Homebrewing, Houseruling, and Playtest Feedback.


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Zaister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yeah, the only house-rule I am planning on is omitting +Level; open up the threat range of monsters.
So you're not changing much, only removing the main core feature of the new game engine... You will be playing a completely different game then, and your feedback on that game will not really be relevant to the actual Pathfinder playtest, not even unter the heading "how about this alternative", because this is a concept that is most certainly not getting abandoned, as that would entail a complete redesign of the entire game.

Not at all, the core features are the 4-tiers of success and proficiency/UTEML action, this changes none of that. The only difference are things like, instead of rolling d20 + 29 vs. DC 40, you roll d20 + 9 vs. DC 20.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

... and the threat range of monsters.

We don't know if Doomsday dawn has a chapter where you would be fighting higher or lower level foes. If that is the case, your change does make you play different than core assumption.


Yeah, I already know that the first creature my players will fight is a Level 2 Crydalis Brassic, while they're level 1. This changes the math for that fight, let alone future fights as I learn how far I can push the system boundaries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hence my suggestion Vic run Doomsday Dawn as written.


Franz Lunzer wrote:
... and the threat range of monsters.

Yeah, we've been over that, and the DC table from Running the Game would need tweaking.

As for Doomsday, I will get it, check it out, see how things flow, deconstruct it, but the odds of me actually running it are slim, I generally do not run canned adventures/campaigns.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Then what are you even doing here?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Why not use the ordinary Pathfinder homebrew forum and just mark it as PF2?

I can only control where I post things. I can't control where dozens of other homebrew enthusiasts post suggested changes to the playtest rules. And, based on what I saw during the first-edition playtest, I expect to see lots of posts about proposed rule changes showing up in the playtest forum. Why not direct them towards a specific subforum to keep them separate from posts about actual playtest data?

In fact, haven't several of the more recent Paizo playtests divided their forums into a "playtest feedback" subforum and a separate "playtest discussion" subforum? I think it would be useful to have similar signposts in this latest playtest: "Post your Doomsday Dawn playtest feedback over here, post your suggested rule changes over there, argue about alignment and goblins over yonder." Something like that, to make the threads in the playtest forums easier to navigate.


My search-fu generally stinks, so if this question has been asked and answered, please just point me to the answer:

Will the playtest rules be a complete set of rules for PE2, or just a subset that the developers wish tested?

-- david

ps. Knowing that things may / may not change for the final rules.


Papa-DRB wrote:

My search-fu generally stinks, so if this question has been asked and answered, please just point me to the answer:

Will the playtest rules be a complete set of rules for PE2, or just a subset that the developers wish tested?

-- david

ps. Knowing that things may / may not change for the final rules.

A subset, at best. We already know for certain that it will only contain 4 of 12 multiclassing archetypes.


Ah... Thank you.


I love homebrew as well, but I also understand that sticking as close to the rules as possible is going to provide a lot more data on the specific parts of the system that Paizo wants to test.

A good course of action (that will probably require more work and playtime) is to do both and scrutinize the differences and explain how the differences played out.

On the other hand, playing the same thing twice without homebrewing either time may give them even more of the kind of data that they want.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Moro wrote:
Papa-DRB wrote:

My search-fu generally stinks, so if this question has been asked and answered, please just point me to the answer:

Will the playtest rules be a complete set of rules for PE2, or just a subset that the developers wish tested?

-- david

ps. Knowing that things may / may not change for the final rules.

A subset, at best. We already know for certain that it will only contain 4 of 12 multiclassing archetypes.

That is kind of misleading. It will present a complete, workable game. It will essentially be a pretty functional core rulebook.

Multi-classing for all is probably the biggest thing it is missing but isn't like you can't play Pathfinder without multiclassing. There's gonna be a few other things we don't have, but as I recall it mostly things rounding out flavor or pretty specific minutia that isn't super relevant to adventuring.

There will be a certain amount more content in the core rulebook, and lots of other content that comes out afterwards. But I suspect if you and your group were stranded on a dessert island with nothing but the playtest and all the food can eat, you could pretty much game forever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zaister wrote:
It was actually aimed directly at you, because *you* said 'I want to playtest a different game instead of the one Paizo wants playtested,
It's the same game, Deadmanwalking explained this very well in another thread, you still need to roll the same numbers on the d20, just the numbers are smaller; it's not the size of the number that matters, it's how you use it.

