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.

So I really love a lot of things in the Playtest and I find certain elements to be a big improvement on the TTRPG genre as a whole. However there are some things which need finessing and a decent number of problems that can be improved upon.

Some of the biggest complaints about the game involve designing your character and how much more narrow your options are for designing a character. Wanna be a duel-weilding or sharp-shooter Barbarian? You can, but you'll always suck compared to a Fighter or Ranger in the same vein.

In top of this, increasing your proficiency in skills feels...well to put it bluntly, dull. Going from Master to Legendary at level 15 in any skill chagnges your bonus from 17 to 18...not very exciting. You have to wait another level to get a Legendary Skill Feat before you start feeling actually Legendary.

A lot of this has to do with the Pathfinder Playtest design mentality which puts so much weight on balance and "class niche" that it doesn't allow much design flexibility or variance outside of the scope of what the classic version of that class can do.

Here is my proposed solution that allows people to have a lot more design flexibility, while maintaining the Playtest's design goal of being more structured, and also fixing the problem with skill proficiency on the way there.

1) Every class needs different paths to take. Plenty already do, like the Sorcerer's Bloodlines or the Barbarian's Totems. But every class needs something like this so that my Paladin feels more substantially different from yours. Paladin is actually a good example because it's a very easy one. Have the different Paladin paths be tied to the different Alignments, each one adjusting how the Paladin's base powers work and only allowing some class feats to be taken by certain alignments. Other classes might be trickier, like the Fighter, but I think it would be doable.

2) Get rid of Skill Feats. Instead, fold in the abilities of skill feats with the proficiency increases. Maybe not all. Some are...

Pathfinder's strength is also its greatest weakness: lots of customization.

The problem is that there are so many customization points, that each one has to be small so that things don't get out of control. It would be better to have fewer customization points that are more powerful.

I actually think Pathfinder should change the game to scale players from 1-10 instead of 1-20. This consolidates power to make for more powerful choices. It also means that spell levels equal character level, so you always know that at level 6 you can cast 6th level spells.

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.

So, I love Treat Wounds. Haven't had a chance to dig into every aspect but it at least starts on addressing my main issue with PF2, the adventuring day. Maybe fixes 90% of it if the math works out.

Any tweaks people think it needs?

I would like to see an option to reduce your level for the purpose of both healing and DC, if you want a more reliable recovery but don't need a huge number. So a level 15 medic could act as level 5 if they only needed to top up 5 hp, rather than try their normal DC they could fail.

Especially important since a secondary medic might never increase their wis, prof category, or item bonus, meaning they fail *more* from level 5 to 15, where their bonus increases by 10 and the DC by 12, under the current system.

Agreed, this is a great improvement. Thanks Paizo!

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)

So the big one is something I was specifically hoping for, although not quite in the form I expected. Heritages feats are gone, and everyone now just picks a heritage in addition to their ancestry feat at 1st level.

Gnomes and Halflings are getting their core chassis upgraded. Sounds like gnomes get a 25 foot move speed and Halflings now get that Keen Senses feat for free.

Unburdened seems to have become an optional dwarf feat so that it isn't a dead feature if you don't wear medium or heavy armor. (Though I suspect this was also because the core dwarf chassis was just too good.)

Various feats are getting pulled out to become heritages or freebies. To replace them we are getting a whole bunch of new Ancestry feats, including higher level ones, 9th and 13th level stuff.

1. Natural Medicine and Battle Medic have been updated to be relevant with Treat Wounds in play.

2. Bravery also reduces incoming frightened condition by 1 before it even hits you to make up for the bad will save. Meaning Fighters are immune to frightened 1.

3. Ancestries now get a 13th level feat that gives you expert in your ancestries weapons.

4. Bunch of 9th level ancestry feats, Mark's says coolest one is Multi-talented. When you take it at 9th level you gain a multiclass dedication feat, even if you don't meet the prerequisites. This includes having taken less than two feats from another archetype.

