This is a really good interview. tl;dw is…
- their next game was going to be D&D, but they changed course and are doing something else now
- Vincke has a vision for “the one RPG to rule them all”, and each of their past three RPGs is a step closer to it
- the next game is not going to be that master vision but one step closer toward it, with their previous 3 RPGs proving out emergent design/multiplayer, story and consequence, and personal stories/performance capture, respectively
- Vincke would like to have this next game done in 3 years compared to BG3’s 6 year development cycle, but realistically expects 4 years, as long as there isn’t something like COVID-19 or a war in Ukraine to impede their progress
Thanks for expanding on my point.
They don’t need to be associated with WotC as they keep fucking up. Other RPG systems are becoming more and more popular.
Maybe they can partner with Paizo and make the next Pathfinder game, although I’d feel bad for Owlcat because their games have been great too.
For similar reasons as D&D, I doubt they’d license someone else’s system either, but I could be wrong.
True, the Divinity games were plenty of fun with their own system
I agree, but Piazo seems like much better partners. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d let them make the game for no fee, just license out the rules to try to make the system more well known and popular. Pathfinder 2E is the better system without a doubt, but people are used to D&D5e, so having something out there to bring new people in would be huge for them.
I don’t know. The Owlcat games have a really deep system that Divinity and BG3 don’t have. Is that just because of the pathfinder ruleset? Or does Larian do better with simpler systems? I don’t have an answer to those questions. It might be cool to see a BG3 “version” of Pathfinder, but I think it would lose something in the process.
The visuals out of Larian run laps around Owlcat. But that comes at the expense of depth, as each asset takes more time to develop.
It’s two different design philosophies creating two very different kinds of experience. Owlcat makes more of a complex digital board game while Larian has muddled a strategy format with a dating sim.
Yup, exactly!
I’ve played Baldur’s Gate 1, Baldur’s Gate 2, and Planescape: Torment on 2nd edition rules. I’ve played Baldur’s Gate 3 on 5th edition rules and started playing tabletop 5th edition. I’ve played Pillars of Eternity 1, as I understand it largely inspired by 3.5 edition rules, and the first 10 hours of Pillars of Eternity 2, which I assume is now iterating on its own offshoot. I understand Pathfinder to largely be D&D 3.5. If that’s the case, and it’s in the ballpark of what Pillars of Eternity 1 is, I’ll take 5th edition any day of the week, but if you’d like to explain to me briefly why I might be wrong, I’m listening. Compared to how the 2e games and the Pillars games handle spells of different levels, 5e’s upcasting seems like a godsend, for instance.
Pathfinder 1E is essentially an improved D&D 3.5 that came to be the last time the licensing for modules became an issue. 2E is it’s own thing, and a large improvement.
One if the best changes for Pathfinder 2E is how actions work. D&D 5e has its a weird system of movement, action, bonus action, and then abilities that can add actions, but you can only cast one spell per turn regardless of if you have actions to use, except in some situations, and you can only use actions for some things sometimes, sometimes only once per turn. It’s just filled with exceptions because that’s not the original design intent but it’s tons of patches to make things function halfway decently.
Pathfinder 2E you have three actions per turn. Those can be used for anything always without exception. Every ability has a cost. For example moving is 1 action and can be done multiple times per turn, which makes things that displace enemies useful as they have to consume actions to get back into melee. Some spells may cost multiple actions, some very large ones can even require channeling multiple actions over several turns. It’s a very simple and intuitive system and you don’t need to remember thousands of exceptions like D&D5e.
Almost everything in Pathfinder 2E works like this. Things may be more complex to start with (which allows for choice), but you don’t need to remember tons of exceptions, so in total it’s simpler.
It doesn’t feel like a bunch of exceptions to me. It feels like you have a bonus action that’s basically always class-related, and everything else is an action. What you describe for Pathfinder doesn’t sound bad at all, but if some things cost multiple actions, that sounds like every bit the type of exception that you make 5e out to be full of. I don’t really find 5e to be unintuitive thus far such that I’m looking for another system to remedy it, I guess.
The issue in D&D5e is that they are dependent on a bunch of other circumstances. In Pathfinder 2e it’s only dependent on if you have enough actions. It’s clearly listed how many actions anything you can do takes.
For example, here’s magic missile. The “Cast:” is the action cost. The squares are how many it takes. It can take anywhere between one to all three of your turn. Each action spent is another missile. It doesn’t matter if you’ve already cast a spell that turn or done anything else. As long as you have the actions available you can spend them on anything you want.
I started playing TTRPGs on Pathfinder 1e, but the vast majority of what I played is D&D5e. I never had too much issue with it, because I never saw a better option, but after seeing how Pathfinder 2e works it’s so much cleaner. Learning about how the action system came to be in 5e it’s pretty clear it wasn’t meant to be the way it is today. Because of that there’s stipulations to almost everything. I didn’t notice the issues until I was made aware of them, then you see them everywhere. For example, the Critical Role cast constantly fuck things up despite having played the game professionally for however many years it’s been now. If the rules were intuitive that wouldn’t happen, at least not as often.
