Adventure Marches On

The number you need to level up being fixed and the number you receive from defeating enemies being variable isn't exactly an uncommon system. It's a little simpler from the GM's perspective and way simpler from the player's perspective (it's a lot easier to memorize that you always level up at 1k than it is to reference the chart every time).

I would imagine the purpose is that you no longer need an XP chart to see when you level up. It makes the game slightly simpler, with one less chart to refer to.

I think that's all it is- the fewer charts you need to refer to regularly the better. Plus with a "you level up at 1000" it's extremely easy to see how close you are to a level at any time.

If XP only ever counts up (nothing changes the value save for gaining XP and leveling) then it just makes sense to track the most relevant number.

I mean, a really good reason to not do "you can spend XP on a variety of things" is that no matter how simple XP is, some groups are going to prefer doing milestone advancement.

Joana's post pretty clearly indicates what they were going for, the same language was used in the playtest as was used in the post and the chart. Having participated in the playtest I (and a few others, I imagine) can confirm that there were no other expenditures of XP apart from using it to level up. I don't recall any survey questions about alternate uses of XP, and for the design team to go out of their way to change that with no support from surveys or other input from the playerbase would be a little odd, to say the least.

I look forward to the party that has all fighters.standing in a circle around eninies and Brutishly shoving enemies to each other to move the enemy in range of the other characters lol

I look forward to the party that has all fighters.standing in a circle around eninies and Brutishly shoving enemies to each other to move the enemy in range of the other characters lol

Need to have a Bard performing nearby so it can be a proper mosh pit.

I look forward to the party that has all fighters.standing in a circle around eninies and Brutishly shoving enemies to each other to move the enemy in range of the other characters lol

Awwwww yissss

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

@Voss - Where are you getting that it’s a ‘currency’ from?

Because you spend 1000 to go up a level.

It just strikes me as a meaningless change if it doesn't have other uses. You could just as easily go from 0 to 20,000 XP as you level to 20.
---

@GG yes, it is a problematic concept (karma in early shadowrun comes to mind, saving it for rerolls rather than advancement was great for a short campaign but terrible for a long one). That's why I am asking.

But it's not out of nowhere- its a deliberate change to how XP functions, and if it was done without purpose, its just baffling.

I can imagine that the design process maybe went something like this.

"We'll change it to 1,000xp per level. This makes it easier to track progress and hand out appropriate ad-hoc rewards."

"That sounds good."

"Quick maths someone, what level am I at 13,700xp?"

"Level 13?"

"Wrong! I start at level 1 with 0xp. At 1,000xp I've just hit level 2, so at 13,700xp I'm level 14, and closing on level 15."

"Ooh yeah. That means you typically cap out level 20 at 19,000xp too."

"That is sort of awkward, the numbers don't map intuitively."

"What about starting with 1,000xp? That can represent your Background since we added that as a formal mechanic."

"There is merit to that, but we're also pretty cost-benefit mindful of changing long-standing norms and giving some people cold feet. Starting level 1 with 0xp has lasted since the very beginning. Any alternatives?"

"What if we don't track career xp, and just track xp to next level? We already reduced the huge numbers wow-factor of handing out piles of xp for high-level encounters. People also normally refer to a character's progress by their level, not their xp total. The latter's become a bit redundant, and isn't as strongly-ingrained as ability scores vs. mods."

"So it's not 'total xp' so much as 'xp toward next level'? That might work, get something mocked up for next meeting."

Wow, Artificial 20, you just completely sold me on the concept compared to the alternatives. Well put.

I'd rather not move it to another thread. I'd rather get clarification on the blog in the blog thread.

IIRC, there was a blog post either at the time of the playtest or the preview blogs that led to the playtest where one of the devs (Mark Seifter I believe) explained the reasons behind this change.

I think one of the big advantages mentioned was not having to explain why going up a level needed ever greater amounts of XP. The thing about easily adjusting the tracks' speed was also a valued benefit.

