What I would want to see in Pathfinder THIRD Edition | More Than 7 Minutes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- A different video format- this is not meant to replace my regular videos so please don't flee if it's not your cup of tea! I wanted some more fun, out-there speculation so I thought I'd do a quick talking-head video.
Pathfinder 3e is probably a long way off, but what are some things you'd want to see if it were to be announced? Here's my opinion, but let me know what you think in the comments!
THE LIST
1. No more damage dice.
2. No more failure on a missed Strike.
3. No more Constitution.
4. Free archetype as a base rule, not a variant rule
5. Change the core classes.
------------
Support the channel by checking out my Pathfinder Infinite products here:
Beginner Cheat Sheets:
www.pathfinderinfinite.com/pr...
GHOULS Are Creepy:
www.pathfinderinfinite.com/pr...
GOBLINS Are Unpredictable:
www.pathfinderinfinite.com/pr...
Or buy me a coffee: ko-fi.com/kingoogatonton
------------
I am not affiliated with Paizo in anyway, just a huge fan! Check out more Paizo products here: paizo.com/products
This is like four 7 minute videos combined!
Somebody's gotta say the man's fit straight is fire. Got that garden gnome drip. The Keebler Elf drip. Out here chillin' with the lawn flamingo drip. "Why grandma got so many of these in the yard?" drip.
If Free Archetype was made core, I think integrating it with backgrounds would be a cool idea. Here's the pirate background. It gives you the pirate archetype in addition to your main archetype(s), and also sailing lore.
this would basicly give backgrounds feat lists, I love this idea. Although there would need to be more archetypes like "medic", "herbalist", "looremaster" etc.
@@KajtekBeary Don't all of those already exist? Or am I misunderstanding you?
@@cinderheart2720 Maybe my language skills failed me ^^' yeah, all of them exist, I gave them as an example of "job" archetypes, and that we need more like those, and less directly fighting related ones if you want to connect archetypes to background :>
The druid, cleric, wizard, and bard were picked, so the 4 spell lists were picked. In the core book.
For the free archetypes/backgrounds overhaul, I like the idea of backgrounds coming with a selection of free archetypes to choose from. Like, if you picked a Circus Performer background, it gives you options of Acrobat, Juggler, Fireworks Technician, etc. Or other, less obviously connected archetypes, like a combat archetype based around preventing enemy movement to represent the carnival bouncer, or a Public Speaker archetype, that could represent a Ringmaster for this background.
I've started to get deep into 13th age system.
Most of those things are actually addressed in that system. It designed so well! (apart from pathfinder)
1) You usually don't roll more than 2 dices for damage. If you have to roll 16d10 (for some reason), you are incentivized to roll 2d10 (if you want to roll things) and just add average of 14d10 to that.
2) That's the main part I love! Especially in magic. Whenever you miss, you usually still do something minor. If you "miss", you often do at least 1/10 of usual damage.
3) Nothing like that in 13th age. But I like the idea.
One thing they do differently, is that they have saves that are mean of 3 stats. So your Constitution save is a Physical save with the value of mean of Str, Con, Dex. So your strength can matter a bit for your defences there.
4) Good observation. Most of the options in Pf2e are useless. And it takes too much time to sip through all of the things, that sound cool, but do not work in practice.
5) Only one remark here: Kineticist is popular because it's the only way you can play a "blaster caster" in PF2e. If you fix magic, you don't need to include more rare classes. I would prefer them to change all the spellcaster classes instead.
Per 1&2- Seifter has actually revealed they initially planned for 'glancing blows' on an attack failure in 2e, but they were removed because they bogged down gameplay. Perhaps if dice weren't also being rolled they'd be a better option.
That is interesting. I guess you can kind of see the remnants with spells dealing half damage on a "failure" (save success)
Yeah those remained because spell attacks are lower and generally the juicy parts of the spell are still being missed out on. Glancing blows were 1/2 of minimum damage- so 1d6+3 would be 2. It wasn't seen as worth the hassle
should've just make it a fixed damage. As in 13th age.
Good and hot takes! Had me nodding my head. I’ve started to think that the Druid is too split between shapeshifting and nature magic. I think that, like Bjorn of Middle Earth, they should focus on turning into a big beast and smashing people werewolf style.
When I think of a high constitution character I think of someone who has mastered mind over matter. they can endure anything. So I think of like a monk who can will themselves through anything and is healthy of body enough to come out of it unscathed. So fortitude checks are as much mental as physical.
Constitution is endurance. Your ability to carry on.
All of these were very reasonable and good ideas, I have no complaints.
Personally I think Wizards should use Wisdom (there names literally come from "Wise-Man") and God-Botherers should use Intelligence (which group invented monasteries and scholasticism again?)
For the failed attack rolls, if you were to keep the damage dice system, perhaps you deal half damage on a fail, like the way basic saves distribute damage across the degrees of success? Then a critical fail could be zero damage?
If these changes interest you, you might like Strike! or ICON. Strike! is an RPG where attacking is a d6 roll that does fixed damage. It's possible to miss, but on a 3 there's a mixed success where you can choose between damage or the secondary effect it does, and missing gives you a miss token which you can spend to give +1 to a roll. Character creation involves combining a class and a role (like 4e: striker, blaster, etc.) so there's lots of customization. Maybe not as much as PF2e though. ICON has most attacks deal a base amount of damage depending on your class, miss or not. Most effects attacks do don't care about miss or hit. ICON is free because it's in playtest, but it's already content complete and over 450 pages long.
Completely agree about removing constitution. Dividing physical prowess in strength and constitution never made any sense to me no matter how I looked at it.
The way people tend to get endurance is more closely related to the way they get strength than anything else: by exercising.
Exercise that does not increase both endurance and strength is quite unnatural and hard to come by in a mediaeval setting.
Working the fields, going out to cut trees, sparring in the bailey (which can be assumed for any martial character) would grant both strength and endurance.
Besides, the game combines "hand eye coordination" and "sense of balance" and "fluidity of motion" all together in Dexterity.
I think it goes without saying that most olympic sharpshooters can't perform a backflip, and most gymnasts couldn't hit a bullseye at 100 paces - so why do we combine those two things into a single stat, but leave strength and constitution separate?
Also, from my experience, when a player wants to do a big strong guy, they almost always also want that strong guy to have stamina and be tough, too. Very rarely would you find a player who specifically wants to play as someone really strong but with terrible stamina, so separating them isn't useful for the vast majority of tables.
A lot of people use the tired example of a weightlifter, who is really strong but doesn't necessarily have great stamina, and a marathon runner, who is skinny and not particularly strong but has a lot of stamina.
This example is complete nonsense because both a weightlifter and a marathon runner are modern athletes who follow modern training regimes in order to obtain a streamlined body type that maximises their performance at a particular modern sport, (for one weight lifting, for the other long distance running), which did not exist during mediaeval times.
