Gortle's page

Reasons why I dislike attributes:

1. They follow a tradition of bioessentialism that creates false boundaries around what defines characters. Measuring characteristics like intenlligence has a very troubling, racist history and is still very problematic today. I say this as a college writing instructor who understands that we have no tools to measure such things that are not based upon cultural values that favor in-culture members over others.

So tests are not perfect or robust. Intelligence is a well established robust concept in real world science. This type of thinking is destructive and discounts real factors by negative association and mud throwing.

The more we try to create a small number of “essential attributes” the more likely we ignore other ways to be smart or wise or strong or likeable.

Yes its complex but we are playing a game. We need to codify and simply things.

2. They don’t even do what they say they do well. How often does the party only let the smartest character come up with the plan or strategy to solve a challenge? How often do parties even pretend like it was the smart character that came up with the plan? There are literally no game mechanics that actually represent character intelligence (outside of “magic”) as anything other than “how much data can your brain store”

Generally games uses Intelligence to discover information the character might be able to discern, discover, deduce, or remember. Yes some of the effects of what we might call intelligence is mixed in with other factors and is split over Wisdom, Perception, and Charisma

I feel its way easier to axe a gameplay mechanic that really isn't part of the world itself than something thats more tangible like a whole species.

Yes lore changes hurt, but lore is less important to us as we make a lot of it up as we go along. It's the name changes that increase mental load really hurt. Force Barage anyone?

Its also important to note that TTRPGs as a whole are leaning more towards simplification nowadays rather than having complex systems that require system mastery to learn and use

Simplfication is good, removing the dross is important. Lets do that.

You are still missing that there are different people here. At the risk of stereotyping; Engineers, IT, Physics and Maths geeks were the core player base for a long time. They want a different game from the general public. Don't kill this game by trying to make it the same as everything else.

I feel like the point is that every single barbarian and 90% of fighters are exactly as strong as each other from level 1 to level 20. Strength is an absolutely meaningless stat for talking about the vast majority of characters’ uniqueness or description.

So every strength based character is the same and there are commonly 2 of them in parties. Likewise for every other class /ability score combination apart from that there is typically one of them in a party.

It is a part of a description but a bit bland and predictable, we should be doing better.

Paizo tried to hint that a +3 is OK in a offensive ability score but the optimzer community and most of the player base haven't embraced that.

So here is a start at some other ideas, maybe this could be part of an attributeless system but I'm assuming all the attributes are still there.

Characters can take one of these as a free feat at level 1 if and only if they don't have a +4 ability score.

So looking at Strength

Incredibly Broad: You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks. You gain +1 Constitution.

Natural Athlete: You gain +1 to hit and damage with melee attacks. You gain +2 to all Athletics checks except for grapple, push and trip.

Deadly Eye: +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks, and +2 to Perception and Seek checks.

Seasoned Warrior: You know the importance of getting the measure of your enemy. You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks provided you have made a Seek Action, a Lore Check or a Hunt Prey Action in this round or the preceding round.

Dirty Fighter: You gain +1 to hit and damage with melee attacks. You gain +2 to Deception Checks and Dirty Tricks in combat

Perfect Balance: You gain +1 to hit and damage with weapon attacks. You gain +1 Dexterity.

Now many you can add more variety and make sure the modifiers always stack and close any rules, progression, or balance gaps. This is just an idea being tossed around.

For sure some similar flavour is already in the game. Every one of these is weaker in same way than just having +4 strength, but each also says something about the character and gets something else. If you want balance these are the sort of powers you need to give a martial to compensate for only having a +3 Strength.

Yes, "rolling up" a character can help spur the imagination. However, it's a major pain point when you have a firm character concept in mind and you have to hope the dice align to what you want to do.

And all of the additional steps with methods to help minimize the pure randomness just move more toward point buy or PF2e's ABC (Ancestry, Background, Class).

Note: I started gaming back in the 1st Ed AD&D days with "roll attributes in order"... and both races and classes had minimum and maximum attribute requirements(!) to qualify for. There was a (very understandable) reason people went toward point buy and other methods.

There were a lot of different rules in different games, plus lot of house rules. There is a time and place for random generation. It is obviously not when you have a firm character concept in mind. That is clearly incompatible.

The thing with attributes I think people like, or at least used to like, is that in earlier editions they were effectively random.

Yes we have lost that randomness. Many people still like it but the majority prefer balance so we have point buy. I always liked rolling up a character and rolling some personality/features and then trying to work out who they could be.

