Archimedes Mavranos's page

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

The underlying problem here is the +1/level bonus to everything.

I don't think it is.

Quote:

This is especially frustrating when adding +1/level has basically no mechanical benefit.

Because of this.

There's really no difference between adding your level to everything vs never adding your level, it's just that the numbers gradually increase in the case of the former.

The way things scale though, with optimizing only giving you a 50-60%, I believe, chance of success is.

Correction: there's no difference when facing level appropriate challenges. Try to stab a a L1 goblin as a L15 fighter and watch the fireworks as you easily nail all 3 of your swings and more or less autocrit the first 2 thanks to the +15 you're rocking by default.

Everyone is right here. The argument is nuanced.

+1/level is a problem, except for level-appropriate challenges. However, the nuamce is that +1/level greatly limits the levels that are considered appropriate. An adventuring party seldom encounters hazards or hostile creatures that are exactly the same level as the party. It is usually one or two levels below or one or two levels above. Encounters would be boring if all that were allowed where one, two, or three creatures of exactly the party's level.

The +1/level exaggerates the difference between levels. A creature two levels above tha party has +2 to saves from level alone. That is in addition to the playtest bestiary giving monsters awesome saves. When combined with the 4-tiers-of-success system where a critical save means no effect, a lot of spells fizzle against those high-level monsters. The blaster wizards and debuff sorcerers shrug their shoulders and say, "It's up to you martials. We are dead weight in this battle."

In another encounter against a mob of creatures two levels below them, the spellcasters discover that their level bonus gives them good AC against the low-level minions. "Hey, this is...

Mathmuse is correct. Sorry, I was tired and didn't list the appropriate qualifications on my comments. +1/level has not benefit against level-appropriate challenges,

The key here, that most people don't understand, is that level-appropriate challenges are the ONLY ones that matter, because that is what the game is designed for. Challenges against trivial or godly monsters are not fun or interesting gameplay. The ONLY important thing is that the system can support challenges that vary from easy to hard, and you can do that without +1/level scaling. This also has the added benefit of increasing the range of monsters you can use in a fight, since the overall scaling is flatter. This helps DM and game developers.

+1/level scaling has may drawbacks.
-It makes your important bonuses from trained/expert/master/legendary feel weak (+20 level +4 legendary doesn't feel very legendary)
-It makes the math quickly hard to understand. The monster has AC 23. Is that good? I don't know, let me see what level it is and do some math. Without the number bloat of +1/level, AC 23 is ALWAYS pretty good and you know just at a glance.
-It means that interesting skill challenges require a table like Table 10-2 that lists easy-ultimate DCs per level. The appropriate challenge scales constantly with level. If you remove the +1/level bonus, your easy-ultimate DCs are basically always (roughly):
easy 8
medium 10
hard 12
extreme 15
ultimate 16
-With some small modifiers from 1-4 to adjust things). You only have 1 set of numbers to remember and you don't need table. You always know in your gut a DC of 12 is kind of hard, etc.

Removing all this extra math will make the game easier for new players, easier for normal players, easier for DMs, and easier for game developers.

There is literally no USEFUL benefit from the +1/level scaling. The only arguments in favor are:
1.) It makes higher level characters more powerful than lower level characters/monsters. This is not useful, however, as I said since imbalanced encounters are not fun, and you can increase players power with level in more interesting ways than +1 and achieve the same results.

2.) Some skill checks should become trivial as you level up.
-There are already rules that cover this (read the skills DC section carefully), you don't need a numeric way to do this. Furthermore, the trained/expert/master/legendary system is a PERFECT way to gate certain tasks and make them trivial. You are expert in Acrobatics? Ok, you auto succeed walking that rope.

The +1/level bonus is better than Pathfinder 1E because it makes everything scale at the same rate, as opposed to 1E/3.5 where everything scaling at different rates (which when you really look at it from a game design perspective is bonkers). It wasn't until I saw the +1/level in Pathfinder 2E that I went through this thought process:
"Oh, look, the scaling is standardized! That's great! Now it makes sense to compare skill checks to saves or attacks or whatever".
then...
"But if I level up and add +1 to all attacks and all monsters that are level appropriate get +1 to AC, then that is a +0 bonus..."
"They should just remove the scaling..."

This is what 5E did and its awesome. The sad part is, Pathfinder has many improvements over 5E (variable levels of proficiency, crit success/failure, skill feats, more customization, 3 actions economy, variable action spells). Unfortunately, Pathfinder is much more complex, which makes it harder on players/DMs/developers. I think Pathfinder could capitalize on most of what makes it unique and still be simplified a bit to make it run smoother. 5E feels elegant and powerful. Pathfinder feels powerful but inelegant.

Something I've started to pick up on on here reading the rules and updates and watching the forums and elsewhere, is the apparent current goal of getting the math "correct", or correct as can be. Unfortunately this also seems to be coming at the expense of the math enabling fun, which is kinda the whole point of it.

A lot of times I see posts that amount to "this isn't good/fun" and other posters and the designers will chime in with "At that level +x bonus works out to xx% which is where it should be", which... actually sidesteps the prompting statement, or at least the priority of it.