That's of course assuming you are always up against the same level and there never are any fixed DCs. I still say your game is not Pathfinder second edition, and its playtesting results are worthless for this playtest. Especially if you don't even plan to run the module specifically created for this playtest.


Zaister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Zaister wrote:
It was actually aimed directly at you, because *you* said 'I want to playtest a different game instead of the one Paizo wants playtested,
It's the same game, Deadmanwalking explained this very well in another thread, you still need to roll the same numbers on the d20, just the numbers are smaller; it's not the size of the number that matters, it's how you use it.
That's of course assuming you are always up against the same level and there never are any fixed DCs.

Crikey, it's like that conversation between Nigel Tufnell/Christopher Guest and Rob Reiner "...but, but this goes to eleven..."

It's simply removing a treadmill, people do the same thing with 4th Ed, just omit +1/2 level. So, let's say for PF2, instead of rolling d20+33 vs. DC 40, you roll d20+13 vs. DC 20; I will take the latter every time, I got bored with number porn in 3rd Ed. This does not effect the critical success/failure system, in fact, for me it makes it aesthetically more robust.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.

None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, that's specifically in regard to making it so some things add more of level than others. Changing the game so nothing adds level makes the math work fine.

It screws up challenges involving large numbers of weaker foes vs. one much stronger one and necessitates reworking static DCs...but it works fine by the math.


Subtracting the party’s level from every DC is equivalent to adding character level to every check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Professor Quolorum wrote:
Subtracting the party’s level from every DC is equivalent to adding character level to every check.

Honestly, if you do that you're just playing the exact same game, you just want to pretend it's different. At that point, you're basically just going "I don't want to see big numbers", but sure.

Granted, you also have to subtract the party's level (and not the enemy's level) from all enemies' rolls, AC, etc, or you're turning it into a very different game that's not at all relevant to the playtest.


Cyouni wrote:
Professor Quolorum wrote:
Subtracting the party’s level from every DC is equivalent to adding character level to every check.

Honestly, if you do that you're just playing the exact same game, you just want to pretend it's different. At that point, you're basically just going "I don't want to see big numbers", but sure.

Granted, you also have to subtract the party's level (and not the enemy's level) from all enemies' rolls, AC, etc, or you're turning it into a very different game that's not at all relevant to the playtest.

It would mean a bit more prep work but I can see how people who liked bounded accuracy would make it work. You still get all the other benefits of PF2 like the new action economy, multiple degrees of success and the character customisation (compared to 5E at least), you could still run APs with a little bit of math done in prep or on the fly.

I wouldn’t do it for my game but it would be a pretty easy houserule for 2nd edition.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.
None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Oh dear, it would seem you're dragging yourself into something you do not understand; how terribly embarrassing. I am not dragging Deadmanwalking into anything or putting words anywhere, I was merely highlighting his knowledge of the game maths, and his previous expert advice on this very matter (which again, unfortunately, it would seem you do not understand, and as we have seen, this can lead to a sort of threatened and defensive lashing out).

Check out the post below yours', if you do not believe me about Deadmanwalking (thanks again, homes, I find some of your posts more helpful and insightful into PF2 than the devs, ha!).

1) The math will not be fine.

2) Crit success and crit failures won't happen as expected,

Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...

1) The maths are fine, that's the point.

2) They will happen just as expected.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.
None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Oh dear, it would seem you're dragging yourself into something you do not understand; how terribly embarrassing. I am not dragging Deadmanwalking into anything or putting words anywhere, I was merely highlighting his knowledge of the game maths, and his previous expert advice on this very matter (which again, unfortunately, it would seem you do not understand, and as we have seen, this can lead to a sort of threatened and defensive lashing out).

Check out the post below yours', if you do not believe me about Deadmanwalking (thanks again, homes, I find some of your posts more helpful and insightful into PF2 than the devs, ha!).

1) The math will not be fine.

2) Crit success and crit failures won't happen as expected,

Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...

1) The maths are fine, that's the point.

2) They will happen just as expected.