A fighter didn’t get buff by going to the gym and drinking protein shakes, they got buff by training with their weapons every day for several hours, which you bet would also increase their stamina.
Most people who train or even play recreational sports will have a certain mix of strength and endurance without a big divide between the two, and that difference would be even smaller for people who don't train as we understand it in modern times, but rather spent their days performing physical labour.
Pathfinder really needs group initiative over individual initiative to make fights faster and encourage teamwork on the moment
I know the GM can do this with monsters.
I feel Constitution could become a statistic similar to Perception -- something everyone has and must count on and not a key attribute, but attached to one or more key attributes like Wisdom and Perception.
Great video. Thank you, your Highness. 🙇♂
- Proficiency Without Level
- Simplified crafting
- Automatic Bonus Progression (Gold Cost)
- Less conditions
- Bring back ability score damage
- More original adventure paths with adult content like their originals Curse Of The Crimson Throne or Skull & Shackles
On the note of constitution, its one dimensional but still shows another side of physical prowess. What if endurance was a more prevelant theme? Say your action economy benefits from the stat bonus, a con roll could be used for initiative in an encounter where youve been in a long winded pursuit. Or something like that. As for branching out the power of con.; the hp bonus could come from a collection of your physical stats. (Str+dex+con) /2 for health
Amazing video! I need more. 😅 Really interesting ideas and I agree with most of them. I also would love to see a version of Pathfinder completely divorced from its roots and see how crazy it could get.
The split into Core 1 and Core isn't really meant to be a "basic" Player's book versus an "advanced" Player's book. They just wanted to split the books up to make them seem more accessible to players, as a lot of people didn't want to buy the original Core Rulebook because it was "too big".
Personally, I think splitting the books makes them less accessible, even if the page count is less off-putting. My personal explanation is that they split them up so they could knock them out faster to capitalize on the Hype the OGL Crisis and the ORC License created. So we're getting half the player experience now, and then the rest later.
I, too, like listening to Pathfinder 2e content. I also like all these ideas. Thumbs up.
Just a general joke idea I had a while back: "If I were to create a game, why not invert intelligence?"
Right from the start, you have a high score in dumbness, and the lower that score, the smarter your character. Additionally, you get penalties on "intelligence checks" (no idea what to call them yet), if you're in a crowd.
But as said, that was just a dumb late in the evening idea, just for the giggles, how you could mix up the typical attributes.
... I'm watching this whilst cooking. Thanks King xD
Success!
Love this.
Cleric being a dual-stat class between charisma and wisdom would make sense, but the idea of wisdom being cleric's stat makes a lot of sense as it fuels them to understand their deity(or other source of power) and 'achieve enlightenment'. That being said, p2e's previous method of dual-stating was to give free spell slots for heal/harm based on charisma(removed in the rework irrc) and that really didn't feel great─at high levels the loss in wisdom from stating into charisma is really bad, while at low levels the extra spells are great. Maybe a solution would be to remove cleric from being a full caster, instead giving them slots less restrictive than but more like a summoner or magus, with charisma fueled non-spell abilities that fill in for the loss of lower level spell slots, or possibly having a full spellcasting option, a reduced spellcasting option, and a near-0 spellcasting option, which would trade wisdom reliance for charisma reliance
For constitution, you could also say that a high intelligence or a high wisdom character doesn't really have a stereotypical 'look' outside of facial expressions or emotional stances (haughty from being a know-it-all, or cynical from putting up with those mentally lesser around them). On the flip side, high charisma does stand out visually, whether it evokes attraction or fear or just being noteworthily odd. So constitution would be the invisible physical stat, and charisma would be the visible mental stat. Strength can be a stand-in for toughness - flexing muscles to brace for something - but I don't think it really represents all the things Fortitude does - it works even if the person is caught off-guard and covers internal poison situations. Flexing muscles could be a feat for stat substitution. It has also been said that those body builders that you see on stage flexing basically have maxed out their muscles but not their constitution (unless you want to count being able to perform while dehydrated like that). The muscles are for show and may not even have staying power to be strong for any length of time. There is a huge difference between being able to throw a punch and being able to take one too, the bane of unprepared bullies. In short, I respectfully disagree with you and think that Constitution definitely has a place among the stats.
As for splitting up stats to have a more granular definition, AD&D 2nd ed did that with at least one of the Player's Option books. But, I think it is important to keep the list of core stats to a manageable 3-7 range, and it is already at 6. You could easily justify leg and arm day stats for both Strength and Dexterity, fast and deep Intelligences, or verbal and... somatic Charismas, but imo really isn't necessary overall.
Interesting points. Some systems already addressed such things by making some stats more general while shifting focus into what your character actually knows how to do.
Here is an example - I play Pathfinder and Soulbound. Soulbound is an Age of Sigmar RPG setting. It's not ideal, but it did some things akin to what you mentioned:
It's a D6 system:
1. First is rolling once only for damage, you determine what you're hitting on based on difference between your accuracy (ranged/melee) vs defence. As an example Good accuracy vs Poor defence will always result in successes on 2+. The weapons are usually showing damage by X + S, where S stands for successes and X for initial number of dmg when attack succeeds.
2. But how do you determine the accuracy defence and so on? They have attributes and skills. There are only 3 attributes: Body, Mind and Soul. You use these 3 attributes as base for your actions and the number that you have inside dictates your starting dice pool of D6 for any kind of tests. Then to do anything you pair it with the skills, here is the biggest difference: pairings are always up to a situation + ground rules. For example to determine your Melee accuracy that I've talked about higher, is (Body + Melee Skill)/2 = Your melee accuracy (you check number in table once when creating a character). And your amount of dice you throw when attacking is Body + Melee Skill.
It's a huge contrast to Pathfinder system because they've tried to simplify some things while leaving a lot of leeway to how you want to play your character and what you can do. I really like it, but it does have some hiccups, but it's mostly for it being very new. I highly recommend checking it out just for the way it does things differently, and I think this difference is what needed for a lot of RPGs, to find the balance between crunchiness, fun and streamlining certain things.
OogaTonTon looks like he is locked up in some kind of holding cell
Instead of getting rid of the damage rolls and turning the attack roll into a pseudo damage roll, I'd just remove the attack roll. That's less complicated.
I agree with removing either to hit or damage rolls. I would posit that instead of lower damage a failure would add a complication to the battle like you and your opponent switch places.
Constitution should be the primary stat for sorcerers. But eliminating it would not be that bad.
I say you go even further and merge wis and int into a single stat. They are muddled anyway so just put them together.