Recently Untrained was remixed to give a -4, since a lot of people had the perception (little p) that something being "Untrained" should be a negative rather than so-so, which it previously had the appearance of. But on the other hand even before that, an equal number of people were calling for the higher Proficiency bonuses to be raised, so that you had the appearance of improving as you leveled even if the obstacles' stats increased along with it so they kept in tune, psychological satisfaction basically even if the math worked out the same.

Which is the crux of my concern, it doesn't matter how "correct" or flawless you get the math if it isn't fun. The math is the framework, not the endgame, it enables the game. So, is this more and more "Corrected" math fun to actually use?

What's everyone's feelings on it?

(and yes I know a bunch of monster Skills and Skills DCs are off, that's not what I'm referring to when I say the goal of "Correct" math, I'm talking about the tightening and lowering the floor.)

The underlying problem here is the +1/level bonus to everything. It causes all the numbers to scale huge and makes the math less fun. This is especially frustrating when adding +1/level has basically no mechanical benefit. It is not a source of player power (this is an illusion as whenever you level up, the DCs go up too). The only bonuses that matter are from proficiency and abilities. At level 20, adding +20 to everything drowns out the +1/+2/+3 bonuses that matter.

This is one thing 5E got right. The +1/level bonus is a sacred relic from the past that needs to be sacrificed. The table 10-2 Skills DCs by level and difficulty is helpful, but entirely unnecessary if you remove +1/level. Then your table looks like this:

Easy 8
Medium 13
Hard 15
Incredible 16
Ultimate 18
-Add +4 for group checks where only 1 success is needed.
-Add a modifier from -4 to +4 for situational penalties/bonuses.
-For trivial tasks (possibly tied to your proficiency is trained or expert or higher) you get an auto success.

This is simpler for the DM, simpler for players, faster, and makes your proficiency and ability bonuses actually feel like they matter.

It also makes game balance easier for designers, third party developers, and DMs.

There's been some complaints that caster damage is bad and that Cantrips don't really feel all that impactful, even for a fallback option. Playing a Wizard myself, I tend to agree with this sentiment.

So I thought "It would be nice to have one action attack cantrips". Now I'm not suggesting adding new cantrips to the game, mind you. I could see two methods to do this.

1. The "lazy" way: Just add a feat to the classes that are reliant on Cantrips, i.e. primarily Wizards, Sorcerers, maybe Bards and Druids as well. I feel kinda bad to leave Clerics out, but they have only one attack cantrip if I recall correctly, so it's probably not worth it.

2. The "correct" way: Or at last the way I'd prefer. Make it a heighten ability of the spells. Turn the level 3 or level 5 heighten into "This spell loses its verbal casting action" instead of this level's damage increase. I personally would prefer to see this as the level 3 heighten effect, but that's just me.

Basically, instead of casting one 2d8+x Ray of Frost at level 9, you'd cast two 1d8+x Rays of Frost. More damage potential but you are affected by multi attack penalty. The spell would also cap at 3d8+x when heightened to level 9. I'm way too lazy to do any math but I think this should increase the overall damage of a "cantrip only" round but not by an outrageous amount.

Note that I'm talking exclusively about cantrips that require an attack roll here. This won't work for Electric Arc, obviously.

This has the following effects:
- Casters using cantrips don't roll only one lame attack per round while the martial characters get 3 awesome actions.
- Casters can use an attack cantrip in addition to a regular two-action spell (or cantrip), tweaking their damage upwards ever so slightly.
- It won't break hybrid characters because their weapon will probably still deal more damage even if the cantrip targets TAC.

The only downside I can think of right now would be the ability to hit an enemy with his elemental weakness multiple times. But I don't...

I agree it doesn't feel good as a caster to cast a cantrip with 2 actions. In the Paizo playtest streams, whenever the wizard used his third action to shoot or reload his crossbow, I died a little inside. A magic user should NEVER need to tote around a mundane weapon to fill in attacks on their 3rd action.

Some other options are:

1.) All/most cantrips have variable action uses or metagmagic enhancements that allow you to cast them using 1-3 actions.
2.) Add specific 1 action cantrips (like the awesome Dirge of Doom)

It seems like since the polymorph spells say "your constant abilities of your gear still function" and "these special statistics (AC, attack bonus, damage bonus)" then the damage from the Handwraps should still apply (because they affect the number of damage dice, a constant ability not mentioned in those special statistics).

However, all this feels clunky, and based on our confusion, hard to understand.

It would be cleaner for polymorph spells to read more like this:

...Your gear is absorbed into you; the constant abilities AND YOUR EXTRA DAMAGE DICE from your gear continue to function, but you can't activate it. When you transform you gain the following statistics IF THEY ARE HIGHER THAN YOUR OWN. IF YOUR OWN STATISTICS ARE HIGHER, YOU INSTEAD GAIN A +1 CONDITIONAL BONUS TO THAT STATISTIC):
AC = 10 + level + 7 (max 27)
TAC = 10 + level + 4 (max 24)
One or more unarmed melee attacks, which are the only types of attacks you can use. You're trained with them (UNLESS YOUR PROFICIENCY RANK IS HIGHER).
Attack modifier = level + 5 (max +16)
Damage bonus = 5 (Strength based)
low-light vision
2 temporary Hit Points per level while you have the form (max 20).
Athletics bonus = level + 6

The rest would be the same, but omit any further details on AC, attack bonuses, etc. since the formula above covers scaling. This reduces complexity and hopefully word count.

