#3E-Resourceful

[my-t4t-romance]

what with all the anti-trust overpriced nonsense going on with Hasbro and D&D, I just now remembered that I started collecting pdfs of D&D sourcebooks somewhere around the beginning of the pandemic! it’s mostly 3.5e and 4e (EDIT: now with lots of 5e materials added by @honeynutqueerioz!), but here’s a link to the google drive folders. let me know if yall can access the pdfs alright, and dm me if you have anything you’d like added to the collection!

1 reblog = 1 yo ho

[oinonsana]

realities, maximalism,and the need for big book™️

some gubat banwa design thoughts vomit: since the beginning of its development i've kind of been enraptured with trying to really go for "fiction-first" storytelling because PbtA games really are peak roleplaying for me, but as i wrote and realized that a lot of "fiction first" doesn't work without a proper sort of fictional foundation that everyone agrees on. this is good: this is why there are grounding principles, genre pillars, and other such things in many PbtA games--to guide that.

broken worlds is one of my favs bc of sheer vibes

Gubat Banwa didn't have much in that sense: sure, I use wuxia and xianxia as kind of guideposts, but they're not foundational, they're not pillars of the kind of fiction Gubat Banwa wants to raise up. there wasn't a lot in the sense of genre emulation or in the sense of grounding principles because so much of Gubat Banwa is built on stuff most TTRPG players haven't heard about. hell, it's stuff squirreled away in still being researched academic and anthropological circles, and thanks to the violence of colonialism, even fellow filipinos and seasians don't know about them

this is what brought me back to my ancient hyperfixations, the worlds of Exalted, Glorantha, Artesia, Fading Suns... all of them have these huge tomes of books that existed to put down this vast sprawling fantasy world, right? on top of that are the D&D campaign settings, the Dark Suns and the Eberrons. they were preoccupied in putting down setting, giving ways for people to interact with the world, and making the world alive as much as possible.

one of my main problems with gubat banwa was trying to convey this world that i've seen, glimpsed, dreamed of. this martial fantasy world of rajas and lakans, sailendras and tuns, satariyas and senapatis and panglimas and laksamanas and pandai... its a world that didn't really exist yet, and most references are steeped in either nationalism or lack of resources (slowly changing, now)

i didn't want to fall back into the whole gazeteer tourist kind of shit when it came to writing GB, but it necessitated that the primary guidelines of Gubat Banwa were set down. my approach to it was trying to instill every aspect of the text, from the systems to the fluff text to the way i wrote to the way things were phrased, with the essence of this world i'm trying to put forward. while i wrote GB mainly for me and fellow SEAsian people, economically my main market were those in the first world countries that could afford to buy the book. grokking the book was always going to be severely difficult for someone that didn't have similar cultures, or are uninterested in the complexities of human culture. thus why GB had to be a big book.

in contemporary indie ttrpg spaces (where I mostly float in, though i must admit i pay more attention to SEAsia spaces than the usual US spaces) the common opinion is that big books like Exalted 3e are old hat, or are somewhat inferior to games that can cram their text into short books. i used to be part of that camp--in capitalism, i never have enough time, after all. however, the books that do go big, that have no choice to go big, like Lancer RPG, Runequest, Mage, Exalted are usually the ones that have something really big it needs to tell you, and they might be able to perform the same amount of text-efficient bursting at the seams flavor writing but its still not enough.

thats what happened to GB, which I wanted to be, essentially, a PbtA+4e kind of experience, mechanically speaking. i very soon abandoned those titles when i delved deeper into research, incorporated actual 15th century divination tools in the mechanics, injected everything with Martial Arts flavor as we found our niche

all of this preamble to say that no matter how light i wanted to go with the game, i couldnt go too light or else people won't get it, or i might end up writing 1000 page long tome books explaining every detail of the setting so people get it right. this is why i went heavy on the vibes: its a ttrpg after all. its never gonna be finished.

i couldnt go too light because Gubat Banwa inherently exists on a different reality. think: to many 3 meals a day is the norm and the reality. you have to eat 3 meals a day to function properly. but this might just be a cultural norm of the majority culture, eventually co opted by capitalism to make it so that it can keep selling you things that are "breakfast food" or "dinner food" and whatnot. so its reality to some, while its not reality to others. of course, a lot of this reality-talk pertains mostly to social--there is often a singular shared physical reality we can usually experience*

Gubat Banwa has a different fabric of reality. it inherently has a different flow of things. water doesn't go down because of gravity, but because of the gods that make it move, for example. bad things happen to you because you weren't pious or you didn't do your rituals enough and now your whole community has to suffer. atoms aren't a thing in gb, thermodynamics isn't a real thing. the Laws of Gubat Banwa aren't these physical empirical things but these karmic consequent things

much of the fiction-first movement has a sort of "follow your common sense" mood to it. common sense (something also debatable among philosophers but i dont want to get into that) is mostly however tied to our physical and social realities. but GB is a fantasy world that inherently doesn't center those realities, it centers realities found in myth epics and folk tales and the margins of colonized "civilization", where lightnings can be summoned by oils and you will always get lost in the woods because you don't belong there.

so Gubat Banwa does almost triple duty: it must establish the world, it must establish the intended fiction that arises from that world, and then it must grant ways to enforce that fiction to retain immersion--these three are important to GB's game design because I believe that that game--if it is to not be a settler tourist bonanza--must force the player to contend with it and play with it within its own terms and its own rules. for SEAsians, there's not a lot of friction: we lived these terms and rules forever. don't whistle at night on a thursday, don't eat meat on Good Friday, clap your hands thrice after lighting an incense stick, don't make loud noise in the forests. we're born into that [social] reality

this is why fantasy is so important to me, it allows us to imagine a different reality. the reality (most of us) know right now (i say most of us because the reality in the provinces, the mountains, they're kinda different) is inherently informed by capitalist structures. many people that are angry at capitalist structures cannot fathom a world outside capitalist structures, there are even some leftists and communists that approach leftism and revolution through capitalism, which is inherently destructive (its what leads to reactionaries and liberalism after all). fantasy requires that you imagine something outside of right now. in essence read Ursula K Le Guin

i tweeted out recently that you could pretty easily play 15-16th century Luzon or Visayas with an OSR mechanic setting and William Henry Scott's BARANGAY: SIXTEENTH CENTURY PHILIPPINE CULTURE AND SOCIETY, and I think that's purely because barebones OSR mechanics stuff fits well with the raiding and adventuring that many did in 15-16th century Luzon/Visayas, but a lot of the mechanics wont be comign from OSR, but from Barangay, where you learn about the complicated marriage customs, the debt mechanics, the social classes and stratum...

so thats why GB needs to be a (relatively) big book, and why I can contend that some books need to be big as well--even if their mechanics are relatively easy and dont need more than that, the book, the game, might be trying to relay something even more, might be trying to convey something even more than that. artesia, for example, has its advancements inherently tied to its Tarot Cards, enforcing that the Arcana guides your destiny. runquest has its runes magic, mythras (which is kinda generic) has pretty specific kinds of magic systems that immediately inform the setting. this is why everything is informed by something (this is a common Buddhist principle, dependent arising). even the most generic D&D OSR game will have the trappings of the culture and norms of the one that wrote and worked on it. its written from their reality which might not necessarily be the one others experience. that's what lived experience is, after all

*live in the provinces for a while and you'll doubt this too!

