In my expirience 4E runs better without +1/2/lvl than with it.
So for me PF2 will also run better without it.
I would just like for bestiary to have parentheses for bonuses without the threadmill.
I.E. some random 6th level orc
5E did pretty good job in balancing "stiff" Vancian casting and "free flow" mana point usage.
While I would prefer full mana point system with fixed number of prepared/known spells(depending on class), it has only problem of forcing 5min work day even more as you can burn ALL mana on highest level spells, so instead of having 30 or so spells across 10 levels(PF2 current) you would just have 3-5 10th level spells to cast.
That is why I like 5E casting, it gives lots of freedom of multiple variations of spells in the same level and across different spell levels by means of auto-hightening.
This is all problem of d20, it's very existance.
Having a tool(d20) that gives same chance for best/worst(20/1) performance and an average one(10) is a bad tool. As that is not how things work.
If we have 3d6 instead of d20 +1/level or lack of it, and proficiency going from +0 to +3 would have some meaning.
Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.
it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.
Or remove passive or "welfare" bonus to EVERYTHING so bonuses has to be earned.
Payed with general feats, or racial feats, or skill feats, or class feats, or just by having one class be better at attack by levels with cost to defese or spell DC, or better at will at cost of perception.
Numbers should rise with levels, but at a slower rate and at a different rate depending on class and on resources spent while leveling.
Also AC should rise slower than attack as damage progresses more slowly than HPs
So in winter, istead of removing one of your gloves to open your house or car, you strip butt naked so you can pull out keys from your pocket and unlock a lock?
yes, I also see appeal of simple math, but not at the expense or quality of the game and balance of the game.
I would rather spend 10mins more on character sheet than play another version of 4E.
That was the aim if 4E, more streamlined, simplified(read; dumbed down) version of DnD.
That is why we have PF in the 1st place as people were not so impressed by 4E.
Also you have now single stat to damage, and you will also need to recalculate if you get some temporary stat change.
If that happens more so what. If it makes maybe a better game.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
This isn't about doing math on the fly.
You create a character and write down gear and relevant weapons attack and damage modifiers.
Same as normal. Once per weapon/level.
When you get new weapon your write it down again.
If writing on character sheet once per level or new weapon will last 3 seconds more and lead to a better game, who cares.
Goal should be better game not simpler.
Are you joking?
I've mastered that formula in 2nd grade of elementary school. When I was 8yo.
Some people here really underestimate IQ of us geeks here :D
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
It is str + 2×dex.
But, I'm still at a loss should it be 2×str + 1×dex or 1×str + 2×dex
I'm all for +weapon die(dice) per plus.
I'm also for +dex to damage with finesse weapons.
Also, I would drop simpe/martial/exotic weapons.
Martial training can be better described with spread of +0 to +3 proficiency bonus and access to it.
Also weapons need bigger dice, especially 2Handers, non finesse with little or no extra properties.
I.E. great-ax, 2handed, slashing damage, no extra stuff or some minor.
Oh, and get rid of d4 dice. With removed weapon categories, and bigger 2hander dice, dagger can be 1d6 without any problems.
Finesse weapons should suffer 2 dice categorie penalties.
I.E. 1hander without any special extra powerful traits would do 1d12 damage, finesse cannot be better than 1d8 with some minor traits added.
2hander max would be 3d6, so finesse 2hander could max be only 2d6, as penalty would go 3d6->2d8->2d6
Heavy armor needs less or no speed penalty, and reduced ACP,
But I would add more effect to damage from abilities.
1Handed weapons: +2×str mod for damage
1H finesse weapons: str+dex mod for damage
2Handed weapons: +3×str mod for damage
2H finesse weapons: str+2×dex for damage
Thrown weapons: str+dex for damage
Oh, I have ruled falling damage decades ago.
You take 10% of your MAX HPs per 10ft. 100ft=100% HP. you die.
You can always try acrobatics check to reduce distance by 10ft or more
Basically, attacks should scale faster than AC, skills should scale faster than skill DCs(but only for skills you want), and saves should scale faster than save DCs. What number constitutes an successful roll on the d20 should get lower as levels increase.
Skill DCs should NOT SCALE AT ALL.
A legendary lock has the same DC no matter who picks it.
But, I do agree that AC should scale much slower, if at all.
HPs are your virtual scaling AC
does not have to be strange.
now some martials can throw fireball-like handful of dice.
making all weapons have minimum strength and having either str or dex for attack and damage would be far better. and no weapon categories(simple, martial, exotic)
Dagger, 1d4, no min str,
spear, no min str, 1d8
now if you have 22 str and manage to have even more dex than that, then be my guest and finesse the hell out of that huge ### sword.
That is mainly the problem of d20.
Run the math in 3d6 and you will have better consistency, even with only +1 difference.
d20 is Legacy and I understand that, but ironically, d20 is biggest "ball and chain" on d20 system.
We invent advantage/disadvantage, assurance feats, minimum d20 effective rolls, anything to tame the d20, but in the end all those are makeshift band-aids trying to fix what is unfixable.
Dire Ursus wrote:
10th level fighter already has 10×HPs or similar over 1st level orc and 2 or 3 times more damage, and without +1/lvl +2 or +3 in attack and AC. Do you really need 10 more attack or AC over them?
If you could beat 1 at 1st level, now you can 15 or 20, without any +level bonuses, if you are careful not to be cornered/flanked/grappled.
beating 100 seems dumb.
But to each his own. Everyone of us has different view how fantasy should work.
Richard Crawford wrote:
My only issue is that it trivializes CRs below your level really fast 2 or 3 levels max, and makes higher level CRs completely out of reach not matter how much preparation, tactics, or numbers you put in the fight.