This also solves the problem where polymorph spells at even character levels make you WEAKER because when you level up, all the enemies levels up too, but your spell is still the previous spell level (for example, a level 6 character still casts these as level 3 spells).

Any chance you guys will do a blog on the +level design to proficiency? I think it is an improvement over Pathfinder 1, but once you start adding level to EVERY roll AND DC, it quickly becomes concerning that it cancels itself out and is really just bloating the numbers, making things harder to understand. Thanks!

I haven't playtested resonance much yet, but I understand the theory from a game-design perspective and like the idea in general. Looking forward to how it evolves. I think part of the community reaction is that it is different and new.

Just like the title says. We've gone through two parts, so I think we have a good handle on at least the low level stuff now. So what three things are you most excited about and what three things do you dread the most? (and maybe some kind soul will then collate all these answers into a list).

Try to keep your answers as concise as possible. I'm trying to see trends in thinking right now, so running through a wall of text isn't going to help get your message across :)

3 Loves:

1. Three action system. Its simple, it works.
2. Cantrips that scale.
3. Crits at +/-10 to hit, rather than just on a 20 or 1.

3 Hates:

1. Extra dice of damage attached to weapons. Move that extra damage to proficiencies.
2. Proficiencies that autoscale. Immersion-breaking in so many ways. Give us more skill points and let US decide.
3. Resonance. It's not getting the job done. Pulls the rug out from under the hero in the height of combat. Plus, resonance doesn't affect mobs. (We're always their first combat of the day!)

3 Loves

3 Could Be Improved
1.) The general weakness of many feats and abilities. I see many of them and I am not excited. Random +1 bonuses don't feel exciting. The wizards spell powers feel very weak, as do many other powers. Ancestry feats are often weak, and we need 3-4 of them at level 1 to make races feel unique. This is all solvable.
2.) 3 attacks per round. I feel like there needs to be other options for every PC and monster. In my playtests, things often devolve into, "I guess I'll swing 3 times" (which is VERY powerful for the monsters that have a high attack).
2b.) Action economy. Many actions (Aid, Disarm, Wizard Powers) don't feel worth their actions, or rather, don't feel worth the opportunity cost of sacrificing an attack to use them. Also, since wizard cantrips are 2 actions, that 3rd action is not always as useful. Casters should NOT need to carry a ranged weapon to fill in extra attacks with that 3rd action. Maybe metamagic will fix this (which would be cool), but as of now it feels off.
3.) The general wordiness of the rules. Pathfinder is already a complicated system. The new consolidation of rules, traits, conditions, etc. is AWESOME, but in even with that the rules feel more wordy. Also traits should be in BOLD.

Overall, there are a LOT of improvements, but it needs a lot of polish. I'm hopeful.

3. Disjunction. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Why would I ever want to use a 9th level spell to take out a single magic item? Just delete this trap option so some poor fool doesn't take it.

4. Miracle, Wish, etc. Probably should specify that they ignore material costs for things like Raise Dead (assuming they do).

5. Let's look at level 1 Wizard school powers. Some should probably be be improved, and Mark shouldn't have claimed that autoheightening on these sorts of things made them a power level in between your best spells and your cantrips. That's not true of any of them even at low levels, and several are worse than a cantrip.

Abjuration (Protective Ward): [C] +1 Armor boost in a 10' radius, requires concentration, no heightening. Compares to shield, which has the same AC, the same action cost, but doesn't cost spell points, doesn't protect allies, and also gives you the shield block reaction.

Conjuration (Augment Summoning): +1 to attack, AC, and saves for a summon as a free action when you summon a creature. A fine fire and forget, but your limitation here is going to be how many Summon Monster spells you actually will prepare and cast in a day. This makes your limited spells better, but doesn't stretch them out. No heightening.

Divination (Diviner's Sight): [A] I actually like this as it gives you some save insurance when it's not your turn, and insurance with a chance of extra jackpot if you're performing an attack roll (double that cantrip damage) or a skill check (get that knowledge roll to work). No heightening.

Enchantment (Charming Words): [F] Two actions to only make a target not attack you for one round, the party is still fair game (stunned on a crit fail, but don't plan for that). Bad action economy, no heightening.

Evocation (Force Bolt): [B] It's force damage, and the low damage at least autoheightens every level. But it's not that much better than a cantrip.

Illusion (Warped Terrain): [B] Creating 4 squares of difficult terrain to slow down approach lanes to[/b][/b]...

Agreed, Wizard school powers are too weak. They need to be STRONGER than a cantrip. For casters, a cantrip (which you can use EVERY TURN) is the baseline ability. If I have a special ability that costs my finite spell points, it needs to be at least as good if not better than a cantrip, otherwise why cast it?

It's important to look at opportunity costs. Since you can always cast a cantrip with 2 actions (mostly), then any ability that uses 2 or more actions and thus prevents you from casting your cantrip or another spell must provide at least as much value as the cantrip. You are sacrificing your cantrip to use that ability. Most of the wizard powers as written aren't worth sacrificing a cantrip for.