I think it was this blog post :

https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lklr?Leveling-Up#1

Cashing in XP to Level Up.

In addition to Artificial 20's idea above, the concept of "cashing in" could put another tool into the DM's hand as regards gaining levels.

Something like "Once you have accumulated 1000 xp, you may spend x days of downtime to level up according to these prescriptions...(gameworld stuff)...to emerge as a higher level character."

For DMs who want either more "realism" or "immersion" or "control" or whatnot.

I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

Asgetrion wrote:

I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

Rolling stats is still an option just not the baseline method for generating stats.

Asgetrion wrote:

I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.

Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.

No need. Alternative rules for rolling are in the CRB, just like in the playtest.

rainzax wrote:

Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.

No need. Alternative rules for rolling are in the CRB, just like in the playtest.

Sure.

But I'm positive that "3d6 down" will have special appeal to fans of earliest editions, and is incredibly compatible with the ABC character creation algorithm.

We just need to have a good chance of your new character dying during the creation process to appease the true grognards.

SM

I can proudly say I once died during character creation. :D

...Although it was in Paranoia, where such an event is even less unexpected. :P

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Asgetrion wrote:

I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

Your players are in luck.

Have them roll 3d6 down the line. This averages to 10.5 for each ability score.

Then apply your ABCs. Cap starting stats at 18. Maybe decide upon a minimum value too.

Voila.

I am very tempted to try this with my group. I’d devised a way of randomizing boosts that gives results pretty similar to doing your ABCs manually, but this has a nice, old-school feel to it.

I can proudly say I once died during character creation. :D

...Although it was in Paranoia, where such an event is even less unexpected. :P

Traveller got me so many times I just gave them placeholder names until they actually made it through the system.

SM

So if I grok the meaning of power attack, since it is two attacks, if it's your first attack it's most likely at -5 to hit in exchange for an extra die? Extra die is good but in a system where -5 real drops your crit burst damage not sure it is a fair trade off

no it counts as two for the penalty so if it's your first attack it'd be at no penalty but your next attack would be at -10

Warning! random thoughts ahead:

Hmm I'm not sure about power attack. So if your weapon does a d12 it will add a d12 but a second attack would add a d12 +str and other bonuses but be at -5. If I'm not mistaken a d12 is as big as it gets to right? nothing like enlarge or monkey grip or anything like that would ever increase the die size it would most likely just give you a flat damage bonus. However I guess it does count as one action instead of 2 so maybe if you are doing other things then attacking and making just one attack its gonna be a solid option. Would have to go over the math that we don't have yet to really figure it out also maybe their are more feats to improve it?

I think the thing about power attack is that you're much more likely to crit with a 0 MAP than a -5, or a -5 than a -10, in which case you're rolling 4d12+2xStr.

Its a good point. I'm no good at doing the DPR additions I've seen others do that factor in attacks hit chances etc. It could be awesome I imagine they did the math so I will trust!

Don't forget that there are ways to get benefits on a particular (or on your next) attack. Our multiclass buddy might take Enspell Weapon and true strike for a really vicious single attack that rolls twice for an extremely high hit chance and solid crit chance, plus damage!

I’m glad True Strike is going to be useful in this edition. I'm so use it being a trap option in 5e. It’s funny that it effectively does the same thing in both editions but the fact it takes your entire action in 5e makes it a waste of a turn while PF2e it only using one of your 3 actions means you can line it up with Enspell Weapon or Power Attack for a big hit. In 5e it’s actually a cantrip but never worth casting unless planning an ambush.

Power Attack is also a good feat when used with backup weapons. If you for some reason need to use a weapon that has a lower potency than level appropriate (say the backup adamtium axe for that golem), power attack can add up the same number of weapon dice as attacking twice.
Extreme example: a 18th level fighter attacking twice with a nonmagical greatsword does 2x 1d12+static bonus, with power attack 4d12+static bonus.

You need to accumulate 1000 xp, every level, every time. I’m not even able to understand how that could be complicated, and I’m the obtuse one.

