The Once and Future Kai's page

The title presumes that Paizo was in "control" of the tabletop roleplaying market. That seems like a mistaken assumption. Paizo never had "control" of the TTRPG market, it was ahead in market shares because of Hasbro's corporate mismanagement of D&D. Yes, Paizo absolutely made some smart business decisions during the Fourth Edition era but they've never come close to having the financial resources of Hasbro or the brand recognition of D&D.

When D&D 5E came out in 2014, it was not an immediate smash. Pathfinder 1E was still quite dominant in the marketplace.

This is like asking "How did the Nintendo Wii outsell the Playstation 3?" It's simple; D&D Fifth Edition introduced a metric ton of new people to tabletop roleplaying. This was a net positive to tabletop roleplaying in general, including Paizo. D&D Fifth Edition was far more accessible to the new people, leveraged it's broad brand recognition, and benefitted from the 2010s boom in 80s/90s nostalgia.

I've just started playing PF2, and I was wondering what is the balance here?

Class parity is a selling point. It doesn't go as far as Fourth Edition, classes still feel distinct, but it's worlds improved from 3/3.5/Pathfinder.

Most 3.X+ games skew aggressively towards casters...

One of the persistent complaints from a certain demographic is that the system no longer skews caster.

However, martial classes do not have these, and I fear it will again skew fighters towards the lower realms of play.

Never fear. Martials are not only influential but interesting. The new action economy and critical system opens up battlefield mobility and makes for dynamic combat.

I once devoted way too much time arguing that Paladins' divine courage in D&D 3.5 was abusive. The core argument being that fear is natural and keeps us from harm. Divine courage removes fear specifically so Paladins throw themselves in harm's way. This demonstrated, I argued, that 'good' deities were actually manipulative and exploitative.

The point - I was putting too much thought into it and so are you.

It's system mechanic. There's a way to interpret it that's dark. There's also a more obvious way to interpret it that's not dark.

Familiars are not slaves... Summons on the other hand...

I was very enthused about Starfinder but then Pathfinder Second Edition hit and I have no desire to go backwards on system mechanics. I know it's too soon for a second edition.

But I'd welcome the equivalent of Starfinder Unchained with guidelines on integrating certain Pathfinder Second Edition rules.

⮚ Three Action Economy
⮚ Restrict AoOs
⮚ Reactions
⮚ Species Progression

Also, I'd like future printings of the Starfinder Core Rulebook, Alien Archive, and so to retcon naming conventions.

⮚ Race to Species
⮚ Subrace to Subspecies

Beyond that... I'm excited for Mecha, would like more on Starships, and hope that Psionic kickstarter surprises everyone.

Maybe the Illuminati got to them.

Why would Steve Jackson Games go after Dreamscarred Press?

My groups used shields quite a bit and they were AWESOME...because we misread the rules. RAW the new shield rules are a mess, but they do have some great cinematic potential when misinterpreted. Shield block prevented a lot of damage and was very cool.

It's kind of hard for me to judge weapon & shield vs two handed weapon as that was split along Fighter/Barbarian lines in my groups. The sword and board Fighter out-damaged the two handed weapon Barbarian every time...but I think that was more the Fighter's superior accuracy than equipment.

Thanks again for this app! I ran a Holiday one off using the Pathfinder Playtest rules and this made creating higher level characters a piece of cake! Thanks for maintaining it and including the 1.6 update. The interface was great, only issue was some crashes around exporting to pdf (may have been due to my pdf reader).

I'm all for Ability Scores disappearing. In fact, I've stated this opinion on a few surveys. Remove an unnecessary layer of complication - to my knowledge they're only used for ability boosts above 18 and that's not enough usage to justify scores.

I'd rather that they give the squishes access to interesting reactions of their own. Like reactive teleport, magic shield, etc.

For me it's a toss up between Proficency Increases and Exploration Mode.

I wouldn't mind seeing the divided up by Druidic Order.

Animal: No animal hide.
Plant: No plant materials.
Storm: ???
Wild: No metal.

Or the opposite. Animal only wears Hire, Plant only wears plant materials, etc.

I guess the question is "how do we make PCesque antagonists credible threats at high levels without making the party absurdly wealthy from scavenging all those magic items?".

