells.
And cantrips, focus spells, the ability to use weapons means that there is less pressure to make all spells combat spells. Even low level casters can usually afford to have some utility spells memorized.
ESPECIALLY (but not only) when they have a decent idea what they'll be facing
- We only got a few books for now, and of course we can't compare the huge diversity of builds that PF1 allows with Pathfinder 2 for the moment. Which means that if you are looking to do a brawler with a mechanical leg, a Psychic with a monstruous race, or an Oozemorph, the game might not be for you... yet.
That's actually my biggest gripe for PF2, because they essentially pushed the Reset button when it comes to material.
I kinda expected every PF1 book would have been converted to PF2 under 3 years. Everything got reworked and reworded to be more compact with less words, but... all they added were the Alchemist class and the Goblin ancestry.
Maybe they should have released 2 Player's Handbooks (all classes and races), 2 GM Guides (all rules) and 3 Bestiaries (all 6 Bestiaries) under 2 years, all converted PF1 material and then start releasing new stuff. It's like investing 10 years in a MMORPG, only to not be able to transfer your character in the sequel.
|
- We only got a few books for now, and of course we can't compare the huge diversity of builds that PF1 allows with Pathfinder 2 for the moment. Which means that if you are looking to do a brawler with a mechanical leg, a Psychic with a monstruous race, or an Oozemorph, the game might not be for you... yet.That's actually my biggest gripe for PF2, because they essentially pushed the Reset button when it comes to material.
I kinda expected every PF1 book would have been converted to PF2 under 3 years. Everything got reworked and reworded to be more compact with less words, but... all they added were the Alchemist class and the Goblin ancestry.
Maybe they should have released 2 Player's Handbooks (all classes and races), 2 GM Guides (all rules) and 3 Bestiaries (all 6 Bestiaries) under 2 years, all converted PF1 material and then start releasing new stuff. It's like investing 10 years in a MMORPG, only to not be able to transfer your character in the sequel.
Ummmmm. I'm sorry to ask this, but you do realize that 2e isn't even a year old now? It was released in 1st of august of 2019
If you want first edition, play first edition. Second edition is its own thing.
- We only got a few books for now, and of course we can't compare the huge diversity of builds that PF1 allows with Pathfinder 2 for the moment. Which means that if you are looking to do a brawler with a mechanical leg, a Psychic with a monstruous race, or an Oozemorph, the game might not be for you... yet.That's actually my biggest gripe for PF2, because they essentially pushed the Reset button when it comes to material.
I kinda expected every PF1 book would have been converted to PF2 under 3 years. Everything got reworked and reworded to be more compact with less words, but... all they added were the Alchemist class and the Goblin ancestry.
Maybe they should have released 2 Player's Handbooks (all classes and races), 2 GM Guides (all rules) and 3 Bestiaries (all 6 Bestiaries) under 2 years, all converted PF1 material and then start releasing new stuff. It's like investing 10 years in a MMORPG, only to not be able to transfer your character in the sequel.
You realize that converting ALL PF1 content is next to impossible in a few years, right? PF2 and PF1 are incredibly different systems, and there's no simple switch to convert content, with adventures being the easiest thing to convert. Hell, the PF2 CRB was the single largest book Paizo has ever produced to my knowledge.
On top of the difficulty of it, I doubt it's something very many people at Paizo want to do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They certainly intend to convert a lot of stuff. Probably all of it barring very niche stuff eventually.
But at the moment, we have the Core Rulebook and not much else, in terms of conversion stuff. The APG adds a lot more, and the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide will do likewise in a different way, but neither of those are out yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I go on a game by game basis as to what I'll allow as far as previously non-standard races.
I'm running RotR right now. So, very obviously, no goblin PCs allowed.
If I were running Skull and Shackles or Serpent's Skull or something like that, where everyone is on a ship and could've come from basically anywhere, then I'd allow goblins, hobgoblins, that sort of thing.
But if it's baseline humanoid civilization (CotCT or the like), I just don't feel comfortable with a party of goblins or lizardfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they should have released 2 Player's Handbooks (all classes and races), 2 GM Guides (all rules) and 3 Bestiaries (all 6 Bestiaries) under 2 years, all converted PF1 material and then start releasing new stuff.
Let's see, by the end of year one we have 2 bestiaries, the GMG, and the Advanced Player's Guide, and we already know we are getting another Bestiary next year.
Oh and that doesn't count all the stuff that was ported over in the Lost Omens books.
Seems like they are already doing what you wanted and more.
Um...what? I'm really unclear on what makes you think this. There are certainly fewer utility spells inasmuch as there are fewer spells of all types, but as a percentage? I don't think so. Just looking through the AoN Arcane Spell List, I'm seeing a whole lot of utility, at least as much percentage wise as in PF1.
