HWalsh's page

Arssanguinus wrote:

Feros wrote:

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

I like many of the changes they have made though far from all (Resonance, the Hero Point system, much more are on my "Yech" list). I have gone through all the edition changes over the years and have found things that are good and not-good in each version. I admit to being willing to let go of traditions if they restrict games choice, so I rather like the new changes.

All that said, I get where the traditionalists are coming from: wanting to play the game they have been playing for a long time with just continual support. It would be great if that was viable, but sadly it looks as if that model is not economical going forward. As Jason Bulmahn put it in his post upthread, they understand the price for making any of the changes they are making. Finding the balance of what has to change with what they can keep the same is what the Playtest is all about.

Oh come on. They didn't find a balance. They literally tossed every tradition. Come on, call a spade a spade.

I was a huge supporter of PF2 but they don't and apparently never did, care about us. They wanted to keep us as customers but they couldn't let us keep one thing of actual consequence.

Feros wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

It does seem in general a theme of 2e is that the traditionalist portion of the customer base is not one there is much interest in serving anymore.

That is very much the feeling I've gotten. This isn't so much just Paladin, mind you it is just that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm not saying it was malicious on Paizo's part either. I just think someone crunched the numbers and did a gains/lost analysis and said, "We can make more money, or gain more players, if we follow this more open path. We'll probably lose some of the older players, but newer players are better and we're pretty sure gains will exceed losses."

Or... Quite simply... Paizo realizes that we might bail, but we're not as important to them.

It's just the way the cookie crumbles. It is, after all, a business.

I think old gamers like us are important to them, but they are caught in a no-win scenario. If they continue to cater to the old guard, they lose potential new customers. If they go exclusively to get new customers, they lose the gamers that made the company prosper in the first place.

Paizo has to change the system to make it easier to bring in new customers and players or the company will falter and collapse. As you say, it's a business. That doesn't mean they don't think of us as important, but rather they have to measure the changes they have to make to survive with what has gone before.

If they didn't think of old gamers as important the changes could have been far more radical than they are currently.

It seems pretty much every decision is going against the traditionalist group. I’m not seeing much leaning the other way.

This is my analysis as well. They're willing to say kind words to us, but I see no action to actually do anything for us. So it's an actions speak louder than words situation.

This seems... A bit over the top.

1. The other alignment versions will have different class names. Why is it an "I cannot stand to play this game" moment just because there happens to be three similar classes when only your favorite one will still be called Paladin: "The long term plan is for the LG version to be called the paladin, not the others." - Mark Seifter

I have said since day one that this was the line. I wasn't kidding.

I like Mark he is a good guy, but the name is by far not enough. There needs to be significant, and I mean extreme dramatically significant, differences for this to potentially salvage me.

2, If you actually like the game, this is an extremely easy houserule to disallow all non-LG paladinish classes. One wave of your hand and boom! All paladins are LG. Comparatively, It's much, much harder for everybody else to add non-LG paladinish rules. So, the devs gave EVERYBODY the perfect solution: "Here's all the hard stuff, making up entire classes with [hopefully] fun, balanced, and unique rules based on alignment. Use them if you want to, or houserule them out of existence."

Three letters.

P. F. S.

I can't house rule things.

3. Ultimately, falling on your own sword over a few words in a million-word rulebook just doesn't add up.

But either way, have fun.

Oh, and CIHYS?

There isn't much to give. I doubt I can give you the 75+ PF PDFs I have.

Im happy that paladins are now any good.

that said , Id like to point out that the 5e paladin did not scream any alignment to me but any good.

so now atleast it will be interesting to see howthe playtest pf2 looks monday.
same chassis with different other class feats that can be taken to add the flavor of the characters alignment.( IE say a smite evil like ability now has a feat that will add more damage done to target if its evil alignment is opposite of the palyer. LG doing more damage against CE whereas a CG would smite the tyrants of LE and yes the NG would still likely have to chose 1 and only 1) but all 3 would still have access to abilties like divine grace

oh and Hwalsh, don't walk out the door without looking at the final product first and don't make up your mind without doing so first. though you can if you want, im not stopping you.

Funny thing though, I wanted paladins to open up to any good and I could not end up liking the final product and end up only buying the inner sea guide 2.0...

While I will look at 1.6, I'm not confident that Paizo will make it mechanically different enough to retain the exclusivity aspect that was fundamental to the class.

This game is built on excruciatingly incremental differences. It's been a core legitimate complaint since day one.

There isn't even a significant difference between attack rolls for Wizards and Fighters (a maximum of +3 at level 13+).

So what do you think the odds are for major extremely significant differences between 2 members of the same class.

I even feel like keeping the name "Paladin" for LG ones is kind of just giving us a pat on the head. It feels like a token gesture. We won't know until 1.6 hits Monday, but I would think if significant and dramatic differences were a key factor they'd be emphasized and they certainly haven't been.

Paizo was well aware that this would shove a lot of us over the edge and away as customers. Jason knew and said as much. I'm only haunting around at the moment because I want to ensure our position and the reasons for it are heard and understood.

Then well, as I said. I wish Paizo success even if I won't be financially supporting them.

I think with that level of fanaticism you should seriously consider stepping back from role-play or at least D&D inspired ones and maybe try some other hobbies for awhile. There is to much obsession behind your words and its not healthy. I like the classic paladin and removing it would of been pretty terrible for me but they are just making other similar classes that have a different focus then the paladin. I'm sure you've read it all so I won't bother going to into details but I think your position borders on unhealthy fanaticism. I'm not saying this to taunt you or be mean its out of worry. I just want you to know so that maybe you can internally process this better. Where your at is far beyond the normal nerd obsession and to a completely other place. Your level of emotional investment in this one facet of a game looks unhealthy from my perspective.

You're quite incorrect.

All my "fanaticism" translates to is I won't financially support Paizo. Worst case scenario?

I play other games.

Literally that's my plan. With the consideration of spending some of my time publishing a d20 compatible game to create a PF2 alternative that respects the older traditions.

As I've said before, I've got tons of other games to play, but it's important to understand why people get so hot about this topic. The reason is as I said.