No they wont, because if you are for example 3 levels above your enemy you are15% more likely to crit and the other way around. This might be okay for your game but it still changes the game drastically


Seisho wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.
None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Oh dear, it would seem you're dragging yourself into something you do not understand; how terribly embarrassing. I am not dragging Deadmanwalking into anything or putting words anywhere, I was merely highlighting his knowledge of the game maths, and his previous expert advice on this very matter (which again, unfortunately, it would seem you do not understand, and as we have seen, this can lead to a sort of threatened and defensive lashing out).

Check out the post below yours', if you do not believe me about Deadmanwalking (thanks again, homes, I find some of your posts more helpful and insightful into PF2 than the devs, ha!).

1) The math will not be fine.

2) Crit success and crit failures won't happen as expected,

Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...

1) The maths are fine, that's the point.

2) They will happen just as expected.

No they wont, because if you are for example 3 levels above your enemy you are15% more likely to crit and the other way around. This might be okay for your game but it still changes the game...

That's not the way it works, you will still need the same number on that d20, hence the same chance for critical success/failure; this has been gone over quite a while ago, Deadmanwalking and Malk Content laid it all out (not that there needs much explanation, we're taking the most basic of maths, here).

I guess smaller numbers anger some people, and they do want others to approach the game with a smaller numbers aesthetic, the only difference in my game is adding a smaller number to a d20 roll to achieve the same result, why that should bother some, I do not have a current explanation, but one is starting to coalesce...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:

If you're going to do your own thing, by all means, have fun. But please don't drag your fellow posters into the fight and put words into their mouths.

Because this is what Deadmanwalking had to say in the Running the Game thread.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'll repeat what I've said in other threads: Changing things so the bonuses vary like that is gonna completely wreck the game's math and violate several core system goals. I strongly advise against it.
None of us will stop you from doing whatever makes you happy in Pathfinder. Most of us won't even care, except the devs who have to chuck out your playtest feedback if you submit it after they politely asked us not to submit data for altered games.

Oh dear, it would seem you're dragging yourself into something you do not understand; how terribly embarrassing. I am not dragging Deadmanwalking into anything or putting words anywhere, I was merely highlighting his knowledge of the game maths, and his previous expert advice on this very matter (which again, unfortunately, it would seem you do not understand, and as we have seen, this can lead to a sort of threatened and defensive lashing out).

Check out the post below yours', if you do not believe me about Deadmanwalking (thanks again, homes, I find some of your posts more helpful and insightful into PF2 than the devs, ha!).

1) The math will not be fine.

2) Crit success and crit failures won't happen as expected,

Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...

1) The maths are fine, that's the point.

2) They will happen just as expected.

No they wont, because if you are for example 3 levels above your enemy you are15% more likely to crit and the other way around. This might be okay for your game but it still changes the game...

That is the intended result, that creatures a few levels above and below you stay relevant for a lot longer. Yes it would upset the balance of a pre-written encounter (a group of lower level foes becomes more deadly, a single higher level enemy becomes weaker) so a pre-written adventure would need a lot of work but for someone making their own adventure this would work really well if they wanted a more grounded world.

I would warn people doing this now instead of when 2E launches is that you are launching a home brew using unfinished rules and you may be having fun in the new system but you aren’t helping much with the playtest since you can’t contribute to the surveys. This single change you make may be very important to you but the other 90% of the game is probably just as important and by homebrewing during the playtest maybe they miss out on the data for your favourite class that could have been used to make that class cooler. Test by the rules, submit your surveys, then start playing around with the rules while wait for 2nd edition to come out.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:


Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...
2) They will happen just as expected.

No, they won't happen as expected, because eliminating relative level from DCs and attack rolls makes the math work differently. Because there are so few bonuses to hit and saves, every one of them counts even in the +level system. By making every creature essentially the same level, you won't have the necessary boost to cause your enemies to crit fail, and your enemies won't have the leverage on you to make any tactics that rely on crit failures reliable. Every time you do crit, it'll be the luck of the dice instead of a combination of luck and relative level.

This will cause abilities that make failures into crit failures and successes into crit successes more valuable, and abilities that make failures into successes almost required. since you'll so rarely crit fail basically every roll will be a success. On the flip side, abilities that activate on enemy crit failure and successes will be less valuable, since they'll come up less often.