Reduce attributes to STR, DEX, INT, CHA. Get rid of Skill Feats, make Skill Level grant automatic bonuses. Simpler stealth and crafting. Get rid of Vancian spellcasting. Speed up combat. Fewer esoteric spells, more versatile spells. Automatic Rune Progression (don't require the players to have certain runes at certain levels). For Adventure Paths: less rigid maps with 90 degree angles everywhere, less unique subsystems (or test them more), less brutal difficulty.
Cool ideas- totally agree. Although when I'm running Adventure Paths I die inside every time I need to draw out non-rectangular maps on my battle map.
Skills auto skill up with proficiency bonus.
Honestly yeah absolutely on board with axing/mashing wisdom and constitution. There’s a good reason SotDL, DC20, and Fabula Ultima did the same. We really don’t gain much with six attributes like that
I definitely appreciate the addition to the catalog of passively listenable content!
Have you followed the MCDM rpg at all? They're doing a couple of the things you suggested, combining damage and attack doll into one roll, and only including a class if it has a strong fantasy associated with it, and generally trying to rethink some of the cruft carried over from decades of d&d.
You are a national treasure, KingOogaTonTon! ❤
Listening to the first 10 minutes of this, I feel you would very much enjoy Warhammer 40k Imperium Maledictum, and by extension Warhammer Fantasy 4e. They remove damage rolls in exchange for using your degrees of success on your attack roll to determine damage (though you CAN still miss an attack), they spread out what their core attributes represent so nothing is really a god-stat (though one could say Agility is still really powerful, but being the thing that dictates speed and evasiveness in a combat game is always gonna be like that), and while I did say you can miss, from what I recall they do both add a system where even if an enemy negates all your damage through damage resistance, if you succeeded your attack roll you still dealt 1 damage (my memory is hazy though and this might've just been a home rule we used).
I agree a lot with the the first two points. The second is actually something that Matt Colville talked about in a recent video of his, getting rid of the null result. If something happens regardless of roll, it helps speed up play and creates a bit of tension. And I think there could be a lot of playing around with it, like how Swashbuckler has the Opportune Riposte if something critically misses them.
Removing damage dice can lead to a way to have potentially even more distinct identities for each weapon. PF2e has already made great strides in this with the weapon traits. Finally, a greatsword and greataxe can exist side-by-side! However, these damage dice can feel a bit constraining in a way, especially with Paizo's approach of being cautious for game-balance. Which is a good thing, but I feel that having damage dice be removed can let some weapons be able to breathe a bit more.
Backgrounds have mostly been rather underbaked in terms of design space and I think tying archetypes to them could be pretty cool. When APG introduced non-Multiclass Archetpyes, I feel that PF2e became a 'complete' game. All these new avenues to customize your character and add new flavor. Due to the nature of Paizo perhaps not wanting people to have to buy multiple books, I feel that some archetypes just feel very barebones.
Changing core classes to help emphasize what makes Pathfinder cool is great! Like, I can see the classics like Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue staying there because they're well the iconic four members of an adventuring party. But let's extend it a bit to the size of 12 from the original Core Rulebook. I'd have Fighter, Wizard, Kineticist, Psychic, Oracle, Inventor, Gunslinger, Alchemist, Monk, Magus, Thaumaturge, and Summoner. I just got Player's Core yesterday and it mentions how Golarion is magical and varied and how there's technology and how to some technology and magic might be one and the same! Inventor, Alchemist and to an extent Gunslinger showcase the technology part in an otherwise more medieval fantasy image that might pop into player's heads. All of the casters included feel different, Magus fights in tandem with sword and sorcery, Summoner conjures an extradimensional being that they share a lifeforce with, Oracles have a curse that they grapple with and pull upon to get benefits while incuring risk, Psychic lack spell slots, but have Amp cantrips and can unleash the potential in their mind, while Wizards are the only prepared caster in the group. There's no primal caster unfortunately so Kineticist is the replacement as far as being someone attuned to the natural world. Monks hone their bodies (and possibly their spirit), while Thaumaturge's are a Rogue-adjacent type in the sense of possessing obscure knowledge and also on the lookout for weaknesses in foes. Fighter stands out as just being the everyman who in this realm gets by, purely from pure dedication to arms and armor.
Later supplements would be Gods and Magic, where we have Cleric and Champion introduced to really put a spotlight on them and how they derive power through sanctification, adhering to oaths, and just embodying the aspect of power through belief. Cleric is the more obvious faith-based believe whereas Champion is more oathbound, but can align themselves to the ideals of a deity. Witch would also appear here since they have a pact to a patron, and would serve as a thematic counterpart in a way to the Cleric when it comes to having explicit ties to a higher power. Sorcerer is the final class here, since magic quite literally runs in their blood! Spellhearts, Grimores, and other stuff from Secrets of Magic would also get folded into here.
Ultimate Intrigue puts the more cerebral schemers in the forefront. So the opportunistic Rogue, the master planner Investigator, and the delightfully devilish Swashbuckler make their way here. Probably also introduces the Vigilante archetype because why not? All three of these classes interact a lot with skills just inherently and lumping them in the same book would allow for further differentiation. I think the current iterations of the classes are good, since the design of Devise a Strategem incentivizes an Investigator to be proactive looking for leads and to have backup plans. Rogue wants Sneak Attack and thus pays more attention to the battlefield and may Create a Diversion or otherwise not fight plainly. Swashbuckler however, I feel could lean more into having more daring abilities. Like Antagonize and Disarming Flair that piss off opponents and thus make them more of a target... which could lead into overstepping into a Opportune Riposte.
Finally, Wilderness Origins. Druid, Barbarian, and Ranger make their long awaited debut! Beyond the comfy confines of civilization, these three are king! Whereas Fighters have pure skill and fundamentals down pat, and the Monk is harmonized physical perfection, the Barbarian is a lot more nova, raging and having lots of once per 10 minute abilities to highlight how they can just exhaust themselves, but also highlight how timing is key, Barbarians are frothing idiots, they're brutally cunning... or have cunning brutality. And since Rage ends when you can't perceive anyone, this also ties into how Barbarians are in a way a relentless predator. Rangers are also relentless in how they can track their prey and have survived in their stomping grounds, by just knowing the land and knowing their prey better than anyone. Of course they have their Warden spells, snares (if they're not in Core they can afford to have this), and Animal Companions. They could expand on Favored Enemy/Favored Terrain giving abilities that are good in said scenario but are more generic, like how Favored Enemy Undead lets the Ranger cast heal. Healing hurts undead, but could also help allies. I don't think it should be one-to-one like that but you get the idea. It was inspired from BG3 who gives specific perks and thought that was neat. Druids lack some of the more evocative abilities and features (they do have some cool feats like Verdant Weapon and Sown Spell), but I feel they could stand to get some. I'm kinda spent now, but like maybe they could turn sticks to snakes. Maybe they could plant spells into the terrain like Sown Spell and could delay their activation in exchange for increasing the area or effectiveness? Like fire a seed at a 5ft square, at the start of your next turn, the spell erupts with unbridled energy, when you would roll dice for that spell, increase the die size by 1. So your heals would be d10s. Could use more time cooking but that's the plan.