Tying bonus weapon damage die to proficiency for PCs and NPCs resolves the issue, in my opinion. NPCs don't need a magic weapon to be threatening currently...it's just strange that PCs need one to be threatening.

I mean, " special rules for NPCs" is almost certainly the cleanest way to do it, but are there other solutions?

I think there's amble design space here for a solution that checks both boxes. NPCs can have special rules that don't overtly clash with PC rules. They don't have to operate by the same rules...they just need to "feel" like they're playing the same game to the PCs.

I'd definitely like to see special rules for NPCs that simplify creation, ensure "threat", and allow for interesting interactions. But that's all on the GM side of things - on the PC side NPCs should not feel like they're playing by different rules.

Thanks for putting this together. I watched it after my Fate Core game on Friday but it's always nice to have someone put it in writing.

2) Resonance/Focus. Folks didn’t like the original system. Feedback on the Resonance/Focus test was very fractured, all over the place as to what folks liked and didn’t like. Jason: so if none of these options is attracting overwhelming support, then none is the obvious right choice. They might end up going with one of the options they’ve floated, but they’re going to take a hard look at it and see if it’s something we’ve seen or something else. They’ve got a couple “solid leads” and are working on it

I'm running the Resonance Test the Friday after Thanksgiving so, grain of salt, but this was my impression as well. For the most part, there's not a lot of interest/support for Focus for magic items....but there are some bright points. Like the Staff rules.

- How a lot of Feats give new Action/Reaction options instead of numerical bonuses

- Rangers and Paladins being their own thing instead of Half-Casters
- Fighters as a whole, the class just feels like a Fighter should have always been for me

Great additions. Fighters and Monks absolutely floored me with much they improved in the playtest.

While I liked how some feats such as the skill feat seemed to automatically scale based on their proficiency, and like to see feats that get a bit better as you level. I certainly don't want it to be pushed to the point where you pick your ancestry, your background, your class, your path, and your feat (defining the chain) and voila all your choices are now made... watch as your character levels up to 20 based on those choices.

I don't think anyone wants things to go that extreme...but I'd greatly prefer selecting a feat that scales with level/proficiency to a chain of feats that accomplish the same goal. That leaves later feats for new abilities and multiclassing. As noted, I also want proficiency divorce from feats entirely into it's own progress.

My favorite things...

- Open Skill Proficency
- Action Economy
- Modular Design / Easy to Houserule & Homebrew
- Archetypes / Multiclassing
- Sorcerers of diverse Magical Traditions
- Restricted AoO
- Tactical Gameplay
- Ancestries (in theory)
- ABC +4 character creation
- Four Tiers of Success
- Improved Class Parity
- Rituals
- Downtime Mode and Crafting
- Stronger Skills
- CMB replaced with Skills

"Moar feats" is still a viable answer as far as I am concerned, though.

Please no. There's enough tracking complexity at mid to high levels as is. Fewer options that scale better are the way to go.

Agreed. I'm a big fan as well.

Up until now, I felt that percentile die (and their playtest successor flat checks) have largely been limited to random elements that were beyond a player's control. Some examples are miss chance due to concealment, casting a spell with wild magic, or determining what a creature is reincarnated as.

Given that - it seems like a significant shift in design philosophy for flat checks to apply to areas where character options have traditionally had clout. The two examples from 1.5/1.6 are a Flat Check for Death & Dying instead of a Fortitude Save and a Flat Check to determine the duration of Barbarian Rage.

Do think this represents a shift in design philosophy? If so, what do you think of it?

On further reflection, Mending should really work like Magic Missile or Heal.

Does something with three actions (remove a Dent in combat?), does more with one minute, and does a lot with ten minutes.

It's kind of strange to me that magical repair takes a longer amount of time than mundane repair. Even taking the same amount of time seems off. It's magic? Isn't supernaturally fast mending the appeal of it? Watching something patch itself back together in seconds inspires wonder.

Yes, the way Catfall works would be a great baseline for almost all or even all of the Class Feats, scaling based on your Proficiency level, with really cool stuff at Master and Legendary. This actually solves a lot of problems, the two biggest ones being bland Skill Feats and lack of differentiation between Proficiency levels.