[level2janitor]

tactiquest structure

so i've posted a lot about tactiquest's classes and monsters and everything on here but i haven't really talked about the non-combat subsystems much yet and i wanted to go into detail about them, bc tactiquest has very different goals from most heroic fantasy systems.

tracking inventory, travel time, worrying about actually running out of your adventuring budget, are things a lot of big-damn-heroes fantasy systems throw out because they're just paperwork that gets in the way of your cool fights. that's not the case in Tactiquest! these systems are so core to the experience that removing them will make a lot of classes unusable. the game is built around them.

travel & exploration

tactiquest explicitly assumes you're running an open-sandbox hexcrawl and is designed to support that, including the fact the game is designed around random encounters. this is the sort of thing D&D 3e expected you to do, but people ditched random encounters because they thought they were boring and tedious. so classes balanced around that attrition of resources ended up with a huge spike in power other classes couldn't match.

the boring-and-tedious problem is mostly addressed by trying to make combat really good and resolve really fast. if i fucked that up the whole thing falls apart, but so far people are liking it

the second thing that helps with random encounters is your resources don't fully restore immediately at the end of each day like they do in 3e. resting is less effective in the wilderness and resources expended are a tomorrow problem, not just a today problem. so you don't have to have 3+ fights every single day just to maintain parity - 0-2 fights per day still adds up to difficult resource management.

because the game has such a focus on it, you can have classes like the ranger actually be good at travel and exploration instead of just giving them vaguely-naturey combat abilities.

economy

in most D&D-likes, even usually OSR ones, you accrue so much gold. just as a side effect of adventuring. to the point money no longer actually matters because you can throw piles of it at any problem. this is bad. it's a system that defeats its own purpose; there are no interesting choices involving money when you have so much the only real expense is like, 50,000-gold-piece magic items.

i don't just want players to care about money, i want them to worry about money, like a normal person. you're not batman who's a billionaire as a side hobby, you're spiderman who has to deliver pizzas in between superhero work because he's got bills to pay like everyone else. so a whole lot of effort has been put into actually designing prices and treasure amounts around this dynamic.

i also hate how games will usually go "oh adventuring gives you 900,000 gold for existing but a normal person's living wage is 2 gold a month". i don't want to be fantasy jeff bezos, thanks

inventory

this is something i just lifted from OSR games outright. you can carry ten things (and tiny things don't take up an item slot). that's the whole rule.

tracking inventory can add a lot of interesting decisions to a game and adds a new lever for abilities from classes and magic items. having a character play the merchant class which gets a bunch of extra inventory slots feels really impactful. finding a bag of holding that doubles your carry capacity feels so good when you actually have to watch your inventory.

supply

the only thing i felt was really unenjoyable when running games with strict inventory limits was tracking rations for each character that you eat every night; it felt too much like busywork with not enough payoff. so in Tactiquest rations are abstracted into a single Supply stat that's tied to the party rather than any individual character.

you can only restock Supply in towns, and it drops by 1 each time you rest. you can sleep without resting and this won't cost supply, but you won't regain any HP or other resources. this gives you the impactful decision-making of tracking rations without the annoyance of "okay it's been a day of travel, everyone make sure you dock a ration from your sheet" like twice per session

Supply is one of the things that slowly drains your funds and gives you a reason to keep seeking out treasure, tying back into the economy. it also gives merchants and rangers some extra mechanical levers for their class abilities to pull on.

[thydungeongal]

D&D 5e being poorly designed issue #499:

Flesh to Stone requires three failed constitution saves to actually petrify anything, and even then requires ten rounds of concentration to make it last longer than a minute. Constitution is the most common save to have a bonus in in this system, and since it is a sixth level spell, this bonus tends to be quite high. As a result, this spell pretty much never actually does what it is billed as doing.

If the target does make their saves, this effectively translates into 3-5 rounds of a single target being restrained, at the cost of a sixth level spell slot and concentration.

The web spell, meanwhile, creates an area of effect in which any creatures that fail their dexterity saves are restrained. Dexterity saves are pretty common, but they have to keep making them as long as they're in the webs, and it's a strength check (rather than a save, so usually a lower bonus!) to escape. The spell requires concentration, but the maximum duration is an hour.

That's right. Web is objectively and unambiguously better than Flesh to Stone, despite being four spell levels lower. This is because the people making 5e wanted to get rid of save-or-suck effects, but didn't want to get rid of the spell names, and so nerfed them all to the point of uselessness. There is no use case for Flesh to Stone that would not be better served by Web or some other, notably lower than sixth level spell. You could cast Web with that sixth level slot, and it'd be a waste of resources, but it would still be less of a waste than Flesh to Stone, because it lasts longer, is slightly harder to resist, and can affect more than just one creature.

This is your game design on nostalgia and self-reference.

Yeah there's a lot of weird and conflicting ideas going on with spells in D&D 5e because they really lacked a coherent set of design goals: the designers seemed to have lacked a clear consensus on whether they wanted the game to be a balanced (albeit tipped in the player characters' favor) tactical combat game like 4e or an old-school experience with lots of nasty save or die effects. Part of the issue is that at an early point in the design process they decided not to take 4e's lead on monsters effectively having their own unique spells and spell-like abilities, and instead decided that the same spell lists should be available to both monsters and player characters.

And as anyone who's played 3e will tell you, when spells are as readily available and effortless to use as in Hasbro D&D and both sides have save or death spells available, it leads to rocket tag. And rocket tag is really not conducive to a fun tactical combat game that is supposed to be slightly tipped in the player characters' favor.