Anywho, sorry for the wall of texts, I just thought this video was a great offering for discussion. Sooo uh yeah.
I completely forgot about the Bard, lmao. The Bard would also be in Ultimate Intrigue. Think more Dragon Age for the general vibe of Bard. They’ll regale you with song and dance, but beneath their honeyed words is a viper waiting to strike. Their humor disarms folks, and their performances across several taverns enables the Bard to gleam lots of information from local rumors, tall tales, and behind closed doors. In keeping with this, they weave magic into their songs to catch onlookers by surprise. Sorry Bard fans, y’all do great work
Wow I love your very thoughtful reply! And actually you make a lot of it sound super cool too. Your "core 12" really highlight the magic-martial-technology fusion, which is exactly what I was feeling but having difficulty putting into words. Although I would miss the ranger and bard...can't please everybody!
@@KingOogaTonTon honestly same, Ranger is my favorite class because I’m a huge fan of Monster Hunter and for once Rangers are actually cool. Heck, my first Pathfinder Society char is an Outwit Ranger! Buuut, for the sake of trying to emphasize Pathfinder unique identity something has to give unfortunately
@@TheSkywardAvenger this are very interesting idea, but i have som counterpoints: the first is you want in your core rulebook, the first a new player would read, the sempliest classes. Oracole, kineticist and gunslinger, for example, relay on the knoledge of the rules more that fighter, cleric or rogue. So maybe a better solution would be a new rulebook with variant rules for more basic classes. Second, i don't agree with the idea that the barbarian is a "nature" class . A barbarian is a warrior that get his streangth from his rage. The idea of the nomad barbarian comes from the original inspiration for d&d, the "conan the barbarian" novels, and the majority of us have lost this cultural reference. Breaking the bond that ties barbarian and nature can be very beneficial: you want to play a kelid nomad? probably you want to play barbarian. Do you want to play a ulfen berserker? probably you want to play the barbarian. Do you want to play a city guard that has enroled because a dragon has destroide his village? barbarian with draconic rage. In this contest, to make classes more general to let the player be more creative, a pugilist, an athlet that relaise on his constant training and control on his body, could be a monk. This in not a critic, but a way to discuss your very interesting ideas
@@antoniomilici7485 Given that Oracle is going to Player Core 2, I think that they can comfortably serve as a class in the core rulebook. The only thing that’s weird is their curse, which only progresses as you use their Focus Spells, and regresses (to an extent) when Refocusing. Gunslinger grants special ways to reload and kineticist gathers element, akin to how a monk or fighter enters a stance. For complexity, I could see Summoner being overwhelming since you control two characters that SHARE health and interact with AoEs and the action economy much differently than every other class. Alchemist has been widely stated several times other on Reddit/Forums/Discord as a higher skill floor class. Oracle might be weird given the feat Divine Access working with deities and just the mysteries giving domain spells as cursebound spells. I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed, but I do think that overall newcomers should be able to handle these classes with a concerted enough effort and perhaps advice from others. Many of these proposed core classes obviously communicate their shtick and more importantly communicate what makes Pathfinder stand out.
True, the Barbarian isn’t more nature-aligned. However, the term Barbarian doesn’t by itself exact evoke the image of a civilized person. They most certainly can be, I even allude to it with cunning brutality… or have brutal cunning. But I offer this, men deal in politics, whereas a beast is more straightforward, and the general idea of a Barbarian leans more towards the latter. Though I admit that Barbarian is more of a stretch. However, I do not think that placing Barbarian in Wilderness Origins detracts from how many concepts they can be tied to. Rogues have the connotation of a shady lad who skulks around and goes for backstabs, yet Ruffian Rogue exists as a Rogue that will just break your face in. Druids are nature lovers but that doesn’t mean they can’t be a member of urban communities. Remaster even got rid of their anathema to using metal shields, armor, and weapons! The mechanics of Pathfinder already lends itself to myriad concepts, like a Monk very knowledgeable about magic and able to activate staves without being a spellcaster. And as your descriptions prove, a player’s imagination can have a class be tied to anything as imagination is boundless!
I appreciate your criticisms, you have raised some excellent points.
i've been playing some Open Legend lately that addresses the first two points somewhat. they encourage 'interesting failure' rather than a 'nothing happens' result when you don't succeed, but its not mandatory (to be honest, sometimes when you fail, nothing does indeed happen). then, when you do succeed, your damage is your attack roll minus the enemy's defense, so it's baked in
I just washed the dishes! Great video!
So I don't have much to say about the first 4 things other than i agree on the first 2, think we should remove attributes entirely and think 4 is a pretty good idea with also having skills more heavily tied to the idea background and free archetype being fused.
For classes it is harder to think about what I would like and more what I think should be removed or changed.
1. Cleric and Druid should be merged and instead of doctrines give them something like type of worship so you could make a Divine, Nature, Fiendish, etc.
2. Cut Bard
3. I think something needs to happen to Fighter and Ranger because in my mind they only have superficial differences.
4. The idea of the skill monkey class needs to be killed but I think Rogue should be kept in some form.
Some things you didn't talk about I think armor should be removed and that AC should just be innate to the class but with classes still saying what type of armor they use so if you find say some magic heavy armor then a Champion would be able to use that but a Wizard wouldn't because they can't use heavy armor.
Kill the spell ranks, the 4 traditions and slots. Instead of spell ranks have spells listed under trained, expert, master legendary with you requiring that level of caster proficiency to the learn spells. I don't think traditions are bad but I do wish we had something like a Fiendish tradition where if you wanted to play a wizard that chose to study tomes from hell where it is actually mechanically represented so it is more than just flavor and I feel there a lot of other stuff you could do with that. I feel the best option would be something like the spell points but have it so different classes can utilize those spell points better.
Not as far as the armor should be removed but weapons should be heavily simplified and to replace that simplification have something like Path of War from 1e where you have like schools of martial combat (comparable to spell traditions) and certain schools would focus on different weapon types or roles in combat.
I'd also like subclasses with a bit more meat to them
I haven't played any other systems before, but here's an idea for how we could change the damage roll rules:
Each weapon has Max and Minimum damage. Example: Bastard Sword does 12 Damage max, and minimum is standard quarter of the max damage rounded up unless specified, that is 4 damage.
If you hit the target with, your damage is calculated as minimum + (To Hit roll - AC). That is, if you attack an enemy with AC 20 and you roll 21, your damage is 4 + (21-20) = 5 damage. If you roll 29, your damage becomes 4 + 9 = 13.