I’m even grokking Power Attack, though the nuances of why and when you might choose to use it on your first or second strike have not cascaded about me with radiant elucidation just yet....

Plain dice-max HP, plus Con, every level? Yes please. Been playing since ADnD 1e. Rolling for hit points is a randomness I could do without. There are enough ways for the DM to kill y....um...the game to be difficult, challenges increased, rolls to go badly etc each and every time you roll them - no sense on being crippled by low HP right off the bat...

Hmm, abilities that allow for teamwork with other party members are nice to be honest.

Like I think people often focus on "one vs one" scenarios, but it does kinda suck when character's only good utility is dealing as much damage as possible.

I mean, death is the best CC after all.

Only once dead. We all know that full or 1hp is functionally the same. Something on par with you is not likely to be one shot in this system.

Removed a few posts. Personal attacks are not conducive to a healthy discussion, and they aren't welcome here. Find a way to disagree in a civil manner, and don't take shots at other users who may have frustrated you.

Asgetrion wrote:

I definitely do not want to return to days of rolling ability scores, that often resulted in bitterness when one of the guys rolled up an "elven hero" and the rest were playing farmboys with pitchforks.

My players would likely rise in revolt if there is not an option for getting exactly that result, because making characters of that sort of different level of capacity work well together is a large part of the fun for us.

I guess it's different strokes for different people, and that's just fine. :)

I generally don't like playing "sidekicks" to heroes anymore, and I think it's also harder for the GM to design encounters that challenge everyone but don't end up killing the "less capable" PCs. Naturally you want and need your PCs to cooperate in most campaigns, but it's tough when there is disparity in their abilities. For example, in that Undermountain campaign I mentioned before my elven magic-user/thief had AC 5 and the "elven hero" fighter had AC -4. That campaign ended when my PC and another roguish elf died in combat, but the "hero" survived, I think? And my first new 3.0 PC was an elf ranger with Str 12, Dex 15 and Con 13... and the "alpha" PC in our group had 14 in his *lowest* stat. That campaign wasn't really fun either, and I think it ended at level 3 or something?

CorvusMask wrote:

Hmm, abilities that allow for teamwork with other party members are nice to be honest.

Like I think people often focus on "one vs one" scenarios, but it does kinda suck when character's only good utility is dealing as much damage as possible.

I mean, death is the best CC after all.

I think a Lich would be willing to debate that point.

rainzax wrote:

Vlorax wrote:

Reckless wrote:

lordredraven wrote:

So if I grok the meaning of power attack, since it is two attacks, if it's your first attack it's most likely at -5 to hit in exchange for an extra die? Extra die is good but in a system where -5 real drops your crit burst damage not sure it is a fair trade off

I'm pretty sure it's only 1 strike, which is 2 actions and counts as 2 attacks for your multiattack penalty. Meaning that if it's your first attack, it's at full value, but your next one is at -10. If it's your second strike, it would be at -5.

this is also how I understood it to be.

I see. Kind of like 1E the Vital Strike feat.

Very much, yes. That has been a vocal complaint about the naming of the feat as well; but it works virtually like an evolving Vital Strike.

People say it should be called Vital Strike because that's how it worked in PF1, but Vital Strike never really made much sense as a name. It isn't like your targeting the creature's vitals with extra precision damage. You were just making one big powerful swing. A powerful attack, if you will.

...Wait, isn't the damage added by Vital Strike precision damage? I thought it was.

...Wait, isn't the damage added by Vital Strike precision damage? I thought it was.

It is not. The name's just a bit odd.

I’m glad True Strike is going to be useful in this edition. I'm so use it being a trap option in 5e. It’s funny that it effectively does the same thing in both editions but the fact it takes your entire action in 5e makes it a waste of a turn while PF2e it only using one of your 3 actions means you can line it up with Enspell Weapon or Power Attack for a big hit. In 5e it’s actually a cantrip but never worth casting unless planning an ambush.