Indeed. "Master and Legendary not feeling 'special'" was a significant concern among the 58 posters I polled in the most recent 3 Thing You Love 3 Things You Hate Thread. I think revising all Skill Feats to work like Catfall would go a long way towards rectifying that (at least for Skills).

Good point. My groups are running behind on the survey (we're still running 1.4) but will be tackling a new section soon (using 1.6) so updating this is important.

It feels like Sorcerers and Clerics are in the same boat regarding class powers needing to be flashier, more interesting, more build defining, or just more useful.

Sigh. I wish that the Dwarf Ancestry had some kind of Crafting boost so they could be excellent Chirurgeons. It makes me miss the "Racial Archetypes" from Pathfinder First Edition - something like Dwarf Chirurgeons brew Ale of Life instead of Elixirs of Life.

Regarding the Duration of Shapeshifting, it's an easy fix: Make the duration in hours UNTIL you make an attack, at which time the remaining hours convert to rounds/minutes.

I think they could leave it hours unless they plan to add Natural Spell. Shapeshifted Druids without spellcasting are hardly broken.

A proficiency increase should never be a feat. It's simply too large and important a change to fit into the scale of feats.

Agreed. I hate having proficiency increases buried in feats. It adds unnecessary complication to the system and locks players into progressions that aren't very interesting.

As people pointed out in that thread, balancing free choice of proficiency is going to be really hard, so it's probably not a viable choice.

Disagreed. It wouldn't have been viable in Pathfinder First Edition but Paizo tightened up the math to such an extent that I think it's viable here.

As I noted in the thread, I'd just take your proposal one step further and split proficiency increases into three categories (Defense Increases for Saving Throws/AC, Offense Increases for Weapon Groups/Spellcasting, and Skill Increases for...Skills). Classes that are traditionally 'weapon masters' would get more Offense Increases, Classes that are traditionally 'defensive walls' would get more Defense Increases, and the Rogue would continue to get an absurd amount of Skill Increases. Each "pot" balanced internally and for the class in question.

However, I made a more realistic suggestion, that class paths / specialisations should determine some or all of your proficiency increases.

This is a good proposal but I still prefer your original one. It's a lot more transparent, cuts down on tracking complexity, and enables a wealth of character options.

But if the conclusion y'all arrived at from the playtest is that parties need LESS access to healing (nerfing cleric channel energy?!) then I really don't know what to say.

It's not that parties need less access to healing...it's that the Cleric was too good at healing. This update also contains healing buffs for Paladin, Druid, and Alchemist. Not locking dedicated healers into a single class is a good move.

...and the shortbow gain the Agile property.

This would be the ideal solution.

Like, if nobody in party is using the perception tactics, that mean when they enter room with perception dcs nobody can roll them? And vice versa if they used tactic to roll knowledge? So does that mean to be safe player with good knowledge and perception skill has to once in every room switch tactics so they are allowed to roll both?

I believe so... I'd prefer something like the action economy. In 10 minutes a character can be doing three things (searching, looking out, etc) and you get a free reaction (reactive Perception, reactive Recall Knowledge, etc).

But I also want better teamwork options - aid other isn't very strong and, worse, it's boring. Love to see more interplay between allied skillsets setting up advantages. Deception's Distraction use is the best existing example of this that I can remember at the moment.

Well... Separating all Proficiency out into it's own progression (as already down with Skill Increases) would be a good step towards opening up this bottleneck.

Page 54—In Critical Brutality, before the first sentence, add “You become an expert in all simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks.” In Weapon Fury, replace “expert” with “master”.

Very glad to this revision. I think it will be a significant boon to Barbarians. I'm excited to roll this out for my group's remaining Barbarian (the other switched to Fighter).

Not sure how I feel about the Rage revision yet... In theory, I'm a fan. In practice, we'll see.

Now, let's compare Zi Mishkal's final Top Ten totals from the original thread to our new "Top Ten" totals here.

Top 10:

3 action system. 73.9%
Action Economy is about the same at 72%
(+/-10) crit system 25.0%
Archetypes rose in popularity to 26%
Scaling cantrips 14.8%
The Proficiency jumped from 3.4% to 17%
monsters are better 10.2%
Tiers of Success fell from 25% to 16%
weapon traits 9.1%
Simplified Math/System 14%
multiclassing 9.1%
Class Customization 16%
modular classes 6.8%
Monster Design 12%
Reactions 5.7%
Spellcasting changes 9%
Bulk rules 5.7%
Better balanced/less broken gameplay/PC Parity 7%
skill feats seperated from combat 5.7%
Skill feats as separate progression 7%

The big shift here seems to be Archetypes/Multiclassing raising in popularity. I'd wager this was due to the release of Dedications for all Base Classes?