I wish the school powers were more like Dirge of Doom (which is a SUPER COOL cantrip) that can be used to combo with other spells.

Cantrips, by the way, are an awesome improvement over PF1.

Everyone seems to have some issue with this area of the game, and I wanted to collect all the ones I've seen and experienced in one post. The problems appear to be:

>Growing into a race is weird roleplay wise. The game assumes I'm an adult adventurer, why am I still developing core racial abilities.
>The races feel really flat and flavorless.
>General Training and Natural Ambition are so far out of the league of everything else it hurts
>Race abilities (for the most part) are situational to the point of being painful
>Low incentive for players to branch out of human

The best example I can give is that an arcane caster elf has no incentive to take two of their strongest abilities - weapon familiarity and otherworldly magic, leaving Ancestral Longevity as the good pick with little growth. The other abilities are situational or not beneficial to a build. While abilities don't all need to line up for a build (I'm personally a big fan of suboptimal play - halfing barbarian and all) it would help if there were some flavor synergy that felt good.

100% agree. Love the concept and the variation in speed and hit points, but the ancestry feats are not powerful or meaningful enough, and we need more of them to make characters unique at first level.

Compare a Pathfinder Elf to a D&D 5E Elf

Pathfinder Elf
Hit points 6
Speed 30
Low-Light Vision
1 Ancestry Feat (Otherworldly Magic grants 1 cantrip)

D&D 5E Elf
Speed 30
Darkvision 60 ft.
Keen Senses (proficiency in Perception)
Fey Ancestry (Advantage versus charm saves, can't be put to sleep)
Trance (sleep less)
Subrace (even more customization, for example, High Elf)
Elf Weapon Training
Cantrip (grants 1 cantrip)
1 Extra Language

Hands down the 5E elf is cooler. The Pathfinder 2E elf is about 5 abilities short. Customizing our elf-iness over 20 levels is a cool optimization over 5E, but more power needs to be front loaded.

If Pathfinder 2E added about 2-3 more ancestry feats at first level and made them more powerful, and let you customize further as you level up, then it would be better than 5E.

It doesn't work for me, and as someone who actually prefers grittier games (which low-level PF1 did well)...

...+level to proficiency is not an illusion...

What makes a game gritty? Dangerous monsters that can kill you in fewer hits? You can have that in a system that adds +1/level or not, the math is exactly the same.

+1/level IS an illusion of power. Think about it from an overall game design stand point. The game is designed so that parties of level X can face challenges of level X +/- Y. We are not designing a system where level 20 characters frequently face level 1 monsters. This is not interesting or good game play. The only thing that matters is facing interesting challenges. What you guys are really saying is, "I want to be able to face a horde of weaker minions" OR "fight tough boss battles". You can do both of those in either system and make the gameplay interesting. Adding +1/level just bloats the math with no real benefit. Every time you level up and get that +1, the monsters you most often face will ALSO get that +1. Which means it is actually a bonus of 0.

What would be more interesting, getting +1/0 bonuses every level, or focusing on AWESOME powerful feats at every level?

But why does increasing HP every level make sense and not AC, or attacking ability, or general ability to solve problems (like skills)? People in real life don't get anything like hit points. They are the ultimate gamist mechanic that people have just gotten comfortable with, but why is balancing the idea of character advancement around something as boring and confusingly abstract as hit points "feel" ok, but balancing other aspects of character advancement around the idea that gaining a level means your character has improved in every significant thing they do "feel" wrong?

There are a lot of moving pieces with PF2. I am glad that so many people seem confident in their ability to house rule the feel of the game to their play group and play style. But for me, if James Jacobs, and the rest of the adventure path writers are excited about writing adventures that progress at a rate where the players grow by +1 across the board when they level up, then I want the core game system to be built to support that play style.

That's a good point, actually. HP does not technically need to scale either, since in the current system, HP and damage per round both scale up (otherwise combat would take forever).

If you ignore the math for a moment, you will find the ONLY important numbers are what is my % chance to succeed at an attack or spell, and how many hits does it take to kill something? You can write a variety of systems where the answer to these questions is the same, but the actual numbers or systems are different.

You could write a system where do you do NOT add +1/level to everything and you have only a static 100 HP, and damage for a given weapon or spell is relatively static and does not scale much, and you could get the same %chance to succeed and number of hits per kill as Pathfinder 1/2 or 5E. This would actually be better in many ways. Since most of the numbers are static, EVERY bonus you get to attack or damage feels meaningful. Power progression could come from new or advanced abilities and not simple +1 (which are actually +0 bonuses most of the time) bonuses.

I see post after post asking to get rid of adding level to proficiency, or trying to stretch proficiency numerically, so that characters with higher proficiencies can feel different from each other, and for a while I shared many of those concerns at first, because power gaming has never been my RPG ideal, I have read enough of the play test book to realize that it doesn't matter if I think it is generally not a good system idea, it is the best system idea for the rest of this game design.

Removing the level bonus to proficiency would pretty much tank the entire leveling up engine.