A Wizard/Fighter using True Strike was one of the builds I tinkered with in the playtest before our group fell apart, it was pretty good then and I can see it being even better now.

I’m even grokking Power Attack, though the nuances of why and when you might choose to use it on your first or second strike have not cascaded about me with radiant elucidation just yet....

You would generally want to use it as 1st attack, since it would be big damage on high attack bonus. But you might have some other ability that REQUIRES being used first, in which case it isn't your choice, but you still can use Power Attack after the 1st attack. And it's not really that bad as 2nd attack, since it's still big damage at -4/-5 and a 3rd normal attack at -10 would be very unlikely to hit most enemies.

I think the point is that different characters will have different options, so trying to make a 'universal' rule for using Power Attack isn't going to be productive. That it's not always clear cut is actually a feature of system IMHO, in that the game is making sure to keep subtle distinctions relevant. If it wasn't somewhat subtle like that, there wouldn't really be any debate about using it or not, meaning it isn't a real choice.

Subtler distinctions of power also seem to bolster the system to future updates AKA splat, if that wasn't the case then future splat would either tend to break the game OR be much more constrained as to what it can do. Ideally, NOT choosing to learn Power Attack should be reasonably valid build as well, and for some builds whose abilities/actions might not ideally coexist with Power Attack, that might be the norm, which is fine.

I really like the idea of opening with a regular attack or some other strike and then using power attack as a second attack to get almost three attacks worth of damage but only two attacks worth of penalties.

If I had one problem that came to mind, it's more thematic. Since PA gives you two attacks worth of dice but only one attack's worth of Strength, it's going to be better on characters with less Str than on characters with a lot of it. A fighter with a curve blade isn't going to care as much about losing the Str mod to damage that you'd otherwise get from a second attack if their strength is lower to begin with. Even a fighter who uses Str for rolls but has a lower stat for whatever reason might appreciate being able to 'concentrate' two attacks worth of damage when their secondary or tertiary rolls might be really low.

Mechanically that's fine, but thematically having 'Power Attack' be more valuable the weaker you are ones feels a little odd.

I really like the idea of opening with a regular attack or some other strike and then using power attack as a second attack to get almost three attacks worth of damage but only two attacks worth of penalties.

If I had one problem that came to mind, it's more thematic. Since PA gives you two attacks worth of dice but only one attack's worth of Strength, it's going to be better on characters with less Str than on characters with a lot of it. A fighter with a curve blade isn't going to care as much about losing the Str mod to damage that you'd otherwise get from a second attack if their strength is lower to begin with. Even a fighter who uses Str for rolls but has a lower stat for whatever reason might appreciate being able to 'concentrate' two attacks worth of damage when their secondary or tertiary rolls might be really low.

Mechanically that's fine, but thematically having 'Power Attack' be more valuable the weaker you are ones feels a little odd.

It's very die based though. PA is best with a d12 weapon which are all Str based to hit. If you are using a d8 curved blade it is less useful.

Squiggit wrote:

I really like the idea of opening with a regular attack or some other strike and then using power attack as a second attack to get almost three attacks worth of damage but only two attacks worth of penalties.

If I had one problem that came to mind, it's more thematic. Since PA gives you two attacks worth of dice but only one attack's worth of Strength, it's going to be better on characters with less Str than on characters with a lot of it. A fighter with a curve blade isn't going to care as much about losing the Str mod to damage that you'd otherwise get from a second attack if their strength is lower to begin with. Even a fighter who uses Str for rolls but has a lower stat for whatever reason might appreciate being able to 'concentrate' two attacks worth of damage when their secondary or tertiary rolls might be really low.

Mechanically that's fine, but thematically having 'Power Attack' be more valuable the weaker you are ones feels a little odd.

It's very die based though. PA is best with a d12 weapon which are all Str based to hit. If you are using a d8 curved blade it is less useful.

The curved blade has forceful so the there is going to be less of a difference for dice.

It's very die based though. PA is best with a d12 weapon which are all Str based to hit. If you are using a d8 curved blade it is less useful.