5. Elven Longevity can get you up to expert eventually, or at least can be upgraded with a second feat to do that and can let you retrain long-term skills. Not sure I understand how the latter works exactly.

6. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves are now heritages, not heritage feats. You get all the benefits and can still pick another ancestry feat.

Not sure if I'm forgetting anything, I don't have time to do a second listen right now. Lots of good stuff though!

Lots of good stuff here. This is a step in the right direction for ancestries, but I think that ancestry basic weapon proficiency should be automatic at level 1 (unless it already is and I missed it).

Even if it's just for calculating untrained skill modifiers, it's still useful. It also keeps the door open for future rules mechanics to interact with ability scores without breaking with monsters.

Monsters have a separate entry for use in all other skills, so the monster stats are not even useful for that. They definitely feel superfluous to me, but you are right they may factor in later.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

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).

I think you are correct about property runes, because page 371 states:

Quote:

"While most properties are constant abilities, some have special abilities that must be activated. These follow the rules for activating magic items on page 376." Attacking with a Ghost Touch weapon is not an Activate Item action so it would be a constant ability.

The part about extra damage dice is unclear, mostly because it is called out in the weapon potency rune stat block as two distinct combat benefits. And only refers to the attack roll bonus as an item bonus, but does not make that same distinction about the increased damage dice.

But the shape change spells say you gain

Quote:

"One or more unarmed melee attacks, which are the only types of attacks you can use. You're trained with them. Your attack modifier is +10 and your damage bonus is +5. These are Strength based (for the purpose of enfeebled, for example)."

Then it states

Quote:

"These special statistics can be adjusted only by penalties, circumstance bonuses, and conditional bonuses."

But as far as I can tell, extra damage dice is not actually a bonus or penalty. While you might roll different dice based on attack type or weapon, a bonus or penalty is always just a single fixed number.

Glossary:

Quote:

"Bonus: Bonuses are positive numbers that are added to a score or a roll, they come in three types: item, conditional, and circumstance. If you gain multiple bonuses of a given type, you apply on only the highest bonus, and ignore the others. See page 291 for more. See "modifier" and "penalty" for the other numbers that affect your rolls"

...

Well said. I feel like this could be more friendly for new players however. =)

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.

There's also the issue of difficulty class being modified by all things that would modify a check based on the same attribute and whether or not that means that AC is thus modified by something that modifies all checks.

"Determine the Difficulty Class" on page 291 is my source of confusion on that topic.

They actually said in the live stream today that because the same proficiency that is used in checks gets used to set DCs, that a penalty to checks like Frightened affects AC as well (and I am guessing enemy spell DCs, etc, it affects EVERYTHING). They are apparently going to reword those sections.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

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

And they're still bad.

Sure, they're better than they used to be, sure you can use them forever without running out, but they're still (regularly) a worse idea than a cross bow.

Also, it's the rare (attack) spell that has a range greater than 30 feet. I haven't tried to find an exhaustive list, but Ray of Frost (60) and Acid Arrow (120) are the only two I've come across.

Yeah, I couldn't believe that in the The Lost Star live stream the wizard/sorcerer was toting a crossbow to get shots in between spells. A caster should NEVER need to carry a ranged weapon because they can't cast a spell with their last action. There needs to be 1 action cantrips to fill in the action economy.

Hm. "numerical numbers" implies that non-numerical numbers exist. So what, exactly, is a non-numerical number? :-)

My main objection to ancestry feats is that you have to wait for some feats that logically seem like they would be inherent in whatever the ancestry is. I suppose the counter argument is that if you get all those feats at first level there's not much to pick from at higher levels.

That's what happens when you post late at night =P

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.

I really like the Ancestry Feat concept. Being able to flesh out your Ancestry benefits over time is a cool mechanic.

However, I also see a fatal flaw related to that.
At level 1, all Ancestries feel extremely bland to me - you are essentially just a package of HP, movement speed, and vision type, lacking things that, according to setting lore, all members of an Ancestry should have (e.g. sleep immunity for Elves). The idea of building up on your Ancestry with Feats ultimately falls flat in my opinion if you build up on a blank slate instead of something that is interesting from the get-go.

