So PF2 was designed for both experienced gamers and new players alike. For the most part, it has done a great job. But the system has a lot of mammoths in my opinion: design choices from earlier editions that just stayed around, while they should have gone extinct.
Example: ability scores. I don't know why these are still in the game when we use ability modifiers for everything. There is literally no reason to have the formula [ability score]=([ability score]-10)/2 rounded down if you can just use ability modifier for everything. Sure, you have some specific rules like not being able to get a +5 modifier at lvl5, but these rules can also easily be written in terms of the modifier.
The same holds for spell level. No reason to have the formula [highest spell level]=[level]/2 rounded up, which pops up in a few places such as rules for rituals or the rules for simple DCs/spell DCs. When I talk to more experienced players, they say they don't even use this formula, they just memorized at what level you get which spell level, and that it has always been like that. But surely that's not a reason to keep it like that. The game could have been designed in such a way that spell levels corresponded 1:1 to character levels for example, making everything easier.
Other examples are the rules for attack of opportunity (specifically avoiding them even though they are rare), using a d20 instead of d6s that are much more common, different names between saves and abilities, VANCIAN CASTING, etc.
Even though I'd been playing Pathfinder 1 for 2 years before switching to this edition, it still struck me as odd how many leftovers there still were. While many fans complained it was too different, especially during the playtest, I thought the old ways could have been left behind while they were not.
New players, which parts of the rules seem like leftovers from previous editions to you? And do you dislike these or do you not care? Old players, what do you think would have happened if any of the leftover examples above had been changed or removed? Would you still have switched to this system? Why are the examples above important to you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It definitely feels like at least some people on the Paizo team wanted to ditch ability scores in favor of modifiers, given that they did exactly that for monsters and the only thing in the game that interacts with odd ability scores is increasing them past 18.
For spell levels, if we made spell level correspond to character level then that would mean we need twice as many spell levels. Even if you didn't add twice as many spells, you would still need heightening effects for that many levels. I wouldn't be opposed to the spell system changing (and am excited to see what SoM brings) but that isn't the way to do it.
As for why it's still a d20 system, I'm personally glad they kept that, I like the swinginess of it.
I'm just glad this is the only d20 game in existence where calling spell levels "levels" actually makes sense, because everything is levelled in this game. The scale is weird, but at least it's also consistent unlike 1e where different classes could arbitrarily learn things at different levels.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a LOT of this comes down to wanting to stay within a few degrees of the mecahnical "family" of more recent d20 RPG systems so that users can convert TO and FROM other RPG systems and games.
For example, in the last month I've been invited to two RPG games IRL. One was a D&D 5e game which is based off Rise of the Runelords for PFRPG and the other one is a Curse of Strahd game converted to PF2.
If they really cut all ties to the d20, the Ability Scores, Vancian Casting, Skill names/functionalty, and general "feel" none of the conversions would be nearly as possible or easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And some people enjoy rolling stats (albeit seldom a straight 3d6).
I don't due to potentially extreme variance among PC abilities compared to each other, but I do like the underlying curve re: the campaign world. The idea that 18s would be 1/216 of normal folk makes one feel heroic (strong, wise, whatever).
Nowadays 16 to 18 has become a regular strength or other stat for commoners. :/ That doesn't suit the genre (much less reality).
Funny that the oldest DnD could've swapped to modifiers since stats had similar scaling (+1 every 2 increase). But that was way before point-buy systems so would've needed its own dice roll(s). Gygax & Co. likely wanted some sort of curve to avoid too much swinginess. Who knows?
And one could switch to a 3d6 base instead of a d20, keeping the same average and gaining a significant bell curve. I kept pondering that in 3.X/PF1, yet wouldn't due to messing too much with criticals. PF2 may be more conducive to this. Hmm. Maybe that'd tighten numbers too much, though maybe not. And getting rid of the swinginess of crit 20s/1s would help keep an even flow to the game though I've found (partly due to Deadlands!) that players often enjoy dice turning a situation on its head. A lot.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading the title, I thought this would be a thread about cooking a mammoth and what to do with the food you didn't eat... ;)
Old players, what do you think would have happened if any of the leftover examples above had been changed or removed? Would you still have switched to this system? Why are the examples above important to you?