I'll make an attempt at demonstrating why someone might think this:
Pathfinder 1st Edition:
PF1 Average Percent Of Utility Spells Within a Given Level = 46%
((60%+47%+37%+46%+41%+55%+43%+56%+35%+41%)/10)
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell= 45%
((9+12+19+18+23+16+19+18+18+12)/(22+34+34+42+42+39+41+49+38+20))
0: 60% - 12/20
Detect Magic
Detect Poison
Read Magic
Dancing Lights
Light
Ghost Sound
Mage Hand
Mending
Message
Open / Close
Arcane Mark
Prestidigitation
1st: 47% - 18/38
Alarm
Endure Elements
Hold Portal
Mount
Unseen Servant
Comprehend Language
Detect Secret Doors
Detect Undead
Identify
Charm Person
Floating Disk
Disguise Self
Magic Aura
Silent Image
Ventriloquism
Erase
Feather Fall
Jump
2nd: 37% - 18/49
Arcane Lock
Obscure Object
Detect Thoughts
Locate Object
Continual Flame
Shatter
Invisibility
Magic Mouth
Minor Image
Misdirection
Phantom Trap
Darkvision
Knock
Levitate
Make Whole
Rope Trick
Spider Climb
Whispering Wind
3rd: 46% - 19/41
Dispel Magic
Nondetection
Phantom Steed
Arcane Sight
Clairaudience /Clairvoyance
Tongues
Suggestion
Daylight
Tiny Hut
Invisibility Sphere
Illusory Script
Major Image
Gentle Repose
Blink
Fly
Gaseous Form
Secret Page
Shrink Item
Water Breathing
4th: 41% - 16/39
Remove Curse
Dimension Door
Minor Creation
Secure Shelter
Arcane Eye
Detect Scrying
Locate Creature
Scrying
Charm Monster
Lesser Geas
Hallucinatory Terrain
Illusory Wall
Greater Invisibility
Shadow Conjuration
Animate Dead
Stone Shape
5th: 55% - 23/42
Break Enchantment
Private Sanctum
Faithful Hound
Major Creation
Lesser Planar Binding
Secret Chest
Teleport
Contact Other Planes
Prying Eyes
Telepathic Bond
Dominate Person
Sending
Dream
False Vision
Mirage Arcana
Persistent Image
Seeming
Magic Jar
Fabricate
Overland Flight
Passwall
Telekinesis
Permanency
6th: 43% - 18/42
Antimagic Field
Greater Dispel Magic
Guards and Wards
Planar Binding
Analyze Dweomer
Legend Lore
True Seeing
Geas
Mass Suggestion
Symbol of Persuasion
Contigency
Permanent Image
Programmed Image
Shadow Walk
Veil
Create Undead
Control Water
Move Earth
7th: 56% - 19/34
Sequester
Instant Summons
Magnificent Mansion
Phase Door
Plane Shift
Greater Teleport
Teleport Object
Greater Arcane Sight
Greater Scrying
Vison
Mass Invisibility
Project Image
Greater Shadow Conjuration
Simulacrum
Control Weather
Ethereal Jaunt
Reverse Gravity
Statue
Limited Wish
8th: 35% - 12/34
Dimensional Lock
Greater Planar Binding
Discern Location
Greater Prying Eyes
Antipathy
Mass Charm Monster
Demand
Sympathy
Screen
Clone
Create Greater Undead
Polymorph Any Object
9th: 41% - 9/22
Mage’s disjunction
Gate
Refuge
Teleportation Circle
Dominate Monster
Shades
Astral Projection
Etherealness
Wish
_______________
Pathfinder 2nd Edition:
PF2 Average Percent Of Utility Spells Within a Given Level = 33%
((50%+46%+47%+35%+46%+33%+13%+18%+27%+13%+33%)/11)
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell= 37%
(1+1+3+2+2+7+11+8+16+16+9)/(3+8+11+11+16+21+24+23+34+35+18)
0: 50% - 9/18
Dancing Lights
Detect Magic
Ghost Sound
Light
Mage Hand
Message
Prestidigitation
Read Aura
Sigil
1st: 46% - 16/35
Air Bubble
Alarm
Ant Haul
Charm
Create Water
Feather Fall
Floating Disk
Illusory Disguise
Illusory Object
Item Facade
Jump
Lock
Mending
Negate Aroma
Unseen Servant
Ventriloquism
2nd: 47% - 16/34
Comprehend Language
Continual Flame
Create Food
Darkvision
Dispel Magic
Endure Elements
Gentle Repose
Illusory Creature
Invisibility
Knock
Magic Mouth
Misdirection
Phantom Steed
Spider Climb
Water Breathing
Water Walk
3rd: 35% - 8/23
Claudience
Feet to Fins
Dream Message
Invisibility Sphere
Levitate
Meld Into Stone
Secret Page
Shrink Item
4th: 46% - 11/24
Blink
Clairvoyance
Creation
Dimension Door
Fly
Freedom of Movement
Gaseous Form
Shape Stone
Suggestion
Telepathy
Veil
5th: 33% - 7/21
Control Water
Hallucination
Illusory Scene
Prying Eye
Sending
Subconscious Suggestion
Telekinetic Haul
6th: 13% - 2/16
Collective Transposition
True Seeing
7th: 18% - 2/11
Contingency
Project Image
8th: 27% - 3/11
Disappearance
Dream Council
Unrelenting Observation
9th: 13% - 1/8
Resplendent Mansion
10th: 33% - 1/3
Wish
_______________
Note On Methodology:
I defined “utility spell” as any spell that would be cast out of combat, for a purpose other than gaining a benefit once combat starts. It’s certainly possible that I may have missed some spells that fall under this definition and/or included a few spells that do not. However, my choice not to include summon _____ spells and polymorph spells (aside from polymorph any object) as either utility or non utility was a deliberate one. This decision likely benefits 2e more so than 1e. I only examined spells from each edition's core rulebook and I did not count rare spells, uncommon spells, or rituals among either the utility or non utility sections. This decision undoubtedly benefits 1e to 2e’s detriment. From my personal experience, it is a more common phenomenon for wizards to gain access to few uncommon spells, than for them to gain access to all or even many uncommon spells. Still in my experience, wizards can seldom take uncommon spells upon level up. When these spells are granted by the DM or AP, the adventure often accounts for the spell, occasionally making uncommon spells feel more like plot devices than actual bonus utility. To reiterate, though, uncommon spells were not examined at all for the purposes of this dataset, so I am not counting them as non utility to the active detriment of each level’s %. If you disagree with my methods of math (both of which are not infallible), feel free to conduct your own analysis and we can compare results. Thanks for reading!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll make an attempt at demonstrating why someone might think this:
** spoiler omitted **...
I admit I was mostly examining low level spells (which, even by your calculations, are pretty close to even) when I wrote that. And I can see why, as a pure math thing, someone might think that.