Agreed.

I love the ability to customize my ancestry, but currently most races feel very similar at first level because you only get one ancestry feat (and many of those are super weak at the moment).

This seems easy to fix, however.

1.) Make the ancestry feats stronger, preferably in interesting ways and not just higher numerical numbers.

2.) Give players at least 2 ancestry feats at level 1, maybe 3.

This will make characters more fun and powerful and unique at level 1, but shouldn't disrupt game balance in the long run.

The Druid feat Savage Slice, its requirements state that your last action was a weapon strike that did slashing damage. It the tells you to make another strike with the same weapon and if it hits add an additional die of damage.

Other feats specifically call out multiple attack penalty and some feats state that they count as 2 actions etc. Savage Strike mentions nothing about penalties or actions etc. Is this another action to get a strike and not have multi attack penalty?

I had this same question. The Savage Slice ability does not have the Attack trait, which makes me think it may not count toward the multiple attack penalty. BUT, it causes you to make a Strike, which DOES have the attack trait.

Page 305 says: "...The second time you use an attack action (anything with the attack trait) during your turn, you take a -5 penalty..."

So does an ability that triggers a Strike have all the traits of that Strike?

Is it weird that one action (Savage Slice) triggers another action (Strike)?

I guess this is ok, but the way they word things trying to keep the language common confuses the issue. The rules don't say "Make another Strike action against the target". The rules just say "Make another Strike", which I assume is the same thing. I feel like either the Ability or the Action section should be updated to note that one Ability or Action may trigger other Actions without using up your 3 Actions for the round.

Things are even weirder for the FIghter, where some abilities like Power Attack and Swipe (which counts as 2 attacks toward your Multiple Attack Penalty (MAP)) DON'T have the attack trait, but others like Brutish Shove and Double Shot do. Also, Dual-Handed Assault, Felling Strike, and Incredible Aim does not have the Attack trait, which means they could possibly NOT count toward the Multiple Attack Penalty, but I am guessing they do.

Wish they would clarify this.

glossary page 421 wrote:

A check is a type of roll that involves rolling a d20...and comparing the result against a DC...

...attack rolls, saving throws ...are the most common types of checks

Also explained on page 290

Thank you for this!

“Frightened: You take a conditional penalty equal to this value to your checks and saving throws.”

Which checks though? All of them?

I would like clarification on this as well. I think it should affect attack rolls, but it is not clear if it does. If it does not affect attack rolls, then the Demoralize action for fighter-type characters is almost useless.

Doing a small glance at the Bestiary one can see that the +1/level is important for the game and how it balances. But before we get to the math I believe that the +1/level fixes a lot of old problems from the old edition.

You can balance the game similarly without +1/level, the difference between levels is just smaller.

1. Clear strength progression

... Now it P2E you will always see an advancement of your character, every level, even if it's that small +1. Your character gets better more noticeably than before.

Have you read my other posts? That +1 is an illusion because the average monsters that are within +/- 3 levels of you ALSO get a +1 bonus. The game is balanced around facing those monsters that are close to your level. The only important bonuses are increases in proficiency rank (trained -> expert, etc) and item bonuses.

So yes, when you level from 3 to 4 you are TECHNICALLY more powerful than level 1 monsters, but you are rarely going to fight them anymore because now instead of fighting level 1-5 monsters you are always fighting level 2-6 monsters.

2. Clear Monster vs Party strength comparison

This can be done identically with no +1/level bonus. If you subtract level from all the PCs and all the monsters, challenges that are at your level have the same chances of success. Again, challenges are your level are what you typically face and what the game should be designed to handle.

3. Easy monster/NPC creation on the fly

Not that creating monsters or NPCs up on the fly was to difficult before now it's very easy once you know the formula used in P2E. First add level plus 4. At lvls 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 add +1 AC and at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 add +1 to hit. It also seems that you add a +2 to increase what you want it to be good at up to lvl 7 and a +2 again at lvl 13 I believe. For skills use base lvl for bad skills and the rest as needed for one's they're good at. So you need a quick and dirty CL 4 Guard? His AC is 19, hit bonus is +11, his skills are +4 and the ones he's good at are +9 or +11. A quick and dirty lvl 14 crime lord? His AC is 34, his hit is +25, and his...