In PF2e that's not the case anymore. Even if you can technically juggle your stats a bit like starting with a +4 in your KAS and a +3 somewhere else, most people usually start with a +4/+2/+2/+1/+0/+0

Now every character has +4 in their primary ability. Every Fighter has +4 strength with only a few exceptions for special builds or unusual players.

The designers clearly expected the players to be happy with starting with a +3 in their primary ability score. But the player base have mostly pushed back against that. So everyone is the same. It is bland and boring.

attributes can sometimes work as descriptors, they more often than not work as restrictions. For example, someone that wants to be good at Intimidation is indirectly making themselves good at Diplomacy and Deception as well

There is a bundling everywhere certain skills and certain powers are gated behind classes, feats and attributes. It is the game.

I think the solution for that particular one is to have Strength as an optional ability for Intimidation. Paizo have prefered to have strong niche protection instead. I'm more concerned that Diplomacy and Deception aren't that good in combat. They need a little tweak.

RE: Attributes, I am attributes' biggest hater. I don't like partial boosts, I don't like how much complexity they add to the system for little to no benefit, I don't like the bioessentialist history or implications or how it sets up some players to accidentally behave in ableist ways trying to roleplay their stats, I don't like having to fight new players more used to narrative games getting very upset I'm not letting them make a 12 DEX thief rogue with all their points in INT. I think anything attributes do to help with the fantasy of a class can be better done with more feats, a number that says I'm strong on my sheet that no one will ever look...

I like having attributes. I think they are realistict and help describe the character. I do think it is silly just handing out large amounts of attributes as the characters level. Are you just fixing a maths problem in the game? What are they supposed to represent in the first place?

It could be covered with a set of feats eg like choose some feats that describe what your character is best at and provide a mechanical bonus. I think I prefer to do both this and have attributes.

I'd prefer if there where a few more options where attributes where not important. Example at the moment you can build a caster with just buff, healing, summons, walls and force barrage. You cut out almost all your offensive options but it is somewhat workable and you don't have to have a good spellcasting attribute. Can we get a class without a primary attribute?

This may rub people the wrong way in the context of the crunchy system that is 2e, but I think it's at least a worthwhile thought experiment to see if we could remove as many modifiers as possible in a future system, in a manner not too dissimilar to how 2e condensed many types of modifiers from 1e.

Modifiers do add to the crunch, and some are how key tactical elements are expressed in 2e, but they also slow down play

I agree. Modifiers are the game. As a player it is what you are trying to maximise at the tactical level. But it the players can't do it quickly enough it just slows the game down. A design can't be perfect until you have taken out the trash.

We probably could do without some of the modifiers. I think item bonuses on skill items are unnecessary.
I also object to having to wear things like a Demon Mask to get an intimidation bonus - it just interferes with my roleplaying of the character too much.

When some of the most basic actions will often involve multiple rolls that each have their own modifiers, gameplay takes more time to resolve

This is probably the biggest area to streamlining. No more rolls to determine modifiers for rolls. It's just a waste of time. Make it all a simple modifier that pushes into a final single roll. Aid shouldn't be a check just a modifier.

I'd also consider all the little ongoing rolls. Thinks like bleeding. Maybe the bleeding stops when you roll a 1 on the damage die. Bleeding is still there but now it is twice as fast to resolve. There are all sorts of things you can do to simplify and speed up the game without reducing its richness.

The worst thing you could do is go to a D&D advantage style system. Because the modifier is so large and so easy to get it devalues all the crunch.

I'm actually quite excited at the prospect of a new edition, especially as Paizo begins to depart from their D&D roots more and more in both design and convention.

Maybe I just find that things are going in all the wrong directions for my taste. No one in my play groups was at all interested in the new playtest classes. The new design decisions seem largely negative to me. There is still lots of clean up to be done with this game. We still don't have a useful Shifter. I'm finding the designers are more interested in adding extra fluff than adequately covering the core game.

I want to see a more serious effort to simplify the game and fix or remove the dross. By which I mean things that don't work reasonably or are adding mass and complexity but not really contributing to the fun.

Moving away from decades-old tropes such as slot-based spellcasting and prepared versus spontaneous

I'm perfectly fine with that. It was too complex and doesn't add enough from mid levels.

my hope is that we get another five to ten years out of 2E most specifically for Starfinder, because they're REALLY cooking over there! From minor QoL things like the Traversal trait streamlining movement rules to great new ideas like the Skill Paragon optional rule and Standardized Ancestry Feats that feel like they should be the new gold standard across both systems, and could pave the way for other ideas like Standardized Class Feats so you don't have so many martial or spellshape feats being reprinted over and over under multiple classes and archetypes and can instead use that space for more unique, flavorful, and interesting options.