To call this a "slight shift" is pure hogwash.

Making the Warproest was a slight shift, this is demolishing the building's foundation.

Hey there folks,

This update was one that I have been looking forward to for a while now as it is drawn almost entirely from our playtest and survey data, looking at ways we could make the core classes of the game better.

It's a small step on that road, but one I felt was critical to show the progress we are making.

That said, I knew some of these decisions would leave a few folks feeling out in the cold.

To those getting what you want, understand that change comes at a price, that for some that price is too big to bear. Give them space to come to terms with the change. It is not your job to convince them of its merits.

To those seeing shifts they dont like, we understand your frustration. We hope that you will still give us a look when the final version comes together to see the ways in which we are trying to honor our past, as we move into the future.

Have a good weekend folks. Update 1.6 drops monday!

I'm going to be brutally honest Jason.

I like you, you're a good guy, nothing in my heart but hope that you see great success.

I don't, honestly, think that you understand what the Paladin means, or I should say meant, to some of us.

This isn't just a shift some of us don't like. This goes far beyond that. This change is taking one of the most endearing and enduring things about the game out for no real reason.

And yes. This is taking it out. This change is stripping the Paladin of one of the key things that made a Paladin a Paladin.

I was willing, personally, to support everything else.

Did I utterly hate Retributive Strike? Absolutely. I hated the very idea and concept of a forced playstyle based solely on class choice.

Did I stick with it after that? Yes. I ran at DragonCon putting players through 2e games literally until I hospitalized myself. I ran through home scenarios, I ran through printed scenarios, I knew DragonCon was my last con and I gave it everything I had left.

I ran my first game at 8 years old on September 10th 1988. I was playing the D&D redbox that I bought at a flea market with money I earned from picking up pinecones for our next door neighbor. (My family was poor, so we learned early to earn what we wanted.)

So it was nearly 30 years as a gm. Granted those early games were, uh, very bad. Regardless, in time I worked my way up, improved my skills, and eventually got 2nd Edition AD&D.

I got to be a player, and through the grace of RNGesus I rolled 3d6 down the line and the GM gasped seeing 16, 13, 12, 11, 16, 17. He whispered, "Well, that's a Paladin for sure."

That was the first character I ever played. I was hooked, even if the 2nd Ed AD&D Paladin kind of sucked mechanically.

The years passed and 3.X came around. I still played Paladins, and they still sucked.

4th ed... Lost me... I hated it.

5th ed was... Just no.

The idea of Paladins of any alignment was just repulsive.

Then a friend suggested Pathfinder.

I was hooked again. Pathfinder had REAL Paladins. Not only that, but for the first time ever, they didn't mechanically suck.

The Paladin, to me, was not about the mechanics. It wasn't about the deity. It wasn't even just the alignment. It was the special aspect of what a Paladin was.

They weren't just a class. They were lightning in a bottle. They were amazing because they were the closest thing you can do in a game to be a destined hero, chosen by the universe, a living embodiment of Order and Justice.

The Lawful part that people often scoff at? That was the promise of the natural order of the universe. That when evil would rise, a champion would come. The Paladin represented a hero who restored the natural order to the universe when things went wrong.

You can't do that as Chaotic Good. You can't represent the universal order when you dont actually believe in that order.

You can't do that as Neutral Good. You dont have the dedication to it. You dont really have an investment in doing things the way they are done because it is the way it is supposed to be done.

That is the promise of the Paladin.

Now sure, there are other heroes out there who aren't Paladins. And it isn't about the most good, but Paladins stand for more than just good. They stand for that divine order, that conviction, and that Mr. Bulmahn is the source of a Paladin's power.

It's not something a God can give. A God can give spells. A God can do a lot of things. What a God can't do is make a Paladin.

The universe makes Paladins. The agents of the universal order.

If the powers granted to the Paladin as the Agent of its will can be gotten without being a representation of that order then I suspect you can see how it tarnishes the very concept.

That is what this change does.

The only, and I mean straight out only, way this can be palatable to me and those like me is if you can promise us that the NG and CG versions will be radically mechanically different to a degree that they don't even resemble members of the same class aside from: "They wear armor and use weapons while having powers."

I mean CG? No LoH. No smite. They get other stuff. NG? Complete early different stuff. That's the only way I see this playing out in a way I can personally accept.

I don't think it's about other people having fun. It looks more like those most offended by non-LG paladin-alikes are those who still feel that LG is the best, most 'good' alignment, and who are deeply offended by anything which might imply otherwise.

Or we're offended by disregarding long established traditions. There is no reason to try putting words in our mouths to try to belittle our stance.

Arssanguinus wrote:

I’m fine with alternate alignment equivalents. But not alternate alignment paladins with little difference save a different nameplate glued on top of the word paladin.

I mean, you haven't playtested the 1.6 verson, let alone the final. How the heck do you know that the class chassis wont be changed to be more like how you want it, or that the Paladin won't be different enough from the other sub-classes to fit your idea of a Paladin? You said that the chassis of the current Paladin isn't Paladin-like for you but this update is said to be a major change so for all you know it could be adjusting more to your liking rather than less.

It's kinda hard taking any decrying of the 1.6 Paladin seriously, let alone the final version, when you haven't even seen either yet.

I don't think you understand that the exclusivity of the class was important. To you the important bits were the abilities. To us it was a combination of things, a perfect storm, and widening it so that there are others who are only a slightly bit different... That's enough to damage one if the main elements that made a Paladin a Paladin.

It is honestly like saying, "You guys played LG this whole time? Dealt with all that BS for years? Ha! Suckers! It never mattered! Losers! Now we're giving them to CG and NG no strings."

Yeah. No thanks.

I don't know why I'm so surprised people dedicated to Paladin are dying on a seemingly arbitrary hill because they refuse to compromise but hey, we're here now.

Did I miss a substantial balance change that turned them into clerics or fighters (took away their magic hands or weapons)?

It's not about the weapons, or the powers, or what you can do with it, or even just the name.

It was the idea of this person, a rare person, with a soul aligned with specific energies that was empowered by them to right wrongs and triumph over evil.

When you allow anyone to access it, even anyone good, it cheapens the rarity.