Bottom 10:

Resonance -28.4%
Spellcasting changes (specifically nerfs) at 24%
nerfing spellcasters -25.0%
Magic Weapon Damage Die/Magic Items Baked into system math at 21%
class-locked restrictions -21.6%
Plus Level at 14% (Comparable with +1 to all?)
autoscale skills (+1 to all) -21.6%
Overspec Monsters/NPCs at 12%
game is overbalanced / tight math -12.5%
Optimization required/Never feel powerful at 10%
ancestries underwhelming -12.5%
Master/Legendary proficiency not special enough at 10%
Magic arms/armor dice req'd -11.4%
Armor at 9%
shield mechanics -8.0%
Vancian casting at 9%
Healers req'd for party -8.0%
Resonance/Focus has fallen to 9%? I don't think that's because it's more popular now? Interesting.
monsters too difficult -8.0%
Multiclassing at 9%

The most puzzling thing here for me is that Resonance isn't getting as much "hate". The other shifts make sense - as we move into higher level play different aspects of the system become apparent. Kudos to you visionaries who saw magic weapons required for what it was last time.

I am disappointed that only a few of us are troubled about Exploration Mode. :(

Alright! Sorry for the delays, folks. Some real life matters took precedence…plus you’ve given me a lot to collate! I’m only listing items here that got more than one vote.

What We Love!
● 72% ● Action Economy
● 26% ● Archetypes/Multiclassing
● 17% ● UTEML Proficiency System
● 16% ● Tiers of Success
● 14% ● Simplified Math/System
● 12% ● Class Customization
● 12% ● Monster Design
● 9% ● Spellcasting Changes (specifically nerfs)
● 7% ● Better balanced/less broken gameplay/Parity among PCs
● 7% ● Skill feats as separate progression
● 7% ● Mundane characters are fun and powerful
● 5% ● Modular Design
● 5% ● Diverse weapons/weapon traits
● 3% ● Classes feel Distinct
● 3% ● Spells that use Action Economy like Magic Missile/Heal
● 3% ● Open skill proficiency system
● 3% ● Resonance Test Staves
● 3% ● Magic Weapons
● 3% ● Tight Math
● 3% ● Plus Level
● 3% ● Restricting AoO
● 3% ● Ancestry system concept.

What We Hate!
● 24% ● Spellcasting changes (specifically nerfs)
● 21% ● Magic Weapon Damage Die/Magic Items Baked into system math
● 14% ● Plus Level
● 12% ● Overspec Monsters/NPCs
● 10% ● Optimization required/Never feel powerful
● 10% ● M/L proficiency not special enough
● 9% ● Armor
● 9% ● Vancian casting
● 9% ● Resonance/Focus
● 9% ● Multiclassing
● 9% ● Alchemist/Ranger feel 'off'
● 7% ● Exploration Mode
● 7% ● Paladin Changes (Mind - this is pre-Update 1.6)
● 7% ● Animal Companion
● 5% ● Challenge DC Table
● 5% ● Tracking Complexity
● 5% ● Channel Energy
● 5% ● UTEML Proficiency system
● 5% ● Most skill feats are lackluster/do not improve
● 5% ● Plus/Minus 10 Criticals
● 3% ● Skill and ancestry feats
● 3% ● Lack of backwards compatibility