So many people were concerned about this leading to a treadmill, but miraculously, the developers have designed this system carefully enough that it is only the other PCs that are going to be on the same treadmill as you in actual play. This makes theory crafting around it an exercise in fear mongering futility, because theory builds are usually facing off against theory constructs which have been artificially placed on the treadmill with you.

In play, it looks like equal level monsters are actually going to be better than your PCs at everything that your PCs are not absolutely maxing out. Equal level fights are going to be brutally difficult and you will remember beating those monsters. But then your characters are going to level up, and then level up again and again, and then you are going to face those same monsters and they are not going to be so tough, but that new monster that was controlling them all along is going to be the next heavy challenger.

If your characters didn't get a +1 to every skill, attack and save in this new system when you leveled up, they would not be able to keep up with the threats of their enemies. The threats posed by these monsters would grow at an exponential level, because unlike your player character, most monsters are only going to be focusing on making themselves better at killing and fighting in their one specific area of specialization, because that is what they do with most of...

Your assumption that the players need +1/level to compete with monsters is fundamentally flawed. The system is designed as it is so that monsters of level X are a reasonable threat to players of level X given their level, gear, stats, and abilities.

Adding +1/level to attacks and AC means that encounters against monsters of your level are effectively numerically always the same.

The PCs and monsters can be designed such that higher level characters are more powerful than lower level, without adding +1/level to everything.

For example:
A.) A level 2 Wizard is more powerful than a level 1 Wizard because he has +1 attack and +1 save DCs.

versus

B.) A level 2 Wizard is more powerful than a level 1 Wizard because he has a new feat that makes the first spell he casts each turn copy itself and hit another target.

Ignoring the specific balance issues of my example, which system sounds more fun? A system that gives you +1 bonuses to make you more powerful, or a system that gives you cool abilities (like crapping lightning) to make you more powerful?

Pathfinder 2E can remove the +1/level and still make higher level characters more powerful than lower levels, which retaining a feeling of advancement (cool abilities at each level).

+1/level has no game design benefits and simply makes the overall math harder.

And if you want to take on hordes of low level monsters, you still don't need +1/level. A 10th level wizard against hundreds of orcs will just fireball them all to death. There are more ways to be powerful than by adding +1/level.

One of the greatest advances of Pathfinder 2E is that it consolidated a lot of class features into spell point pools so that they have similar mechanics...

...and then Pathfinder 2E immediately ignored that and made a separate wild shape pool that functions differently...

It feels like Pathfinder 2E should stick with its own rules and make wild shape part of the common spell point pool system for consistency.

Or is there a bigger design scheme I just can't see, and the intent is to have a spell point pool and a wild shape pool and these are the 2 mains sources of abilities that all classes will utilize (in which case I might rename the latter polymorph pool or something more generic)?

The only way to craft snares at level 1 seems to be to be human and use your ancestry feat on General Training to take Snare Crafting. It would be awesome if this was more available from level 1, especially for rangers who might want it to be part of their character from the start.

In general, making most player archetypes available and fit their flavor at level 1 would be awesome, so we don't have to wait until level X to really play the character style we want.

According to the rules, it seems like spells that require a saving throw get progressively less effective, capping off at about a -2 (10%) disadvantage versus spells that require an attack. Is this by design?

Both touch and ranged spells get magic items that give an item bonus to their rolls (Spell Duelist's Gloves and Spell Duelist's Wand). This helps them balance out versus armor Potency Runes that provide an item bonus to TAC. Both of these things progress at an equal rate.

But there is no equivalent item (that I have seen) for spells that require a saving throw. Anyone found one? Did I miss it?

This means that while armor ramps up providing an item bonus from 1 to 5 on saving throws, the save DC for spells ramps up from +0 (trained) to +3 (legendary) at 19th level. This means that in the long run, against an opponent with current armor, spells that require a save are at a disadvantage ranging from -2 to -3, all other things (bonus from ability modifiers, opponent trained in saving throws, etc.) being equal.

Does this seem right? That means that being Legendary at spellcasting doesn't really give you a +3 bonus. It just means your spell DCs only get a -2 penalty.

BUT, this assumes that opponents are only trained in saving throws. For an opponent that is expert in a save, saving throw spell DCs would tend to be at a -3 penalty, masters saves -> -4 penalty, legendary saves -> -5 penalty.

It seems like there should be an item that provides casters with an item bonus to their spell DCs.

Here is a table of how spell DCs are at a disadvantage versus trained saving throws, by level (and again, increasing saving throw proficiency makes each penalty increases correspondingly):
Level / Bonuses and net spell DCs
1 net spell DC 0
2 net spell DC 0
3 Armor potency +1 saves, net spell DC -1
4 net spell DC -1
5 net spell DC -1
6 net spell DC -1
7 Armor potency +1 saves, net spell DC -2
8 net spell DC -2
9 net spell DC -2
10 net spell DC -2
11 Armor potency +1 saves, net spell DC -3
12 DC +1 (Expert), net spell DC -2
13 net spell DC -2
14 net spell DC -2
15 Armor potency +1 saves, net spell DC -3
16 DC +2 (Master), net spell DC -2
17 net spell DC -2
18 net spell DC -2
19 DC +3 (Legendary), Armor potency +1 saves, net spell DC -2
20 net spell DC -2

There are several places in the rules (such as Property Runes) where the cost for heavy armor is greater than the cost for light/medium armor.

