Pathfinder 2 Release

[Raven777]

This is a textbook example of how not to win an argument. I see posts like this all the time when people are claiming one programming language is OBJECTIVELY better than another...

...but give no objective reasons. Throw out loaded terms like "Beautiful" and "Elegant" and "Coherent" and "Interesting". Terms that are inherently subjective and have no place in an objective proof.

I'm not going to fall in the trap I've already seen in this thread of claiming "you can't argue like this" because, of course, you can. But you're never going to win that argument, convince anyone to change their point of view, or come across as an elegant, coherent or interesting debater.

Give some concrete examples of what you mean. I see plenty of others doing so.

This is fair. I have strong feelings on which system is better. I will try to argue better, more constructively. I believe there are objectively provable points underneath those feelings.

Let's take a spell for exemple, say Glitterdust.

Coherent: predictably does the same thing from one situation to another.

PF1: causes creatures to become blinded and visibly outlines invisible things for the duration of the spell. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.

Success Negates blinding only
Failure Becomes blinded

The spell has a fixed duration depending on the caster's level, that is saved against every round by the target. It has a primary blinding effect that can be negated and a secondary invisibility revealing effect that always works.

PF2: creatures in the area are outlined by glittering dust. Each creature must attempt a Reflex save. If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target's invisibility is negated for 2 rounds.
Failure The target is dazzled for 1 minute and its invisibility is negated for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is blinded for 1 round and dazzled for 10 minutes. Its invisibility is negated for 10 minutes.

On the one hand, the duration and effect are both variable depending on the results of the single save. On the other hand, once that save is resolved the duration is fixed and there are no further saves.

Can we agree that these degrees of saving throws for all these possible effects (invisibility negated or not, dazzled, blinded, all for different durations) afford less coherence when using the spell, and are objectively harder to remember and apply while in play? A continuum of degrees is more complicated than a binary pass or fail. As for the duration saved against every round vs. a fixed duration once a single save is resolved, I would say it's a toss, neither being more complicated than the other.

Elegant: stands on the logical conclusions of its own rules without interjecting arbitrary exceptions.

The Incapacitation keyword on save or lose spells like Charm, Dominate, Suggestion, Color Spray, mean that the degrees of saving throws have different behaviors depending on the target's level. This is a built in exception for higher level foes rather than letting them stand on their own through their own racial immunities and higher saving throws inherent to their creature type or race/class and being higher level anyway. Adding layers of exceptions is objectively less elegant than letting the numbers and the inherent qualities and values of spells and targets stand on their own.

To me these things are all objectively more complicated than PF1. More complicated and more of a mess, less pretty, less beautiful.