I'll have to get around to checking out SF2 but the genre is much less interesting to me.

I would really want to see is a revision of the simple/martial/advanced weapon categories and the light/medium/heavy armor categories

It is a bit clunky but I don't see that it is problematic.

The third and last thing I want is a revision or removal of the 6 attributes.

Revise them if you must but if you remove them you have made a different game. For sure go write that one

* Failing on something and the adventure grinding to a full stop is bad.

Yes and no. Failing and having to try something else is fine. The real problem here is if the adventure or the GM have set the scenario so that there is only one way through. Unfortunately that is the simplest way to write adventures. A better adventure will have multiple ways through. Maybe the players fail and the lock is inpenetrable, but perhaps you can physically bypass it, maybe there is a key to find, maybe an NPC has information about a code or a weakness. I like to give the players options and to explore. This way the players and the dice have agency.

To me that is the heart of traditional RPGs. If you take it away you have a different mostly narrative game. They have their place too and can be great games but they are not the same.

Just allowing the party to proceed on a failure is in a sense cheating. It is bad adventure design. I guess it is acceptable on occassion if you find yourself in a corner as a GM, but not as the default rule.

* Failing on something and having to just try again and again until you succeed is also bad. Even if there's no cost/consequence to it.

...
Thinking about lock picking, we've established the mechanic works okay at the time pressure of an encounter. The rogue getting a potential ally out of manacles while the fighter keeps enemies busy, that's fine. If you fail too many checks, it'll take longer and be a harder fight, or you might have to flee and leave them behind.

For sure in combat the loss of time and actions is often a penalty enough in itself. The issue is out of combat the time pressure is often not there. So a rule to cover both is more complex.

I prefer to use a principle from IT called exponential backoff. Basically if you allow a retry then it takes a lot more time. So if you fail it as an action a retry takes a minute, if you fail it as a minute then a retry is going to take you most of the day. Kicking it from in encounter, to exploration, then to downtime and keeping the total number of retrys finite and sane but not making the result inevitable. As a GM it is easy enough to arrange for consequences to each of these results.

The larger issue is that exploration mode doesn’t have enough crunch to it

Yes the rules have a significant gap there and it is up to the GM to fill it.

The base mechanic is one of the things I'm taking issue with, on those. Locks that require 4 successes and where a failure does nothing are not interesting. If you're skilled at the task you're probably going to have to make 5-6 rolls where nothing really goes wrong unless you get a nat 1. That's not interesting, and the failure case is exceptionally dull because it's literally "nothing happens". That's just what's in the rulebook.

That could instead be a single check with a base time requirement of X and the following outcomes:
Critical Success: You unlock it in X / 2 time. That you have unlocked it is unnoticed by any creatures on the other side.
Success: You unlock it in X time. That you have unlocked it is unnoticed unless a creature is observing the lock or specifically checks.
Failure: You unlock it in X * 4 time. That someone is tampering with the lock is easily noticed by creatures on the other side.
Critical Failure: You break your lockpicks and any creature on the other side is likely to notice someone as tampering with the lock.

That's still a generic rule that can fit in the rulebook, except it's now one check that advances the narrative immediately in one way or another unless it's literally a lock to an empty room.

A couple of issues here.

Often the difference between Success and Failure just doesn't matter. There are many situations where time is not important. So as a generic rule it is problematic.

Because you can succeed on a failure suddenly your ability with the skill is not that important. It is perhaps whether you have the skill or not. So suddenly the wizard can become good enough at wrestling and the cleric at lock picking. What is the difference between a +2 and a +4 in this scenario? Are stats really that important anymore?

This is a different game. There are games that do this and they are valid and have their place. Go play those, don't destroy the uniqueness of this one by destroying it's core.

Why do we need to spoon feed our players and make it so easy for them. Failure sometimes is OK. Force them to think and adapt to challenges.

Ravingdork wrote:

I don't know that I care too much for the idea that PCs can just fail their way to victory.