However, it's almost completely illusory. The vast majority of that is on the high level spells (looking through 0th through 5th level spells, PF1 is about 48%, while PF2 is about 43%...that strikes me as comparable), and many of those high level spells that don't show up on the lists still exist, but as upgraded versions of lower level spells. In PF2, those are just Heightened versions of the low level spell. Sure, Greater Dispel Magic is gone as a separate spell...but 6th level Dispel Magic is not.
I also disagree strongly with not counting Rituals or Uncommon spells. In both cases the PF2 book outright states that you should give PCs ways to get any they really desire, not just those specifically outlined in an AP. Not counting them quite as highly I can see, but omitting them entirely? That's just shooting PF2 in the foot for comparison purposes.
Many of those high level spells that don't show up on the lists still exist, but as upgraded versions of lower level spells. In PF2, those are just Heightened versions of the low level spell. Sure, Greater Dispel Magic is gone as a separate spell...but 6th level Dispel Magic is not.
Well, three things here. First, there were a lot of small technicalities that affected the final percentages. For example, illusory object and creature vs. major image. However, most of these technicalities hurt the PF1e percents, not PF2's. This was especially true at 2nd and 6th level, because of the +4 to an ability score / mass +4 to an ability to score spell lines.
Second, I might be missing something here, but greater dispel magic allowed you to dispel multiple effects on a single target; a heightened 6th level dispel magic does not. You also can't area dispel or counterspell with heightened dispel magic. An effect like greater dispel magic simply does not exist in this edition.
Third, while I will concede greater invisibility, there are (again, to my knowledge) no equivalents to:
-Greater Teleport
-Create Greater Undead
-Greater Arcane Sight
-Greater Scrying
-Greater Shadow Conjuration
-Greater Planar Binding
-Greater Prying Eyes
I also disagree strongly with not counting Rituals or Uncommon spells. In both cases the PF2 book outright states that you should give PCs ways to get any they really desire, not just those specifically outlined in an AP. Not counting them quite as highly I can see, but omitting them entirely? That's just shooting PF2 in the foot for comparison purposes.
I'll be honest with you: I really don't like rarity and think it kind of shoots the system in the foot all by itself (which I know is not what you were saying). However, I'm rather worn out of debating the merits of rarity, who actually ends up getting what, and how generous the average DM is so I think we can compromise for analysis' sake and say that the wizard gets access to 50% of the uncommon+ spells. While I have personally never played in a game with this degree of access, I think it's possible that some generous DMs play with all uncommon spells and other, more restrictive ones, play with none. Again, because I don't want to speak for any nonexistent silent majorities, I'm just going to go with the safe bet of 50% here.
PF2 Average Percent Of Utility Spells Within a Given Level = 38%
((53%+46%+47%+40%+48%+42%+17%+21%+31%+22%+50%)/11)
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell= 40%
(2+2+4+3+3+10+13+10+16+16+10)/(4+9+13+14+18+24+27+25+34+35+19)
0: 53% - 10/19
Dancing Lights
Detect Magic
Ghost Sound
Light
Magic Aura
Mage Hand
Message
Prestidigitation
Read Aura
Sigil
1st: 46% - 16/35
Air Bubble
Alarm
Ant Haul
Charm
Create Water
Feather Fall
Floating Disk
Illusory Disguise
Illusory Object
Item Facade
Jump
Lock
Mending
Negate Aroma
Unseen Servant
Ventriloquism
2nd: 47% - 16/34
Comprehend Language
Continual Flame
Create Food
Darkvision
Dispel Magic
Endure Elements
Gentle Repose
Illusory Creature
Invisibility
Knock
Magic Mouth
Misdirection
Phantom Steed
Spider Climb
Water Breathing
Water Walk
3rd: 40% - 10/25
Claudience
Feet to Fins
Dream Message
Invisibility Sphere
Levitate
Locate
Meld Into Stone
Nondetection
Secret Page
Shrink Item
4th: 48% - 13/27
Blink
Clairvoyance
Creation
Detect Scrying
Dimension Door
Fly
Freedom of Movement
Gaseous Form
Private Sanctum
Shape Stone
Suggestion
Telepathy
Veil
5th: 42% - 10/24
Control Water
False Vision
Hallucination
Illusory Scene
Passwall
Prying Eye
Sending
Subconscious Suggestion
Telekinetic Haul
Telepathic Bond
6th: 17% - 3/18
Collective Transposition
True Seeing
Teleport
7th: 21% - 3/14
Contingency
Magnificent Mansion
Project Image
8th: 31% - 4/13
Antimagic Field
Disappearance
Dream Council
Unrelenting Observation
9th: 22% - 2/9
Disjunction
Resplendent Mansion
10th: 50% - 2/4
Gate
Wish
After redoing my initial calculations by going down the arcane spell list and adding every other uncommon spell, my conclusion remains the same: there are fewer accessible utility spells as a percentage of all spells and all spells by level between PF1e and PF2e. Whether this lack is significant, as twilightknight believes, is a matter of opinion, and I agree with you that categorizing the "vast majority" of spells as direct attack, physical damage, and save or suck is inaccurate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, three things here. First, there were a lot of small technicalities that affected the final percentages. For example, illusory object and creature vs. major image. However, most of these technicalities hurt the PF1e percents, not PF2's. This was especially true at 2nd and 6th level, because of the +4 to an ability score / mass +4 to an ability to score spell lines.
I would not characterize those as primarily utility spells, though I'll grant they can theoretically be used for that.
Second, I might be missing something here, but greater dispel magic allowed you to dispel multiple effects on a single target; a heightened 6th level dispel magic does not. You also can't area dispel or counterspell with heightened dispel magic. An effect like greater dispel magic simply does not exist in this edition.
Uh...you can counterspell with any Dispel Magic, in either edition. Area Dispels are certainly gone, it's true, but I wouldn't call that a utility effect, but a combat one. In terms of non-combat utility, multiple single Dispel Magics are about as good (if more resource intensive).