Now, with skills outside of combat, there I'll admit it shouldn't make a huge difference. I'd have to have the full rules to be sure, but it sounds like static DCs and relative levels aren't as much of a thing, so the adjustments you're already planing on making should keep the math the same. Maybe you won't be able to use diplomacy to smooth talk a barmaid as consistantly, or sneak past a low level guard as easily, but that can be fixed.

Also, you appear to be misinterpreting why I'm bringing this up. As I said, by all mean, enjoy this variant at your table. In fact, I hope you'll write up your experiences using it, where it worked and where it needed more work, and post it, because it will be something many are interested in. I bring this up because you seem to think it's a relatively minor change, and it really isn't.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...
2) They will happen just as expected.
No, they won't happen as expected, because eliminating relative level from DCs and attack rolls makes the math work differently.

Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.

Sovereign Court

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


Oh, the humanity, wow, this is something else, can't even see the horse...
2) They will happen just as expected.
No, they won't happen as expected, because eliminating relative level from DCs and attack rolls makes the math work differently.
Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.

You are conflating two proposals.

1. Subtract party level from everything. This works out to exactly the same numbers.

2. Remove level from everything. Lower level foes subtract less than higher level foes. This changes the power levels to be more flat. Higher level foes aren’t as much a challenge as they should be in the play test adventure.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

14 people marked this as a favorite.

As others have noted, you're doing significantly more than removing a treadmill if you remove +level from the scaling, and you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.

For example, an encounter against four CR 3 ogres; an adventure might assume that this should be a relatively easy encounter for e.g. a group of 6th level characters, because it assumes that the party is going to have at least a 15% higher chance of triggering critical success/failure effects. Removing +level means that those critical effects don't trigger as often as expected, which means those ogres are a more difficult challenge than expected due to lasting longer and hitting the party more frequently. So if, for example, an encounter in Doomsday Dawn were designed to see how players performed against a large number of lower CR opponents, any playtest data for the encounter that removed the +level scaling would be largely useless since it changed basic math assumptions about the encounter, such as how often the enemies crit or were critted.

+level scaling does more than just create a treadmill, it establishes fundamentals about the world. A 10th level fighter in 5E, which uses bounded accuracy, will still get stomped by 20 level 1 bandits who ambush him in the woods. A 10th level fighter in PF2 will dart through the bandits arrows, taking little more than a single minor arrow wound, and then thrash the bandits soundly. The +level math is a significant part of what establishes that difference. If you remove the plus level math, those bandits are suddenly much more likely to wound or kill the PF2 fighter, and the PF2 fighter's damage against the bandits drops precipitously since he's lost an entire factor of crit scaling. That +10 the fighter is no longer getting from level scaling is literally the exact difference between a success and a crit success or a critical failure and a failure, so every attack the fighter lands would have been a critical hit if the math hadn't been changed, every save he failed he would have succeeded on, and every crit failure (or at least most, there's some potential for variance on this side) would have been a failure. That means you've potentially halved the amount of damage the fighter dealt while more than doubling the amount of damage he took, which means the playtest data from such an encounter is basically worthless when determining how the system the designers wrote actually functions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.

Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it true.

Besides, if your version of the game wouldn't change anything about the math at all, then there really is no point in doing it, is there?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would assume the correct way or at least the helpful way is to;

1) Run the game as is. Gives them the data they want even if the variables change a bit(I highly doubt every GM will move monster X in the same way, class comp will be different along with builds, and players coming up with different ideas, like talking past a hard fight the devs expect everyone to run).

2) Afterward, run it again with hopefully the same characters or close to it and change/homebrew the numbers/mechanics that caused issues or slowed people down. Hopefully nothing extreme though.

This way Paizo gets what they want and hopefully will look at the "So we changed it this way and it seemed to do better" section.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
That +10 the fighter is no longer getting from level scaling is literally the exact difference between a success and a crit success or a critical failure and a failure, so every attack the fighter lands would have been a critical hit if the math hadn't been changed, every save he failed he would have succeeded on, and every crit failure (or at least most, there's some potential for variance on this side) would have been a failure. That means you've potentially halved the amount of damage the fighter dealt while more than doubling the amount of damage he took, which means the playtest data from such an encounter is basically worthless when determining how the system the designers wrote actually functions.

Thank you.


Michael Sayre wrote:

As others have noted, you're doing significantly more than removing a treadmill if you remove +level from the scaling, and you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.