(Rocket tag is also the name of the game at higher levels in TSR editions of D&D and I feel it does harmonize better with the sheer amount of "fuck you" design in those editions. I think the assumptions written into the rules that combat isn't supposed to be fair or fun affects that very much.)

Anyway, so it's not just pure nostalgia, it's a combination of nostalgia while at the same time trying to copy D&D 4e's homework but not understanding the assignment. The biggest issue with D&D 5e in the context of all the various editions of D&D is that it had the benefit of more than thirty years of design and still ended up without a clear set of design goals besides "let's make the game that's the most D&D!" Like, ultimately as a dungeon game it's fine, but given the context of what's come before it should've been great.

[kakita-shisumo]

In which I sound off for much too long about PF2 (and why I like it better than D&D 5E)

So, let me begin with a disclaimer here. I don’t hate 5E and I deeply despise edition warring. I like 5E, I enjoy playing it, and more, I think it’s an incredibly well-designed game, given what its design mandates were. This probably goes without saying but I wanted it on the record. While I will be comparing PF2 to D&D 5E in what follows and I’ve pretty much already spoiled the ending by the post title (that is, PF2 is going to come out ahead in these comparisons most of the time), I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about my position or intention. My opinions do not constitute an attack on anybody. For that matter, things I might list as weaknesses in 5E or strengths of PF2 might be the exact opposite for other people, depending on what they want from their RPG experience.

As I said before, 5E is an exceedingly well-designed game that does an exceptional job of meeting its design goals. It just so happens that those design goals aren’t quite to my taste.

# A Brief History of the d20 RPG Universe #

I’m going to indulge myself in a little history for a second; some of it might even be relevant later, but for the most part, I just want to cover a little ground about how we got here. By the time the late ‘90s rolled around TSR and its flagship product, Dungeons and Dragons, were in trouble. D&D was well over two decades old by that point and showing its age. New ideas about what RPGs could and even should be had taken over the industry; TSR had finally lost its spot as best-selling RPG publisher to comparative upstart White Wolf and their World of Darkness games; the company even declared bankruptcy in 1997. Times were grim.

That, however, was when another comparative newcomer, Wizards of the Coast, popped up and bought TSR outright. Flush with MtG and Pokemon cash, they were excited to try to revitalize the D&D brand and began development on a new edition of D&D: third edition, releasing in August 2000.

Third edition was an almost literal revolution in D&D’s design, throwing a lot of “sacred cows” out and streamlining everywhere: getting rid of THAC0 and standardizing three kinds of base attack bonus progressions instead; cutting down to three, much more intuitive kinds of saving throws and standardizing them into two kinds of progression; integrating skills and feats into the core rules; creating the concept of prestige classes and expanding the core class selection. And of course, just making it so rolls were standardized as well, using a d20 for basically everything and making it so higher numbers are basically always better.

At the same time, WotC also developed the concept of the Open Gaming License (OGL), based on Open Source coding philosophies. The idea was that the core rules elements of the game could be offered with a free, open license to allow third-parties develop more content for the game than WotC would have the resources to do on their own. That would encourage more sales of the base game and other materials WotC released as well, creating a virtuous cycle of development and growing the industry for everyone.

Well, long story short (too late!), it worked like fucking gangbusters. 3E was explosive. It sold beyond anyone’s expectations, and the OGL fostered a massive cottage industry of third-party developers throwing out adventures, rules material, and even entire new game lines on the backs of the d20 system. A couple years later, 3.5 edition released, updating and streamlining further, and it was even more of a success than 3rd ed was.

At this point, we need turn for a moment to a small magazine publishing company called Paizo Publishing, staffed almost exclusively by former WotC writers and developers who had formed their own company to publish Dungeon and Dragon, the two officially-licensed monthly magazines (remember those?) for D&D. Dungeon focused on rules content, deep dives into new sourcebooks, etc., while Dragon was basically a monthly adventure drop. Both sold well and Paizo was a reasonably profitable company. Everything seemed to be going swimmingly.

Except. In 1999, WotC themselves were bought by board game heavyweight Hasbro, who wanted all that sweet, sweet Magic: the Gathering and Pokemon money. D&D was a tiny part of WotC at the time and the brand was moribund, so Hasbro’s execs hadn’t really cared if the weirdos in the RPG division wanted to mess around with Open Source licensing. It wasn’t like D&D was actually making money anyway… until it was. A lot of money. And suddenly Hasbro saw “their” money walking out the door to other publishers. So in 2007, WotC announced D&D 4th Ed, and unlike 3rd, it would not be released under an open license. Instead, it would be released under a much more restrictive, much more isolationist Gaming System License, which, among other things, prevented any licensee from publishing under the OGL and the GSL at the same time. They also canceled the licenses for Dungeon and Dragon, leaving Paizo Publishing without anything to, well, publish.

At first, Paizo opted to just pivot to adventure publishing under the OGL. Dungeon Magazine had found great success with a series of adventures over several issues that took PCs from 1st all the way to 20th level, something they were calling “Adventure Paths,” so Paizo said, “Well, we can just start publishing those! We’re good at it, the market’s there, it will be great!” And then, roughly four months after Paizo debuted its “Pathfinder Adventure Paths” line, WotC announced 4th Ed and the switch to the GSL. Paizo suddenly had a problem.

4th Ed wasn’t as big a change from 3rd Ed as 3rd Ed had been from AD&D, but it was still a major change, and a lot of 3rd Ed fans were decidedly unimpressed. Paizo’s own developers weren’t too keen on it either. So they made a fateful decision: they were going to use the OGL to essentially rewrite and update D&D 3.5 into an RPG line they owned: the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. It was unprecedented. It was a huge freaking gamble. And it paid off more than anybody ever expected. Within two years Paizo was the second-largest RPG publisher in the industry, only behind WotC itself, and for one quarter late in 4E’s life, even managed to outsell D&D, however briefly. Ten years of gangbuster sales and rules releases followed, including 6 different monster books and something over 30 base classes when it was all said and done. It was good stuff and I played it loyally the whole time.

Eventually, though, time moves on and things have to change. The first thing that changed was 4E was replaced by D&D 5E in 2014, which was deliberately designed to walk back many of the changes in 4E that were so poorly received, keep a few of the better ones that weren’t, and in general make the game much more accessible to new players. It was a phenomenal success, buoyed by a resurgence of D&D in pop culture generally (Stranger Things and Critical Role both having large parts to play), and its dominance in the RPG arena hasn’t been meaningfully challenged since. It also returned to the use of the OGL, and a second boom of third-party publishers appeared and thrived for most of a decade.