That's not what failing forward means, though. Failing forward is about failures advancing the adventure, even if it means bad stuff happening. Rather than "you fail to pick the lock, try again," this can mean "as you try to pick the lock, you're spotted by a guard, who is about to run and raise the alarm. What do you do?" The basic idea of failing forward is that failure means progress as much as success, so you're never stagnating: progress doesn't mean victory, though, and failures in systems that do have a concept of failing forward tend to complicate things for the player characters in ways they have to deal with in interesting ways.

Well we need to be clear in our implications here.

Failure should provide information, failure should have consequences. Failure should result in a retry or a plan B.
So suggestions from an adventure writer about some possible fallback options for the GM to divert the players on to is great. If this is what you mean by "Failing Forward" then I'm with you.

However while the GM and adventure writer set up the scenario, I like the players to have agency, I also like the dice to rule. The outcome of actions has to be meaningful and have consequence - including potentially real failure - or else there is no real tension.

I do find attack/skill roll then miss can get a bit boring for players. Which is why I still try to create richer scenarios so that there are other options. Every character should be able to do something more than Strike. I think PF2 is better at supporting these other options with mechanics than most. Personally I like players taking Seek actions and Recall Knowledge type actions to gain a hint from the GM about when they realise they are stuck.

But that is not really the main point. You can make a good druid, but the wildshaping is just not strong enough.

Paizo have kept the top line balance moderately reasonable. The system itself really helps. But there remain subclasses and parts of the design space which is clearly supposed to be used eg Wildshape Druid, the Fury Barbarian , the Scoundrel Rogue, the Outwit Ranger etc, that just don't work well enough when doing the main point of their concept compared to the other options.

I think the Alchemical Sciences Investigator works fine as far as power level goes by the way - I'm just not that keen on the other options.

But Paizo have fixed many things like the War Priest, the Superstition Barbarian etc.

This isn't a 'they should suck' this is a '(remastered) swashbuckler is the gold standard of balanced martial power' and 'investigator is roughly where martial with heavy out of combat investment is' which is where a untamed order druid who never uses spells in combat should be, logically.

Maybe investigator could be bumped up a bit but if you try to get everything chasing fighter highs that's just asking for power creep and isn't going to be particularly healthy or fun.

It is illogical to balance out of combat utility versus in combat.

Yes every class should be aimed at around the same power.

If community engagement is so hard, why does every other company in the space do it better than Paizo?

That is too harsh. Paizo are better than all the larger gaming companies.

Pick a lane—either they’re full casters and should be able to cast in form, or their melee damage should be better.

Their melee damage should be better. Some limited casting in form is OK, but they need to be more viable in melee.

Funnythinker wrote:

Untamed druids must invest in Strength just to meet the requirements for their +2 bonus, which means they won’t have spell DCs as high as other orders.

This is just false. A druid can easily start with +3 Str, +4 Wis and keep both Str and Wis maxed out. If they grab heavy armor proficiency then they don't even really need Dex so they can even branch out into either (or both) Cha and Int if they want.

There are issues with druids but being MAD is NOT one of them.

It is false because they only get their +2 bonus on a couple of levels anyway.

But I think both Animist and Druid wild shape less and less at the higher levels. Spells are just so much better.

So you have effectively conceded the point. Wild shape needs a boost.

I just do NOT find the resulting character in any way not viable.

Well it is not viable for me and quite a reasonable portion of the player base.

Gortle wrote:

It is a generalist option. It is OK ish. But it is never great. It does not feel good enough.

As a generalist option it is exceedingly cheap (1 second level class feat Order Explorer or even just throw money at the problem and buy some scrolls). This lets your Str -1 Gnome have the option of being a reasonably decent melee character (NOT on par with a true martial, but moderately decent) when the situation warrants it. I've got a gnome druid and he only rarely shifts but he does so way more than enough to warrant the 1 feat he has invested in it.

Or you go the other route and invest fairly heavily. Raise Str. Take something like fighter archetype to get Reactive Strike. Maybe martial or some racial weapon proficiency to get access to some better weapons.

This makes your character a decent Gish when NOT shapeshifted, relying mostly on spells but able to go into the front line and do the Strike for one action/Throw a spell for 2 actions routine. And then, when the situation warrants it you turn into a better form (maybe better just because of reach and Reactive Strike, maybe you're at one of the few levels where the +2 status bonus for using your own attacks kicks in).

I've played both types and been quite satisfied with both. But both absolutely are spell casters first and melee combatants second. Which is why I'd personally LOVE to see a Shifter class. All of my comments on how decent the druid currently is do NOT change the fact that a decent Shifter class would be a wonderful thing to have

Ok but really this is misleading. It is not cheap. That you can poach a couple of forms cheaply is a separate problem.