What Houserules we'd make!
● 9% ● Weapon Proficiency grants Bonus Damage Die
● 9% ● Plus Level omitted
● 9% ● Hero Points Changed
● 7% ● Treat Wounds Changed
● 5% ● Higher UTEML Bonus/Increased Differentials
● 5% ● Level Based Bonus Damage Die
● 5% ● Stronger starting ancestry
● 5% ● No resonance/focus
● 3% ● Vancian casters get some flexible casting options
● 3% ● Unlocked class feats
● 3% ● Separate Proficiency Advancement
● 3% ● Initiative Ties Changes - Roll Off, Player wins, etc.
● 3% ● Backgrounds are more unique/useful
● 3% ● TAC omitted
● 3% ● Remove Hero Points
● 3% ● Paladins can be atheists or polytheists
● 3% ● All Monks get Ki Strike
● 3% ● Plus Level omitted for Untrained Proficiency
● 3% ● Break Ancestry into genetics, culture, etc.
● 3% ● High Intelligence grants more languages
● 3% ● Rework/Remove Paladins
● 3% ● Bonus damage die from varied sources
● 3% ● Some form of Automatic Bonus Progression
● 3% ● Earlier access to multiclass feats (not half level)
● 3% ● Just play PF1e instead*
● 3% ● Remove +/-10

*Oh you. Playing First Edition with Unchained rules isn't the same as houseruling this system!

I feel like internet communities are never the best or most welcoming place to explore or discuss anything gaming related, they are simply the most readily available ones. For whatever reasons games related online communities, I find, are simply are less welcoming and friendly than like "baking forums" or "sports forums" or "beekeeping forums".

On this note... I was surprised to discover that the online miniature painting is refreshingly nontoxic when I started as a novice a couple of years ago. It was a stark contrast to the gaming communities I'd participated in for decades. Who knew - grimdark Warhammer 40k fans are actually supportive and encouraging of newcomers to their hobby.

Thanks for sharing. I've appreciated your input here even though I've had a more positive experience with the playtest.

Also, it is frustrated and mind-boggling that there has been no word whatsoever on the completely broken game mode that is exploration mode, which I had struggled with all throughout the playtest.

I'm in complete agreement on this point - the radio silence on Exploration Mode is far and away my biggest remaining concern. I'm feeling positive about Combat Mode despite it's problems but... I've asked about Exploration Mode on Twitch streams multiple times, in dozens of comments here, and started a thread on it. Not that it's important to reply specifically to me but I'm not the only one concerned.

I thought they were waiting for the Mirrored Moon results to dig into it but that wasn't the case. I'm skeptical, at this point, that we'll see anything for Red Flags either. The focus on Resonance should have been applied instead to Exploration Mode, where the bulk of Out of Combat playtime in spent, in my opinion.

I'm unsure if it's gone too fast. From what I can tell, the Playtest's math is broken, and the designers recognise this.

That does make sense. It might explain why there's been so much focus on new mechanics and character options instead of fundamental gameplay elements. If so, that's a bit of a relief as I've been concerned that class, ancestry, and resonance have been discussed to death but there's been barely a mention on Exploration Mode in the playtest.

Heritage Feats: I like this proposal. Starting Ancestry needs to feel far more impactful.

Ancestry Feats: Strongly dislike this change. Ancestry feats over levels as a replacement for Templates/Level Adjustment/Racial feats is something I’m a big fan of.

Feat Progression: Eh. I don't want to axe Ancestry feats and I’d prefer for all proficiency to be separated out into it’s own system ala Skill Increases. I'd be up for combat styles being accessible in General feats but the devs have said they want to do this with Archetypes so... As long as styles are accessible I'm good.

Backgrounds: I don’t like picking three backgrounds. I’d like to see them be more impactful - powering up more Skill Feats to progress like Catfall would do the trick - but otherwise I like them as is.

Health and Stamina: Not a fan.

Healing: Don’t like the addition of Stamina so I don’t like this proposal.

Dying: Same as above.

Crits and Botches: I like this a great deal - especially for certain Skills.

1s and 20s: I like it.

Level Bonus: No. Either keep it at full level or remove level entirely. I don’t see any appeal to fractional progression.

Weapon Damage: Eh. I like the current weapon scaling just not that it’s linked to magical weapons.

Size Modifiers: I disagree. I like the small martials aren’t disadvantaged out of the gate.

Bulk: Eh. I liked Bulk in Starfinder and I like it here. The character sheet makes it look super confusing but it’s actually a great simplification.

Reactions: I like this proposal. I had an Alchemist yell “cover your ears” to allies before throwing a thunderstone and thought this really needs to be an option.

The details will come in Update 1.6 tomorrow but, per Friday's Twitch stream, Alchemists are getting a health specialization. Here's hoping for Bards and Druids.