Again, you can do this without adding level. Just subtract the level from everything you said and you create monsters that are an identical challenge relative to players in both systems.

Because the game is played against challenges that are similar in level to the party, and should be designed as such, the ONLY thing that matters are the relative numbers that make the % chance of success interesting.

One point I've seen is its easier to add up but I don't have any issues doing the basic math needed to do so. so that is a non issue to me.

Making the math clean helps many (but not all) players and DMs. The experienced players may not need it, but it would be very helpful for newer players and DMs.

I don't see what you mean about the illusion of power igther. If I fight a 1st level creature at level 20 with that +20 bonus that is not an illusion of power to the 1st level creature their is a Exponential difference between me and that 1st level creature to the point where he could even grab his whole village and it not make a difference. It only doesn't matter on creature at my level if their higher level or lower level then I will notice a difference. That is not an illusion.

Please see some of my other posts. The problem is that you are looking at it from a different angle. Try looking at it like this: The game is meant to be played as challenges against creatures that are similar in level to the party. All the published adventures are like this. The ONLY thing that matters in that case is the relative numbers that separate the players from the monsters. So yes, adding +1/ level does make you absolutely better than low level monsters, but that is not an important design consideration. The more important point is that the monsters that are within a couple levels of the players are balanced against them to make for an interesting challenge.

Also on yoru first poing your argument that bound or unbound is superior without specifics why is irrelevant. you may feel one is superior but that doesn't give evidence.

That post was to sum things up and frame the discussion. I have been providing heaps of organized evidence, please see my other posts.

You are right that other game systems are all different, and Pathfinder 2E is an improvement over 1E. We are just arguing that it could be EVEN better if they remove the +1 / level bonus to make the math easier to understand and play with.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

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?

If this were a video game, or you are playing with a GM that picks monsters out of the bestiary solely based upon party level, getting better with level would be insignificant. If the orcs in the next room gain a level because the party gained a level, that would make getting better with level an illusion. But monsters don't get more powerful just because the party leveled up. The party is just more ready to face new more challenging monsters. Against challenges that are the same level as the party, the overall challenge rating should be about the same as it was at every other level. This has always been theoretically true, and the purpose of balanced design, it is just that 3.x was not a very balanced game, especially not at higher levels.

There were lots of mechanics that added +1 per level to your power level in PF1. They were just not applied equally and they led to some very janky things at higher level.

You call it...

What is the goal of this game? To simulate exactly a world where heroes grow more powerful and battles against low or high level monsters are trivial? Or, is the goal to make a system that provides reasonable challenges at various levels of PC power?

Look at the Adventure Paths Paizo publishes. Do you ever see adventures where level 10 characters face level 1 Orcs? No, because that is not good gameplay. It's not an interesting encounter. It might mathematically make more sense in a +1/level system, but that should not be our goal.

Level 10 players won't face level 1 Orcs. They will face a large band of Orcs with some class levels or a small band of Orcs with class levels similar to the PCs. This is the way the game is run and the system should be tailored to this.

The Adventure Paths always provide reasonable challenges. A battle with a horde of PC level - 3 monsters is an interesting style encounter. So it a battle against a single PC level + 3 monster. These are different styles of encounters, and you can do them just as easily in both systems, but removing the +1 / level makes the system simpler, but just as powerful.

Design the game for the way it is meant to be played (party faces reasonable challenges) rather than how it is not played (party overpowers trivial monsters).