For me the further PF2 would have moved from PF1 the lower my interest would have been. Out of the list, vancian casting is one thing I wouldn't mind losing and changing to d6 would have been irksome to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Graystone, I misinterpreted the title; thought it would be about pet mammoths begging for scraps. Is it okay to feed my mammoth sahuagin?
The odd thing to me is the Survival skill. Since Nature is a main skill in PF2, why not fold Survival into it? They're both Wisdom-based and the feats that
aren't inherently Nature themed are still mostly used in nature, but usable in cities. If Nature were still Int, the divide would make sense.
I like that the saves have different names from the ability scores. You could call the Will Save a Wisdom Save if you want, but having a distinct name makes it easier to explain, both conceptually and mechanically. This is largely due to an experience DMing 5e for a specific type of group.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't change for the sake of it. You change because the proposed change is good.
Most of the things you described aren't leftovers, they're features. No reason to "leave them behind" just so you can innovate. Innovation is great but it comes about for genuine need. With things like the d20 etc. they're already perfect as they are and Paizo would be changing them just to look cool (and mechanically, for the worse).
The two exceptions are Vancian casting (which I've never been huge on) and the ability score thing (which Rysky explained perfectly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mammoth that I'd most like to see killed is the six ability score paradigm. Traditionally, Dexterity and Constitution are on-average the most valuable scores, while Charisma is frequently the least valuable. You'll notice that there are currently no PF2 ancestries that feature a Dex flaw. I'm in favor of splitting Dex into two skills (one for manual dexterity, the other for agility and balance), and either combining Con with another ability or making it separate from the ability score system entirely.
The odd thing to me is the Survival skill. Since Nature is a main skill in PF2, why not fold Survival into it? They're both Wisdom-based and the feats that aren't inherently Nature themed are still mostly used in nature, but usable in cities. If Nature were still Int, the divide would make sense.
I suspect a part of that is because they wanted each of the magic traditions to have a dedicated skill that wasn't used for much outside of Recall Knowledge rolls and the like. Combining Nature and Survival means Nature is significantly more valuable of a skill than Arcana, Occultism, and Religion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traditionally, Dexterity and Constitution are on-average the most valuable scores, while Charisma is frequently the least valuable. You'll notice that there are currently no PF2 ancestries that feature a Dex flaw. I'm in favor of splitting Dex into two skills (one for manual dexterity, the other for agility and balance), and either combining Con with another ability or making it separate from the ability score system entirely.
They already have that as a variant rule in the Gamemaster's Guide with that logic (Con joins Str) and it also turns Will into a Charisma save. So you're in good company there.
I suspect a part of that is because they wanted each of the magic traditions to have a dedicated skill that wasn't used for much outside of Recall Knowledge rolls and the like. Combining Nature and Survival means Nature is significantly more valuable of a skill than Arcana, Occultism, and Religion.
I don't know if I'd call it significantly more valuable, but I see that as a reasonable assumption.
Interesting to see older players also dislike Vancian casting. Was there a lot of discussion about this during the playtest?
And it seems the use of d20s was a weird example I gave as that one got the most reactions. Can someone explain what's so special about them? What ties PF2 to the d20 system? Are there any legal issues? Is there a category of d20 games that PF2 needs to fall into, and if so, why? I'm not knowledgeable on the d20 system so I don't know what it means really, other than the game design decision to use d20s (which should be a conscious choice).
Ability Scores were left in because they’re too well loved and expected by the majority of players using the d20 system.
As is rolling for stats, but that's just a variant rule. This would have been a perfect 'sidebar info' thing that new players can ignore.
For spell levels, if we made spell level correspond to character level then that would mean we need twice as many spell levels. Even if you didn't add twice as many spells, you would still need heightening effects for that many levels. I wouldn't be opposed to the spell system changing (and am excited to see what SoM brings) but that isn't the way to do it.