Third, while I will concede greater invisibility, there are (again, to my knowledge) no equivalents to:
-Greater Teleport
Uh...Heightened Teleport does basically this. It's not identical, but it's as close as most other conversions between editions. That also covers Interplanetary Teleport, for that matter.
-Create Greater Undead
Higher level versions of the Create Undead Ritual do exactly this. Up to level 17 undead...so definitely everything on that spell's list.
-Greater Arcane Sight
-Greater Scrying
-Greater Prying Eyes
These three are correct. I didn't say this applied on everything
-Greater Shadow Conjuration
This is a weird spell for this, both because it only duplicates other spells, and because basic Shadow Conjuration hasn't made the jump either, so it's a completely separate subject.
-Greater Planar Binding
Again, this is covered by the Planar Binding Ritual's higher level version, which hits up to level 17 Outsiders...which is mostly significantly more powerful than 18 HD in PF1.
I'll be honest with you: I really don't like rarity and think it kind of shoots the system in the foot all by itself (which I know is not what you were saying).
Rarity is one of those things that varies a lot depending on how closely GMs actually read the book and follow the advice therein.
Personally, I'd strongly argue that any GM who doesn't let you work or pay to get at least some additional Uncommon spells is actively making your life harder than PF2's rules ask them to. Doesn't mean some won't do it, but it's not what the rules assume at all.
However, I'm rather worn out of debating the merits of rarity, who actually ends up getting what, and how generous the average DM is so I think we can compromise for analysis' sake and say that the wizard gets access to 50% of the uncommon+ spells. While I have personally never played in a game with this degree of access, I think it's possible that some generous DMs play with all uncommon spells and other, more restrictive ones, play with none. Again, because I don't want to speak for any nonexistent silent majorities, I'm just going to go with the safe bet of 50% here.
That seems reasonable, but you're still leaving off Rituals. Those are certainly Uncommon, but they're where a lot of the utility stuff wound up as demonstrated above. Counting them as well (though, since they're Uncommon, only at 50%) seems necessary for accuracy.
After redoing my initial calculations by going down the arcane spell list and adding every other uncommon spell, my conclusion remains the same: there are fewer accessible utility spells as a percentage of all spells and all spells by level between PF1e and PF2e. Whether this lack is significant, as twilightknight believes, is a matter of opinion, and I agree with you that categorizing the "vast majority" of spells as direct attack, physical damage, and save or suck is inaccurate.
I think that the difference is a lot lower taking Heightened Spells and Rituals into account, which you really should.
I would not characterize those as primarily utility spells, though I'll grant they can theoretically be used for that.
You are correct. I did not characterize them as utility spells when conducting my analysis. My only point was to illustrate how one effect (+4 enhancement bonus to ability score) being split across 12 different spells negatively impacted the two final values produced when examining utility percent in PF1.
Uh...you can counterspell with any Dispel Magic, in either edition. Area Dispels are certainly gone, it's true, but I wouldn't call that a utility effect, but a combat one. In terms of non-combat utility, multiple single Dispel Magics are about as good (if more resource intensive).
You'll have to pardon my general lack of knowledge on counterspell but I thought that a feat was required to counterspell (maybe that's just to do it as a reaction though?)
Uh...Heightened Teleport does basically this. It's not identical, but it's as close as most other conversions between editions. That also covers Interplanetary Teleport, for that matter.
Back in the days of 3e, greater teleport was called teleport without error, the implication being that removing the chance of displacement when moving over long distances was a substantial enough change to teleport that it warranted it's own spell. If we look at spell lists exclusively, we lost greater teleport. If we look at effects, we lost the ability to teleport without arriving off-target. No matter how I look at it, utility options were lost. Remember, though, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm just observing that it occurred.
This is a weird spell for this, both because it only duplicates other spells, and because basic Shadow Conjuration hasn't made the jump...
Well the fact that it didn't make the jump serves my purpose perfectly if I'm trying to establish that PF2e has a net reduction of utility spells as a percentage of the arcane spell list. Remember, spell duplication is some of the best utility around, that's why wish and limited wish are such strong options, especially in 2e.
______________My analysis has thus far been focused exclusively on the arcane list. Rituals are not on that spell list, but, yes, arcane casters can receive a ritual from the DM or AP and then use it for additional utility. As you know, all classes can do this.
I wouldn't count leadership as a utility power of arcane spellcasters in PF1e, because anyone can acquire leadership. Neither do I buy a similar argument made by some who play 3.5: the fighter, as a class, is redeemed in terms of utility by magic items. To quote Syndrome here, "if everyone's super, no one will be."
However, based on what you've said, I will revise my conclusion:
"There are fewer accessible arcane utility spells as a percentage of all arcane spells and all arcane spells by level between PF1e and PF2e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct. I did not characterize them as utility spells when conducting my analysis. My only point was to illustrate how one effect (+4 enhancement bonus to ability score) being split across 12 different spells negatively impacted the two final values produced when examining utility percent in PF1.
Sure, I got that. I was basically just agreeing to your decision to leave them off.
You'll have to pardon my general lack of knowledge on counterspell but I thought that a feat was required to counterspell (maybe that's just to do it as a reaction though?)
You do need a Feat to counterspell in PF2, but my point was that you never needed Greater Dispel Magic to do so, and that the option remains available just in a different place.
Also, the Feat (which is 1st level) makes it much better than it ever was in the PF1 core rulebook, since there it always cost your action.
Back in the days of 3e, greater teleport was called teleport without error, the implication being that removing the chance of displacement when moving over long distances was a substantial enough change to teleport that it warranted it's own spell. If we look at spell lists exclusively, we lost greater teleport. If we look at effects, we lost the ability to teleport without arriving off-target. No matter how I look at it, utility options were lost. Remember, though, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, I'm just observing that it occurred.
There's no chance of a mishap any more, which I'd say is the more important bit. Landing slightly off target is a rounding error if there's no chance of mishap...and that got lost in the Edition Change (and is thus an example of increased utility from said change).