The second thing was that PF1 was, itself, showing its age. RPGs have a pretty typical life cycle of editions and Pathfinder was reaching the end of one. It wasn’t much of a surprise, then, when, in 2018, Paizo announced Pathfinder 2nd Ed, which released in 2019 and will serve as the focus of the remainder of this post (yes, it’s taken me 1300 words to actually start doing the thing the post is supposed to be about, sue me).

There’s a coda to all of this in the form of the OGL debacle but I don’t intend to rehash any of it here - it was just like six months ago, come on - beyond what it specifically means for the future of PF2. That will come back up at the very end.

# Pathfinder 2E Basics #

So what, exactly, makes PF2 different from what has come before? There are, in my opinion, four fundamental answers to that question.

First: Unified math and proficiency progression. This piece is likely the part most familiar to 5E players, because 5E proficiency and PF2 proficiency both serve the same purpose, which is to tighten up the math of the game and make it so broken accumulations of bonuses aren’t really a thing. In contrast to 5E’s very limited proficiency, though, which just runs from +2 to +6 over the entire 20 levels of the game, Pathfinder’s scales from +0 to +28. Proficiency isn’t a binary yes/no, the way it is in 5E. PF2’s proficiency comes in five varieties: Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary. Your proficiency bonus is either +0 (Untrained) or your level + 2(Trained), +4 (Expert), +6 (Master) or +8 (Legendary). So if you were level five and Expert at something, your proficiency bonus would be level (5) plus Expert bonus (4) = +9.

Proficiency applies to everything in PF2, really - even more than 5E, if you can believe it, because it also goes into your Armor Class calculation. You can be Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary in various types of armor (or unarmored defense, especially relevant for many casters and monks), and your AC is calculated by your proficiency bonus + your Dex modifier + the armor’s own AC bonus, so AC scales just as attack rolls do. Once you get a handle on PF2 proficiency, you’ve grasped 95% of how any game statistic is calculated, including attacks, saves, skill checks, and AC.

Second: Three-Action Economy. Previous editions of D&D, including 5E, have used a “tiered” action system in combat, like 5E’s division between actions, moves, and bonus actions. PF2 has largely done away with that. At the start of your turn, you get three actions and a reaction, period (barring haste or slow or similar temporary effects). It takes one action to do one basic thing. “Attack” is an action. “Move your speed” is an action. “Ready a weapon” is an action. Searching for a hidden enemy is an action. Taking a guarded step is an action. Etc. The point being, you can do any of those as often as you have the actions for them. You can move three times, attack three times, move twice and attack once, whatever. Yes, this does mean you can attack three times in one turn at 1st level if you really want to (though there are reasons why you might not want to).

Some special abilities and most spells take more than one action to accomplish, so it’s not completely one-to-one, but it’s extremely easy to grasp and quite flexible at the same time. It’s probably my favorite of the innovations PF2 brought to the table.

Third: Deep Character Customization. So here’s where I am going to legitimately complain just a bit about 5E. I struggle with how little mechanical control I, as a player, have over how my character advances in 5E.

Consider an example. It’s common in a lot of 5E games to begin play at 3rd level, since you have a subclass by then, as well as a decent amount of hit points and access to 2nd level spells if you’re a caster. Let’s say you’re playing a fighter in a campaign that begins at 3rd level and is expected to run to 11th. That’s 8+ levels of play, a decent-length campaign by just about anyone’s standards. During that entire stretch of play, which would be a year or more depending on how often your group meets, your fighter will make exactly two (2) meaningful mechanical choices as part of their level-up process: the two points at 4th and 8th levels where you can boost a couple stats or get a feat. That’s it. Everything else is on rails, decided for you the moment you picked your subclass.

Contrast that with PF2. In that same level range, you would get to select: 4 class feats, 4 skill feats, two ancestry feats, two general feats, and four skill increases. At every level, a PF2 player gets to choose at least two things, in addition to whatever automatic bonuses they get from their class. These allow me to tailor my build quite tightly to whatever my idea for my character is and give me cool new things to play with every time I level up. This is true across character classes, casters and martials alike.

PF2 also handles multiclassing and the space that used to be occupied by prestige classes with its “pile o’ feats” approach. You can spend class feats from class A to get some features of class B, but it’s impossible for a multiclass build to just “steal” everything that makes a single class cool. A wizard/fighter will never be as good a fighter as a regular fighter is, and a fighter/wizard will never be the wizard’s match with magic.

Fourth: Four Degrees of Success. 5E applies its nat 20, nat 1, critical hits, etc. rules in a very haphazard fashion. PF2 standardizes this as well, in a way that makes your actual skill with whatever you’re doing matter for how well you do it. Any check in PF2 can produce one of four results: a critical success, a regular success, a regular failure, or a critical failure. In order to get a critical success on a roll, you have to exceed your target DC by 10 or more; in order to get a critical failure, you have to roll 10 or more less than the DC. Where do nat 20s and nat 1s come in? They respectively increase or decrease the level of success you rolled by one step. In practice, it works out a lot like you’re used to with a 5E game, but, for instance, if you have a +30 modifier and are rolling against a DC 18, rolling a nat 1 nets you a total of 31, exceeding the DC by more than 10 and earning you a critical success, which is then reduced to just a normal success by the fact of it being a nat 1. Conversely, rolling against a DC 40 with a +9 modifier can never succeed, because even a nat 20 only earns a 29, more than 10 below the DC and normally a crit failure, only increased to a regular failure by the nat 20.

Now, not every roll will make use of critical successes and critical failures. Attack rolls, for instance, don’t make any inherent distinction between failure and critical failure. (Though there are special abilities that do - try not to critically fail a melee attack against a swashbuckler. The results may be painful.) Skill rolls, however, often do, as do many spells with saving throws. Most spells that allow saves are only completely resisted if the target rolls a critical success. Even on a regular success, there is usually some effect, even on non-damaging rolls. That means that casters very rarely waste their turn on spells that get resisted and accomplish nothing at all. It also doubles the effect of any mechanical bonuses or penalties to a roll, because now there are two spots on a die per +1 or -1 that affect the outcome; a +1 might not only convert a failure to a success but might also convert a success to a crit success, or a crit fail to a regular fail.