Let's say that you get a crit, but not a Nat 20, in our example that would be 30. You double the damage, that is (4+10) * 2 = 28. For arguments sake let's say you rolled 33 without Nat 20, your damage should be 4 + 13, right? NO!! your max damage is 12, therefore your damage is (4 + 12) * 2 = 32. This is the maximum you can ever get with your Bastard Sword. Let's say a Rapier with 6 Max and 2 Min, your max damage regardless of Nat 20 would be (2+6)*2 and this is the max damage you can ever have (not counting damage modifier), but then you indeed roll a deadly d8 with minimum 2 damage guaranteed.
Now let's say you did get a Nat 20, but on the third attack and now your difference is 22-20. Same calculation for Bastard Sword, (4+2)*2 = 12. Now even if you got supper lucky with a crit, you would be somewhat punished and not guaranteed max damage.
But let's say you miss? You would still do damage, and here's how I suggest it.
The calculation becomes. Minimum - (AC-To Hit Roll). For Bastard Sword at roll 18 and AC 20, the damage would be: 4 - (20-18) = 2 damage. Not good, but not bad.
But let's say! You have extra damage, either from your damage modifier or from a triggered weakness (looking at you Thaum). All damage would be equal to 1/Difference rounded down with min 1. That is you attack an enemy with 10 weakness to fire, and your difference is 2, you deal 10/2 damage = 5 weakness damage. Where difference is at minimum 2.
Let's compound the whole damage array for missing, let's say a longsword Thaumaturge with min 2 damage, AC 20 and roll 19, 10 weakness to fire and +4 damage modifier:
Diff = 20-19 = 1
Damage = 2 - (Diff ) + ((10+4)/(Diff or 2 minimum))
= 1 + (14/2) = 1 + 7 = 8.
However!!! If 2 - Diff is less than 1, you completely miss. Therefore 8 in this case would be the maximum that Thaumaturge could do in case of a miss. For reference, the maximum damage they could do is (8+4)*2 + 10 = 34
The only way weakness damage would fully apply is with a trait like Splash for bombs, where you actually hit regardless of missing.
A Cleric isnt necessarily a preacher in the protestant sense. They dont get their power from convincing their community, or even their god. Plenty of clerics, and this is even alluded in the name, are cloistered clerics who live in secluded monasteries.
Their powers come from their intuitive understanding of their scripture and connection to their god, hence wisdom.
I like the way you think.
#2 is definitely my biggest gripe with the system, specifically regarding spellcasters more than melee combatants, though. I feel like the spellcasting crit fails need to be removed. Playing through Age of Ashes as a spellcaster has been terrible; damaging spells that used to feel awesome in 1e and other similar games now feel terrible because I've got about a 30% success rate or less; I'd love a 50% chance of success at this point.
"Just use support spells though" is the typical argument. Well, that's not what I want to do; I want the classic blaster caster (not a Kineticist) with some utility, and the current way spells are handled doesn't make it fun unless you're several levels above the enemies you're facing.
I often combine the 1st issue by saying to roll all the dice at once for both fun and speed. But I don't always run into the slowness problem. Not to deny its existence
The problem I've run into with that is it sucks when your damage roll is high, but the d20 missed
1) Reminds me of the approach Matt Colville is working on for his new game (which I know some other games have already): Roll damage, but remove the attack roll instead. In that case armor would make you resist a certain amount of damage. Both takes are interesting, I'm fine as long as there's:
2) Absolutely agree, "nothing happens" is boring and should be reserved to crit fails / crit success on save. Definitely something a game must be built for from the ground up, though, so not a good idea for homebrew (which is suggested relatively often).
3) I'm surprised you didn't bring up my biggest gripe with Con: You can't do anything with it! There are no skills that use Con, it's not used for any attacks (outside the kineticist), the only thing you roll with it are Fort saves, which are reactive, not proactive. The mental attributes could use some better disambiguation, maybe just via renaming, but they're all sufficiently justified imo.
4) Archetypes are a big leap in complexity of choices, thus im fine with free archetype being optional. I could see them being coupled to backgrounds, though, if specifically designed for.
5) For me there are many different aspects to what makes a class "core". The biggest being low difficulty, since people who are new to the system will play them - including the designers! That's why I don't think the alchemist should be core and it's probably why it got so many errata. Simplicity often goes along with needing less page space, which is important when many classes need to fit into the same book. Then my next biggest priority is broad coverage of the design space: spontaneous and prepared casters, all magical traditions, martials who use dex and str, heavy armor, no armor, something in between, a skill-monkey, ... Only if there's somehow still space left or a decision between two classes has no objective answer, would I consider what class best represents the assumed game world in general or Golarion in specific. If course, I'd like all that in my game, but apparently 800+ pages rule books aren't popular.
wow face reaveal! So handome in that pointy hat *blushes*
Replace spell ranks with spells levels that scale the same way as player, monster, settlement, magic item, job, etc levels do. Full spellcasters can then cast spells of level up to their class level. A few systems like Counteract checks and the Incapacitation trait would consequently be simplified.
Interesting ideas.
I like damage dice for two reasons. One, it increases how many moments of excitement/suspense there are per hour. Two, it prevents some of the metagaming that came up in the very old Advanced Fighting Fantasy system of the 90s, where if you knew an enemy was on 3hp and your weapon always did 3 damage, you'd play very differently to if they had 4hp.
I could get behind minimum damage without procs on glancing blows (miss that is not a critical miss), but this would be an enormous balance change and severely increases the power of multiple foes against one. This might change the "+2 levels = Twice the threat" estimate to "+2.5 levels = twice the threat".
I've often thought of more attributes rather than less. Charisma is very much two things in one to me - your force of personality, and your likeability. I'd consider splitting these into "New Charisma" (just how imposing you are) and "Flair" (how likeable you are). A military officer with a reputation for being gruff and unlikeable but whose very presence commands people to shut up and listen - high Charisma low Flair.
On archetype/background consolidation, I like the idea but you'd really need to let people respec background easily if you went down that path. People often pick background for RP because it's mechanically low impact, but an archetype is a sizable part of your character power.
A spellcaster similar to the 5e Warlock, being a spellcaster that doesn't use spell slots, and instead converts normal spells into Focus spells, casting them at max rank but quickly running out of Focus points. They'd need quite a few special rules to balance them.
Personally I'd start with a bounded spellcaster (a la magus and summoner) whose spell proficiencies are that of a wizard (Expert-7/Master-15/Legend-19), and be the only class in the game to get a maximum focus pool of 4.
1+2 - i think another way around - just make attacks a reflex saving throw instead. Then armor system can be actual damage reduction, not an abstraction that equalize someone in plate armor and someone who just good at evasion.