Right now we also don't have heightening effects for every level. You would just have fewer spells per level, but for many damaging spells that have a +1 heighten effect it shouldn't be too difficult to provide heightened effect for +1 level in this other system. But yes let's see how SoM tackles this.
Choosing the d6 just because it's more common at a time when you can get a d20 for $0.25 USD is an odd concept. It's not like d20's are something new. They've been around for 50 years.
Coming from the much larger board game world, I don't know any main-stream board game that uses d20s. Literally the only people I know that have ever seen a d20 are tabletop RPG gamers, and they're a niche group here. Or board gamers who see them lying around in the RPG section of board game conventions. For a game where you just need pen and paper, I think it makes sense to also use whatever dice you have lying around as a regular person, and those aren't d20s.
You don't change for the sake of it. You change because the proposed change is good.
Attracting new players is good. For that, you need to make things simpler where you can, only keeping something that is worth keeping. Ability scores, spell levels and the use of d20s are some examples in my opinion of things that are just being kept for the sake of tradition.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting to see older players also dislike Vancian casting. Was there a lot of discussion about this during the playtest?
And it seems the use of d20s was a weird example I gave as that one got the most reactions. Can someone explain what's so special about them? What ties PF2 to the d20 system? Are there any legal issues? Is there a category of d20 games that PF2 needs to fall into, and if so, why? I'm not knowledgeable on the d20 system so I don't know what it means really, other than the game design decision to use d20s (which should be a conscious choice).
Two things, I'd say:
1. It's a brand/tradition
You can have a conversation with someone and say "that's a d20 game" and they know it belongs in a general family of games like D&D, D20 Modern, Pathfinder, and some others. Using d20s has been a tradition for a long time, "natural 20" is an iconic phrase and so on. You need a strong reason to change away from d20s, because these are already reasons to stay there.
2. The d20 has a particular probability distribution
The odds of rolling the maximum value on a d20 are 1/20th. The odds of rolling maximum value on a d6 are 1/6th. The odds of rolling max on 3d6 would be (1/6)*(1/6)*(1/6)=1/216th.
Meanwhile, the odds of rolling middle values (10-11) on a d20 are 2/20th, on a d6 (3-4) they're 2/6th. 3d6 has an average score of 10.5, just like a d20, but the odds of getting a result of 10 or 11 is 54/216 = 1/4th.
So using a 3d6 model for example, makes maximum (and minimum) results really rare and medium results really common. If you see how much PF2 leans on critical results, that would make it an entirely different game, far more focused on reliable results instead of chancy gambles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, most of these changes would probably be better in a vacuum. But Pathfinder second edition isn't in a vacuum. Its players, by and large, will be coming from some combination of PF1 and D&D. Having a game that is still recognizable compared to those things is pretty important for the niche the game is trying to fill.
The same holds for spell level. No reason to have the formula [highest spell level]=[level]/2 rounded up, which pops up in a few places such as rules for rituals or the rules for simple DCs/spell DCs. When I talk to more experienced players, they say they don't even use this formula, they just memorized at what level you get which spell level, and that it has always been like that. But surely that's not a reason to keep it like that. The game could have been designed in such a way that spell levels corresponded 1:1 to character levels for example, making everything easier.
I also would have liked to see twenty spell levels instead of ten. It would just make sense for spells to increase in level like everything else. Maybe next edition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming from the much larger board game world, I don't know any main-stream board game that uses d20s. Literally the only people I know that have ever seen a d20 are tabletop RPG gamers, and they're a niche group here. Or board gamers who see them lying around in the RPG...
Frostgrave, Ghost Archipelago, and Rangers of Shadowdeep use a d20 as a core mechanic. All by the same author using the same base mechanical framework and would be considered 'indie' games, though Frostgrave is a big fish in a small pond.