Well the fact that it didn't make the jump serves my purpose perfectly if I'm trying to establish that PF2e has a net reduction of utility spells as a percentage of the arcane spell list. Remember, spell duplication is some of the best utility around, that's why wish and limited wish are such strong options, especially in 2e.
You were listing it as an example of a spell that wasn't covered by Heightening. doing that with a spell that just wasn't converted doesn't make a lot of sense, is what I was saying.
And specific spells being lost doesn't really prove the point is spells that weren't in the PF1 core rules were added to replace them (and some new ones were certainly added), so I'm not sure listing spells that just weren't converted is productive.
My analysis has thus far been focused exclusively on the arcane list. Rituals are not on that spell list, but, yes, arcane casters can receive a ritual from the DM or AP and then use it for additional utility. As you know, all classes can do this.
In theory other Classes can. In practice, in order to succeed at, say, a 5th level Ritual, you're making a DC 32 Arcana check. A 10th level Fighter can have Int 18, Master Arcana, and a +2 item for a +22, but 99% of the time he won't. A Wizard, in contrast, will almost always have Int 20, Master Arcana, and that +2 Item for a +23, and is gonna be good at it almost automatically.
Rituals being technically available to anyone allows people to dabble in ritual casting without being a Wizard if they invest significant character resources into doing that specifically, but all Wizards can do so innately and do so better.
Ignoring Rituals because 'anyone can get them' is like ignoring spells on more than one list because 'any caster could get them'. It's technically true, but not actually a reflection of reality.
I wouldn't count leadership as a utility power of arcane spellcasters in PF1e, because anyone can acquire leadership. Neither do I buy a similar argument made by some who play 3.5: the fighter, as a class, is redeemed in terms of utility by magic items. To quote Syndrome here, "if everyone's super, no one will be."
Leadership wasn't mechanically designed to heavily favor spellcasters and only spellcasters using it unless very specific build choices were made. Rituals are.
This is not an apples to apples comparison, in other words.
However, based on what you've said, I will revise my conclusion:
"There are fewer accessible arcane utility spells as a percentage of all arcane spells and all arcane spells by level between PF1e and PF2e.
That's technically correct, but I maintain it's pretty misleading in terms of actual available utility that a Wizard has access to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this a core to core comparison? I realize Zecrin is looking at percentages, but it occurs to me that core might focus more on getting all your "classic combat" spells while utility niches get filled in with later books.
It occurs to me that core might focus more on getting all your "classic combat" spells while utility niches get filled in with later books.
I suspect that your prediction is correct. Again, my intention is not to prove that the core arcane spell list is in any way lacking. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't "prove" this; it would just be my opinion. My only intention here is to show that, as a percentage of all arcane spells and arcane spells by level, utility spells have decreased. Of course, this decrease might be large and significant to some (like twilightnight) but small and insignificant to others (like DMW). I'm just observing that the decrease exists within the context of the CRB.
There's no chance of a mishap any more, which I'd say is the more important bit. Landing slightly off target is a rounding error if there's no chance of mishap...and that got lost in the Edition Change (and is thus an example of increased utility from said change).
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally have never taken more than 3d10 damage on a mishap, but have arrived off target several times. In other words, I have always been more inconvenienced by arriving off-target than by taking mishap damage. Therefore, for me personally, being able to dimensionally travel to an exact location over a distance is a different spell / utility effect than being able to travel over a theoretically larger distance but always arriving off-target.
And specific spells being lost doesn't really prove the point is spells that weren't in the PF1 core rules were added to replace them (and some new ones were certainly added), so I'm not sure listing spells that just weren't converted is productive.
I agree that this would not be productive in a vacuum...
Many of those high level spells that don't show up on the lists still exist, but as upgraded versions of lower level spells. In PF2, those are just Heightened versions of the low level spell.
Yet in order to address the claim that my conclusion was illusory, I thought that it would be best to provide a few higher level spells that are not accounted for by pf2e's spell list or heightening system. Shadow conjuration and greater shadow conjuration represent some of these unaccounted for spells.
In theory other Classes can. In practice, in order to succeed at, say, a 5th level Ritual, you're making a DC 32 Arcana check. A 10th level Fighter can have Int 18, Master Arcana, and a +2 item for a +22, but 99% of the time he won't. A Wizard, in contrast, will almost always have Int 20, Master Arcana, and that +2 Item for a +23, and is gonna be good at it almost automatically.
Rituals being technically available to anyone allows people to dabble in ritual casting without being a Wizard if they invest significant character resources into doing that specifically, but all Wizards can do so innately and do so better.
Ignoring Rituals because 'anyone can get them' is like ignoring spells on more than one list because 'any caster could get them'. It's technically true, but not actually a reflection of reality.
First, if the goal of this analysis is to ascertain an arcane caster's access to utility as a total percentage of their own list and we still include rituals, then I'll assume that we're discussing the arcane caster in the context of a party, not in the context a single class, just because secondary casters are necessary for many of the rituals. I have no problem doing this. After all, Pathfinder is a team-based game. However, it's important to note the secondary caster limitation, both because it makes certain rituals feel more like party utility than arcane caster utility and because rituals are mechanically distinct from other spells. Based on these two factors alone, I could safely contend that including rituals doesn't make sense in the context of my analysis of the arcane list. Nevertheless, I would like to examine the issue a little bit more closely.
In my view, rituals are not altogether different from magic items. In theory anyone can acquire them, the DM determines how they are dolled out, and they cost gp. They even require a skill check to use.
Staves in PF1e meet these same standards. However, if I were to conduct an analysis of the PF1e sorcerer class, I would not assume that a given sorcerer has access to 50% of the CRB's magic staves, despite the fact that with clever use of WBL and crafting, a sorcerer might be able to come close to achieving this. A wizard could likely do the same thing. As could a fighter, albeit with less benefit. Just because the sorcerer receives more benefit from building so many staves than does a fighter, does not mean I have a license to account for staves when discussing the merits of sorcerer spellcasting.