For the Wild Order Druid - which should be viable being wild most of the time - you should invest in Strength or many of your feats are shut to you. You can easily spend all of your feats on this. Then you also need to pick up a couple of typically Fighter feats to get a maneuver and reactive strike. Then you still look like a very pathetic martial. Even though it is the focus of your build and you are aiming at the core of your class flavour.

It is the fact that the wild druid doesn't work that well, that is the real problem. Their main ability the +2 status bonus just doen't apply most of the time. It is weak. Yes other builds can steal a few forms and really the martial primary is really the only one that works.

The problem with large parties is the balance is thrown out with regard to being able to focus fire.
If you can concentrate all that damage on one PC or the party can focus fire on one enemy then players/enemies can go puff before they get to act. Or even just totally neuted.

6 players instead of 4 is 50% extra.

I'm running a group of 6 at the moment. My suggestion is make sure the terrain is complex. Split your fire onto at least 2 targets as the GM. I home brew all my monsters and I'm no afraid to step outside the bounds for the numbers of hit points for monster etc.

I think the goal is that a battle form gets you 90% of the melee power of a martial with far, far less investment. You can be a druid that ignores strength but turn into a gorilla that still hits just as hard.

The change I'd personally like would to to make Untamed Form a 1-action spell. It feels like right now it just takes a bit too long to get started in combat if you decide to brawl it out, compared to slinging spells. Making it 1-action would allow you to transform, move and strike in one turn.

But it does not get you 90% of the power. It still falls behind dedicated martials in AC, damage and attack value. A few points in each from mid level for just a simple strike ie about 30-50% off there. Then it falls down from the lack of maneuvers and other abilities martials get. One of the major points of PF2 was to stop prebuffing - it costs you actions - so while you have magic options because of the action economy they aren't really that much of a benefit.

It is a generalist option. It is OK ish. But it is never great. It does not feel good enough.

Then there are all the polymorph rule problems which have been around from the very start. These need to be fixed.

Well I'm just glad we finally have a ruling on instance of damage. Not a clean definition but a probably good enough example.

I never subscribed to the notion that first edition PF was broken, rather that the average player doesn't respect the tactical wargaming roots of D&D. This mentality has lead to the average 5e player thinking every PC build should be able to walk into the midst of enemy forces in combat regardless of their build.

The problem is that some people worked the PF1 build system in multiple different ways. So PCs had wildy different damage ouputs and defenses. It became difficult to challenge as a GM without arbitrarily limiting the combos your particular group liked. Especially if you have groups with a few casual players. If your group has come to a satisfactory position then please enjoy PF1.

Making Off Guard have a penalty to reflex saves and otherwise making small changes to the flanking rules to help ranged players might be a part of the solution. Encouraging team work....

Get rid of stats.

Ok your points are fair and reasonate with some other people as well in this list. There are a few who are saying you can get away with a +3 main stat but I can tell you that most (not all) of the players in my local groups wouldn't be prepared to do that. RPGs are about roleplaying fun and competitive dice fun.

Every fighter being just as strong as the next fighter is clearly unrealistic, but every fighter being near enough equally as effective as the next fighter is desirable from a balance point of view.

But what do stats actually do for the game and what could you replace them with? No one really seems to be getting at that.

From a characterisation and roleplaying point of view, stats are part of the description of your character. Or at least they can be. So if you want to get rid of stats you should replace them with a selection of descriptive feats which have minor secondary benefits. Things like you are bursting with youthful energy and exhurburance, or you are a highly disciplined at your training, or you concentrate really well and study the movements of your opponent, or you are just a physically large specimen.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

You don't need RK for optimal group play. For some reason some folks are holding onto this idea of the wizard making some RK check to figure out some secret that makes winning easy. It doesn't work like that anymore.

I think it's because it's something people want from the game. Not because the game necessarily delivers on that, but it's something people want.

It is something they should fix.

The problem is the name Recall Knowledge. They should introduce an similiar skill action to discover or investigate to be able to uncover tactics or weakness in combat.

There is perhaps some overlap with Perception. Thematically it can justify gaining useful information. In a way that Recall Knowledge can't because you are constantly running into rare and unique monsters.

The Astral Rune is almost essential on weapons.

I'd issue a proper errata for the damage issues they continue to avoid. Then I'd go back and balance up a few more of the existing classes and subclasses that don't get played much.