Heroscape hasn't been in print for years, but used a d20 for initiative and special abilities. It was widely available in non-gaming stores (Walmart carried it, for example) so was relatively mainstream (as main stream as a miniatures skirmish game gets), though used custom d6 for most combat resolution.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a category of d20 games that PF2 needs to fall into, and if so, why? I'm not knowledgeable on the d20 system so I don't know what it means really, other than the game design decision to use d20s (which should be a conscious choice).
New editions of a TTRPG aren't sequels. 'Spiritually' they're meant to be 'the same game' as before but with updated or slightly tweaked rules.
TTRPGs are famously consistent: GURPS, Savage Worlds, D&D (Of which I would argue Pathfinder is a subset) have had the same core mechanics and principles for their entire life time. Even 4th Edition D&D - the most radical departure from tradition - kept many of the hallmark mechanics and ideas that form D&D's brand identity.
To me, what you're proposing isn't really a refinement on a core idea or process so much as change for the sake of change. And of course there are a lot of other issues that other posters have already pointed out.
Also, since you've said that you're really not knowledgeable about the history of Pathfinder, or possibly TTRPGs in general, I'd suggest studying up before you make broad sweeping claims about what needs innovating and what is a mammoth.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish they had used a different word than "level" for spells, because everything else runs on 1-20 levels but spells run on 1-10. We could have used Degrees, or Circles, or Tiers or whatnot.
Things that don't use the same scale should ideally not look like they might work on the same scale.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be the only person on the internet, but I like Vancian casting. I have poor opinions of 5e's and Arcanist pseudo Vancian.
You're not alone by a long shot. I have yet to see a proper evolution or replacement for it that fixes more problems than it actually creates.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be the only person on the internet, but I like Vancian casting. I have poor opinions of 5e's and Arcanist pseudo Vancian.You're not alone by a long shot. I have yet to see a proper evolution or replacement for it that fixes more problems than it actually creates.
I actually agree as well. I'm down for replacing Vancian, but I honestly don't know what a better system would be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attracting new players is good. For that, you need to make things simpler where you can, only keeping something that is worth keeping. Ability scores, spell levels and the use of d20s are some examples in my opinion of things that are just being kept for the sake of tradition.
That's actually not true in the way you're implying. There's a point of diminishing returns where you start losing old players for the sake of gaining new ones.
But the thing is, even this gain of new players only happens in the short term, because old players do the bulk of the work of bringing in new ones. Alienate them too much? You actually cost yourself a lot of new players as well. You also need those people to teach the game to new players, and that will be hard to do if you have a huge break from form.
You have to balance the needed changes carefully with your already existing customer base. Paizo did this very, very, well, and most of the more extreme changes you're proposing really could only have happened in a vacuum and preserved the company I think.
We also have the fact that "tradition" is innately good in this kind of scenario so long as it isn't harmful. That is to say, that continuity is something people like for the sake of it, and that's a net gain on its own, not a neutral thing.
In other words, all something has to be in order to be worth keeping is "not actively bad" (such as ability scores.) It's implicitly good on its own, so long as it isn't causing harm or confusion. It's inverse of change in this kind of scenario. The goal is to build an ever improving system, not radical experimental shifts that drive long time fans and friends away.
As an example, ironically enough, we come from different worlds on on the ability score issue. I have had many more new players who would have been confused by the idea of pure modifiers rather than also having stats, because video games especially have ingrained the idea that stats are a thing. Paizo alone changing that would just be confusing, not innovative, even if again as other forum-goers say in a vacuum it would be reasonable.
People like familiarity and tradition. This is why, although you could suddenly change the rules of soccer to be "better" (subjectively) it isn't likely to happen (and for that matter, probably wouldn't attract new fans. Like anything you hit a certain maximum of the people who would ever be interested.)
Paizo did a great job of understanding this, keeping the traditions that were aesthetically or mechanically valuable and slaughtering the sacred cows that had to go. They knew old players were needed to grow the fan base, and that things had to still be streamlined overall to attract new people at a steady rate. They knew things had to be somewhat simplified to attract new players, but not become so simple that no one stayed due to lack of depth (or just played 5e because why compete with them that directly?) They did a great job overall.