Arssanguinus wrote:

The warpriest wasn’t a paladin and is significantly different from it. Not just a paladin with the numbers filed off and a different word pasted on the placard.

But I mean, wasn't that the Antipaladin/Gray Paladin/Tyrant in Pathfinder 1E? tweaks of the Paladin chassis?

I agree that the Paladin should be LG only, but it seems like a subclass option, if the other variants are sufficiently different, is a good middle ground.

To some of us this was really important. The Paladin meant something and represented it. This change, if just switching out the name is, to us blasphemous.

That was...remarkably non-inflamatory. Sorry that this issue was a deal breaker for you, it always seemed to get people on both sides fired up. Hope when you check back in you find something worth continuing to play.

Nah.

I gave PF2 my all. Everything I had. I pushed and pushed. I was running playtests around the clock, but this issue was super important to me.

There's no need to be inflammatory, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Paizo ran the numbers and decided that those who would leave over this weren't necessary for their market share and/or decided that keeping them LG only would lose too many others.

I mean... Am I angry? Sure. Absolutely furious. Though screaming at the people who won? Eh, it's not going to accomplish anything. The choice was made.

In the end... It is one game.

I'll find something else.

Barring that, heck, I'm a professional designer... I'll make something else.

But for now I don't see any way I can contribute to further testing of PF2. I'm morally opposed to this change. I have been up front from day 1 that this was my line in the sand.

Some people thought that was a threat, it never was, it was just the truth.

For now I'll play some M&M, get my superhero on, and enjoy that.

Well, you may want to know the plan DOES seem to be for only the LG version to be called Paladin in the final book. They just don't want to have to errata the bazillion times the word Paladin appears in the playtest document so it's Any Good for now. But the final class will be called something else, with a LG Paladin subclass.

Unfortunately that really isn't good enough. The Paladin under those rules is just a class with a name. It's no longer special. A lot of us felt that way, and a lot of us felt like this was a line in the sand.

For me it was.

Regardless, I'm sure Paizo will do fine without us. I imagine we were a minority of players. We'll just find something else to play. It'll be ok.

Unicore wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

Whatever they supply, the paladin itself is pretty much killed off. It does not any longer exist in a meaningful form. It’s pretty clear here that there isn’t any real chance of the old paladin remaining at this point.

That's how I feel too. It'll be ok. We'll find other games to play. No worries

Arssanguinus wrote:

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

This is still the playtest time. Nobody has won yet. It makes sense they want folks to try out what an alternate paladin class could be like, that would still have meaningful connections to alignment beyond just good or not, before they head into their final run on the play test. IF folks who wanted it to remain a full class limited just to lawful good are not even willing to play with the new test class and provide feedback about how the class has lost something through this change, then the developers are not going to get the playtested feedback, that probably came through the class survey that inspired them to try out these changes in the first place.

I suspected that Paizo was going to do this eventually months ago so I started working on an OGL game/setting built off of the Pathfinder 1 chassis with a few other Paladin purists.

So I'll at least have that to distract me.

Elysia Paladins will *always* be Lawful Good. That will never change. So at least there is that.

The thing is - I can't play a game that isn't respecting that legacy. I left 5e for the same reason. So I leave 2e as well for it.

I'm sure the devs are working hard and for a subset of players this is great, even for a majority maybe, but for me it's not.

I lost this one though, and can do so with grace. There's lots of alternative games out there. We'll be ok.

So the paladin is gone as a thing now. A pity. The ‘I’d rather the class destroyed than allow it to remain lawful good’ subset won.

Yup.

I'm super upset, but I planned on this being a possibility. So I've got something up my sleeve. It just means it's time for us to look elsewhere.

Well, the day I feared came to pass and with it went my final connection to the life I once had, with that I say my farewells and prepare to head out.

To those who got that which they wanted, I'm happy for you.

For me though, that was it.

So with that said, I leave the rest to you.

The Paladin is yours now.

I'll pop in to see how things go, but the appeal is gone and the spark has faded.

Be safe guys, stay well, I wish you good fortune.

Charon Onozuka wrote:

I am more than happy to dance on the grave of a core class being restricted to a single alignment. I still wish it could be all alignments (restricted by deity like cleric), but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

That said... I wasn't a fan of the Alchemist's infused reagents from the Resonance Test, so I'm disappointed to hear about that. Just a new type of class pool added to the others (channel, wildshape) that weren't supposed to be needed anymore after the introduction of spell points.

The class redesign allows for the possibility of any alignment/cause to be added, but the three presented here are the ones Stephen mentioned (just like we can add more muses, druid orders, etc). So the idea is to design the framework to be flexible enough to cover for the future.

I appreciate what you tried to do, but am heartbroken beyond words. Thanks for trying to stand with us. With that I think though it's time for this old gamer to pack up my minis, roll up my board, and roll off into the sunset.

It is clear that my time has ended.

Until one day down the road. Be well.

Gorbacz wrote:

Take away a Cleric's holy symbol and her component pouch, what is she? A miserable little pile of secrets! Take a Fighter's +3 holy shock corrosive sonic burst greatsword and what is he? Well, a 1d4+5 death machine!

Seriously, it's the People Who Wanted More Exalted in Their D&D vs. HWalsh. Can I get ringside tickets, because this is going to be glorious?

Everyone who felt like HWalsh already left for the 5e

Barf.

I do not play 5e thank you very much.

Bingo, great post.

When everyone has the same type of narrative input, it can lead to homogeneity, which is what caused me to become disillusioned with 4th Ed at one point.

Having said that, I would like Legendary to open up for some gnarly shenanigans for martial types.

Sure. It doesn't have to be some insane One Punch Man, Naruto, Mountain Cleaving crud though.

I'm fine with legendary jumping leaping 40 feet in the air. With legendary climbing granting the ability to scale a mountain at full speed while gaining a +5 bonus. I'm totally fine with a legendary swimmer swimming against a whilpool's tide. I'm fine with things like that.

I'm not cool with phasing through walls, running at the speed of sound, or leaping 200 feet in the air then dancing on clouds.