The playtest schedule has been too fast paced for us...we ended up skipping sessions to keep momentum. I do wish that they had allocated more time to each section.

But we haven't had a problem keeping up with the Updates. A new one laying every two weeks has been fine.

I think they said in another thread that if you are pressed for time, please play 1, 4, and 7 and skip the others. Someone might need to correct me on this.

I think on one of the Twitch streams they updated the priority with the Resonance Test being top priority followed by 1, 4, 7.

How about this, the DM hates teleport, gone.

I thought that was the default. GM doesn't want it in the game, it's not in the game. I usually only ban material for thematic reasons but occasionally I'll ban something for other reasons. Like Subjective Reality. None of my players have had a problem with that approach but I also let them know proactively so they don't build a character concept around banned materials.

I don't understand the upset. A "Holy Warrior" class that is Paladin when LG, Redeemer when NG, and Liberator when LG seems pretty much in line with past class options. We had this in 3.5. The only revolutionary aspect of this change is that it's supported in core.

Sounds like another round of great updates. My players are going to love the specific class changes. Can't wait to show update 1.6 to my Alchemist player.

Only disappointment is the lack of attention to exploration mode. I'd really like to know what changes are cooking there...if any. :/

Alternatively, why not just let other Spell Levels join Cantrips as Unlimited as the caster advances?

So, say, when a Wizard hits level 8 suddenly their Level 1 spells become Unlimited? Low level spells are still, generally, less useful* but now casters can use them an unlimited amount of times?

*With exceptions like Fear.

Seriously, it's the People Who Wanted More Exalted in Their D&D vs. HWalsh. Can I get ringside tickets, because this is going to be glorious?

Allow me to join the fray with... It depends. I don't normally run campaigns in Golarion so I don't really care what makes sense there. A system ideally should have enough flexibility to accommodate a range of power levels. This is an area where - in my opinion - the Pathfinder Playtest is superior to Pathfinder First Edition.

I like how the proficiency levels provide neat thematic caps. Paizo needs to tighten up the categories a bit but I'd like to see it along these lines.
-Expert: Peak of Real Life
-Master: Over the top Action Movie
-Legendary: Supernatural ability

If I want a gritter campaign that doesn't let Rogues have Supernatural abilities like phasing through walls or turning invisible... All I need to do is cap level/proficiency at Master. That's a great simplification.

On a sidenote that's been over-discussed: a current weakness of the Playtest is the reliance on Magic Weapons for damage. This runs counter to the neat proficiency caps by making it difficult to run low fantasy settings.

I mostly agree, but with the addendum that multiple classes should be able to fulfill the role of "dedicated healer" more or less equally well, though ideally in different ways (perhaps clerics being best at direct healing, bards at some healing + temporary hp and/or AOE healing, and druids at regeneration). The cleric should not be the only go-to class when it comes to healing.

Absolutely. Alchemists, Bards, Druids, etc should all have Healer specializations. I don't like that Cleric, out of the box, is the best Healer in the game...healing outpacing damage should require taking the Healing Domain.

As a noun, sure. As a verb...

flank verb

flanked; flanking; flanks
Definition of flank (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

1a : to be situated at the side of
especially : to be situated on both sides of
a road flanked with linden trees
b : to place something on each side of
2 : to protect a flank of
3 : to attack or threaten the flank of (as a body of troops)

It wouldn't be too difficult to track facing for those of us using miniatures...bit of a bear for theater of the mind. Either way, I prefer the current rules and just wish flanking granted a greater bonus.

I feel like any great divergence in the lists is a bad place to squint right now, something to expand on with each supplement instead.

I think there are some simple things that could be done now that would establish a strong foundation for future supplements. Currently, the spell lists - particularly Arcane & Occult - feel very muddled. Building on that will only increase the dissonance.

Since I talk about healing a lot I'll share my preferred differentiation there.

Divine - Keep Heal as is.
Occult - Revise Soothe to make it more distinct, perhaps adding Temp HP in addition to Healing?
Primal - Remove Heal from the spell list. Replace with a unique thematic spell, perhaps one that grants fast healing?

... And my answer would be, not very much. This is because the lists have too much overlap, in my opinion.

Agreed. As noted in my thread on the subject, I find Occult particularly muddled thematically.