Probably time to create new threads for these subjects. The ruling is clear we can discuss it elsewhere.

Maya Coleman wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Maya Coleman wrote:

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

We'll just go back to stealing original artwork directly from the artists then. *shrugs in jest*

Any of the art used on our blogs is free for you to use with proper credit and association (abiding by our Community Use Policy), and we're currently working on compiling it all (the art files) in one place for easy access and use.

I know other companies also do this and it's genuinely for the best health of the community in my experience, so thank you to Paizo for looking for a solution that benefits creators.

Generative AI genuinely has no place in creative content. Call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer to have no images in a guide to images from generative AI. It would make me question the integrity and passion behind the guide as a whole.

I'm sure the guides have passion and integrity behind them, but the use of AI at all makes me hesitant to share with my players as if you used AI for one piece of the content, there's no reason to assume you didn't elsewhere.

My guides are for my own reference and are useful to the community. They are in no way commercial or for profit.

My guides had no images in them and I often got badgered to dress them up with art. I carefully respected copyright so I didn't steal images - which seems to be the traditional practice. I'm not aware of much in the way of protests about actual copyright violations on the forums but I assume there must have been some. It is funny what people choose to be sensitive about.

I eventually added a few simple AI images last year - because it is legal and easy.

The guides listed here almost all predate ChatGPT anyway so even if the irregular spelling and formatting mistakes don't convince you, you can still be reasonable confident there is little AI content.

This moralising crusade to exclude AI content is not supported by the vast majority of consumers. In the long run cheap and convenient is going to win out.

As far as preventing harm to content creators and artists. Change is inevitable, most of us have been through lots already and we adjusted fine. Progress always has a downside but it is always more of an oppourtunity than a curse. There is a lot to be said about the simple virtue of the Amish lifestyle, but it is never going to be for me.

All you are doing with a boycott is forcing people to leave and making change faster.

Hey all! Guides are great, but please don't include generative AI images in them! It puts them in a kind of weird grey area where it's not us using the AI, which is something we don't do, but having AI associated with our content and on our forums puts us in a tricky position. The things on our forums are things we promote and support, and we do not promote or support the use of generative AI in our products or products associated with them. Please continue to make the guides, but just make sure the art you're using is from an artist!

No it doesn't put you in that position. You don't own our content, or our commentary on your content. You never have.

Don't try to enforce a principle that you endorse on others. We don't all agree. Let us make our own decisions. You can try to persuade us. But AI is the future not just for artists, but for hobbists, GMs, writers and guide writers.

Agreed that is the biggest problem. The new Oracle suffers from the same problem as the Pyschic - you can poach the best part. I for one prefer a sorcerer - oracle over a straight oracle.

Reasons.

It is a difference and a complication the game could do without.

So, we have 3 mutually exclusive categories for attacks with attack rolls:

1) Melee attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

1.a) Melee weapon attack
1.b) Melee unarmed attack

2) Ranged attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

2.a) Ranged weapon attack
2.b) Ranged unarmed attack

3) Spell attack

Which has 2 mutually exclusive subcategories:

3.a) Ranged spell attack
3.b) Melee spell attack

Nope.

No where does it say mutually exclusive.
The rules never say distinct and separate.
The various subcategories can co exist and overlap - because the rules text uses it sometimes, eg Ignition cantrip. But what a melee spell attack is is not defined, we are left to guess.

The rules are in natural language.

I just don't see the point for why someone would want a system to be designed around realism.

Yes some people do want more realism. I do get that people have different tastes. Don't assume everyone agrees with yours, or worse that just because you have a more popular opinion that there aren't large groups of people who want to do it their way. PF2 is not PBTA or FATE - it is clearly a crunchier system for people who like that. Also within PF2 there are huge play and stylistic differences.

It is always going to be a question of how much realism.

Yes people have different comprehension about what is real, and we have fantasy elements to the game. But we do have a shared real world that we all interact with as a basis of understanding.

Because many people like to build off that understanding and explore the logical consequences from there.

Deus ex Machina is not something most people like.

I do agree that the increase in complexity as the character level goes up is a problem. The shear amount of tracking for Vancian casting, the number of items, longer turns because of increased action efficiency and number of options.

The problem is that every interpretation have its own problem or something that someone will dislike.

True. They should have been explicit.

The way I play it is a deduction from the rules. For the conditions which have their own ending rules like frightened or sickened then I use what is stated in the condition - so you can end up with a condition even after moving out of an area or after the spell that generated that condition expires. Other conditions that have no duration or reasonable ending condition so I use the duration of the effect - because these conditions don't make any sense without it.