Ignore the specific numbers. As Zman0 is trying to point out, you still have power growth in a bound system (no +1/level), it's just a more gradual slope. Don't let the specific numbers distract you. Sure a level 1 Orc in a bound system might be a mathematical threat over a larger range of player levels, but that is actually a GOOD thing because it makes life easier on the DM (monsters are more re-usable). Just because monsters in an unbound (+1/level) system are only valid in a range of level +/- 3 or so, and monsters in a bound system are valid in a range of level +/- 6. It just means Paizo can redefine what monsters exist at what level, and it's not hard to scale monsters weaker/stronger (see Elite and Weak Adjustments in the Bestiary).

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.

Yeah no I don't want a game where the same orc is still a challenge for me at level 1 and level 20.

But they're not. A level 20 PC might have only a small numerical bonus to attack and AC, but a HUGE advantage on HP and abilities. Why is that a bad thing?

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)?

Luceon wrote:

They are just comparing two different degrees of a scale. PF2 is one scale, D&D 5ed would be an example of a different scale.

IF we already have 5e at one point on the scale, why would you want PF2 to be anywhere close to that same scale? Why not just play 5e? It is already well established and has brand recognition - PF2 cannot compete with that unless it operates at a different scale with a different feel.

Also - don't appreciate intimations that supporting the current system means we aren't paying attention to the point we are being duped. And are they really duping anyone when they put all of their monsters online?

The 5E scale is arguably better for a number of game design reasons (less math, easier to understand numbers, greater re-use of monsters). There is a good reason 5E removed the +level bonus, it's because it is unnecessary and detrimental to the game. Pathfinder 2E should adopt it because it is better.

BUT, Pathfinder 2E can surpass 5E! The concept of varied levels of proficiency (untrained/trained/expert/master/legendary) provide an upgrade over the 5E proficiency system that can make Pathfinder 2E better and provide more game design space.

So Pathfinder should take the advances of 5E and build on them. The whole point as the developers have said is to sacrifice things from D&D 3.X that are no longer necessary, and 5E has shown that +level is one of them.

Drejk wrote:

Note that spell DC is based on the caster's primary stat, which will be probably higher than Strength/Dexterity which is used to calculate attack rolls.

Also, every character can only have a single ability increased by an item at any time. Casters are very likely to pick their main ability score, allowing them to reach a +7 modifier by level 20. Their dex modifier can't be higher than +5 unless you focus heavily on touch attacks and equip a dex boost item instead of one for your spell casting score.

I'm not saying this is balanced or anything. Haven't looked at the numbers nearly enough to come to any conclusion. It's just something to keep in mind.

Good point. For classes/monsters not focused on stats that buff a saving throw, their lag in the ability by 2-3 points would help casters break even. Maybe this is balanced as is. Will have to do more math and maybe look at the bestiary.

If you were stating out everyone you could make a trapper background that gives the skill feat similar to the blacksmith background, but RAW it looks like you are right.

Trapper background would make sense. 100% agree.

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

SOLUTION: Frightened should give the target a penalty on attack roles. This would fit the flavor of demoralize, and allow it to almost ALWAYS provide a tangible benefit for a non-spellcaster.

Quote:

Frightened

You’re gripped by fear and struggle to control your nerves. The frightened condition always includes a value. You take a conditional penalty equal to this value to your checks and saving throws. Unless specified otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of
your frightened condition decreases by 1.

It affects all checks, including attacks.

I didn't think "checks" were attacks. Anyone have evidence to support this?

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

I playtested a 7th level party vs a 3rd level group of Ogres and one of my players utilized intimidate (with a critical success) to force one Ogre to run away until the end of it's next turn. On the next turn, it came back and the character did it again, but with no penalty.

2 Opinions:

1) I'm not sure that a critical success on Intimidate should bestow Frightened 2 AND forced to run away. Seems like double penalty and a skill check can make battlefield control. The Fear spell is 1st level and it only forces an enemy to run away on a critical failure as well, but it is magic, while the other is a skill check that anyone can do. It reduces the specialness of Fear.

2) There are no penalties to intimidating an enemy multiple times. I would think that an enemy would steel himself against the object of his fear and the PC would get a penalty to his roll for every subsequent check. Also, since it's an action, a PC can do the same action over and over until he gets a success on the check.