Incidentally, I am confused by what you meant in one of your posts by "in the wider world there are no d20s" etc. Isn't D&D hugely successful by any metric? Like, monumentally, pop-culture/my grandmother knows what it is/ successful? Did I mistake you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be the only person on the internet, but I like Vancian casting. I have poor opinions of 5e's and Arcanist pseudo Vancian.
Rabble, rabble, rabble!!! String him up!!! ;P
Seriously though, as much as I really, really hate 5e, I'll take even 5e's casting over normal Vancian: ever since 1st edition d&d, I've thought there had to be a better way...
Could somebody explain to me what Vancian casting is and why it's disliked? I have like no frame of reference for this topic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I might be the only person on the internet, but I like Vancian casting. I have poor opinions of 5e's and Arcanist pseudo Vancian.You're not alone by a long shot. I have yet to see a proper evolution or replacement for it that fixes more problems than it actually creates.
I really like Vancian casting. The idea that magic spells are formulaic and not simply a catch all is a lot more interesting to me than the magic-as-super-powers approach.
I know from a player of mine who dislikes prepared casters that he dislikes preparing specific spells that might not end up being used if he guessed wrong.
Either a bug or a feature, depending on who you ask ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but in my experience, Vancian magic allows for better game balance than other options.
I feel like the entire history of D&D disagrees a bit. There are a lot of things to like about the series, but good balance has never been one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the main reason D&D magic systems have been unbalanced is because of a combination of their sheer size (based on number of spells) and power creep over time during an edition as opposed to a failing in the basic nature of the system.
This would suggest that things start out okay and get worse over time as the edition ages, but many of the most problematic elements of various editions of D&D come straight from the original ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that the main reason D&D magic systems have been unbalanced is because of a combination of their sheer size (based on number of spells) and power creep over time during an edition as opposed to a failing in the basic nature of the system.This would suggest that things start out okay and get worse over time as the edition ages, but many of the most problematic elements of various editions of D&D come straight from the original ruleset.
I have a hard time believing that the system by which you cast spells is more important than the spells themselves. IMHO, the issue has never been with Vancian casting, just what spells are able to achieve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hard time believing that the system by which you cast spells is more important than the spells themselves. IMHO, the issue has never been with Vancian casting, just what spells are able to achieve.
Well if you use a different system, e.g. a mana pool (think 100 mana points) and every spell has a mana cost (think Fireball and Dispel Magic each cost 10 points), suddenly everybody becomes a "Sorcerer". So it *is* rather important which system you use.
However you are right in that the power level of the individual spells are important too (aka low magic vs high magic setting).
I have a hard time believing that the system by which you cast spells is more important than the spells themselves. IMHO, the issue has never been with Vancian casting, just what spells are able to achieve.Well if you use a different system, e.g. a mana pool (think 100 mana points) and every spell has a mana cost (think Fireball and Dispel Magic each cost 10 points), suddenly everybody becomes a "Sorcerer". So it *is* rather important which system you use.
No, I don't think it does. Take 3.5 D&D. Out of the box polymorph was a broken spell no matter how you cast it - Vancian or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't think it does. Take 3.5 D&D. Out of the box polymorph was a broken spell no matter how you cast it - Vancian or not.
You are right that you can break any system when you are bad at designing and balancing spells, however this is not what RPGs usually try to achieve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I don't think it does. Take 3.5 D&D. Out of the box polymorph was a broken spell no matter how you cast it - Vancian or not.You are right that you can break any system when you are bad at designing and balancing spells, however this is not what RPGs usually try to achieve.
My point is there is a big difference between "I don't like Vancian casting" and "Vancian casting is a bad game mechanic". Pointing to magic in general having been/or being over powered is a more complicated subject than just what the overall system/implementation is.
My point is there is a big difference between "I don't like Vancian casting" and "Vancian casting is a bad game mechanic". Pointing to magic in general having been/or being over powered is a more complicated subject than just what the overall system/implementation is.
Agreed. Much of this is about the relative power level of magic within any given system, down to the 4E approach of many magic and mundane powers being more or less identical in effect.