For example, an encounter against four CR 3 ogres; an adventure might assume that this should be a relatively easy encounter for e.g. a group of 6th level characters, because it assumes that the party is going to have at least a 15% higher chance of triggering critical success/failure effects. Removing +level means that those critical effects don't trigger as often as expected, which means those ogres are a more difficult challenge than expected due to lasting longer and hitting the party more frequently. So if, for example, an encounter in Doomsday Dawn were designed to see how players performed against a large number of lower CR opponents, any playtest data for the encounter that removed the +level scaling would be largely useless since it changed basic math assumptions about the encounter, such as how often the enemies crit or were critted.

+level scaling does more than just create a treadmill, it establishes fundamentals about the world. A 10th level fighter in 5E, which uses bounded accuracy, will still get stomped by 20 level 1 bandits who ambush him in the woods. A 10th level fighter in PF2 will dart through the bandits arrows, taking little more than a single minor arrow wound, and then thrash the bandits soundly. The +level math is a significant part of what establishes that difference. If you remove the plus level math, those bandits are suddenly much more likely to wound or kill the PF2 fighter, and the PF2 fighter's damage against the bandits drops precipitously since he's lost an entire factor of crit scaling. That +10 the fighter is no longer getting from level scaling is literally the exact difference between a success and a crit success or a critical failure and a failure, so every attack the fighter lands would have been a critical hit if...

This is a good and insightful post, but the example from 5e is not true. I don't mean to be pedantic or derail, but I do want to bring it up because I see keep seeing the effects of 5e's bounded accuracy exaggerated.

Bandits only have a +3 to hit and hit for 5 with their light crossbows. A level 10 fighter may well have an AC of 21, or may have an AC of 18 but be able to cast shield as a reaction, boosting their AC up to 23 for several rounds. Their HP is in the neighborhood of 80. Also, the bandits probably should have trouble getting line of sight to fire all 20 crossbows every single round.

There are too many unknowns here to work out conclusively, such as positioning, the fighter's build and whether or not the fighter has access to area of effect magic items. The bandits will be able to take down certain lv10 fighter builds and not others, but it shouldn't be a stomp even when the bandits do win.

Back on topic though, PF2 without +level scaling is a mystery right now and may turn out to be more bounded than 5e.


Zaister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.

Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it true.

Besides, if your version of the game wouldn't change anything about the math at all, then there really is no point in doing it, is there?

Eh, if you have a universal party level and subtract that from all rolls and numbers, it's the exact same game but with a very different number style. In the example with the level 1 bandits, a solid portion of their attacks will result in negative numbers as a result, but since both the roll and the AC decreased by the same amount, it doesn't affect the game's math.

I think the primary result is a game that literally revolves around the players - their numbers don't move as much, but the world's adjust to fit them. It's not my style, but I could see why someone would want that.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
IconicCatparent wrote:
Bandits only have a +3 to hit and hit for 5 with their light crossbows. A level 10 fighter may well have an AC of 21, or may have an AC of 18 but be able to cast shield as a reaction, boosting their AC up to 23 for several rounds. Their HP is in the neighborhood of 80. Also, the bandits probably should have trouble getting line of sight to fire all 20 crossbows every single round.

But it's an ambush, so the bandits are likely to have advantage, and will have had lead time to establish line of sight to the ambush location. If the GM is treating the 20 bandits as a mob, then the fighter will just take 4-8 attacks worth of damage right out of the gate and some number of guaranteed hits each round until he's trimmed the enemy numbers sufficiently (which he may not live long enough to do).

It's possible to go back and forth on the various rules permutations all day, but the point remains the same: systems that do or don't apply a universal scaling bonus to characters are also making statements about the game world and establishing fundamental ideas. In 5E, it's assumed that something like a giant mob of orcs and bandits will always pose some level of threat, while in Pathfinder (both editions) heroes are expected to "level out" of certain things being capable of posing a threat. There's a hard cutoff where baseline enemies just aren't a danger to the PCs anymore (though they may still pose a different kind of threat by threatening more civilians or locations than the PCs are capable of responding to). In PF2 that progression has further mathematical impacts due to the +/-10 critical rules, where a high enough level character is going to see their spells and attacks basically dealing double damage to a widening percentage of opponents based on CR while the enemy's attacks taper in effectiveness at a corresponding rate. So while the 5E fighter is seeing some basic increases in AC, accuracy, and damage from gear and ability improvements, the PF2 Fighter is seeing those same basic improvements but adding the additional factors of level bonuses and critical scaling, which means the PF fighter is increasing his abilities along a larger number of relevant vectors. That doesn't mean one system is strictly "better" than the other or that there isn't flex in the results based on build choices and situational factors, just that at a fundamental level bounded accuracy and +level scaling are each aiming towards different effects and saying different things about the game world.