I think the bigger issues are:

1.) Success gives the target Frightened 1, which for a non-spellcaster does basically nothing.

Frightened 1 gives them -1 on skill checks and saves. So you can use this to set yourself up for a +1 on a combat maneuver on an opponent (like shove or trip), or protect yourself from their maneuvers against you. These bonuses are something, but seem pretty specialized and thus may give you no benefit. It may benefit you caster ally if they go before the demoralized target and hit it with a spell that requires a save, but again this is not the most common case.

SOLUTION: Frightened should give the target a penalty on attack roles. This would fit the flavor of demoralize, and allow it to almost ALWAYS provide a tangible benefit for a non-spellcaster.

2.) Demoralize should add either a PC's Strength, Dexterity, OR Charisma modifier. A strong character should be able to demoralize through brute force. A dexterous character should be able to demoralize through a display of dexterity (think the Dread Pirate Roberts or Inigo Montoya), and a charismatic character should be able to do it through force of personality.

Even the current Intimidating Prowess feat is not sufficient to make demoralize work the way it feels like it should.

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.

Why do Light, Medium, and Heavy armor all have the same max AC of 7?

Shouldn't there be at least a point or two difference between them or what's the point of ever getting heavy armor?

Not only will you have lower TAC than the Medium but you also have higher cost and penalties with no real upside.

unless the idea is to be like FF Star wars where, as you get more advanced you wear less armor. after a couple boosts to dex you don't need heavy armor anymore.

This is for balance reasons so that designers know PC AC basically maxes out at 7 + item bonus (which ranges from 0-5) + conditional/circumstance bonuses + level (which doesn't really matter since attack bonuses add level too, this just makes the math harder to understand without a significant game design benefit).

As others have said, some classes get improved proficiency in heavy armor, which sets them apart at higher levels, but this doesn't do much to make heavy armor feel good at low level.

Also, at higher levels medium and heavy armor can get the Fortification Property Rune, which also helps distinguish them from light armor, but again, not until higher levels (12+).

It would be nice if at low level, heavy armor had something to make it feel special besides (you need less Dex). Right now choosing heavy armor feels like an exercise in choosing the one with the least penalties, and not choosing the one that does cool stuff you like.

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.

Character Creation:
1.) Human Paladin
Creation Time: 60 minutes
Satisfaction: 9/10
Notes: Love the overall feel and options for the paladin. Very excited for this class.
The protection domain power I picked up felt a bit underwhelming at first level.

2.) Goblin Rogue
Creation Time: 60 minutes
Satisfaction: 8/10
Notes: Pretty happy with Rogue options. Would like to see goblin feats more like the interesting traits from PF1E.

3.) Elf Wizard
Creation Time: 120 minutes
Satisfaction: 3/10
Notes: Cantrips are GREAT! Other spells are pretty cool. LOVE the crit success/success/filure/crit failure system!
LOVE the new version of magic missile.
Some cantrips could be better (Daze).
The Wizard school powers were EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTING. Universalist wizards got more Drain Focus uses AND a feat.
The Wizard school powers were less powerful than a cantrip. For most there is no reason to cast them instead of casting
a cantrip. Call of the Grave does almost nothing.
Burned all his spells on Drakus, then resorted to cantrips. Overall worked pretty well, but would be nice to
have something wizardy to do with that 3rd action. A caster should not need to carry a crossbow to add in random attacks
with his occasional 3rd action.

4.) Dwarf Cleric
Creation Time: 80 minutes
Satisfaction: 7/10
Notes: Pretty happy with all the healing options and domains.
LOVE the variable actions on Heal.
Some of the dwarf feats feel disappointing (Ancestral Hatred, Giant Bane. would prefer more interesting abilities instead of small numeric bonuses).