However I still think it is the combination of how powerful the spells are designed and how they are cast that provide the final verdict on magic potency within the system.
Even a seemingly less powerful spell can become a threat to the game balance if players gain unlimited access and even a powerful spell can be balanced if players can only use it occasionally.
Half my table loves swinginess, and therefore the d20. The other half wants a bit of reliability, and would prefer a 3d6 system. Since pleasing everyone is impossible, I can't fault them for staying with what's familiar.
Same goes for Vancian casting. If there are five different systems each with an equal share of support, they're not going to fundamentally change the system if it is going to please 20% of the audience either way. (I have no idea what the actual breakdown of support is, I just grabbed some easy numbers for sake of example).
Mammoths hang on whenever the benefit of changing isn't enough to outweigh the benefits of familiarity.
|
|
On the topic of 3d6 vs 1d20, I think it's a change that would have to be carefully considered - the impacts are wide ranging. Others have mentioned above the difference in probability rolls, but I think it's worth considering the impact it would have on character differentiation. The consistency of 3d6 means that a bonus has significantly more impact - as it's harder to reach those higher numbers normally. If you've got a normal DC of 10 and a hard DC of 15, a d20 system can have someone who is mediocre at the task have a +2 (65%/40% success odds) and someone who is good have a +7 bonus (90%/65% odds). With the same DCs, the 3d6 has odds of: +2 (83.8%/50.4%) or +7 (100%/83.8%). That difference of 65% vs 84% for the hard task with the same +7 modifier (and if you made it an actually unlikely task for the +7 modifier still, something like a DC 25 'impossible' task, the effect would be even more stark) means you'd have to tone down the differences between characters. If you took the +7 modifier down to +5, you'd be at odds of 98.2%/62.5%, much more in-line with the d20's +7 bonus. The two consequences of this, to my mind, are:
1: Those low DCs become increasingly trivial with 3d6; as you can see, if you want the hard DC to be similar in difficulty, you have to take the odds of failing the normal DC from 10% to 1.8% - it's 5x less likely to fail. The outcome of this is that there has to be less variability in monster stats - you can't have a swing of something like the +6 between the saves a Frost Giant has, as it basically means an auto-success for things targeting the lower DCs.
2: The effect of the modifier is important enough that we have to standardize character's capabilities. The fighter can't stay +2 ahead of every else - the DC 15 check above, that +2 takes their chance of success from 63% to 84%, which is absurd - never-mind the difference between an Expert and Legendary attacking class. It also happens to be that it takes their modifier high enough to be able to reach the DC 25 for critical success, so that'd have to be lowered too. We'd either have to do something like going to a +1/+2/+3/+4 set of modifiers for Proficiency, or something more out-there.
Neither of these are necessarily a bad thing - there are some excellent 3d6 games. The question that's relevant here is: would this make for a better Pathfinder game? I'm not sure it would - minimising the differentiation between characters seems to be going against the ethos of the game, which focuses heavily on customisation.
Thanks for the replies everyone, lots of interesting stuff. And the idea of 'why does Pathfinder 2e use d20s?' has become much clearer to me.
@MadMars I largely agree with your post, indeed as I said in the first post I believe paizo has done a great job balancing the game such that it is familiar to old players and not overwhelming (like PF1 is) for new players. Still, with the choices they made, I have seen many PF1 players say things like that they'll never touch PF2, and much more nasty things during the playtest especially. So I wonder if it really would have been such a bad choice to shift the balance even more towards newcomers. The beginner's box they just released now would have been more important then, of course.
We also have the fact that "tradition" is innately good in this kind of scenario so long as it isn't harmful. That is to say, that continuity is something people like for the sake of it, and that's a net gain on its own, not a neutral thing.
Agreed. But I'd say something confusing is harmful. Like why use the word 'level' in spell level, or why the need for unnecessary math that can easily be avoided (spell levels and ability scores). You gave a good motivation for ability scores though.