3 - the whole attribute system should be revised, we used to it, but it is not good. Most charisma spellcasters doesn't make sense, because it just become basic choice to everything that doesn't fit intellegnce or wisdom. Perception is a lot more useful and defined than wisdom. dex/str balance is just strange - today str characters are more damaging, and dex are more defensive. Why str at all determine chances to hit something? etc
I'd say having to live in a table to do damage instead of rolling dice would be even less fun.
Dexterity has always been odd. Dexterity is the skill of using your hands. Agility is the skill of using your body. Footwork is the dexterity but for the feet. They are not the same thing and being good at one has little to do with the others.
Perception being linked to wisdom. Raw eye sight means you can see something. Wisdom means you understand what you are looking at.
I'm watching this video as I write this commentary ;
About removing damage dice.
I think it shouldn't be removed because rolling the damage dice is part of the fun of the game. Even if it takes more time, i fell that fixed damage would make the game more tedious. I play most of my games on foundryvtt, where everything is automated, so i don't have this take time issue.
You said that it isn't fun to the people watching the other rolling all the dice. I think it isn't true, i personally love see my friends having fun rolling the dice, i even help do the math, being a result confirmation. Anyway, the luck aspect of the damage dice add some dynamism to the game.
I concur, as someone who's extensively played a system without damage dice (Open Legends RPG). It's tedious and boring and makes things feel a bit too samey.
Dice is chance, luck, life. Without it is just better to play a regular video game (that hides random outcomes)
@@autumnkonekoBased af. Plus, low rolls, average rolls, and overkill damage on an attack are also just not amazing results. That’s a vast majority of pretty boring results despite the anticipation and time spent to crunch away.
I think there’s a good reason MCDM, DC20, and fabula ultima cut it out
Oh boy! I’m doing a menial task right now!
I much prefer "music based spellcaster" when compared to the jack of trades, skill monkey approach to bards. There is a lot of symbolism and beauty that I love about it.
We've always ran with free archetypes, just makes everything more interesting.
If we are talking wild ideas maybe as a varient rule changing the battlemap scale. Rework it so meddium creatures ocupy 3x3 spaces , small creatures 2x2, tiny 1x1 and large and up take 5x5 or greater. the movement values would have to be adjusted and each square would be a third of 5ft.
It could add a lot of varince to the movement like dwarfs moving 13 tiles instead of 12 per stride. letting them keep up a little better with party members in chases without removing the unique weakness that ancestery has.
More incremental difficult terrain.
It would be less confusing to understand what area tiny creatues controll/occupy instead of them being represented by a token the same size as a human.
theres potential to have range differences between fist/touch wepons and normal swords.
maybe we coulg get early player options that are larger than meddium because you can go halfway with 4x4 tile characters.
probably stupid but whatever
For vtt games I could see this working, but in person most games are going to be constrained to the one inch grid, and have a bunch of minis/mats/terrain that correspond to that
For 1 it makes me think of anima beyond fantasy. Weapons deal x damage and the difference between offense and defense =% of the dmg done. But you roll to defend and attack with a d100
I listened to your content while eating cheese
Sacred cows are a real problem in DnD culture, so questioning sacred cows is a good idea, but lets not over shoot and slap sacred cow labels on everything removing most features of the game.
HP and damage can really be boiled down to how long do you want the fight to last, which does make it arbitrary. Savage worlds flatly only allows you to take 3 wounds then you die. I think another methods to determine how long a fight should last can absolutely be considered. My opinion is that both HP and damage should stay but the numbers should remain low throughout the game. even at level 20.
You're absolutely right, about failure and success. no one likes it when nothing happens.
Constitution is evocative enough to me as a statistic that determines how naturally tough someone is. An example is Rasputin how they tried to kill him a bunch of times in a bunch of different ways and he kept living. the 6 attributes that all adding together to make person is satisfying to me.
Free archtype good.
I love the 4 practices of magic. and druid is a great example of a primal caster but we need more pure primal casters. Bard became important to the pathfinder setting when the bard became an occult caster. as artistic characters are usually linked with the dark tapestry somehow. and pathfinder loves its great old ones.
Every RUclips video is either under 7:00 minutes or over 7:00 minutes
I'd like to see fully reworked magic system and balancing.
Mellee characters are somewhat fun for the most part, but magic is so bad!
Critical Fumble Deck - for fails or epic fais??
For me personally:
• Agreed, fewer “nothing happens” effects that make the effect a wash
• Remove the item bonus from weapon and armor! GMs shouldn’t have to focus on that distribution. Magic items should feel more special and personal.
• More theater of the mind support for range bands. Like movement and weapon ranges emphasize multiples of 30 feet more of something, making it also easy to convert 30x30 zones or 10 yard/meter bands
• Features like mastery that increase +2 damage if expert or +3 master is not that engaging. Something like doubling strength for the sake of damage calculation could be fun for the sake of bows and melee scaling
• Allow more freedom by spending your Reaction and becoming Off-Guard to push/rush a Movement or Interact Action more.
• ONLY the Wizard has Vancian casting. I want this to be the system to surpass D&D for streamlined ease for new players
• Get rid of one attribute I agree with! HOWEVER, I think it should be Intelligence. Let Wisdom represent perception and knowledge saves and effects, and Charisma for emotional and social effects. I like preserving Constitution, but mainly because of the way I want Strength to be reshaped a bit for scaling. But also I’m totally fine with cutting out Con for your reasons.
• Remove the big bundle of Attribute buffs. Instead, every even level you may raise two Attributes by +1, or one Attribute raises up to +4/+5/+6, capped based on character level.
• Tie in archetype, skill, background, and ancestry/heritage feats into one Utility / Flavor / Profession Feat system all about expressing their personal “Path”. Not every Goblin needs to become “more Goblin-y”. So, every even level is Class Feats and Attribute boost, and every odd level is Path Feat, Class Feature, and Skill Point.
I want this to be a game people can come in and be more excited for from the start. Something easier to *get* where people make shows about. I think about Adventure Zone and Dimension 20. Pathfinder doesn’t feel like something you can dive into and show a smooth good time.
One day...
Remaster just came out and still working on books into 2024 so...not for maybe a decade
Deceptively groundbreaking but also-not idea: Make all rolling player-centred.
It can be super boring for a player to sit there as the GM rolls against you. Your best luck is them targetting you with a saving throw so ye can whip yer dice out.
But what if instead rolls were asymmetric? Rather than enemies rolling attacks against the player, the player rolls a defensive roll against the enemy! Rather than enemies rolling saving throws, they are spell attacks agaisnt the static saving throw stat!
It could be implemented without ever changing the game's maths, and keep the players way more involved while also lifting workload off the GM.
You have predicted a future video...
Two things I would want in a pathfinder 3. First, new skill system, I hate d20s for skills too random imo, as a master can fail at basic tasks too often. Second, bring back the D&D 4th Ed classes where you start with a basic class and every 10 or so levels you get a more complex/focused advance class
I do feel like Constitution feels a little mandatory, and not very exciting, which makes it a boring default. What level 20 character does not have +4 Con?