(We could also talk about the differences between PF1's unbounded system-mastery-based scaling and how that's different from both +level scaling and bounded accuracy, but that's probably better in another thread.)


Zaister wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.

Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it true.

Besides, if your version of the game wouldn't change anything about the math at all, then there really is no point in doing it, is there?

Of course not, it simply is fact.

Smaller numbers is all, and monsters being a threat over a wider range of levels (which is a good thing, IME), which again, has been discussed at length.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course not, it simply is fact.

Smaller numbers is all, and monsters being a threat over a wider range of levels (which is a good thing, IME), which again, has been discussed at length.

Did you even bother to read what staff wrote about your idea?

Michael Sayre wrote:

That +10 the fighter is no longer getting from level scaling is literally the exact difference between a success and a crit success or a critical failure and a failure, so every attack the fighter lands would have been a critical hit if the math hadn't been changed, every save he failed he would have succeeded on, and every crit failure (or at least most, there's some potential for variance on this side) would have been a failure. That means you've potentially halved the amount of damage the fighter dealt while more than doubling the amount of damage he took, which means the playtest data from such an encounter is basically worthless when determining how the system the designers wrote actually functions.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course not, it simply is fact.

Smaller numbers is all, and monsters being a threat over a wider range of levels (which is a good thing, IME), which again, has been discussed at length.

Did you even bother to read what staff wrote about your idea?

Yes, this was all explained by Deadmanwalking weeks ago, of course it changes monster CR, but the math does work out right.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
but the math does work out right.

According to the Paizo developers, it doesn't work out right at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Now you're just being obtuse.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Of course not, it simply is fact.

Smaller numbers is all, and monsters being a threat over a wider range of levels (which is a good thing, IME), which again, has been discussed at length.

Did you even bother to read what staff wrote about your idea?
Yes, this was all explained by Deadmanwalking weeks ago, of course it changes monster CR, but the math does work out right.

You have an actual Paizo dev in this very thread saying that it will change the math to the point where your feedback will not be representative of the system.

Here, I'll even pick out the exact part for your convenience:

Michael Sayre wrote:
you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:


Here, I'll even pick out the exact part for your convenience:
Michael Sayre wrote:
you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.

That's not the point, yes, we know due to flattering, that changes monster CR/encounter challenge, no longer need a natural 20 to hit 20th level monsters, but that does not change the inherent maths of the game, just removing a treadmill, like you can with +1/2 level in 4th Ed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
but that does not change the inherent maths of the game

The people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It feels like were talking to a flat earther.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A flat leveler, maybe.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:


Here, I'll even pick out the exact part for your convenience:
Michael Sayre wrote:
you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.
That's not the point, yes, we know due to flattering, that changes monster CR/encounter challenge, no longer need a natural 20 to hit 20th level monsters, but that does not change the inherent maths of the game, just removing a treadmill, like you can with +1/2 level in 4th Ed.

Actually, instead of removing a treadmill, it will add one. Your characters will move through levels, but for all the experience they gain they won't get much better or worse relative to the world around them. Which is, as has been said, contrary to the way the game and the math behind it is supposed to work.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
but that does not change the inherent maths of the game
The people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.

They said it would invalidate the encounters and the playtest data. But what Vic is saying is that it doesn’t break the rest of the system. But this is only useful if you are more interested in playing then playtesting which is not something the devs (or I) would encourage.

Does the change in maths invalidate any and all playtest feedback? Yes
Does it break the math of the game where it no longer works as a game? No, the equations are balanced on each end so that as long as the GM is determining their own CR combats then the rest of the game will run very similar.

51 to 100 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Homebrewing, Houseruling, and Playtest Feedback. All Messageboards