# What About Everything Else? #

There is a lot more to it, of course. As a GM I find PF2 incredibly easy to run, even at the highest levels of game play, as compared to other d20 systems. The challenge level calculations work, meaning you can have a solo boss without having to resort to special boss monster rules to provide good challenges. I find the shift from “races” to “ancestries” much less problematic. PF2 has rules for how to handle non-combat time in the dungeon in ways that standardize common rules problems like “Well, you didn’t say you were looking for traps!” Everything using one proficiency calculation lets the game do weird things like having skill checks that target saves, or saves that target skill-based DCs. Inter-class balance, with some very specific exceptions, is beautifully tailored. Perception, always the uber-skill, isn’t a skill at all anymore: everyone is at least Trained in it, and every class reaches at least Expert in it by early double-digit levels. Opportunity Attacks (PF2 still uses the 3rd Ed “Attack of Opportunity” - but will soon be switching over to "Reactive Strike") isn’t an inherent ability of every character and monster, encouraging mobility during combats, and skill actions in combat can lower ACs, saves, attacks, and more, so there are more things to do for more kinds of characters. And so on.

Experiencing all of that is easiest just by playing the game, of course, but suffice it to say PF2 has a lot of QoL improvements for players and GMs alike in addition to the bigger, core-level mechanical differences.

# The OGL Thing #

Last thing, then. In the wake of the OGL shit in January, Paizo announced that it would no longer be releasing Pathfinder material under the OGL, opting instead to work with an intellectual property law firm to develop the Open RPG Creative (ORC) License that would do what the OGL could no longer be trusted to do: remain perpetually free and untouchable for anyone who wanted to publish under it. The ORC isn’t limited specifically to Paizo or to Pathfinder 2E or even to d20 games; any company can release any ruleset under it and allow third-party companies to develop and publish content for it.

Shifting away from the OGL, though, required making some changes to scrub out legacy material. A lot of the basic work was done when they shifted to 2E, but there are still a lot of concepts, terminologies, and potentially infringing ideas seeded throughout the system. These had to go.

Since this meant having to rewrite a lot of their core rules anyway, Paizo opted to not fight destiny and announced “Pathfinder 2nd Edition Remastered” in April. This is a kind of “2.25” edition, with a lot of small changes around the edges and a couple of larger ones to incorporate what they’ve learned since the game first launched four years ago. A couple classes are getting major updates, a ton of spells are either getting renamed or swapped out for non-OGL equivalents, and a couple big things: no more alignment and no more schools of magic.

The first book of the Remaster, Player Core 1, comes out in November, along with the GM Core. Next spring will see Monster Core and next summer will give us Player Core 2. That will complete the Remaster books; everything else is, according to Paizo, going to be compatible enough it won’t need but a few minor tweaks that can be handled via errata. So if you’re thinking about getting into PF2, I’d give serious thought to waiting until November at least, and maybe next summer if you want the whole Remastered package.

And that’s it. That’s my essay on PF2 and what I think makes it cool. The floor is open for questions and I am both very grateful and deeply apologetic to anyone who made it this far.

[talenlee]

3e: Sticks and Stones

ALright I’m up late and the thing I was working on didn’t work and I don’t want to fall behind on my schedule so let’s just belt out something about the ongoing grievance I have in how 3rd edition D&D treated spellcasters as a better class of people with their own higher standard of living because being able to rewrite reality at will is by no means a perk enough to justify not feeling bummed out.

Let me talk to you about sticks and stones powers.

First the origin of the term. The psionics system of 3rd edition was a beautiful beast and also a complete functional failure. Its presence was demanded implicitly by being a thing that existed in 2ed and people liked, while its exclusion from the core of content was demanded explicitly by being a thing that existed in 2ed and people hated. It was a sci-fi thing, unlike the flying airships and unsupported towers made of glass that the rest of the fantasy genre had going on inside it. The psionic system has two distinct forms; the version that launched in 3rd edition proper, and the followup version in 3.5.

3rd editions’ psionic system had a lot of things in it to try and make sense of things that seemed like they should exist in a story, which included an idea of psychic combat. That was where two psychic characters could give up their actions to tangle with one another in a sequence of paper-rock-scissors-laser-godzilla in an attempt to determine who had the bigger brain, who had dedicated the right resources to it, and crucially, who hadn’t decided to spend a few turns using their actual powers to do actual damage or inflict control. Seriously, psychic combat was a hilarious system because it was only useful for psychics who both wanted to fight one another and deplete each other’s power points. Just using powers on one another, like by say, using psychic powers to bombard the other person with lasers? A lot more effective. But don’t worry, there was also the silliness of psychic combat folding in the Illithid power Mind Blast which is a cone stun that lasts for 1d4+1 rounds, aka ‘probably enough to kill anyone or get away from anyone.’

Yeah, player characters could have Mind Blast, at a certain level. It was the only thing anyone ever bothered with in that system.

Along with that system was a collection of psionic powers that all relied on different stats to make sure the spellcaster had to feel rounded. They then could use these well rounded stats to cast psionic powers which were quite mediocre compared to magical spells of their level, and also because of those rounded stats, likely to fail. The entire system was built on ‘hey, here are nice ideas, why don’t we do this’ and the answer coming out pretty evidently in the first playtest.

Anyway, in the Expanded Psionics Handbook in 3.5, Expanded from the Latin meaning ‘not a pig’s arse’, the rulebook decided to instead make the psychic spellcasters into what they always were: spellcasters. Spellcasters needed things like a familiar stat structure, feat support, prestige classes that advanced spellcasting, powers that scaled, and of course, eventually, as with so many things in 3rd edition D&D, gear support.

The Expanded Psionics Handbook introduced the power stone and the dorje. A power stone is an item that has a single use application of a power in it, imbued by the caster at some point. If you can manifest the power in the stone, you can use the power stone. A dorje is a power stone, but a little waggly stick. The waggly stick could have lots of charges stored in it. That is to say, power stones and dorjes are fundamentally, scrolls and wands, as every other spellcaster in the core rules had at the start of the edition.

All psionic manifesters had a limited pool of spells – sorry, powers – they could cast – sorry, manifest. Anyway, these spellcasters were like sorcerers, who could only cast a few spells and that meant that these items that expanded your available spells were super useful. This also meant there were spells you didn’t necessarly want to know wth your limited choices, but you could spend some of your gold to expand on that. Spells cast out of dorjes and power crystals were cast as weak as they could be – minimum caster level, minimum stat, so for a 1st level power, it would be the duration, range, and effect of a level 1 caster’s version, and the difficulty class to use it would be a dc 10. Not great stuff for offensive powers, you want to be able to put oomph behind those yourself.