HWalsh wrote:

If I want a martial to swing their weapon around so fast that they take flight I'll play Mutants and Masterminds.

If I want a Fighter to unleash a wind blade from swinging their sword really hard I'll play Big Eyes Small Mouth.

If I want a Rogue that can phase through solid matter I'll play Exalted (or M&M, or BESM, or Nephilum)

I have plenty of games that the anime stuff gets into. I don't want it in Pathfinder.

I can't avoid it either if I don't like it because I do play PFS. It's bad enough that I'm planning to walk away if Paladins get a new alignment spectrum, I'm already going to have to deal with the most annoying race ever made available to players (Goblins, ugh) and now people are trying to turn this into Naruto.

Edit to add:
The ONLY exception I'd even remotely agree to is if these WERE actual magical abilities. Namely instead of being just uses of skill the...

Here's my question for you, then: In your mind, how does a straight fighter attain meaningful narrative power comparable to a wizard from their class features?

Answer? They don't.

Not everything is 1:1 equal. Note that I mostly play martials.

A Fighter is a Fighter. They do as a Fighter does. They aren't going to teleport, or summon demons, or reshape a mountain. That's not what they do.

What is a Martial good for? They are the fantasy of the common man. They don't have super powers, they have their wits, a sharp blade, and they get by on skill. It's not as easy as a Wizard, or Cleric,or Sorcerer, sure... But that's the point. That's the challenge.

They are self made. They don't rely on magic spells, they don't need a God,they don't have ki, they don't need to sleep for 8 hours, they don't get nullified by a case on insomnia. They're dependable. They do things the hard way.

They need to be smarter than the smarties and sneakier than the sneakies as a certain McDuck once said.

Generally the people who actually play martial don't care about narrative power. That's a complaint by a very small minority of only the most hard core members of the community. If you want that kind of power... Play a Wizard.

If you want a challenge, to think of different ways to succeed, to be pushed to your limits... That's when you play a martial.

Did Lancelot have the same narrative power as Merlin? No.

The whole narrative power thing is especially moot in 2nd edition because spells on the whole took a power loss anyway.

Generally, in stories, martial characters don't have narrative influence. What they do have, however, is the human factor.

What does the wizard do when the chips are down, they're out of spells, and there's no safe way to rest for 8 hours? He sits back and sobs while the Fighter draws his sword, hefts his shield, and says, "Don't worry. I've got this."

Dasrak wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Indeed, the high level rogue feats that let you effectively walk through walls or mind blank or turn invisible are some of my favorite feats in the game and are indicative of why the rogue keeps up in narrative power late.

Really, something like this would be the ideal:

The Rogue can walk right through the wall
The Barbarian can smash clean through the wall with his raging might
The Sorcerer can dimension door to teleport past the walls
The Druid can use stone shape to create a passage through the walls

Each of these characters has different means of solving the problem with different pros and cons. The rogue's solution has the flaw that he can't take his party member's with him, the druid's solution requires the anticipation that he'd need the spell (which comes with opportunity costs), the sorcerer would need multiple castings of ddoor to ferry the party across (and even that presumes the PF2 ddoor nerf is reversed) which severely taxes his spellcasting resources, and the barbarian's solution will alert the entire dungeon to their presence.

Yep, agreed! You can't be afraid of "awesome" abilities if you want characters to be fun and independent of the Wizard. Why shouldn't a mid level Barbarian be able to smash a 1-ft thick stone wall? Or why can't anyone seem to jump more than 10ft high? Some abilities in this game are really interesting, but a lot of the skill feats feel as conservative as spells ended up being. The background ones specially are really lame! That one that let's you smuggle tiny items is really weak for example, but the concept of it could let players really excercise their imagination if it was less restrictive.

I really don't want to see every class have those kinds of abilities. Mundane and magical capabilities should not be equitable in my opinion. Magic should be more powerful, demonstrably, than legendary mundane skills.

Otherwise, magic becomes pointless.

And for that matter, why are weapon proficiencies and saving throws not also rolled into skills? Or a general "proficiency" category, if that fits better?

At first glance, I thought "Hey, Perception has been separated out as its own thing. Good, so it will grow automatically like BAB and saves as it should, because it is so important to every character."
Except that goes for *everything* now. The +1/level system has obviated the reason for which Perception as a mere skill among others was problematic in the first place. Classic "two fixes applied to one problem" situation, there.

Generally, if you are determined to go with the +1/level mechanic, there are ways in which you could and should simplify things:

a.) The mechanics description should be changed to begin with the idea that a check is performed by 1d20 + character level, + modifiers for ability and proficiency (which are both fixed values independent of level.) That is clearer and for lack of a better term more honest than sneaking in the fact that your level is added to any check in the description of proficiency bonuses.

Alternatively, you could simply increase ability modifiers, which also figure into every check, by +1 every level. Whether you do this by increasing all ability *values* by 2 every level and keeping them meaningful or by ditching the 3-18 paradigm altogether and have ability bonuses be the only remaining stat is a matter of preference.
In this case, the description of a check would be: 1d20, +your ability modifier, +your proficiency modifier

b.) There is little need to distinguish between skills, weapon proficiencies, saving throws and perception if they all work according to the same "level check" paradigm. Even if you want to keep saving throws separate for nostalgia reasons, rolling weapons, armor, perception and skills back into the general category of "proficiency" would simplify and clarify things. I cannot see any rationale to keep them as separate things, but if there is one, I'd like to hear it.

Regards...

One problem... Rogues.

Suddenly Rogues get legendary weapons, armor, and perception. Everyone else? Sure if they want anything else.

This kind of reminds me of the "Operatives got too much attention compared to Palad...Solarians" Stafinder threads for some weird reason.

Because it's a very similar situation. There is a reason why Operatives rule Starfinder. The same can happen here.

If you allow a class to cap all saves, attack, hp, and still have a free Ability increase every level to place without losing efficiency it's a recipe for disaster.

Now - Rogues aren't as overpowered as Operatives because they don't get a free 1/2 level to (virtually) everything on top of investment.

Rogues in PF2 do, however currently work extremely well. Especially if they dip. Rogue/Monk and Rogue/Fighter especially.