Pros:
-Adds flavor for heavy armor.
-Slightly justified by heavy armor (at higher levels) providing superior AC (due to proficiency) and fortification.

Cons:
-Adds extra complication to the rules.
-Uses up extra space.
-Medium armor can also be fortified, but doesn't get the extra cost.
-Heavy armor does not feel significantly more powerful than light or medium (and at low level feels worse due to all its penalties).

In my opinion, the game rules would be simpler and shorter by omitting these cost increases for heavy armor.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The speed penalties seem more of an issue to me than ACP. Also I'm thinking that perhaps the math should be changed away from all armors having an AC + Max dex = 7. This really makes it so they heavier armors are only good for people with the dexterity of a stump, or some way of reducing those penalties. Perhaps have a different AC + Max DEX total for each type of armor. Perhaps 6 for light, 7 for medium and 8 for heavy. Or some other combination like 7, 8, 9. That way, heavier armor is actually better, even with dex. Especially the way that most dex focused characters will have an 18 at level one, it's not like getting enough dex up to take advantage of the higher max dex is all that hard.

I think this is a very PF1 way to think about this.

What AC 7 for all armor types accomplishes is this:

1. It makes DEX vs. STR relevant. Having 12 DEX means you have as much AC as having 18 DEX, but having less DEX means you have more STR, which means you can use better weapons. It balances itself.

2. It makes Light/Medium armor users not feel extremely fragile in combat.

3. It makes PROFICIENCY more important than armor type, so a Wizard getting Heavy Armor Proficiency is not a big deal because they don't have access to better proficiencies. However, having proficiency in Heavy Armor is still good for the Wizard, because they get to turn 12 DEX into AC 7, so there's still a benefit for anyone who gets Heavy Armor.

4. As a Monk enthusiast, this one is important for me – AC7 keeps unarmored characters from being too far behind armored characters. If your unarmored character needs to race towards AC9 to stand with the frontliners with only a +4 bonus from stats, it can feel pretty hectic.

Now, what are the issues with AC 7?

1. Early levels, when you have to take large ACP penalties feel pretty crummy.

2. Speed penalties are too big in a game with limited movement and no way to maintain engagement (i.e. not everyone will have access to AoO and Step is...

One of the improvements to PF2E is the traits and critical specializations that make weapons unique.

It would be great to see that applied to armor. Currently armor lacks the same special feeling in a positive way.

So what's the goal?

The fantasy:
If I wear heavy armor I have more protection, but I'm slower.
Light armor provides less protection, but makes me faster.
Medium armor is a balance of the two.

Current reality:
-Due to balance reasons, all armor effectively caps out at 7 AC, 7 TAC. This is fine and good for the rules, but in order to achieve the "heavy armor provides more protection" we need to find another way to fulfill that fantasy.
-Heavy armor is not much better than medium armor, and has some severe penalties.
-The loads of penalties to heavy armor (armor check penalty, low dex cap, noisy, clumsy) are more visible than the benefits (low Dexterity investment).
-The mechanical trade-off that heavy armor provides good TAC while requiring a lower Dexterity investment isn't really a fun decision.
-Medium and heavy armor can be Fortified which helps set them apart from light armor, but not until higher levels.

Proposed solutions:
Lean into the same idea/fantasy used in weapons to make armor feel unique in a good way.
-Medium plate armor gains resistance slashing 1
-Heavy plate armor gains resistance slashing 2
-Medium chain armor gains resistance piercing 1
-Heavy chain armor gains resistance piercing 2
-Maybe some medium armor has resistance bludgeoning 1?
-All chain armor gains the noisy trait.
-All heavy armor gains clumsy (otherwise it almost never makes sense to go full plate).
-Other options:
--Heavy armor provides a +1 item bonus to Fortitude saves. This helps make them special at low level, but at high level is replaced by enhancement runs and fortification.
--Heavy armor makes you resistant to movement affects (like Shove or maybe Trip).
--Heavy armor provides a bonus to Shove actions.

Actions, Skills, Feats, etc. are Capitalized.

Spells and magic items are italicized.

Traits and other keywords should be in bold.

It is awesome to have traits to consolidate the rules, but since they are often common words it is not clear at a glance if things like trinket are a trait or just plain language.

For example: trinket (which is a trait). Under Bracers of armor I read "You can affix trinkets to Bracers of armor..." and thought, that's a cute flavor thing. Until I realized that trinkets are a thing and then it took on a new meaning. I would greatly prefer "You can affix trinkets to Bracers of armor..."

I'm on a phone this weekend so I can't do long or involved posts. But another benefit to a more dramatically scaling system is that it acts to counter the advantages groups have in action economy. This helps with big monsters when it's four PCs vs a single monster the beast having a larger numerical advantage helps counter the fact it's outnumbered four to one and similarly helps the PCs vs groups of lower level foes. Of course in 5e they get around this by adding legendary actions and lair actions to monsters designed to be lone bosses. This is the more practical side of the army vs dragon anecdote. In a bound system action economy is proportionally steonger.