For me it is a question of identifying the specific and general rules. I take notice of what is in the condition itself unless it is otherwise overidden.

It has a 1 round duration (so yes this means that the frightened ends in the beginning of the caster turn, not matter how much it's its value).

I disagree with this interpretation.

The scaling problem with assurance is that it doesn't include ability score bonus and item bonus. Ability score can get as high as +7 , status bonus of +3 and item +3 before doing anything extreme. Which means taking a 10 to ignore those modifiers is eventually like choosing to roll a zero.

One of the fundamental PF2 design principles (and biggest stumbling blocks for people from other systems) is that if something is supposed to be meaningful challenge (as defined by the DC by level chart) you can't optimize yourself out of rolling for it.

Well Paizo have failed more than a few times then. Example the Subtle trait just works. There is no roll. Prior to this trait it always failed though the GM might allow you to improvise a roll at some sort of DC.

Dubious Knowledge is pretty reliable.

For something like the Inventor's Overdrive

That is a poor example. Other classes don't have a fail chance at all for getting off their focus powers. Why is the Inventor being penalised? It is not as if its a non core feature, nor is it especially powerful. In fact it falls below some other classes.

Some of Paizo's decisions are quite arbitrary.

Assurance has some value with Medicine, and some with Athletics. But in general it is a very marginal feat and from level 10 very little value at all.

That is the real problem. Assurance is somewhat useful early on, it become useless. It needs to scale better.

The guides are now up to date with Battle Cry

Aesir is disappointing as a Sorcerer bloodline. None of the focus spells that trigger the bloodmagic are all that good, and the spells from the bloodline are not as good as other divine sorcerers.

There are a number of wide area spells useful on a battle field eg Blinding Bottle, Shock and Awe, Explosive Barrage

Frozen Fog and Instant Minefield are the pick of the new spells. I personally just like the whole forced movement game.

Boots on the Ground is a long running illusionary allies. That can be very useful and action efficient as it is precast.

Dancing Shield is basically a shield for someone else - that will be useful in dungeons.

Some reactions which never really seem worthwhile eg Helpful Reload and Curse of Recoil but maybe some people will like them.

Lots of Incarnate spells. But mostly they do the damage I'd expect in one round from a spell, and just do it in two rounds. Perhaps Conquering Soldiers, Jassim's Allegiance and Pest Swarm are OK.

Battle Cry continues the trend of making spells which are good in specific circumstances - which favours prepared casters and casters with spellbooks like Arcane Sorcerers and Wizards.

To lean into the flexible Incarnate spells I think you will need to have a recall knowledge game to take advantage of the options. This can come from an ally or bloodmagic or just lean into the easy Oracle archetype for Whispers of Weakness.

shroudb wrote:

KM is not 3rd party material?

It is made and published by Paizo.

Yes and no. The kingdom rules were not made by Paizo. They were contracted out (IIRC to Legendary Games) and then put into Kingmaker without any playtesting.

Paizo published them and ultimately owns responsibility for them, but they're not an in-house creation.

Frankly there's really no reason for them to worry about it here. Battlecry is meant to be AP agonostic, so putting a bunch of Kingmaker specific considerations in it isn't really necessary. Army rules are only relevant in one section of Kingmaker anyway (AFAIK) and a GM can pretty easily modify that chapter to use skirmish rules instead if they want to, or use skirmish rules for key encounters while using army rules for the rest. Or just ditch the army rules entirely and do most of it via Warfare checks.

IF I buy a product with kingdom and army rules as its differentiation from other similar products, I expect them to be functional. They are not.

This is very much a problem for Paizo to fix.

I'd missed Instant Minefield until now. It having the subtle trait is incredibly funny to me.

The Subtle trait is important otherwise your enemy will know a spell effect is in a square and will probably avoid it.

I like the effect and it makes more sense as a spell rather than the way snares are done.

Though I would have prefered a more fantastical theme than land mines.

Just the idea of arming a series of mines behind the chairs of people you dislike around a long banquet table, only for them to off as soon as people stand up at the end of the meal is making me giggle.

The social use is interesting... perhaps this is now an assassination spell.

Gortle wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

I'm not seeing Frozen Fog (from Battlecry!) in the guide - not really sure how to evaluate it since it's mostly damage over time. What are your thoughts on it?