In a similar vein, PF1e casters were better at crafting magic items than were martial classes despite everyone having the ability to craft. Even so, I did not include the decanter of endless water on the list of PF1e utility spells.
I maintain it's pretty misleading in terms of actual available utility that a Wizard has access to.
I've attempted to make a compelling case for why my conclusion is not misleading. Presuming this is still not enough, I will conduct a 4th analysis, this time including more than 50% of the arcane rituals (and accounting for the rare spell statuette). To restate my opinion, however: these results will be more misleading than those conducted in previous analyses.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition w/ 50% of the Uncommon Arcane Spells and Arcana Rituals:
PF2 Average Percent Of Utility Spells Within a Given Level = 39%
((53%+46%+50%+40%+48%+42%+21%+27%+33%+22%+50%)/11)
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell= 41%
(2+2+5+4+4+10+13+10+18+16+10)/(4+9+15+15+19+24+27+25+36+35+19)
0: 53% - 10/19
Dancing Lights
Detect Magic
Ghost Sound
Light
Magic Aura
Mage Hand
Message
Prestidigitation
Read Aura
Sigil
1st: 46% - 16/35
Air Bubble
Alarm
Ant Haul
Charm
Create Water
Feather Fall
Floating Disk
Illusory Disguise
Illusory Object
Item Facade
Jump
Lock
Mending
Negate Aroma
Unseen Servant
Ventriloquism
2nd: 50% - 18/36
Animate Object
Comprehend Language
Continual Flame
Create Food
Darkvision
Dispel Magic
Endure Elements
Gentle Repose
Illusory Creature
Inveigle
Invisibility
Knock
Magic Mouth
Misdirection
Phantom Steed
Spider Climb
Water Breathing
Water Walk
3rd: 40% - 10/25
Claudience
Feet to Fins
Dream Message
Invisibility Sphere
Levitate
Locate
Meld Into Stone
Nondetection
Secret Page
Shrink Item
4th: 48% - 13/27
Blink
Clairvoyance
Creation
Detect Scrying
Dimension Door
Fly
Freedom of Movement
Gaseous Form
Private Sanctum
Shape Stone
Suggestion
Telepathy
Veil
5th: 42% - 10/24
Control Water
False Vision
Hallucination
Illusory Scene
Passwall
Prying Eye
Sending
Subconscious Suggestion
Telekinetic Haul
Telepathic Bond
6th: 21% - 4/19
Collective Transposition
Planar Binding
True Seeing
Teleport
7th: 27% - 4/15
Contingency
Magnificent Mansion
Project Image
Ravenous Reanimation
8th: 33% - 5/15
Antimagic Field
Disappearance
Dream Council
Unrelenting Observation
Imprisonment
9th: 22% - 2/9
Disjunction
Resplendent Mansion
10th: 50% - 2/4
Gate
Wish
My conclusion: "In the CRB, there are fewer accessible arcane utility spells as a percentage of all arcane spells and all arcane spells by level between PF1e and PF2e."
If I were to conduct future analyses, I might consider counting the +4 enhancement line as 1 or 2 spells instead of 12, counting clairaudience and clairvoyance as two spells in PF1e, examining the utility of summon spells across editions and the utility of shapechanging spells between editions, and revaluating how I incorporate 10th level spells. As of yet, I have not to make any of these changes to avoid claims of bias in favor of 1e.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect that your prediction is correct. Again, my intention is not to prove that the core arcane spell list is in any way lacking. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't "prove" this; it would just be my opinion. My only intention here is to show that, as a percentage of all arcane spells and arcane spells by level, utility spells have decreased. Of course, this decrease might be large and significant to some (like twilightnight) but small and insignificant to others (like DMW). I'm just observing that the decrease exists within the context of the CRB.
I actually don't even disagree with this, my disagreement is mostly about degree and methodology.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I personally have never taken more than 3d10 damage on a mishap, but have arrived off target several times. In other words, I have always been more inconvenienced by arriving off-target than by taking mishap damage. Therefore, for me personally, being able to dimensionally travel to an exact location over a distance is a different spell / utility effect than being able to travel over a theoretically larger distance but always arriving off-target.
Fair enough as far as it goes, but that's a much more specific issue than just examining number of utility spells.
In terms of things like this, which I'd characterize as 'How powerful are the utility spells in PF2 as compared to PF1?', there's actually a very simple answer:
Utility spells are intentionally much less powerful in PF2 than PF1. They are higher level, often less effective at what they do, and generally much less able to replace Skills. This is very intentional, as one of the big complaints in PF1 was that utility spells rendered the contributions of martial characters outside combat irrelevant, especially at higher levels.
But that's a question of the quality of utility rather than the quantity, which are very different things.
I agree that this would not be productive in a vacuum...
Many of those high level spells that don't show up on the lists still exist, but as upgraded versions of lower level spells. In PF2, those are just Heightened versions of the low level spell.Yet in order to address the claim that my conclusion was illusory, I thought that it would be best to provide a few higher level spells that are not accounted for by pf2e's spell list or heightening system. Shadow conjuration and greater shadow conjuration represent some of these unaccounted for spells.
But that's a statement about spells like Greater Teleport, which have been replaced (for good or ill) with Heightened Teleport, not spells that have been removed entirely. Which, inevitably there will be since it's not exactly the same list. There are also utility spells in the PF2 book that aren't in the PF1 corebook (Ant Haul is the first example I noticed), so the percentage analysis seems the best way to do this rather than picking out individual spells that simply never converted at any level.