A 20 str Orc with a huge ax, even if he is CR1 encounter should be a threat somewhat to higher level character, especially if he brings few friends along you you don't have any AoE or you are ambushed by them.
IMHO there should only be bows.
Their damage/range tied to minimum str needed to use them.
str 8, 1d6, range 40, agile 12 str
str 10, 1d8, range 60, agile 14 str
str 12, 1d10, range 80, agile 16 str
str 14, 1d12, range 100, agile 18 str
special; if you have str 4 pts higher that bows rating, it gains agile trait.
No deadly, no volley, no propulsive.
Dire Ursus wrote:
I would say that damage/HPs/special abilities/manuevars/spells should be enough to make definite difference in an encounter challenge.
If you are both increasing damage and attack roll or HPs and AC, you are double-dipping the same kind of thing and raising lowering difficulty too much over different levels, IMHO.
Ofc, but good ideas are meant to be stolen :p
but if you remove or flatten the treadmill a little you can get -5/+5 in levels that can be used used in encounters.
and monsters are defined by the same +1 per level.
There is for AC. you need more strength for more bulk of heavy armor.and thrown weapons are str?
Now, I agree that heavy armor has too much penalty attached to it.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I have a variant where int,wis&cha are reworked into Willpower and Cunning.
Willpower is for casting spells(all) and Will saves(duh!) and forceful part of the mind, like possible paladins auras, frightful presence, etc.
Cunning would cover most skills(excluding athletics, acrobatics, stealth, thievery), be used for bonus languages, bonus skills, etc... The finesse part of the mind
I am all for dex to damage, being able to aim better with high dex and ranged/finesse weapons does not mean just hitting the target wherever, it means also hitting more precise into more vulnerable areas.
Personally I would get rid of weapon categories and give each weapon minimum str to use.
And made all melee weapons dex or str for attack and damage.
With minimum str score required str could not be a dump stat unless you want to be sentenced to eternity for 1d4 dagger damage.
Combat Monster wrote:
IF in the end PF2 will be a good game I will play it, no matter if they keep ability scores in just for nostalgia.
I will ignore it for other good stuff in the game.
Biggest concern for me is still religion like dogma for d20 as it is the biggest mistake of any d20 RPG system(oh the irony).
Point is, when you cling too much for legacy it can prevent you from making a new great game.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
So basically it's there to punish newbie players and/or veterans who don't metagame and make the game less fun for them?
Yes, if you are unpreparad and without any info of what you are fighting, you should be killed/permanently disabled.
And it is not "permanent" as there is a cure for any condition.
Also lvl12 characters, if there is 4 to 6 of them in a group should between themselves have atleast one copy of any antidote available from lvl1 to atleast lvl7 spell levels.
In any game that I played at around that level I had 100 or so potions/scrolls on me.
Low light vision: triples the range of light sources.
Darkvision: 30ft, can see black and white only. Can move normally in darkness with full speed, -2 penalty to attack and -5 to perception as colorblind gives less detail.
This both gives incentive to use light sources as you can only have 100% within a lighted area.
Remove weapon and armor proficiency categories.
Every melee weapon can have str or dex as attack and damage stat.
Add minimum str for every weapon. Without it you are unproficient with weapon(-4) and deal minimum damage.
Add minimum str for armor. Without it you are unproficient(-4 AC) and take extra 5ft speed penalty.
Intelligence should add both skills and extra language on one-on-one basis(like 1e).
Add option for perception to be either int or wis.
why complicate as 1:100:10000 in nice, metric and intuitive?
And easy to calculate back and forth between copper:silver:gold.
They should kill the sacred cow of 6 abilities and go with 4.
Str: current str+con, fort saves, melee&thrown attack and damage, HPs, carry capacity, str skills,
Dex: dex, reflex saves, AC, +init, range/finesse attack and damage, dex skills,
Will: will saves, magic attack, damage and DCs, channel energy etc...
Cunning: bonus skills and languages, +init, int,wis and cha skills,
Good solution would similar to attunement form 5e but with charisma added.
I.E. you can attune to 1+cha mod items. Min 2.
And every item that is more powerful than simple +X to something would require attunement.
Also some feats could "key" from charisma, leadership like: providing bonuses to attack, temp HPs, bonus damage, vs. fear/mind control rolls, etc...
So add an action as I have suggested, 2 actions for one Step that does not provoke AoO. If that proves to easy or hard make it 3 actions for 1 Step or 3 actions for 2 Steps.
Also, we could add that if you do not have a melee weapon you suffer -2 AC penalty as you do not threaten your melee attacked or cant add "parry" to your AC and attacker can attack you without worry about his safety.
System is tailored that it does not happen.
I.E. fighter could boost str, dex or con. Wizard con, int, wis. Rogue dex, int, cha. ranger str, dex or wis... etc...
I really like the bonuses like from race and class coming before the point buy, that gets rid of the problem of some races being unbalanced, while still keeping the bonuses and flaws.
If you make class and race bonuses non-stackable then you do not have problems with everyone getting their primary stat maxed, except when race has penalty in primary stat for a class. But they you should be able to boost secondary and tertiary stat for the class and still be ok.
Dire Ursus wrote:
Please no AoO. We finally have gameplay where people aren't just five foot stepping every single turn. It's vastly superior to pf1 in that regard.
Yes, and now that everyone ignores melee and just waltz through is sooo much better.
AoO makes closing in with melee more rewarding as it punishes ranged attackers for bad positioning.
Point is that it is too expensive.
As usually it is to specialize in one thing over generalization.
And I would have point buy about 3E power curve and race and class bonuses that do not stack(13th age take on it).
And no background bonuses.
They you will have probably only one 18 and one 16(matching race and class bonuses).