I haven't got to Battle Cry yet...

Ah, I saw the instant minefield spell already in the list, so just assumed :P.

I saw a discussion about that spell and added it in as a one off.

I'm working through the rest now. Give me a couple of days.

The answer is unfortunately the same.

Make a reasonable decision for your table and move on because it is unlikely Paizo will address things any time soon.

I still have serious questions about the base damage rules, the stunned condition, battleforms, eidolons. It is frustrating in the extreme that these aren't even acknowledged.

Have you read the Necrologist Archetype?

...
it doesn't need to get more feats to keep working once it auto improves with the caster so the other archetype feats are made horizontally improve the horde.

Maybe this template could make others alternatives to companions/summons in the future (I hope some of them not caster focused) to use to those dislike the currently companions system.

For me the Necrologist finally gives me what I have been looking for a summoning class. An interesting scalable summons as an ability like a focus spell.

Arcane does have the by far best list-unique spell in Contingency.

Being able to trigger another spell cast automatically is absurdly good. Plus, there's no once per day limitation, so it can be recast after every combat. (it doesn't even have the contingency trait, so you can still use other [contingency] spells, lol)

I agree it is an awesome spell and a force multiplier for arcane. The type of rules problem you mention is a real nuisance. Some GMs will play it like it is written, some will choose to fix it.

However you have it wrong. If you look at the text of the Contingency Trait it explicitly includes Contigency regardless of its trait status You can have only one spell with the contingency trait, or one contingency spell, active at a time. So this is not a problem other than Paizo using complex wording.

Also want to shout out a new Arcane only R2 Reaction spell, Warping Pull.

It's everything I wish Friendfetch had been. React to a first Strike, reduce the damage to the ally, and force the foe to burn another action moving back into melee if they want to swing again.

Crazy good spell.

Extremely efficient action wise. I'm sitting on the fence of giving it 5 stars in my guide.

So it got me thinking: what classes got the biggest buffs in your opinion ? What is your top 3 ?

For me it was 4:

Swashbuckler becomes resonably balanced and fun to play. But I find that gaining panache on all bar a critical failure really diminishes the concept. Overall it is good I'd have just done it differently - to me the real problem was the Finisher concept.

Even though I miss the risk of the AC penalty the Barbarian is now awesome and right up there with the Fighter for most levels. The extra toughness and damage make up for the lower accuracy and the free action rage helps with the action economy where the Fighter pulls away at higher levels. Though obviously the Fighter is a better place to start if you want to multiclass as a martial. At least the elemental and superstitious subclasses now work by default.

Alchemist became playable for most people. Too bad a lot of the subclasses add next to nothing. I'd like to see a broader vision for this class. But at least it works now even if the rules are confusing.

The Cleric didn't need anything but got heaps including the ability to dump charisma. The changes to alignment work very well. I was very sceptical about it but I think the new Holy/Unholy has really pulled it off well. A big boost to the Divine spell list. If they had a bit of action efficiency then Cleric would be the best class now.

The rest:

Investigator was always fine as long as your GM allowed it to work. They just made that more explicit so I guess that helps most people.

Oracle got some more magic but it lost its flavour so there is little point in the class. I can see why I'd multiclass into this class just not why I'd make it my base class.

Sorcerer got blood magic but some it is clunky and the timing of effects makes some of what looks good unplayable. The loss of the old crossblooded feat really hurts though.

Rogue has been rounded out a bit. It is mostly positive. I really hate the new Gang Up feat. It is just too good. It takes flanking out of the tactical game by making it free.

Witch got a few busted builds. Is that really an improvement?

Bard got some funtionality in the Warrior Muse but probably not enough to move the needle.

Druid, Champion, Monk got next to nothing.

Wizard iterated but didn't change except for weaker school spell selection and some alternative focus spells.

Ranger needed a fix and still has nothing. Flurry is almost strictly weaker that the agile Fighter. Outwit is pointless before level 10.

Inventor looks strictly worse than the Barbarian. It needs more gadgets.

The Gunslinger Way of the Spellshot is now OK.

Overall it was a good set of improvements. A lot of things that needed a fix were fixed. But there is a lot left to do.

Sorcerer got better niche protection, but Oracle is now as exposed to multiclass exploitation as the Psychic and Exemplar are. Paizo used to be better at this.

4. Primal list which allows them to heal and blast with the same character.

I think you are underselling the Primal list. It has some good control and buff options. But also reasonable healing is fairly easy for any character to have at higher level.