Hey
I disagree with the kineticist take: I think that the idea behind the kineticist is to be the magical non-mags, as in, a character that is intrinsically tied with magic, but who does not cast spells.
The reason it uses Constitution is because the magic of the kineticist is not tied to any understanding, or mental focus, but its tied in the very bodies. A kineticist who uses their powers is tiring their bodies much like a runner, not their minds like a scholar.
I honestly think we need MORE classes that focus on Constitution.
These are some good proposals, I like them quite a lot! I've always been critical of traditional holdover rules like the six basic stats and how attack rolls/damage rolls are reaolved, but I do want to mention that your point about changes made to the presentation of the druid is somewhat more nuanced than just making it fit in with a high magic fantasy setting.
Certain d&d classes, such as the barbarian and the druid, are based on old stereotypes and misinformation, the word "barbarian" originates from the ancient Greek word "bárbaros," meaning "babbler." It was used to describe those non-Greeks who spoke another language, and, from the Greek perspective, babbled. The Romans adopted the word and used it to refer to anyone who wasn't Greek/Roman, and today we use "barbaric" as an explicitly negative descriptor of acts and groups we view as "less civilised," including the very same historical peoples who the Greeks and Romans used the word to brand as "the others."
Druid has a similar history, which admittedly I'm less well read on, but to summarize: the word just refers to a high ranking priest in old Celtic religion, which the Romans quashed after conquering the region. These interpretations of druids in fantasy media largely evokes the concept of a wild, mysterious, and "human-sacrificing" practice as you put it, as opposed to the more civilized and virtuous religion of clerics- or, in history, Christianity.
All that to say, I think the rebranding of druids in fantasy media as a whole is *probably* for the best, though I do agree that the druid, in current representations, is very sad and generic in its concept, lore, and abilities. I think they could stand to gain a bit more distinct identity, but returning to those "spooky" roots would probably just further the spread of ahistorical tropes and misinformation.
Love your content! As someone very interested in game design, I find it very helpful towards understanding PF2 without needing to read the whole book, since I'm not currently in a group to play it myself.
1. I don't agree with removing damage rolls, not only is it removing another way player's actually "play" the game, but it would remove an entire progression and modification pathway. Part of what feels like you are making progress is doing more damage, and rolling more dice. You can also add ways to get more dice, or penalties in which fewer dice are rolled. I am not convinced its good for the game to remove this entire design space from it. Also with VTTs modifiers and rolling is faster. I also do not agree with "speeding" past combat. There is a line where we have moved beyond simply being more efficient in the application of rules and player's proceeding through their actions, to skipping them altogether and becoming less interactive and less game.
2. I also do not agree here, without a failure condition, there is not really a win condition, and failure can happen at different degrees. There is no point in rolling at all, if you succeed regardless. What I will agree with is modifying or changing the PF2E degrees of success and the math of it. Its presented like there are more ways to succeed, but the math means its actually more like there is still only one success path, and 3 failure paths, because (especially with spells) its only on a target's critical failure that the spell is actually doing what its name implies, and everything else is a pittance that doesn't feel like it was worth bothering to do, or spend your limited spell slots on. In this system at best you are looking at a 1 in 4 chance of getting what you really hope for, as opposed to a 1 in 2 chance in a binary system. In the 4 degrees system, especially with incapacitation, much more often it feels like success has like a 5% chance of happening, and 95% of the rest comprise really weak consolation prizes, failure, or critical failure. This might just be a problem with the numbers and could be corrected with rebalancing, but it doesn't feel as good as 4 degrees of success initially implies.
3. You could also just boil it down to physical and mental as the only 2 stats. But again, removing granularities might be more efficient, but it also reduces different choices, design spaces, much like I mentioned above regarding the damage dice, and I haven't really been convinced in your reasons for wanting to remove these things, other than you just want to reduce/remove for the sake of. I am in favor of becoming more efficient at applying the mechanics, rules, and proceeding through turns, but not just lopping off chunks of the game in order to not have to "deal with it". I think that mentality taken too far implies not actually liking to play the game, because engaging with it is a chore.
4. Fully agree that free archetype should be the default, it adds so much more customization and choices that its almost offensive that its so much better than the default character building. Once I discovered this variant, I never ran PF2E again without it.
5. I think in the remaster, the characters in core 1 vs core 2 are the ones that may have needed the least potential rebalancing outside of terminology changes to detach from the OGL, so Paizo could have more time to work on rebalancing the classes that will be in core 2. This is just my speculation though. On classes in general, I don't think they are created in a balanced way in PF2E. Playing APs, there is a ton of combat, and I am good with that, as it seems to be a fundamental truth of d20 systems, but to that end, the classes do not even come close to being balanced against each other in terms of performance. Casters are gimp, rogues can literally do everything amazingly well in all pillars of play, fighters and gunslingers crit very consistently, other martials all pay some form of action taxes to hope to perform maybe at the level a fighter can, and thaumaturge and magus have a bulk of a spellcasters abilities (thaum with scrolls) while having a full martial chassis to boot. Meanwhile, classes like Alchemist, Investigator, and Inventor really struggle to perform well at all, and with a ton of clunky, tedious rules, that do not result in superior outcomes, just more hoops to jump through to arrive at the same place as better classes mentioned above. This class imbalance is way more pronounced in PF2E than in other D20 games.
6. I have several houserules I have implemented into my PF2E games, that I would like to see implemented in a PF3. Dex is way better in many cases as an attribute, partly because its simultaneously a defensive and offensive stat, with several ties to key skills as well. I revamped medium and heavy armors to use a damage resistance system, in part to improve how heavier armors perform, and to make dex less supreme for defenses. It also lends more to the idea of being a "tank", you aren't necessarily harder to hit, you are harder to harm. I also modified some silly rules or non-existent ones, like the fly action, the arbitrary inability to ride a flying animal companion that is large enough to carry you, and incapacitation are gone. I also adopted the ability to grapple something and move half your speed with them from D&D 5E (more if you have titan wrestler) because there really isn't a RAW way to move someone in combat (like an ally in a dangerous place). I also think, uniformly, spellcasters completely suck in PF2E and have implemented several houserules to change that; Improving their proficiency advancement for their spellcasting is a big one, so their spells have better odds of landing. Allowing some spells to be cast much more often, so there is less of spellcasters being the only remaining classes in PF2E that have a hard daily limit on their abilities, so it doesn't feel so much worse when they do nothing in a turn because their spells are limited and miss often vs at level or higher monsters, and adding casting attribute modifiers to damage and healing (because on top of spellcasters being weaker, spells are as well). Generally I think magic and magic users were way over-nerfed in PF2E, to a degree that they just don't align with player class fantasy in a very detrimental way. I know there is a vocal bunch of the PF2E community who disagree (many will disagree simply with the suggestion that PF2E isn't perfect in every way as is), but it is a big reason I saw many people over the past year and a half of running PF2E games on Start Playing, either move away from spellcasters as their class choice, or leave PF2E altogether. So I changed it in my games.