Game Play
-Loved the unique monster abilities that made each encounter interesting and unique.
-Great adventure, interesting details, fun encounters.
-Poison was interesting and powerful, but took some bookkeeping. (When do you make your next save? Beginning of your turn after the duration? Or end of turn?)
-Dying rules were interesting, but took some bookkeeping. I think they are ok.
-Love the consolidation of conditions.
-Shield Block is awesome. (Paladin broke his shield versus Drakus).
-Love the 3 action system, give options for movement and ability usage, but you can also just fill with attacks.
--This is a very powerful system that could go a long way.
--HOWEVER, 3 attacks per round by something like Drakus which has high attack bonuses AND damage is BRUTAL.
--HOWEVER part 2: Any action(s) that force you to sacrifice your primary attack to have a chance at giving an ally a 5/10% bonus
are extremely concerning. Aid and Call of the Grave and other similar things cost you your primary attack for a 5/10% bonus which
will on average be a net loss. These things are a trap for players. The ideas are great, but need to either cost less actions or
be enhancements on top of your primary attacks. I'll probably write a full post on this, but somebody needs to check the math on
these things to make sure the opportunity costs of using an action balance against its benefits.
-Drakus was Overpowered. The party was 1 hit away from a Total Party Kill when the Wizard finished off Drakus with Electric Arc
(and they started the encounter fully loaded).
--Paladin rolled terribly, even with Magic Weapon on him.
--Drakus got some crits and LOTS of usage out of 3 attacks per round.
--Paladin broke his shield trying to survive it all.
--Forgot to use Hero Points, that might have helped.
--Paladin and rogue both had Bludgeoning weapons which hurt them. I think the overall design goal of higher hit points and fewer
resistances is a good thing.

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..."

Hey there all,

When using the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, did you use the Index in the back of the book? If so, did you find what you are looking for?

If now, please let us know in this thread so that we can be sure that the final index meets your needs.

Want to help, here is how:
1. Post the topic you were trying to search for in the Index.
2. Post the words you used to try and find that topic.

This thread is only for posting up specific index issues. Comments and discussions should be reserved for other threads and will be removed if posted here.

Thank you for taking part in the Pathfinder Playtest.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

1.) draw/equip/sheath a weapon

Couldn't find it, but I'm fairly confident it's a manipulate action to sheath or draw a weapon, and a free action to drop one. Clarification welcome.

Hey there all,

When using the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, did you use the Index in the back of the book? If so, did you find what you are looking for?

If now, please let us know in this thread so that we can be sure that the final index meets your needs.

Want to help, here is how:
1. Post the topic you were trying to search for in the Index.
2. Post the words you used to try and find that topic.

This thread is only for posting up specific index issues. Comments and discussions should be reserved for other threads and will be removed if posted here.

Thank you for taking part in the Pathfinder Playtest.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

1.) trinket

I have found ALMOST everything I searched for in the index, overall very impressed.

As I am 100% in bounded accuracy camp,

let me suggest one more thing for skills and also remove that assurance feat from the game.

Bonuses
untrained: +0
Trained: +2
Expert: +4
Master: +5
Legendary: +6

bonuses +0 per level or +1 per 5 levels(to match stat boosting)

now when you have training in a skill, your d20 roll will have minimum value that is higher than 1.
That is all numbers lower than minimum number will be treated as minimum number.

I.E.

trained, minimum roll on d20 is 5
Expert, minimum roll on d20 is 8
Master, minimum roll on d20 is 10
Legendary, minimum roll on d20 is 12

This way prevent huge number bloat, and also gives reliability on skills so highly trained individuals do not fail easy or average tasks.

Not sure I understand you minimum values, did you mean trained to be minimum 3?

As I am 100% in bounded accuracy camp,

let me suggest one more thing for skills and also remove that assurance feat from the game.

Bonuses
untrained: +0
Trained: +2
Expert: +4
Master: +5
Legendary: +6

bonuses +0 per level or +1 per 5 levels(to match stat boosting)

now when you have training in a skill, your d20 roll will have minimum value that is higher than 1.
That is all numbers lower than minimum number will be treated as minimum number.