To an extent, but even if you are strength based it's going to be more valuable to characters who didn't cap their strength than characters who did.

Like I said, hardly the end of the world, just something that struck me as a little odd in terms of ability flavor.

Forceful makes the curve blade as good as a d10 on secondary strikes. Still not as good as a d12 weapon. It's not bad for a d8 weapon person but it's best for someone using a d12 weapon and that means str based.

@Squiggit that makes sense. The more static bonus damage you have the is less net benefit PA has over two attacks.

Forceful makes the curve blade as good as a d10 on secondary strikes. Still not as good as a d12 weapon. It's not bad for a d8 weapon person but it's best for someone using a d12 weapon and that means str based.

I don't disagree, but for a weapon you can use dex to hit with, that's darn good.

I kind of like how power attack is no longer optimal on literally every weapon. It was always kind of silly when people were using it with whips, and rapiers, and starknives and the like.

You would generally want to use it as 1st attack, since it would be big damage on high attack bonus. But you might have some other ability that REQUIRES being used first, in which case it isn't your choice, but you still can use Power Attack after the 1st attack. And it's not really that bad as 2nd attack, since it's still big damage at -4/-5 and a 3rd normal attack at -10 would be very unlikely to hit most enemies.

Mathematically, if using three actions to attack, you're better off going normal attack then Power Attack than you are going Power Attack then normal attack.

Going +0/-5 is just better than +0/-10, even with the extra damage going on the second rather than the first.

Both are slightly better than just attacking three times (at least at 1st level). Barring buffs specifically to one attack, Power Attack and two normal attacks are actually about equal, DPR-wise, at low levels (assuming you use the third action to move or something). At higher levels, this will become less true, but it's always solid mathematically as your second attack.

All this assumes d12 weapons, of course.

If you're using a 2-handed weapon that isn't a d12, that weapon almost certainly has a property on it that already makes you not want to use Power Attack. A flail user is trying to perform combat maneuvers, for example, and trying to fit in Power Attack will make it complicated to do that.

@Thanks for the notes on Power Attack Quandary. I’m piecing it all together bit by bit, though actual play will help me get used to the options and their relative strengths and weaknesses...

If you're using a 2-handed weapon that isn't a d12, that weapon almost certainly has a property on it that already makes you not want to use Power Attack. A flail user is trying to perform combat maneuvers, for example, and trying to fit in Power Attack will make it complicated to do that.

With MAP confirmed as applying to combat maneuvers which have critical failure conditions? I really wouldn't advise it, unless you have Assurance.

(Guess what one of my first house rules will be.)

I generally don't like playing "sidekicks" to heroes anymore, and I think it's also harder for the GM to design encounters that challenge everyone but don't end up killing the "less capable" PCs. Naturally you want and need your PCs to cooperate in most campaigns, but it's tough when there is disparity in their abilities. For example, in that Undermountain campaign I mentioned before my elven magic-user/thief had AC 5 and the "elven hero" fighter had AC -4. That campaign ended when my PC and another roguish elf died in combat, but the "hero" survived, I think? And my first new 3.0 PC was an elf ranger with Str 12, Dex 15 and Con 13... and the "alpha" PC in our group had 14 in his *lowest* stat. That campaign wasn't really fun either, and I think it ended at level 3 or something?

That sounds a lot more combat-focused than the games I tend to run, which I can quite see making a difference; if your focus is social intrigue, I see no reason for those two characters not to be equally capable. Then again, if a magic-user/thief with AC like that is in frontline combat at all, it would seem to me that something's gone off the rails on a tactical level.

I love playing competent logistical support. One of my life goals is to take a character from 1 to 20 without ever doing a single point of damage directly.

So, multiclassing into a spellcasting class is still a bad thing. Well, there go a lot of play styles. I was hoping the "you get two zero level spells to cast per day and have to burn another feat to get a first level spell" was a bad idea that would get tweaked. If you didn't want people to multiclass, why even give the option?