Incidentally, I am confused by what you meant in one of your posts by "in the wider world there are no d20s" etc. Isn't D&D hugely successful by any metric? Like, monumentally, pop-culture/my grandmother knows what it is/ successful? Did I mistake you?
Not in my country, no. And even the only American I know in real life did not know what D&D was (of which I was also surprised, I thought every American and their grandmother had heard of the game). Most of my friends do know D&D, but the ones that have actually played any tabletop RPG I can count on 1 hand, and I have quite a lot of nerdy friends. I don't know the actual numbers, but I imagine it's something like: tabletop RPGs < board games <<<< video games. With LARP being even more niche than tabletop RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the way D&D5e handles spellcasting?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the way D&D5e handles spellcasting?
IMO 5e spell casting is way, way, way, way better than PF2e. It's super elegant and easy to understand, 'heightening' spells isn't a g$$ d$!n nightmare.
If PF2e had stolen their tweaked design concept and still implemented their 1, 2, 3 action casting they'd have almost the perfect spell casting system IMO.
I don't mind Vancian casting. Yes I've been there when you prepare for one thing and fight another thing... not the best day as a caster. Teaches you to prepare SOME specific spells, not ALL specific spells. Having Fireball AND Lightening Bolt is better than 2 Fireballs. Fireball and Cloud Kill is even better.
My favorite casting rules are from the Iron Kingdoms RPG. There were two traditions, for the sake of brevity I'll call out the simpler of the two.
Warcasters had a very short list of spells, and they had a pretty small pool of Focus. Typically 3, but up to 7 if I recall.. it's been a while! Anyways, spells cost a certain amount of focus. Casting a spell cost you that number of focus. Assuming you had the actions, you could cast until you were out of focus. At the start of each of your turns, your Focus pool was filled back up. There was also a set of other things your focus was useful for (making attacks more powerful or more accurate, increasing your armor). So it was always a balancing act. Warcasters are mostly all "gish" type characters, so that push and pull worked very well.
Here's why I think a system like that would be a disaster in Pathfinder: In Pathfinder we have this long heritage of a HUGE spell list. Spells can do all sorts of things. And while that is *sortof* true in Iron Kingdoms, it is true to a far, far lesser extent. I remember many conversations about "where are all my utility spells???" when Iron Kingdoms was a going concern. And here's the other thing... a Warcaster really only ever had 3-7 spells, tops. So even if utility spells existed in the same volume as in Pathfinder, you'd never know many of them. You want to have an AOE and a direct damage spell and a combat buff spell... well for some casters, that's it, you're done. Forget about things like Light or Detect Magic or whatever.
I think PF2 has struck a pretty good balance with cantrips. They're worth casting, they don't run out, so they scratch the itch for "I want to be a caster who CASTS every turn!" while not neutering "but I also want to be able to Fireball an entire encounter now and again!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with the way D&D5e handles spellcasting?
5e's spellcasting is kind of a mixed bag. On one hand, it's very user-friendly and easy to use. On the other hand, freely getting to heighten spells (while still getting to prepare them daily for many casters) is a pretty big contributor to casters being too versatile. It also leads to disparity between the casters, with classes like sorcerer and ranger getting nothing in return for their low spells known compared to similar classes (wizard and paladin).
Also, this is personal taste, but I prefer how you always have 2-4 slots of your highest level in PF2. I recently got a chance to play a level 20 5e wizard, and while I was no doubt powerful, having only one slot each of my most powerful spells felt limiting. I would much rather have more spell slots, even if the individual spells are weaker.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was expecting a thread about mammoth jerky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the 'swingy' issue with the d20 is the skill system, where you have to be so careful which ones you invest in, and at level up the Chosen Skill gets what can feel like an underwhelming +5% boost ... especially if the DCs go up more than that. At least that's how it's seemed to me, although that's also a side effect of cold dice too (yay, my total skill rolls on a d20 ADD UP to twenty for the session ... )
I've also been afraid of trying the wizard and cleric classes since some issues back in 2nd edition D&D, although at least with the wizard there was also the 'OK, I cast Magic Missile, now what use am I?' aspect.