Rogue/Fighters are known for (at level 5) being able to deal out 8d6+8 with double slice (Rogue/Monks similarly, but a little later) with 0 MAP.

I've seen a Rogue/Fighter hurl out 40d6+28 at level 20 in one combat cycle with short swords.

(Haste, flanking, +5 weapon, +7 dex modifier, Doubling Ring, two uses of Double Slice.)

An average of 168 damage. That is a lot of damage. Even at level 20.

I guess it seems odd to me.

The argument seems to be that people want their character to be utterly and completely terrible at skills they don't or can't invest in.

I'm not saying some people don't genuinely want that - I'm sure that some people do.

My fear, I guess, is that it will really be used to put low skilled class players "in their place" as it were.

Rogues - They'll be fine, they get a bazillion skills.
Wizards - They'll be fine.
Bards - Also fine.

Paladins? Ha! They'll suck. I mean they already kind of suck by default being Strength and Charisma. They'll suck worse.

Fighters? Serves them right for being big and dumb eh?

I mean that's my concern. Taking away +level is going to hurt classes that already aren't good at skills even worse.

Albatoonoe wrote:

As I said earlier, I think there is a design space for being incompetent at something in the system. However, this shouldn't be default. Adventures are designed for a baseline, and the baseline being some more general competency opens up a lot of options and closes off none.

Even if it isn't in the core book, we could get drawbacks down the line and you can be truly bad at something. This shouldn't be the default assumption, though.

I’m not being prescriptive as to the solution - this kind of thing would suit me fine. I’m not arguing that everyone should have glaring weaknesses, merely stating my preference that I’d prefer the mechanics allow it.

As an aside - deliberately failing something (a commonly put forth solution) isnt the same feel as not being able to do it. It’s kind of like running slowly to let the kid win vs going full pelt and being beaten by a child - the suggested approach would be identical mechanics wise, even though it’s modelling two very different events. I would feel comfortable with that solution in a storytelling/narrative based game but in PF2 with its heavy numbers based simulationist approach, such a solution would always feel like a fudge, I suspect (as in, I’d always notice that “the game says I can do this, but I’m going to deliberately overrule the mechanics and fail, because I don’t want to be able to”).

Thing is - You're forcing us to suck at things completely (instead of the normal sucking I've proven the system grants) simply because you want to. I'm not down with that.

You also don't want people to just suck - I've shown +6 vs +19 is seriously sucking.

You want -4 vs +19

You want PF1 levels of skill imbalance.

Ephialtes wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

heretic wrote:

In all candour I find it almost impossible to be receptive to anyone who includes a “ if you don’t like this then this game isn’t for you etc.”.

Especially during a playtest where Paizo have said that everything is potentially up for change and they want to hear about what we do and don’t like. It’s premature to declare “this game isn’t for you”.

I don’t like +1/level more broadly than just this. However, the real problem for me is the way it applies to untrained skills my character has never attempted. I figure that distinction is worth bringing up to the design team.

The fans of +1/level may not be able to think of a way to reconcile the system as it currently stands with what I’m looking for. They may also think the cohort of people who share my opinion is negligible and safely addressed via “just overrule your PC’s stats or go find another game”.

I’m not really speaking to them. I’m addressing my concerns to the design team who are both more informed as to the state of the market and more experienced at crafting RPG subsystems. Maybe it will help improve the game or maybe not. It doesn’t hurt to put it forth during an open playtest (nor should it be shutdown by people who like the system as is - they can explain what they like without arguing over whether what I like “makes sense” or is “crazy”).

In the end it's about numbers and majorities. You and your cohorts dislike +1/level, there might be legions (including me) who like +1/level.

As you said, we all lack the knowledge of the true numbers supporting each approach. It might as well be that what appears to be cohorts shows to be the tiniest minorities as people content with a rule rather tend not to post in forums.

There’s another overlooked wrinkle here, an Achilles Heel of sorts in the playtest as a whole. It’s not just about the current Pathfinder enthusiasts and whether or not a majority agrees one way or another. The need for a new edition has just...

To quote the following players I've run for who did not like Pathfinder 1e regarding the skills:

Player 1: J
"I hated the skill system in pathfinder. I felt it was dumb that after so many adventures I couldn't identify a skeleton on sight."

Player 2: W
"I felt it (PF1) was stupid. You had to have Perception. You needed Acrobatics. You wanted Climb. And you couldn't just get away with a couple points, no you needed max ranks. I was a Fighter. I had 2 skill points per level. In real life I'm more competent in skills."

Player 3: M
"They (PF1) skills were terrible. Unless you were a bard or rogue or maybe a spellcaster you were all but useless. If 5e I felt generally competent in a bunch of skills. I like this (PF2) much better."

HWalsh wrote:

But you're NOT going to be at 50%

Right. You are going to be at 10-25%. The person that is hyper optimized for the task is going to be at 50%. Everyone else is going to be worse.

That's still not fun.

Now the goal posts are shifting.

I just invalidated the "good at everything" argument, and now it is, "but it's not fun."

The fact is - We know the DCs are being lowered.

We know that you *can* suck at a skill.

The argument that +level makes you good has been soundly defeated.

HWalsh wrote:

I really don't understand the desire to be completely and utterly incompetent at skills needed to survive.

It's not that we want to be, but that we want to be able to be. The issue applies to skills in general. It's just that desert dwellers swimming is the most evocative mental image.

I'll use book 3 of Hell's Rebels as an example. (Spoilered just in case)

** spoiler omitted **

Sometimes failing spectacularly is what makes a game fun, and always sitting around a 50% chance of success doesn't provide that.

EDIT:

Or in the same book,

** spoiler omitted **

But you're NOT going to be at 50%

You're *NOT* going to be anywhere near as good as someone who focused on it.

Person A:
Strength 20, Master in Athletics, +2 Item, Level 10.

5+2+2+10=+19

Person B:
Strength 10, Unskilled in Athletics, No item, Level 10.

0-4+0+10=+6

These two characters DO NOT have the same chance of success.

One is FAR inferior to the other.

I really don't understand the desire to be completely and utterly incompetent at skills needed to survive.