I’m a recent convert to Critical Role as well, and even moments ago, I witnessed one of those fuck-ups (I’m still a long ways from catching up on campaign 3, so it’s an old episode), but I can’t seem to recall it having much to do with what’s an action or not an action and instead more about what the range of a thing is or what type of creature it can be cast on. I don’t know if there’s some equivalent solution to that in Pathfinder, but that would strike me as a harder problem to solve via systems changes to make more intuitive.
Another thing I respect about what 5e does compared to other D&D or adjacent games I listed above: they rebalanced the hell out of magic. In those other games, someone casts a spell that paralyzes your entire party with an AoE or massive cone, and you just have to watch with no recourse as everyone dies. In 5e, the equivalent spell has a finite number of targets, they scale intuitively with spell level by adding one extra target per level, and if it has an ongoing effect, it would require concentration so the person can’t steamroll by casting a bunch of them concurrently. Again, I haven’t played Pathfinder, so I definitely can’t knock it, nor do I have any negative reaction to the systems you’re describing (except for the part where some spells take longer than the actions you have in a single turn…that sounds terrible), but 5e isn’t the first RPG system I’ve played. It solved tons of problems with ones that I’ve played before. Advantage rolls another D20. Upcasting adds another die or another target. You get to move, and you get an action; everything else is an action, but your class gives you bonus action options. Resistances and weaknesses are simple halves and doubles. Armor affects your ability to hit or not, with no extra junk slowing down the calculations. That sort of thing. They’re all very smart changes. If I was going to nitpick things about 5e, it would be like how your ability scores are all out of 20, but your modifiers are every other point; and that’s something I seem to recall hearing through the grapevine that Pathfinder 2e does address, correct me if I’m wrong.
The action economy is just one example of the improvements of it. There are many. As for range and target types though, yeah I don’t think there’s a good solution to that. You either just have to get rid of it (which I think can and is done with some spells) or deal with the complexity that makes spells more useful only in the right situation.
As an example of making things simpler with spells, P2E’s Detect Alignment you choose an alignment to detect and can detect it. It comes out of older D&D’s detect good/detect evil which became the generic Detect Good and Evil in 5e which does not actually detect anything with alignment anymore in 5e. Pathfinder 2E generalized it to be more useful and simpler, D&D5e generalized it to be not what it says on the can anymore. It’s really strange what 5e decided to do with so many things. It just makes things not make intuitive sense.
As for the magic scaling, PF2e is similar. I don’t think you’re going to find many situations where D&D is more balanced than PF2e, at lead with the rules as written.
You can back out of the channeling if you need to. It’s a nice system for really powerful spells requiring a lot more risk and investment. Keep in mind, this applies to enemies as well. If you see them powering up something big, you will have time to try to interrupt them.
This is a good video for some more information about the three action economy. That channel has tons of other videos about the system too, a lot of which is focused on how it compares to D&D 5e. He has a lot more knowledge than I do, and he probably has a video on every question you have. I highly recommend checking it out if you’re interested.
Additionally, if you want PF2e content to consume, Tabletop Gold is a podcast using PF2e. I’m just over episode 100 I think and it’s pretty good. They aren’t the most knowledge about the system, most of them haven’t played TTRPGs at all before I don’t think, but it all flows very well, which is a testament to the design.
I’m out of the loop, what has wotc been fucking up?
Hasbro pulled a bunch of typical big corp enshitification tactics with their licensing and digital assets over the last couple of years.
They’ve also tanked the used market for people. 2 decks I had that I paid way too much for aren’t worth the cardboard they are printed on now. (MTG)
Moral of the story: run proxies. Speculators and investors ruined the market, WotC just let them do it. (Also, fuck the secondary market and the reserve list. It’s cardboard. Some of us just want to play)
Those decks were for competitive play. They wouldn’t let me run proxies.
My moral: Don’t give WotC anymore money, ever. Fuck 'em.
This is why I bailed out of Standard, finally. I’ve moved entirely into Limited.
I’ll still do pay-to-play with drafts of new sets here and there, but proxy Cube is where it’s at. My fun-to-price ratio with the game has never been better.
Oh, these were modern decks. Not T1 mind you, but still they destroyed the value that I had in it to me.
I just hate that at any time they can reprint something and it’s pretty much get fucked to anyone who paid $400+ for a 4x.
For example. Or my dude here.
Ah, that kind of price churn has been the norm in (lower case “l”) legacy formats for as long as I’ve been playing the game (25+ years now). It’d be reprints, bans, or just plain old power creep. Those formats have been too expensive/volatile for me for a very long time now.
Wait what happened?
Reprinting some things, neglecting to reprint others, power creeping the stuff they did reprint out of the game, banning some stuff that was too powerful while printing other stuff that’s just as good for the same reasons. You know, standard card game stuff.
Okay, sure, but they’ve been doing that since… what? Chronicles?
The rate of bans has dramatically increased since 2020. They even had to errata an entire new mechanic in the Ikoria set because some of the companion cards were crazy broken with the original design.
An extra wrinkle to this is that they are making bans due to how cards perform in online play, as best-of-one is a widely played format now.
I mean, I absolutely agree Best of One is an awful way to gauge card strength.
Did not know they’d ramped up bans.