First, if the goal of this analysis is to ascertain an arcane caster's access to utility as a total percentage of their own list and we still include rituals, then I'll assume that we're discussing the arcane caster in the context of a party, not in the context a single class, just because secondary casters are necessary for many of the rituals. I have no problem doing this. After all, Pathfinder is a team-based game. However, it's important to note the secondary caster limitation, both because it makes certain rituals feel more like party utility than arcane caster utility and because rituals are mechanically distinct from other spells. Based on these two factors alone, I could safely contend that including rituals doesn't make sense in the context of my analysis of the arcane list. Nevertheless, I would like to examine the issue a little bit more closely.
Rituals are absolutely mechanically distinct, but just not counting them at all when they're a core part of how PF2 functions and a number of spells have been moved there is gonna give you skewed results compared to actual play.
In my view, rituals are not altogether different from magic items. In theory anyone can acquire them, the DM determines how they are dolled out, and they cost gp. They even require a skill check to use.
In terms of how they're used, this isn't really too far off, and there's definitely some parallels specifically with spell completion items. But there's also a big difference: Nobody can take your rituals away from you. Like a spell, once you have it, you have it. It becomes an inherent capability you can do whenever you like (and have time).
That's a huge thematic, and in many cases mechanical, difference. And makes them much more like spells in terms of their usage once you have them.
Their cost to learn is also the same as the cost to learn a spell, which is to say much lower than the cost for on-level magic items, which is also very relevant on the mechanical side.
Staves in PF1e meet these same standards. However, if I were to conduct an analysis of the PF1e sorcerer class, I would not assume that a given sorcerer has access to 50% of the CRB's magic staves, despite the fact that with clever use of WBL and crafting, a sorcerer might be able to come close to achieving this. A wizard could likely do the same thing. As could a fighter, albeit with less benefit. Just because the sorcerer receives more benefit from building so many staves than does a fighter, does not mean I have a license to account for staves when discussing the merits of sorcerer spellcasting.
Staves cost lots of GP to make and can be taken away. Neither of those are true of Rituals, as I discuss above, and that's really where the analogy breaks down, IMO.
In a similar vein, PF1e casters were better at crafting magic items than were martial classes despite everyone having the ability to craft. Even so, I did not include the decanter of endless water on the list of PF1e utility spells.
You'd have to include them in PF2 as well, then, since that Item still exists and casters are still capable of making it. But like I said, I don't think the rules on acquiring and having rituals are similar enough to magic items for this to be a very valid comparison.
I've attempted to make a compelling case for why my conclusion is not misleading. Presuming this is still not enough, I will conduct a 4th analysis, this time including more than 50% of the arcane rituals (and accounting for the rare spell statuette). To restate my opinion, however: these results will be more misleading than those conducted in previous analyses.
I still disagree that an analysis ignoring all Uncommon spells and all Rituals will give an accurate picture of the utility a PF2 caster has access to, yes.
My conclusion: "In the CRB, there are fewer accessible arcane utility spells as a percentage of all arcane spells and all arcane spells by level between PF1e and PF2e."
This is technically true if ignoring Rituals and Uncommon spells. Given that the percentage is almost even counting Rituals and Uncommon spells at 50%, I'm pretty sure it isn't true in practice.
If I were to conduct future analyses, I might consider counting the +4 enhancement line as 1 or 2 spells instead of 12, counting clairaudience and clairvoyance as two spells in PF1e, examining the utility of summon spells across editions and the utility of shapechanging spells between editions, and revaluating how I incorporate 10th level spells. As of yet, I have not to make any of these changes to avoid claims of bias in favor of 1e.
I don't think this will result in a more accurate picture of the respective amounts of utility available between editions, but you're the one doing the work.
On the teleport issue, I feel trapped. If I talk about the actual number of spells that are listed by the CRB at each level, I'm told that it's important to look at the text of 2e's teleport to see how it provides more utility within the context of a single spell.
But if I do look at the text of the teleport spell, thereby examining utility effects by level (which would include greater teleport's capacity to allow movement without any risk of arriving off target), I'm told that I'm blurring the line between utility and quantity.
That's a huge thematic, and in many cases mechanical, difference.
I can't really debate whether this is a huge thematic difference because that's a purely subjective question. However, if a thematic difference between x and y suggests that both variables become less comparable, this actually vindicates my point. After all, numerous thematic differences surely exist between regular spells and rituals.
Mechanical differences can be discussed. In PF1, speaking from my own experience, the DM almost never destroyed items. Even if items were destroyed, which, again, almost never happened, the greater make whole spell remedied the issue almost immediately with minimal, if any, cost to the party.
Still speaking from experience, "stealing" tends to come up most frequently in Eventide Island scenarios, where the particular storyline or adventure deliberately deprives the player of their possessions. The vast majority of rituals will be rendered useless in such situations as attempting things like planar binding typically involves high-cost material components.
In summary, the claim that item destruction and deprivation arise "in many cases" as mechanical issues does not align with my experiences in 3.5, PF1e, or 5e play either as a player or DM. I have also perceived a consensus among many other players, while interacting online and in-person, that DMs ought not send in the rust dragons often or without warning.
You'd have to include them in PF2 as well, then, since that Item still exists and casters are still capable of making it.
A wizard in PF1e can craft magic items without needing formula. Additionally, while casters might still have some notable advantage (aside from int to crafting) when constructing certain magic items, this is no longer the case for the vast majority of them. I could include 75% (accounting for schematic availability) of utility items that arcane casters have some inherent advantage crafting. I suspect, however, that inclusion of items under these parameters would increase PF1e's percentages more so than PF2e's.
Of course, I have no desire to include items on either list because they muddy the water, just as I believe rituals do.
This is technically true if ignoring Rituals and Uncommon spells. Given that the percentage is almost even counting Rituals and Uncommon spells at 50%, I'm pretty sure it isn't true in practice.
This is technically true even if accounting for access to 50% of uncommon spells and more than 50% of the uncommon arcana rituals.
However, because of a typo on my part, I can see why this might not be apparent. The "PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell" should never change from the value at which it was initially presented. Every time I recalculated the data, the second presented percent refers to 2e, not 1e. I apologize for any confusion caused by my error.