I can't help but feel that this is driven by people feeling their niche (Rogue/Wizard) is being infringed on. If you want to suck at something then just voluntarily fail it. Simple.

I trust Mark - I know he's got ideas. I just wish we could get a look, because there's only a month left for us to test any Pally changes.

At this point I'm convinced we're going to be stuck with so KM e form of Ret Strike no matter what we do.

Maybe it's my paranoia, maybe it's the sleep deprivation talking, but I can't help but feel like Rogue is getting, and has gotten, way more attention than other classes.

To me, Paladin is in the most need of attention.

Paladins are stuck in one role - We're forced to go ret strike. We've clamored for an alternative. We've been left out.

Rogues complained about being forced to go Dex to Damage and got a full core redesign. They got an extra rework. Ok that's cool. But the Rogue was doing fine in PF2.

They were already arguably one of the strongest classes and one of the highest damaging ones if they could sneak attack. They're the best class at skills as well.

I guess I'm just wondering if we're going to see similar reworks for the other classes in the same limited role situation like Paladin or to a lesser extent Fighter.

RazarTuk wrote:

ErichAD wrote:

Spell points are certainly better than having 3 real spells, but I don't think a 1 point per level system would scale properly.

Spheres of Power manages a sort of compromise. Broadly speaking, powers fall into one of two groups. Either the free version doesn't scale or you can spell a spell point to make it scale, or it always scales and the spell point is the difference between having to concentrate or not.

For those unfamiliar with Spheres of Power: Spell Points are a daily resource pool, usually equal to Class Level + Ability Modifier. Characters can gain additional points by taking drawbacks to add things like somatic or verbal components, a casting focus, obvious magical signs, or various other limitations/penalties to their casting.

Overall, it works out quite well. The all day powers are useful enough that you never truly feel like you're out of stuff you can do (so 15 minute adventuring days really aren't a thing), while all stronger stuff has a built-in limit so your power isn't endless.

I didn't like Spheres of Power or its sister book - So I'd pass.

Right now Rogues are the most powerful class in the game bar-none.

With the right multiclassing they put Fighters to shame in terms of DPS - They tie Fighters in terms of AC - Their HP is a little middle ground - They can get actual Dex to Damage meaning that they only need 3 stats to maximize all static advantages - They get the most skills - They are hands down already the most powerful class in PF2.

Example Human Rogue build:
lvl 01: 10/18/14/10/16/10
lvl 05: 10/19/16/10/18/12
lvl 10: 10/20/18/12/18/14
lvl 15: 10/21/19/12/19/16
lvl 20: 10/22/20/12/20/18

Giving them the best saves, Maxed damage, Maxed to-hit, Maxed AC, High HP, high Perception, compared to most other classes.

On top of this they are skill monkeys with a wide number of skills, more legendary skills than anyone else, and (again) with the right multiclassing creep easily into Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin levels.

I am absolutely taken aback by rogues and how strong they are in PF2. It reminds me of Starfinder Operatives and that worries me a lot.

Dire Ursus wrote:

I'm really surprised that people find 6 rounds of combat ridiculous... It was an hour long fight for us. It was definitely not longer than 10 minutes a round. And like I said that was a perfect length for a sub-boss. Not every single encounter. I don't think a couple of goblin mooks should last 6 rounds obviously, and they haven't in our experience.

So if it was an hour long that means:

- Each round took on average 10 minutes

- Each actor in that round (if we assume a party of 4) with your dragon and giant took less than 2 minutes to act in full

Now I'm not going to ask how you managed to have 4 PC's and 2 Monsters all act in less than 2 minutes (including all rolls, saves, movements, etc.) or dispute the fact that it happened.

What I am going to say is that I have never experienced this in any table top game what so ever.

1 minute and 40 seconds per combatant to act is break neck speed.

Even in PF1 and 3.5/3.0 where I had a thorough system mastery (I was definitely the "rules lawyer" kid growing up) never did we achieve such fast speeds.

If anyone else has experienced this type of speed, and they can actually point to what exactly in the rules allowed them to achieve it, I'd be all ears.

As far as I can tell though, the consensus from others does not seem to be nearly as quick combat.

Uh...

Dude - Our average combat round is less than a minute per.

Most competent players have their action planned before it comes up.

Player: Move: 5, 10, 15, 20 (counting squares)
Player: Flurry - Attack: (number rolled)+Modifier
Gm: hit!
Player: Damage: Usually 3 or less dice + modifier. Mathing 6, 4, 6 = 16, +5 = 21
Gm: Got it
Player: Attack (number rolled + mod -4)
Gm: Miss
Player: Third attack: (number + mod -8)
Gm: Miss

This is an actual player's actions. We timed it.

Took 49 seconds.

HWalsh wrote:

Look at the HP of CR 12s and remember, by the rules, that is supposed to be faced by 4 PCs of level 12.

-----

No, they don't. A CR 12 is a speedbump for a full level 12 party with normal WBL. If you want to challenge parties, you need higher CR's, which is what the APL table actually also does say right in the CRB.

No. No it doesn't.

The book says:

Easy = APL –1
Average = APL
Challenging = APL +1
Hard = APL +2
Epic = APL +3

Speed bump would be easy or less, ie APL -1 or lower.

Average is average.

The fact that, in reality, to create challenge, you usually need a CR+4 encounter (4 enemies of equal CR to the APL of the party) shows that the system doesn't work as intended in PF1.

Edge93 wrote:

"PF1 does not need drastic measures..."

The litany of houserules and homebrew I have to utilize to provide even remotely engaging challenges in a lot of areas without overshooting and making s TPK machine would BEG to differ.

I am surprised, doesn't take that much for my games (some official variants, and a few other house-rules, takes care of it), why do you need such volume (what aspects pose the biggest problems for you in PF1)?

Offense scales laughably in comparison to durability in PF1. With the various Force Multipliers damage ramps way up. A Full Attack from a melee fighter with haste at level 12 for example is easily capable of dealing out 32 damage per hit baseline. With things like rage and/or smite this can swell to 44 per hit easily. With the main attack and haste attack all but guaranteed to hit and the first iterative the same... You see 132 damage in one round... Easily.