My pick for pathfinder 3e.. get rid of the Vancian spell system. Replace it with spell points.
1) It's an alright idea, most people generalise weapon damages down to their average values anyway. I generally don't see people arguing about what's better 2d6 or 1d12
2) No, just no. This is dumb
3) I usually think that high constitution creatures are big. Not exactly fat, more like heavy built. A character with high constitution but low strength would be fat i guess. I instead all for splitting dexterety into two. One for literal dexterety, how "elastic" you are, a character that can hide very well, can make precise movements etc. And one for reflex. How fast you are, how quickly you react and adapt your body. Sort of like intelligence represents your mind's storage space and wisdom represents your mind's raw power.
4)This is a cool idea, probably the most likely one to actually be implemented considering that it's already an optional rule in the game.
5) I kinda like a lot how many different mechanics there are in pathfinder and how many unusual things you can be with the current class selection. Although the classes are so complex, the players that get interested in them sometimes end up teaching the GMs what these classes do.
To me Constitution evokes that hability to fend off sickness and other diseases. You could have someone with high strength when it matters but is always sick, and prone to sickness (low fortitude) from normal or magical means, always has that runny nose...
Kicking some menial tasks' metaphorical a** while watching this - thanks for the vid 👍👍
I disagree with the constitution because of the fortitude checks. Each attribute contributes something to a character, enabling design decisions. Dex is your hit bonus *and* your AC *and* your reflex save, but not damage. Strength is only hit bonus, but also damage. Con is only defensive, both HP and Fort save. It gives you options for how defensive you want to tune a character.
Constitution is toughness. It's the Audie Murphy, the Rocky, the Captain America "I Can Do This All Day." It's stamina, conditioning, and health, sure. But it's the Samwise Gamgee carrying his friend across the finish line. It's the beer hall pro wrestler who has a barrel gut but can last an hour in the ring with the champ. It's the guy who keeps advancing, bloodied, burned, and battered but unbroken, keeping his eyes fixed on a bad guy who keeps screaming "why won't you DIE?"
I think we should keep Constitution around, and put in some work to make it more fun and evocative.
Agreed- if it can be made more fun (maybe constitution skills? Is that even possible) that would really be the ideal situation.
My issue with merging background and archetype is that some archetypes are really good meaning people might pick that instead of an rp background like I like to do
I think the rebalancing could simply have “Profession” archetypes work as your background profession free feat, plus an Attribute boost, plus some skills + lore. I think with the mindset that Professions are intended to be starting background archetypes, there can be a more consistent understanding of how to design them in a balanced way
I think you are not interested in a sequel to the game , but a completely different game that would make Pathfinder even more niche
It's easy to imagine a stereotype for a high con low dex and low str .. imagine a larger lout.. a drunken character.. capable of downing many pints of beer with little effects and able to shrug off a poison effect or animal bite for example..also having a High pain threshold.😊
Here is how I would rework the classes for Pathfinder 3e:
-Fighter could have Ranger, Barbarian, Swashbuckler and Champion as sublasses (they occupy the same roles).
-Magus, Warpriest Cleric, and Warrior Muse Bard should be together (they are the same concept declined with different magic traditions.)
-Rogue, Thaumaturge and Investigator should be subclasses of a common seeker class, add the enigma bard here as a musician version of the class.
-Cloistered Cleric, Druid (as a caster druid without shapeshifting) and Wizard should be subclasses of a common Sage class as they use the Vancian Magic System and have religious significance for their respective groups, add maybe the Polymath Muse Bard as it fits here and I would make them use Vancian Magic.
-Witch, Psychic, Oracle and Sorcerer should be subclasses of a common Intuitive class, there is so much overlap between the four, also the Witch does not need Vancian casting given her too few spellslots I would make her spontaneous, also maybe add the Virtuose Muse Bard here.
-Animal Druid as a Shapeshifter class grouped with the Summoner, because I feel that if this classes were grouped together we could have a playable version of the Synthesist.
-Alchimist, Gunslinger and Inventor make sense together so why not group them under the same class since they are the technological classes.
-Monk and Kineticist can be grouped together thematically if constitution is eliminated from the game, this way you can have the monk use impulses which is my first thought when I think about Avatar : the Last Airbender characters.
Remove hero points. Add more flexibility to raising proficiencies. Buff Int. Better/more gish options, bring back half casters. Remotely try to balance archetypes(at least the multi class ones plz). Versatile casting actions for most spells. Make exploration a bigger part of the game.
I think you're just looking for a new system to play. Which is great! Go for it.
I'm gonna immediately say no to free archetype as a default rule. I think it's much easier, psychologically, to add things on as an almost-default than it is to _remove_ them. And keeping the official default very simple for new players is an excellent design goal.
If we imagine a hypothetical 2e where nothing else changed but free archetypes being default, you've just increased the barrier to entry for new players, while adding _nothing_ of value to experienced players. Because among experienced players, it's already trivial to use the optional rule. Among the more experienced community, it becomes a de facto default, like how feats are de facto default in D&D 5e.
Now, you could say "but they could make it default and then have an optional rule for removing it to make it simpler!" And that's technically true, but it's adding extra burdens to those newest players to make the _decision_ to alter the game away from the default.
Sorry, I just couldn't make it through this. There's a wide difference between presenting constructive ideas and just making stupid statements that make no sense at all. All this video did was make me angry. And that makes me sad, as I've really loved everything else you've posted.
Intellect = Book-smarts
Wisdom = Street-smarts
Personally, my #1 desire for PF3 is get rid of classes entirely. Classes are really a massive holdover from 70-80s RPGs and a classless design would work much better with PF's design goal of having extreme character customization.
To me, damage dice are required for a d20 game - there just isn't enough granularity in the result - switch to d% and then there is enough granularity to account for a range of results.
You could easily get rid of failure by switching it to a basic AC save. You could even do that in 2e (but it would definitely change the math).
Con is healthiness and physical resilience. I do think you could potentially make it derived (something like average of Str and (Cha or Wis)). You can certainly have a strong but unhealthy fighter or (more commonly) a weak but healthy wizard. I think PF3 could have fewer attributes but I think it would work better if they were just completely redone (eg maybe something like Strength, Agility, Willpower, and Intuition)
The all CON character is John McClane.
The reason that clerics use Wisdomis because they don't deal with their congregation, which would be Charisma, but they deal with their deity, who has sky-high will save DCs. So the cleric needs to figure out what their God wants (wisdom) instead of telling them what they want (charisma)