I.E.

trained, minimum roll on d20 is 5
Expert, minimum roll on d20 is 8
Master, minimum roll on d20 is 10
Legendary, minimum roll on d20 is 12

This way prevent huge number bloat, and also gives reliability on skills so highly trained individuals do not fail easy or average tasks.

Not sure I understand you minimum values, did you mean trained to be minimum 3?

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?

Archimedes Mavranos wrote:

But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.

At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.

And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?

There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.

It's only an illusion of power if you ONLY fight against equal level threats always.

For those who play otherwise, it's a VERY real way to express differences of power.

If you go fight a bunch of goblins that have 6 HP and are equivalent to level 1 creatures, they may have a +6 to hit and an AC of 14.

For a 10th level character in leather armor who has an AC of 27, the goblins suddenly have a very HARD time of hitting that character. In addition, that 10th level character has at least a +8 (though normally a +10 or greater) to hit the goblin. That goblin is excessively easy to do away with. In fact, that 10th level character could probably wade through 20 goblins with ease and not worry that much about getting hit. If they do, it probably would be three or four hits (not that threatening to a 10th level characters HP).

On the otherhand, in a system that is like 5e,...

But you can do all that in a bounded system, but with the added benefit of numbers that make more sense and less math!

In both systems, you roll a d20 and that determines your 5%-100% chance of success.

If you want to be powerful and wade through goblins, the DM provides you goblins that have 6 hp, you hit 85% of the time (roll a 4+), and have only a 5% chance to hit you on a natural 20. They can do the opposite too, where you have a low chance to hit and a high chance to be hit by the BBEG and the best you can do is trick him through smart gameplay (which is invariant to numbers in a bound/unbound system) or survive long enough to run away.

You can have the gameplay you want in both systems. A bounded system doesn't mean you don't get to be powerful, it just means the math makes sense. But in the unbounded system you have bonuses and DCs with ever increasing and hard to understand numbers, and in the unbound system the numbers are smaller, make more sense, and are consistent.

In response to the Original post.

I think your solution is TOO extreme. Remember, we are playing pathfinder and are Pathfinder players here.

Many came here because they didn't like 4e (with it's powers system and the start of bounded accuracy as an idea).

Others prefer the way Pathfinder does things to how 5e does things (ala...they do not like bounded accuracy).

In both groups, deflating combat numbers to the way 5e does it would be an anathema.

Hence, I think you HAVE to keep the +1/level for combat related bonuses (plus...I actually prefer that myself being one who absolutely LOATHES pathfinder).

On the otherhand, with all those who did not like 4e (I did like 4e but I saw serious problems arise from this) the escalating skill table on page 337 is an abomination. It is an instant turn off and would need to go.

In that, I think you may find a LOT of allies if you narrow it simply to dealing with just the skills portion of it.

I may not be in favor of a bonded accuracy idea of skills, but I don't like the escalating DCs either as I think it's a one way route to the same failures that 4e had.

I DO LOVE the way skills are handled otherwise with this system. Making it so skills are available to everyone, but keeping many of the better abilities with skills hidden behind skill feats and limited to certain classes with signature skills at the higher levels is actually pretty awesome. I actually really love the elegance of it and how it operates.

I could favor a system that does not add the +1 bonus/level for skills.

HOWEVER, that does not mean I want it to apply to everything. There is a REASON I play Pathfinder, and it's specifically is because it is NOT like 5e.

If I wanted to play 5e, I would PLAY 5e as my main game rather than pathfinder.

I want to keep the +1/level in regards to other things as it's easy to remember and simple to apply while at the same time elevating a characters power differentiating them between a lowly 1st level character and that of a higher...

But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.

At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.

And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?

There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.

If anyone is interested, I'm running a play by post arena. Essentially its running a pair of level 4 characters through an arena of varied challenges. I'm offering it Bound and Unbound. Good place to learn P2 and show some of the bound/unbound stuff.

Here is the thread where I explain it better.

Planning on running it on another forum because that's the one I'm familiar with. Want to compare character in bound/unbound or try out concepts or just play some P2, come and give the Arena a go.

Sounds cool, I'll probably come join!