From one attacker.

Look at the HP of CR 12s and remember, by the rules, that is supposed to be faced by 4 PCs of level 12.

-----

We all know that 2 handed weapons greatly out damage 1 handed weapons at higher levels. So I was wondering how this small change would affect the balance.

Attack penalty adds when you use the same hand more than once in combat. As an example a 2 handed swords is used to attack with the first action. Any additional attacks would have a -5 penalty (as both hands where used). The second and third attack would be at -5 and -10 as usual. But when 2 1 handed weapons are used the first attack with weapon 1 has no penalty. A second attack with weapon 2 has no penalty, but a third attack with either hand would be at a -5.
This could also allow for shields to stay raised from turn to turn without the need to lower them, because the sword and board player would have a natural penalty to offset the shields advantage. As they would make all 3 attacks with the same hand.
While this won't make +5 1 handed weapons hit harder than +5 2 handers, it will increase thier overall damage per round making the 1 handers closer to the damage of 2 handers.

2 handers *don't* greatly out damage 1 handers.

Longsword vs Greatsword
1d8 vs 1d12

Average damage difference is 4.5 vs 6.5

You're only looking at 2 more average damage per +, so yes a +5 weapon is a difference of 12 damage.

27 damage vs. 39 damage.

It's not a big deal.

but if there's a flaw in the 20th store of building, one seldom wrecks the whole building and builds a new one that's just 19 stores high.

That dog doesn't hunt I'm afraid.

Take CLW spam - A party of 4 spends 187 GP and 5 SP each. In exchange they get an average of 275 HP worth of healing. - It is a trivial cost expenditure and greatly increases healer efficiency if it doesn't completely negate the need for a healer alrogether.

Optimization is a widespread problem in most regions. It isnt just a PFS issue, I simply pointed you to a wider group to play with.

PF2 has to address these issues.

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

nah, thank you,I'm fine.

Then simply accept that it indeed happens, and it is common enough that it can (and has) become an issue. It is the kind of issue PF2 has to address.

Even if it doesn't happen (as much) in home games the PF1 rules allowed it to happen.

so it is one of those PFS problems again? like CLW spam and other stuff that needed to be adressed purely because it happened in organized play?

I honestly begin to think that the problem with PF1 was not PF1 but PFS and the kind of gameplay it stimulates.

It's an issue that the rules allow it. Yes a GM can say, "No, don't do this," but it's a good idea to remove rules exploits.

HWalsh wrote:

Voss wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folk, we get that this is an aspect of the system that does not sit will with everyone, especially when it comes to skills. We are looking at ways of tightening it up so that it performs a bit closer to expectation.

Question, then. What is the expectation?

Beyond 'have the biggest bonus possible or don't bother,' I'm not sure what a lot of the new subsystems in PF2 are supposed to do. Skills are definitely in that area.

The thing is this is exactly what people did in PF1 though. They optimized and cheesed until they had the biggest bonus possible.

did they? not on any table I witnessed

Play PFS.

Go ahead, play PFS online. Go to the PFS discord. Right now. I urge you to.

Why? Because I have played a LOT of online PFS and I have never witnessed that level of power gaming and optimizing in my life.

Now, I am not saying that it doesn't happen elsewhere, and I have met some players IRL who run out and get optimization guides to play characters. If you think this *doesn't* happen though, oh yeah, it does.

As someone who *wrote* an optimization guide for Starfinder I can tell you it has been viewed by over 2000 players. Not 2000 times, 2000 individual downloads. Those guides aren't popular if people aren't using them.

If he *can* swim in a storm at sea, then why can't he swim to the island?

Funny story.

I lost the ability to properly walk almost 2 years ago. I hobble on a cane but spend most of my time in a wheelchair.

So I was going up a flight of stairs a little over a year ago, holding onto the railing, when the railing broke and I toppled over the side.

Note, I was never a strong kid, I never climbed the rope in gym class, I have fabulous inflatable wobbly noodle arms.

I held on for dear life though and managed to pull myself back up only using my arms.

I am untrained in climb, I can't climb things. Not a tree, not a rope, not even one of those kiddy rock climbing walls.

I should have fallen (granted it was only about 6 feet) but I did not. Just like how your Dwarf who can't swim might be able to in a crisis.

Question from me as I don't fully understand the logic behind the +1 / level mechanic.

Is it supposed to ...

a) Give all characters some chance of success at everything as they level up? For example, I have a 9th level lion shaman druid with a Chr of 8 who has never put any levels in Diplomacy. I play him as inarticulate, tongue-tied, and generally bad at interactions with people. In PF1e, he has a Diplomacy of -1. In PF2e, he would have a diplomacy of 6 (1 per level, -1 for 8 Chr, and -2 for untrained), correct?

b) Limit crazy high skills, etc. which come from optimization and stacking all one's feats, archetype features, etc. on one or two things. The other night I played with a guy who has put together an overrun build that has a +20-something to overrun attempts at 6th level.

c) Both - if so, does it appear as if goal a) or goal b) are more important to the PF2e design team.

Level 9, -1 for 8 Cha, -4 Untrained - He would have a +3. In order to make a trivial level 0 check he'd need a natural 6.

In PF1 that's the equal to needing to hit a DC 5, which this same character, in PF1, would also make if they rolled a 6.

You guys act like +level makes you *good* at things. The only thing it does is give you an outside chance not to fail. Again I say outside. Look at the DC chart.

You're seeing level appropriate DCs requiring natural 20's at that point. The only reason to hate +level is to penalize non-int classes or classes with low skills.

No. Thank. You.

I had enough of that in PF1 when PFS Bards literally told my Paladin, who invested 1/3 of all of his skill points, a feat, and an item into ONE SKILL, (diplomacy) because his +24 wasn't needed when they had a +56, that he should sit down and shut up.

I had enough of being told, "No, you need acrobatics to jump this 5 foot hole, even though you're level 11 and can bench press a Buick you can't do this."