To recap my findings for clarity:
PF2 Average Percent Of Utility Spells Within a Given Level
-With no uncommon spells or ritual: 33%
-With 50% of uncommon spells and no rituals: 38%
-With 50% of uncommon spells and over 50% of arcana rituals: 39%
PF2 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell
-With no uncommon spells or ritual: 37%
-With 50% of uncommon spells and no rituals: 40%
-With 50% of uncommon spells and over 50% of arcana rituals: 41%
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell = 46%
PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell= 45%
For some, 39% is almost the same as 46% and 41% is almost the same 45%. For others, this is a more perceptible difference.
To restate my intent:
My intention is not to prove that the core arcane spell list is in any way lacking. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't "prove" this; it would just be my opinion. My only intention here is to show that, as a percentage of all arcane spells and arcane spells by level, utility spells have decreased. Of course, this decrease might be large and significant to some (like twilightnight) but small and insignificant to others (like DMW). I'm just observing that the decrease exists within the context of the CRB.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the teleport issue, I feel trapped. If I talk about the actual number of spells that are listed by the CRB at each level, I'm told that it's important to look at the text of 2e's teleport to see how it provides more utility within the context of a single spell.
But if I do look at the text of the teleport spell, thereby examining utility effects by level (which would include greater teleport's capacity to allow movement without any risk of arriving off target), I'm told that I'm blurring the line between utility and quantity.
Sorry if you feel that way. It seems a pretty straightforward distinction to me. Heightened Teleport duplicates the range (which I'd consider the key and most important aspect) of two higher level teleport spells, which means those spells will never and need never show up in PF2.
Whether it duplicates the other effects is a matter of 'how good is teleportation?' rather than number of spells.
But maybe that all only makes sense to me. Either way, sorry for making you feel frustrated or trapped, that's not my intent.
I can't really debate whether this is a huge thematic difference because that's a purely subjective question. However, if a thematic difference between x and y suggests that both variables become less comparable, this actually vindicates my point. After all, numerous thematic differences surely exist between regular spells and rituals.
I'm deeply unclear on the thematic difference between a Ritual and a spell with a casting time of '10 minutes' or something like that. And spells like that absolutely existed in PF1, and show up on your list. Yes, rituals take longer on a mechanical level, but both are 'out of combat' magic that takes time and preparation. In practice, most even took a day in PF1, since you had to wait a day to re-prepare them.
Mechanical differences can be discussed. In PF1, speaking from my own experience, the DM almost never destroyed items. Even if items were destroyed, which, again, almost never happened, the greater make whole spell remedied the issue almost immediately with minimal, if any, cost to the party.
Still speaking from experience, "stealing" tends to come up most frequently in Eventide Island scenarios, where the particular storyline or adventure deliberately deprives the player of their possessions. The vast majority of rituals will be rendered useless in such situations as attempting things like planar binding typically involves high-cost material components.
In summary, the claim that item destruction and deprivation arise "in many cases" as mechanical issues does not align with my experiences in 3.5, PF1e, or 5e play either as a player or DM. I have also perceived a consensus among many other players, while interacting online and in-person, that DMs ought not send in the rust dragons often or without warning.
It being an inherent ability comes up 'in many cases', not it being un-stealable or indestructible, which are only two examples of it coming up.
Inherent abilities interact very differently with the world than things you can only do because you have a specific item in a lot of scenarios. Being imprisoned is certainly one of them, but so is going to a fancy party where weapons aren't allowed (and a staff or wand will usually be considered a weapon), or using your ability to do X as a bargaining chip to keep you alive or get what you want (if the item does it, they can always decide to kill you and take it), and so on.
It's not the majority of the time, but it's not never by any means and it's a lot of different cases, which is what I meant by 'in many cases'.
You also don't comment on the price issue, which is actually a much more important distinction putting Rituals on the 'spell' side, IMO.
A wizard in PF1e can craft magic items without needing formula. Additionally, while casters might still have some notable advantage (aside from int to crafting) when constructing certain magic items, this is no longer the case for the vast majority of them. I could include 75% (accounting for schematic availability) of utility items that arcane casters have some inherent advantage crafting. I suspect, however, that inclusion of items under these parameters would increase PF1e's percentages more so than PF2e's.
Of course, I have no desire to include items on either list because they muddy the water, just as I believe rituals do.
I don't actually think including items is useful, no. However, I continue to strongly disagree that not counting something because 'other people can theoretically have the ability to do that' is the right way to think about, well, anything really.
The important thing about utility is the amount a particular character can access. If less of that is from their Class but they have more total utility, the character is better. Only counting strictly in-class utility thus inevitably paints a really skewed picture of what utility options are available. That's admittedly a bit outside the specific narrow scope of 'utility spells' but it still seems worth noting.
This is technically true even if accounting for access to 50% of uncommon spells and more than 50% of the uncommon arcana rituals.
However, because of a typo on my part, I can see why this might not be apparent. The "PF1 Percent Chance a Given Spell Will Be A Utility Spell" should never change from the value at which it was initially presented. Every time I recalculated the data, the second presented percent refers to 2e, not 1e. I apologize for any confusion caused by my error.
Yeah, that actually did confuse me for a moment there. My bad.
For some, 39% is almost the same as 46% and 41% is almost the same 45%. For others, this is a more perceptible difference.
I'd say those numbers remain pretty different too, I got confused by the formatting.
But given these numbers, and how they've changed, I'll note that if you included all Uncommon spells, even without Rituals, the percentages would probably come very close indeed. Even closer with the Rituals.
I would thus characterize this less as 'The percentage of utility spells have decreased significantly' (which is what you seem to be saying) than as 'Explicit GM permission is now required for a large percentage of utility spells'.
I think the latter statement is entirely correct and gives a much better picture of the difference between editions. The first statement, I think, is both debatable and somewhat misleading.