EDIT: I guess calling it a benefit is my own opinion. In a vacuum it is just a feature which may be good or bad depending.

But you don't need to add +level to everything to give the boss an advantage. You could add a template to a standard monster whose CR is equal to the party's level that give the monster +2 to everything and +X% hit points. It's EXACTLY the same encounter, but you get to use numbers that make sense.

In unbounded the boss rolls at +20. Is that good? I don't know, what level is he? If he is level 20 that a crappy bonus because standard AC at that point defaults to AC 30, but any reasonable PC is gonna have an AV closer to 36-40, which means the BOSS only has a 5-25% chance to hit.

In bounded, a boss with +20 to his roll is ALWAYS crazy. You know it just by looking at it. You can have easy, normal, or difficult challenges without the need to add level to everything.

What's more fun?
A.) High level characters that roll big numbers against big numbers?
or
B.) High level characters that have crazy feats like "Whenever you critically succeed on a Strike, you get a free Strike" or "Whenever an opponents fails to hit you with a melee attack, you may make a Strike against them with your shield as a reaction action."

Not saying these are balanced, but you can have character progression that makes a level 5 more powerful than a level 4 that don't involve +1 bonuses. Wouldn't that be more fun? And easier to understand since if you did get a +1 bonus on your +5 roll, it makes sense, as compared to a +1 bonus to a +20 roll?

Zman0 wrote:

Go to page 337. Look at table 10-2 titled Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. That is an abomination...

An abomination? I'm glad to see we're out of the hyperbole phase. ;-)

Meanwhile, I'll just cross-post this:

I think a good way of summarizing "+level to everything" is that it effectively makes level the most important stat. If you can make peace with that, then the rest of 2E really falls into place. On the other hand, if you can't, then you are probably deeply unhappy with 2E.

I think it is key to keeping everyone on a (mostly-level) playing field, so Joe McCasual isn't completely useless next to Hugh G. Optimizer. But it is relatively narrativist -- or game-ist, if you prefer -- and that just rubs some people the wrong way.

Respectfully @buglyman, I have to entirely disagree.

1.) +1/level to everything is a meaningless stat BECAUSE it gets added to everything. Every character gets +1/level to attack and AC. So it does literally nothing. The only thing it does is ensure that opponents that are many levels below you are impotent and uninteresting, and opponents way above you are almost impossible.

If you want to make a hard or easy encounter, the only important distinction is the RELATIVE numbers between the PCs and the NPCs, not the absolute numbers of +1 or +20.

The key to keeping everyone on a level playing field is what Paizo already did with 2E which was limit how many bonuses you could stack. Things gets wonky when Hugh G. Optimizer can stack an enhancement bonus with a divine bonus with a +5 weapon with a ... But in 2E you get basically proficiency (level + -2 to +3) plus an ability bonus (which is harder to buff up now) plus an item bonus and a conditional bonus. That's about it. The ability/item/conditional bonuses are the only important ones because they add the variation. The +1/level is just a bloated way to make all the numbers (both +roll and DC) bigger. Does that make sense?

Bab = +1/level

Maximum 3+ level skill ranks = 1/level
same concept.

Actual new concept
+1/level to AC (its kind of replacing all the items you used to have to do that. )

It doesn't have to have any other meaning then what you mentally assign to it. Thats why you will not convince each other. One side has no problem imagining high level characters are just better at everything. while the other side can't or doesn't want to.

Its a preference thing.

I disagree. I would argue that bounded is better for a variety of game design reasons, not just because some prefer it. Let's focus on game design objectives and how well bounded versus unbounded systems perform.

Simplified example
(considering ONLY proficiency bonus, assuming going from trained to legend):

Unbounded:
Level 1: +1 attack, 10+1 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Level 20: +23 (+20+3) attack, 10+20+3 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Results:
-Chance to hit an opponent of ~level is the same at level 1 or 20
Pros:
-Absolute Power Growth: Level 20 characters much more powerful than level 1 characters. However, this is not useful from a game design standpoint because it is calibrated for scenarios that are uninteresting and rare. This benefit is an illusion (more on this later). The game should be designed for the common gameplay case which is challenges against reasonable opponents. You may argue that +level gives you more design space, but it really doesn't. We are still rolling d20s which means that your design space is already bound to a success chance in the range 5%-100%. Adding +20 to both the roll and DC does nothing to chance that. At the end of the day, the thing that matters is your chance to succeed at a task of difficulty X against challenge Y. Everything else is just numbers.
Cons:
-Understanding: Big numbers are hard to understand. Bonuses make less sense. At level 1 a +2 bonus from flanking sounds super powerful! At level 20 a +2 bonus when I am already adding +20 seems insignificant. HOWEVER, +2 is still a bonus 10% chance to hit, which is important, but that is no longer obvious.
-Inconsistent: True value and power of a number vary by level. Look at X spell or item that gives me AC 30! Is that good? I don't know, depends on what level you are. Let me do the math. You have to constantly mentally subtract various level values from various things to compare them.
-Complexity: Lots of extra math adding +level everywhere (or mentally subtracting level).