So no. I love +Level

Edge93 wrote:

So when it's the most tactically effective option you decide that most monsters fall into the MINORITY of "Attacks downed players" and that the monsters somehow know this is their best tactical decision and act on it regardless of other factors, yet when a mechanical change occurs in the rules that changes nothing about the rules on whether or not monsters go after downed foes all of a sudden you decide that not so many of the monsters fall into the "most vicious" minority?

None of that sounds like an interest in adhering to either RAW or RAI (Since neither of those changed in update 1.3 but apparently your interpretation of them changed due to this separate mechanical change) but instead just trying as hard as possible to take your players out (without explicitly stating that they just die or throwing an entirely impossible challenge at them) including twisting the written rules and guidelines as much as you can and rationalizing it by basically saying that words like "most" don't really mean most when it suits that goal but suddenly stopping when it's less useful in party-killing.

Your conduct here really is a piece of work.

"Adversaries typically stop attacking someone who’s knocked out. Even if a creature knows a fallen character might come back into the fight, only the most vicious creatures focus on helpless foes rather than the more immediate threats around them."

As far as I can tell here, it is up to the GM to determine whether or not a monster counts as a "most vicious creature." If it is up to the GM to determine that, and I am the GM, then I can declare enemies as "most vicious" whenever I please. Ever since update 1.3, it is something I have had to declare only occasionally, because attacking unconscious PCs is less efficient given Hero Points.

Framing a good narrative outside of combat is one thing. However, I run tabletop RPG combat in a wargame-y fashion. The moment initiative is rolled, my thought processes shift to the following: "I am now playing a...

If it works for your group I guess...

Wouldn't work for me, I'd leave the table under those circumstances.

I could see a compromise like this:

1 Die, Untrained, Trained, Expert

2 Dice, Master

3 Dice, Legendary

You get these dice *or* Potency dice. They do not stack.

So if you're a Master Swordsman, and your +3 Weapon gets disarmed you can use a backup weapon that does 2 dice of damage.

So you'd do 2d8+Str with a normal Longsword or 4d8+Str with their +3 Longsword.

Three Things I Love...

1. Three Action Combat Round
2. Skill Bonuses no longer get insane.
3. Everyone can participate and have a chance to succeed.

2 & 3 are due to + Level to everything.

-----

Three Things I Hate...

1. Retributive Strike is terrible.
2. Lack of Smite Evil. Blade of Justive is weak.
3. Heavy Armor is horrible.

-----

Three House Rules...

1. Restore Smite Evil as a base Paladin ability, make Ret Strike an.option, not a requirement.

2. Remove the movement penalty on armor. Make Full Plate a level 1 item. There's no justification for it being a level 2 item.

3. Grant Charisma casters more Spell Points so they don't get penalized and have to split focus between items and their class abilities.

20 TPKs, yikes! In my dozen or so playtest session there has never been even one character killed. Your GM must hate the players. :D

Same. I have had one character death so far in 39 play tests.

So you are saying *I* have gotten better at art? Cuz you would be wrong.

I highly doubt that. In fact I'll hazard to say that you just don't notice your level of improvement due to it being slow and gradual. You may not be any better at drawing, or painting, or sculpting, but I'm willing to bet that there are things you picked up that you don't even realize are skills.

I say this as someone who has a background in art.

You can look at someone's art and probably spot things you have seen your wife or daughter do. You can say things like, "Those shadows don't look right." or "Those colors don't compliment that well."

You wouldn't be trained in it, which is what you'd need to make art, but you've gained general knowledge about it. You probably know some key words too, like in illustration you probably know the terms cross hatching and the like.

You might know things like "Kirby dots" and you probably have a grasp on things like symmetrical vs asymmetrical art. It is highly likely that you know the names of certain techniques, or even little things like "my wife uses an old brush that is kind of wide when she dry brushes."

You may not even know the term dry brush, but if you have watched her at all I am sure you can explain "how" she does something, even if you can't do it yourself.

It's rare I see Diplomacy. I'll see maybe, and I mean MAYBE one person have diplomacy, and that's only if they have a good Charisma score. And then when the chance for diplomacy comes up, it's often ignored. They rely on Diplomacy only to get more gold, not to avoid fighting.

Gathering information.

That's what it is used most for. These generalizations you have are completely different from any of mine and I've played all over the US.

Bryon, I get what you're saying. I really do. It's one thing I like about PF1. Not every character is going to be great at everything and it adds a lot of story element to playing a character. And I do see where level to everything takes that away. It doesn't automatically make every character great at everything and totally unstoppable though. You're sitting here making a tirade that level to everything is going to completely kill the genre, when I'm honestly starting to think that you're not getting a full picture here. You've got a group or two that focuses on story first. That's cool. But I have been all over the country and have tried to run countless groups and there's one thing I can tell you. When it comes to the 3.x/PF mechanics, story goes south real fast. It's rare that I see anyone have more than one or two ranks in Sense Motive. It's rare that I see anyone have any points into Diplomacy, several different Knowledge skills, Perform or Profession skills, hell, even Linguistics. It's always Stealth, Perception, Climb, Use Magic Device. The skills meant for story use are hardly ever used, and when they are, they're rarely a clutch game saving moment, it's a "Well crap, I got nothing for this, anyone have any other idea?"

I get that you don't like level to everything, and I'm not going to fault or blame you on that. But the thing is that there are more people who play this and get very discouraged and very frustrated and feel there is no longer a point in playing because everyone said that such and such skill is worthless and that they were stupid for wanting to invest in such a stupid skill, and then when the time comes for said stupid skill, it stops the entire party. You can still have level to everything be a challenge as long as the GM knows how to make them appropriate. But if a GM doesn't properly know how to do so, that doesn't mean the system is automatically broken and stuck on easy mode. It just means the GM is either lacking experience or hasn't figured out how to properly adjust...

Diplomacy is one of the highest taken skills I've seen.

My Gwyn has maxed ranks in it...

WatersLethe wrote:

level to skills you never intended to invest in.

And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.

1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system

Uh - An untrained 14 dex Paladin at lvl 5 vs a 19 Dex Expert Stealth Rogue...

Paladin - assume at least a -2 ACP

2-4-2+5 = +1 Explain to me how this doesn't suck please.

Vs

+4+1+5 = +10