But say, Comprehend Languages? Or Knock? or Object Reading? Spells that just give you information and aren’t cast under time pressure for combat? Nobody cares about the difficulty of those. You might as well have those in these convenient forms and never bother learning them for yourself. In the process this creates the vision of a marketplace supplied by the small number of psions who do actually know those powers and learned them entirely to supply everyone else with them through dorjes and power stones, which is, at the least, a little funny.

This led to the term ‘sticks and stones’ powers; powers you didn’t need or care about in most situations but you’d stick some of them in your backpack for convenience when you needed them later. This meant that over time, psionic characters would have a swiss army knife of toys for every out-of-combat situation and it was for a time, criticised.

It was criticised, because it was encroaching on the wizard.

Yes, that’s right we’re back there! We’re back at it! Becuase the problem as described was the problem of one character having too much versatility, and in 3rd edition design, the character who had too much versatility was the wizard’s niche. Wizards had been crafting spells into spellbooks and onto scrolls at the end of every day since day one of 3rd edition. They even got the feat to do it for free! Their spellbook was the biggest, and had the most weird niche things! The game even had rules for wizards that pointed out how sensible it was for a wizard to develop their own unique versions of existing spells!

The whole point of stick-and-stones powers is that the powers systems had things that existed in two non-overlapping fields of play, and then expected you to spend the same limited pool resources between them equally even though one of them could get you shanked by a drunken gnoll.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!

[darklordazalin]

Azalin Reviews: 'Darklord' Vlad Drakov

Domain: Falkovnia Domain Formation: 690 BC Power Level: ⚫⚫⚫⚫⚫ 0/5 Skulls Sources: Domains of Dread (23); Domains and Denizens (2e), Ravenloft Gazetteer II (3e); Secrets of the Dread Realms (3e)

Ah, Vlad Drakov, the impaling loving little hireling Darklord of Falkovnia. Falkovnia is a land of rolling lowlands, fertile fields, and lush forests...All these resources are the only reason any other Domain in the Core puts up with this miserable failure, never-was conqueror.

Though the story changes slightly from pre and post Grand Conjunction days, Vlad was originally from the Kingdom of Thenol in the realm of Talades. Not Oerth, so clearly unimportant. Vlad and his little band of ruffians, who called themselves the Talons of the Hawk, were mercenaries. Vlad being the “Hawk” and the rest of his band of brutality being the “Talons”. Vlad doesn’t have a lot going for him, but he managed to scrape up enough charm to convince these Talons of his to do whatever he asked of them, which mostly amounted to them brutally slaughtering people for coin and Vlad impaling captives and watching them slowly die while he took on his evening meal.

Eventually, these hirelings wandered into the Mists and found themselves in the southlands of Darkon. Believing he discovered a new land, Vlad set about slaughtering my people. This did not work out the way he thought it would as his murders only gave me more weapons to work with. I sent the newly fallen and many of the old against him and his men. They fled, like the cowards they are, into the Mists.

Our ever present Tormentors thought it fit to gift Vlad with the Domain of Falkovnia then. Oh there’s some nonsensical “history” about Vlad overthrowing a “wizard king” known as the “Falcon the Great” before he settled in Castle Draccipetri and became the leader of the realm, but I place little validity on that story. Vlad couldn’t overthrow an army of ants let alone a powerful wizard king. Castle Draccipetri stands in the middle of an island on the Lukar River, a single, narrow bridge the only entryway, making it easy to defend, which matters little as no one would bother to send forces against him in the first place. The victory would be too easy.

The hireling was always looked down upon by the mighty lords and leaders that needed his brutality to win their wars and he desired nothing more than to be their equal and earn their respect. He was granted a position of rulership by our Tormentors, but the rulers of the other Domains will never respect him if they even notice him. He is akin to a fly; annoying yet easily swatted away.

Vlad tries to conquer the Domains that surround his, yet fails at every attempt. He has his heart set on Darkon, my Domain being vastly superior and richer than his own. I have lost track of the number of times the little hawk as attemppted to graps my lands in his talons, only to be swatted away by a horde of zombies. These failed attempts are barely worth the effort of a moment's work it takes for me to utterly destroy his forces. But some men do not recognize the futility of their own actions. Vlad also fails to understand where he is and why he is haunted by unsuccessful campaigns...well, besides the fact that he is always overreaching.  King of the Dead here, stop sending your soldiers into my Domain and adding to my side of an utterly pointless fight.

Failing conquest and gaining the respect of his fellow lords, Darkov has little pleasure in life except impaling his victims and watching them slowly die. He also is quite fond of “hawking” and treats his hawks better than any of his mortal companions. He takes out his frustration on his people with oppressive and extensive laws, making life in Falkovnia about as meaningless and futile as Darkov’s campaigns against Darkon.

Vlad is a fearsome warrior, but given his curse is to never know victory or respect, I will award him zero skulls. Good day sir!

[overfedvenison]

I looked over the old Tau 3e codex, specifically on how Farsight Enclaves played as originally published Back in those days, Tau didn’t have specific Sept Abilities - Although different Septs were detailed. This meant Farsight, as an Independent Power, was one of the few ways to really play a different sort of Tau rules:

Since Farsight’s faction was small at this point, he had fewer resources. I’d heard it noted that he could not take Kroot a lot of the time, and while this is true it was not an anti-kroot bias but just because he was small didn’t have a lot of allies in general. If you’re curious, Farsight Enclaves had the following options: HQ: Commander Farsight (And up to one XV8 Bodyguard,) who must be the warlord Commander* Elite: Crisis Battlesuits 0-1 Stealth Team (Squad size 3-6.) Troops/Transport: Fire Warriors** Devilfish Fast Attack: 0-1 Pathfinder Team Heavy Support: 0-1 Broadside Battlesuits (Squad Size 1-3) 0-1 Hammerhead * At the time, the only commander was in XV8 armor. In addition, the normal force organization chart allowed two HQs... This means that you would usually get a max of 1 non-Farsight commander ** Note that in this era, Fire Warriors used Pulse Rifles and Carbines - so no Breacher Teams were available. So that’s... Tiny. The only truly unrestricted options here were Fire Warriors, Devilfish, and XV8s. If you follow this, you can more or less ‘max out’ your Farsight Enclave choices, which is actually kind of cool. Obviously, even early on Farsight Enclaves had a deep focus on XV8s. You might be sharply limited in your amount of Pathfinders and Stealth Suits - basically just more elite infantry - but you sure can spam XV8s. XV8s in this edition had only three “Hard Points” which can be equipped with weapons and wargear. Your weapons options were much of the same as you have now, but notably more technologically limited in a really interesting way. First, there are Cyclic Ion Blasters or Airbursting Fragmentation Projectors. Some weapons could be “Twin-Linked,” which allows you to shoot two paired weapons at an enemy - You could otherwise not shoot mutliple weapons at once without a Multi-Tracker. Note that Flamers could not be twin-linked, so if you wanted a pure Fire squad you needed to go dual Flamers and Multi-tracker. You also needed a special Drone Controller slot to take Drones, and could not mix Gun and Shield drones; with the aforementioned limitations this seems like it would have been an important way of getting more firepower out of your XV8s The XV88s were a Heavy variant of them using Rail Rifles, and not yet their “own” suit - In lore, this was an upgrade which was experimented on with the rare XV88-2 variant before settling on the cool design we see today:

Finally, the BIG thing for Farsight that makes him different:

Your entire army can become better at melee for 5 points of a model. This seems like it advantages Battlesuits a lot more than other units; 15 points a model for a Fire Warrior who has an alright attack when they are already a ranged unit does not seem super worth it. However, upping your Stealth Squad might be worth it, too It’s also worth noting that you can’t get Kroot and use this at the same time, so it’s sort of a choice: Do you want the hordes of kroot, or do you want your XV8s to be able to fight things? It’s neat that you can go top-heavy, though. A Commander, including Farsight, can take a squad of up to two Bodyguards... Bodyguards are 40 points each, and Shas’o are 75, before equipment. Farsight himself is 170... So a full HQ squad is like, about 500pts. That’s really not bad, especially with flamers for anti-charge, but as usual with melee tau you have to punch down at infantry and troops if you aren’t Farsight himself.

[kaznaths-thoughts]

I don’t know what to call Rothbard and Gazpus’ magic system other than "mnemonic." It relies on you remembering the spell at hand and employs rhyme in order to achieve that end. Mnemonic magic makes sense when surveying Rothbard and Gazpus’ entire philosophy. It is also quite unique in the TTRPG space. It does have its competitors though, and they have their own benefits and drawbacks.

Vancian magic is most common due to Dungeons & Dragons’ popularizing of the system. You have prepared spells with a certain number of spells you are allowed to cast per-day, materialized as spell-slots. Its benefit is its clearly defined perimeters, its limitation of spells which can be presently used, and its openness with regard to selection of spells. The drawbacks, on the other hand, are philosophic in some sense. What, in fiction, does the spell slot mean? What, in the fiction, is the explanation for the limitation of the spell slot and not individual spell use [which more aligns with Jack Vance’s use of magic]? And why in fiction do spell slots reset after use if magic is something outside of the caster being tapped into? It is hard to philosophically justify, though it creates a good systemic balance for spellcasting characters and their non-spellcasting compatriots/enemies. 

Psionic magic has become more popular post-3e Dungeons & Dragons and is often used in place of Vancian magic. Psionic magic is any system which uses a resource-like token or point system in which points are expended for use of magic. Skill, of course, defines how many points a character may have or expend. In fiction, this makes good sense - magic is a resource that can be expended and recharged like a form of energy in a person. However, mechanically it can be quite frustrating. This is true of all of D&D’s magic systems - magic users are often weaker than everyone else in every other area, so when their magic is expended, the character becomes rather useless and this can be frustrating to the player. 

"Allomancy" or "resource magic" is another form of magic, which sees far less use, and in some ways for obvious reasons. Allomantic magic relies on the player’s use or expending of a physical resource like metal or clay or some other good [see Sanderson’s Mistborn & World of Dungeons], and was meagerly incorporated into Dark Sun as a part of a pseudo-Vancian “Defiling Magic”. In essence, if you run out of the resource, you run out of magic. This lacks favor because it involves an intentional management of inventory, something which most players and Storytellers dislike. For this reason, it is often incorporated into a system, rather than being allowed to stand on its own - Dungeons & Dragons, as noted, has flirted continuously with Allomantic magic, even in use of the modern “spell components”. 

Lastly, one magical alternative is Eugenic magic. Eugenic magic is magic which is innate to a character due to their family genetics. Magic in this system is an inherited trait. This sees use in fictions like Harry Potter, Dune, and Star Wars; and in TTRPG’s through the influence of “Kids on Bikes”. Eugenic magic usually makes magic one of the defined stats of the player’s character - like Charisma and Strength. In “Kids on Bikes”, they use the “Weird” stat; other systems like “the Window”, “ Cornerstone”, and “Stormbringer” use it in this manner, substituting their own term. This is often the preferred method for those who either don’t like Vancian/Psionic magic or who often are on the receiving end of magical damage within a game. There is a sense of “leveling the playing field”  when magic becomes a stat like Strength or Charisma. It has its mechanical problems of course, such as how does one determine what spell effect takes place when using a “spell check” and how extreme the effect is allowed to be. If it is the Storyteller/Dungeon Master, it lies squarely outside the user’s control and this can be extremely irritating to players. And there are some notable philosophic problems with the system and its effect on the story; essentially some characters are just genetically more special than others in one way or another that gives advantage. A world of Eugenic magic is a world of hard-fast genetic traits, where genes can determine one’s abilities to do this or that, which is fine if the Storyteller and players are willing to reckon with that as a reality in their world. But they cannot simply ignore it. 

Sword & Backpack’s Mnemonic System is great because it places magic firmly in the hands of the player. It is a do-or-do-not way of doing things. Outside of combat, it acts like any other trait though a bit more complicated in execution. Which is fair, because magic is not a trait, but something else entirely. In combat, it can be dispelled by a spellcaster though; avoiding its effects is then equally in the hands of players. Its use and consequences in combat therefore, remain fairly balanced while distinct. It also makes the firm statement that magic is not a sword and a sword is not magic, while still balancing its use in combat such that it is not an automatic success. Furthermore, Mnemonic magic can be picked up by anyone throughout the game, as Rothbard and Gazpus note; a Wizard is only a Wizard because his character is devoted to magic, he can learn fighting and fighters can learn magic as well. Its downside, of course, is its complexity for the player and its lack of limitation in use. For a Storyteller, a spell that can be used as many times as the player wants can feel unfair and counterbalancing it feels equally unfair to players. 

So what system is best? My Thought is that it entirely depends on the sort of story you want to tell and the sort of players you have at the table. If your players hate memorizing things or struggle quite a lot with doing so, Vancian or Psionic magic may be better. But if they hate stats and figures, and keeping track of rests and so on, it may be better to employ Eugenic magic with an openness to what they choose to try to do. 