Bounded:
Level 1: +0 attack, 10+0 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Level 20: +3 attack, 10+3 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Results:
-Chance to hit an opponent of ~level is the same at level 1 or 20
Pros:
-Understanding: Small numbers are easier to understand. Numbers always make sense in context. A +2 bonus always feels important when your typical bonus ranges from -2 to +3.
-Consistent: Bonuses and DCs make sense regardless of level. DC20 is always fairly difficult. AC30 is always powerful.
-Less math.
-Characters get slightly more powerful numerically, giving high level characters an advantage, which makes sense. This advantage is not super large, which makes it easier to find a wide range of monsters to use as an interesting challenge for the players. The game is designed around reasonable encounters.
Cons:
-Static skill challenges are not overcome very quickly as you level.

I feel like the design goals should be the following:
-Characters get more powerful as they level.
-The game supports creating interesting balanced encounters.
-Combat scales with level and stays balanced (chances to hit are always in a reasonable range) for encounters that are interesting and challenging.
-Skill challenges that vary by level stay balanced.
-Skill challenges that are static start out balanced and become easier.

Bounded systems can do ALL these things while keeping the math and numbers easy to understand. That makes life easier for new players, DMs, and game developers. The numerical range from level 1 to 20 may be smaller, but again, the only thing that matters when creating good gameplay and interesting challenges that are level appropriate is the % chance to fail or succeed.

The ONLY advantage that unbounded systems have is that they more quickly make static skill challenges easy to pass, with the downside that a level 20 wizard is uncharacteristically good at athletics.

But that doesn't make a bounded system bad. How could we fix this? Two options (we can use either or both):
1.) Every time you get a skill feat, it gives you a +1 bonus to that skill. This is like a soft +level elevator that lifts characters up above static challenges. But it's better! Because it is tied to feats, it lets THE PLAYER CHOOSE. By focusing on certain skill feats they get to choose which skills they level up. This is the same benefit that having proficiency introduces. You are better at the things you are proficient in and that you focus on. It's not just a blanket +level.
2.) Add traits/proficiencies to ordinary static skill challenges that allow you to automatically succeed. Imagine Table 10-3 like this (written vertically so its easier to read):

Balance on a fallen log
Level 1
Difficulty Adjustments: Narrow, rotten, slippery
Trivial: Level 9 or Expert in Acrobatics

In fact, as written, the Playtest in the rules on page 336-337, already effectively uses option 2! The rules list ordinary tasks that become trivial after a certain level. This same thing could be done in a bounded system. Which means that the unbounded +level isn't really needed even for overcoming static skill checks.

Adding +level to everything just inflates the numbers and makes them hard to understand. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters for good and interesting gameplay is balanced success chances (which are tied to the 5%-100% of the d20, NOT the +level you add to each roll).

Adding big numbers to a roll is the illusion of power. Rolling big damage dice feels good and makes more sense. Rolling big numbers that boil down to 5%-100% success chance doesn't.

And in terms of progression, which is better:
A.) Every level I get a cool feat that gives me customization, and sometimes I get a +1 bonus to something specific.
B.) Every level I get a +1 bonus that is opposed by a +1 DC and turns out to be a +0 bonus instead.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

The ideas that +level provides progression or power are really just illusions. I'll write a longer post later when I have time to clearly lay out my arguments, but I definitely vote for a bounded system and feel that it is superior to an unbounded/elevator system.

Please read up thread where I dispute some of the common arguments against a +lvl system before you post and addres or consider those points. I look forward to reading your argument.

I have been reading along, will definitely try to address your points in a constructive manner. =)

On the topic of publishing options for removing +level and/or doing 2 bestiaries:

I don't think either of these things addresses the underlying point. I would argue bounded is better, and if P2 gets published unbounded, the damage is already done and a DM option sidebar isn't really going to fix it because all the published material will have +level incorporated, and as a DM having to subtract it for everything for creatures and hazards of various levels would be a nightmare.

A bounded bestiary sounds great, but Paizo and other developers are highly unlikely to publish everything in 2 formats. Second Edition is (as I think they have stated) a chance to sacrifice the holy cows of the past and try to make a better system. Deciding bounded versus unbounded is THE biggest decision they have to make. Rather than debate sidebar options or double bestiaries, I think we are better off trying to grind through our differences to weigh the pros and cons of bounded versus unbounded and help Paizo make the best decision.

The think I like BEST about 5E is that it is bounded. It may not be perfect, but I think those are imperfections in design that can be overcome and not an inherent flaw with bounded systems.

Go to page 337. Look at table 10-2 titled Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. That is an abomination, it is also very representative of a major problem with P2: adding your level to everything, especially when it is mostly unnecessary.

...

...
By removing your level from everything you have zero impact against things of equal level to the party. That balance point is completely unchanged, all that needs to be adjusted are your recommendations for effective encounters for xp. Against weaker things you can keep them relevant a lot longer, while simultaneously allowing the party to riskily...

@Zman0 I agree with you basically 100%. The +level scaling is another holy relic from the past that needs to be sacrificed.

The ideas that +level provides progression or power are really just illusions. I'll write a longer post later when I have time to clearly lay out my arguments, but I definitely vote for a bounded system and feel that it is superior to an unbounded/elevator system.