Story-wise, one should consider how the magic is going to shape and effect play, as well as the world you are playing in. A Vancian world of knowledge is different from a Mnemonic and experiential one. Both are different from a Psionic world, and a Psionic world is different from a Eugenic one. How we treat magic as a fact of our universe unfortunately has major ramifications for how our whole world functions as a result. So pick carefully; and make sure your players are onboard.

[synttx]

in the shadow of current year tabletop gaming culture how tiny the library of official resources for 3e shadowrun is truly crazy. There's like sub 10 official prewritten modules.

crazy to think you used to be able to create a rock solid collection of systems (excluding the matrix lol) and leave it at that!

[politicaldino454]

website Resoures:

https://www.cali.org/the-elangdell-bookstore

[alan-p-49]

omg. i learned something about waterdeep. It's illegal, at least in the 1300's, to be homeless

Vargancy is homelessness for those who don't know. At least DUIs are a thing in waterdeep tho lmao

I have a theory tho is that at one point in the history of waterdeep between the 1300's and the 1400's the homeless problem got so bad that they created the field ward bc in the 3e in dnd (which what this resource about waterdeep is from) the map doesn't have the field ward. its only the 5e map of waterdeep has it. Like yes there's other causes of the formation of field ward but one of the main thing my money is on is the homeless. if waterdeep was in a modern fantasy setting they would have hostile architecture lmao

[open-hearth-rpg]

#HorrorRPGs2016 The End of the World: Alien Invasion

Fantasy Flight has a well-deserved reputation for slick products and smart packaging. Edge of the Empire and Warhammer FRP 3e illustrated how they were able to elevate rpgs into a hybrid project. We’ve seen the legacy of that with later games which take a new approach to form factors: Zombie World, Gloomhaven. 

The End of the World series was another unusual direction, though a more conventional rpg than other recent FFG releases. Some of that may come from TEotW's origin as a Spanish language rpg series, El Fin Del Mundo from 2013.

Each volume of The End of the World offers a complete game with a complete apocalypse. I debated about putting these just on the post-apocalyptic lists, but the use of classic horror tropes slots them here as well. All share a simple basic system: six stats in three categories rated from one to five. Features expand the details (i.e. flaws/assets). Players roll a pool of positive and negative d6s. Matching negatives cancel out positives and every remaining die under the relevant stat counts as a success. Those rules take up 40 pages of a 144 page book.

Each volume then each offers a set of sketchy scenarios, each with a slightly different twist on the events. In some cases they're given clear bridges between, but in others the elements feel like they exclude one another. If you're expecting a toolbox for developing the themes, you might be disappointed. As well if you buy multiple volumes, you're repeating much of the basic material (about 33%).

The End of the World has one big hook: you play yourselves. Scenarios have flexible starting locations so you can tailor events to your own hometown or city. There's even a mechanic for painfully deciding your own stats. That works with TEotW’s fairly simple system, both easy to pick up and get running. But a large part of your enjoyment will rely on how much you like playing yourself getting murderized. I burned out on that long ago. If you remove that element, then you're left with a fairly standard set of light rules with a bog standard Armageddon.

One of the two 2016 releases, Alien Invasion, is a surprisingly rare one in post-apocalyptic ttrpgs– despite it being a strong sci-fi trope. The one I can think of off the top of my head is Necessary Evil, Systems Failure (as of this writing available on the Bundle of Holding), and The Mechanoid Invasion. It includes five different alien invasions, with details on how they played out. Each is followed by a scenario frame for how you can integrate the players into the story. This allows you a choice of playing out during the invasion or in the aftermath. 

The five scenarios are: War Between Worlds, which offers a classic martian invasion. Part of the hook here is that the opponents look like greys or other classic depictions of aliens. Brotherhood of Babylon has a group of aliens who shaped humanity’s evolution and have now return to take control of the world. It’s a little like if the Stargate builders came to take back what was theirs. This one has reptiloids, which I’m not fond of given its association with conspiracy theories. There’s also a little bit of the Chariot of Gods implied racism buried in there as well. 

Rising Tides offers an alien people who come not from space, but from the depths of the ocean. Atlantis invades using their superior technology. Skitter has an alien invasion closer to classic monster movies, a swarm of giant interstellar ants which lands on Earth to harvest our resources. You could probably borrow some elements from War Against the Chtorr for this. Finally Visages is, as you might guess, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, with plant-like replicants taking over. 

[thydungeongal]

Different subject now, but D&D 3e is interesting in its approach to prep because the game explicitly tells you or at least strongly suggests that you should use the party's average character level as a baseline for prepping content and give them a bunch of encounters with a pretty wide range of Encounter Levels. But it also explicitly suggests prepping at least some Overpowering encounters. Encounters that if the party charges blindly into, they will most likely die.

I actually think 3e was kind of cooking with this idea. However. 3e is exactly not the type of game you want to have these types of encounters in unless you have specifically signposted to your players that not all encounters are beatable.

This largely relates to those recent discussions about incentives and how games can basically encourage certain behaviors through their structures. D&D 3e was a pretty massive shift in terms of how the combat rules were structured in the sense that while D&D as a game had always rewarded smart, tactical play, the rules had always been kind of zoomed out (makes sense, because they had their origins in a wargame), D&D 3e was suddenly a very zoomed in, tactically satisfying skirmish game that rewarded tactics on a micro level.

D&D has always been opinionated about combat but D&D 3e made combat the most tactically satisfying part of the game and finally finished what 2e started and basically made combat the thing that granted most XP by the book. So of course now you have a situation where engaging in combat is fun for the players while also rewarding characters with growth.

So you might see how the idea that each adventure have a mandated quota of Overpowering encounters may not be in line with that goal, especially since character creation is now a pretty complex minigame which isn't exactly fun.

I do still think they were kinda cooking. I think there is something to be said for adventure prep where adventures are prepped as basically little theme parks with "you must be this tall this level to ride" written at the door, and with those Overpowering encounters there as a spice, provided they are signposted. Alternately, something similar to 3e in structure but with guardrails to make sure that even if the players end up accidentally sending their characters into an impossible encounter it can always be salvaged with the expenditure of resources or something or other.

And in the context of a sandbox setting consisting of multiple overlapping areas with different encounter levels and locations with their own encounter levels, those Overpowering encounters are no longer just there to be ignored: they're content that can be returned to at later levels. Thus making the world more organic. And I think that's actually really in line with 3e's immersive sim style design.