Zman0's page

The new rules for Treat Wounds have one major unintended consequence, they absolutely obsolete Natural Medicine as a feat.

My suggestion is this...

Natural Medicine:
You can use Treat Wounds and Administer First Aid with Nature instead of Medicine. If you are in the wilderness, you do not require a Healer's Kit. If you are a Master of Nature you can Treat Poison using Nature instead of Medicine. If you are Legendary of Nature you can Treat Disease using Nature instead of Medicine.

Note: I have problems with Treat Wounds in general, ie magnitude of healing, time, number of patients, removing Wounded condition etc. But, this isn't a thread for that, its to specifically point out how Natural Medicine is now obsolete and a ruined feat.

Here is something I put together to address the Resonance and Healing problems that have come up. I do so using small tweaks to magic items and a hero point tweak and new mechanic. I've posted about the healing portion before, but this kind of ties everything all together.

How would these changes affect your feelings on Resonance?

Are these changes preferable to the P1 healing solution of cheap spammable consumables a the current state of P2?

Fixing Resonance, Healing, and Hero Points

Here is the Raw txt if you don't like the pdf.

Warning: This is a long and in depth thread digging into the foundational math of skill DCs, their Scaling, Monster Skills, Monster Perception, and consequently Skill Items. I apologize if any of this is difficult to digest, without access to the exact terms, tables, etc the Devs have my verbiage and jargon are a bit varied and it can be difficult to determine some of the exact details. Enjoy!

As many threads before have illustrated and pointed out, there are some problems with PC competence compared to the Skill DC table, Monster Skills, and Monster Perception. This thread is about deconstructing exactly where the problems are coming from on the back-end math. There exist some systemic issues relating to the ~50% competence calibration etc. ie where that design goal is not being met as intended. This thread isn't about the merits of the ~50% competence design decision and is about fixing the back-end math to fulfill that design goal.

We'll start by looking at what problems exist, and how the back-end math was designed and structured. Then we'll look past the symptomatic problems to isolate the root causes. Finally, we'll look at a couple of possible solutions for those problems.

Problem 1: Monster Skills

Monster's skills are better than PC skills. Monster's names skills come in varieties of specialization and are no longer determined by their ability scores. Monster's best and worst named skills rarely vary by more than 2-3 pts. Specialized Monsters scores are at least as good as a fully optimized PC and their aggregate is significantly better than PCs man manage. Unnamed Skills +X are generally equivalent to trained or better compared to a PC's and PCs cannot directly compare to them due to how they are structured with their added in ability modifiers. Monsters also do not suffer the equivalent of Armor Check Penalty.

Problem 2: Monster Perception

Monster perception vastly outpaces PC Perception and generally keeps pace with moderately optimized and focused PC skills. It is usually only a 3-4 point range among Monsters of a given CR. PCs, even optimizing Perception, have difficulty reaching Monster Perception levels or flat out are incapable of it due to their class's limitations of Trained/Expert and the dearth of higher end perception skill items.

Problem 3: Skills DC

Skills DC's according to Table 10-2 on pg 337 start at ranges that adhere to the definitions of their difficulties listed on pg 336. But, as a character levels the DCs quickly outpace all PC skills except for moderately or optimized PC's focused skills. This effect is especially noticeable for Low and High DCs. By mid to high levels most PCs will have fallen behind their rate of success on skill difficulties that they by definition should have retained competency at.

-----------------------------------

Monster Calculations

Named Monster skills are not affected by a Monster's ability scores. Only their Unnamed skills +X are affected by their listed ability modifiers.

The fundamental maximum range for the monster skill calculations assume four things: Character Level, Proficiency, Ability Modifier, and Item Modifier of a possible PC. They use some kind of tiered set of tables ie a Monster might have their effective rough equivalent of Untrained/Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary. Untrained is their Skills +X, but still scales upwards and can reach near or occasionally exceed trained levels depending on the Monster's ability scores. Untrained skills also vary significantly. Trained is the Monster's lowest possible skill which at high levels is usually three points lower than its highest skill tier. What I am calling Expert is the Trained value +1, Master is +2, Legendary is +3. Now, I'm giving these skills those names, but it may not exactly correspond to a PC's proficiency, but I'm guessing it was indented to exhibit that kind of competence.

When a monster is being created the named skills select a proficiency track and get the modifier for that proficiency at that level. Ability scores do not matter. Ie the best skill is usually equal to an optimized character of that level. Due to named skills having such a narrow range they often represent very high degrees of competence in those named skills by PC standards.

Monsters occasionally get a special modifier representing extremely specialized skill. This can put a Monster well beyond a PC's optimized capabilities. An example of this would be a Shadow's Stealth.

Skill DC Table Calculation

The 10-2 Skill DC table is built with certain assumptions: Level, Ability Modifier, Proficiency, and Item Modifier.

Trivial and Extreme DCs set the range with trivial being a DC10 check scaled only by level representing no investment in the skill and Extreme representing an unchanging check for a completely optimized PC(Ability, Proficiency, and Item) at approximately a 40% success rate.

Severe is the same as Extreme but scaled for ~55% success rate.

Low and High are our problem children; they scale quickly and stay closer to the Severe and Extreme ends of the table than Trivial representing a significant improvement outside of level. This, observably, quickly outpaces most PC's competence and ability to succeed on them. Essentially, character lose pace with these DCs despite meeting the description of those DC difficulties on Pg 336. They are calculated with scaling assumptions for Proficiency, Ability Mod, and Item Bonus, and those assumptions amount to increases nearly as high as those for Optimized characters.

-----------------------------------

Problem Causes

Smoothing

We know that when tables 10-2 were created and monsters were created they were using a now defunct progression table that due to the levels of expected Master and Legendary Proficiency and smoothing resulted in a ~+1(+0-2) discrepancy in Monster Skills, Monster Perception, and Skill DCs at many/most levels. This is universally working against PC competence. I believe this is the result of in an earlier version they had Master and Legendary proficiency at different levels ie Legendary at 13th levels, this means that there are levels that with the smoothing is likely thrown off by 1 and possibly 2.

This is a known issue among the Devs and is going to be fixed for the final release. But, we need to keep that ~1 discrepancy in mind for everything else as it acts as a magnifier.

Perception's Dual Nature

Monster Perception fulfills a weird gap between skills and what Perception is. As it is not a PC skill, most classes cannot move it beyond Trained or Expert, outside of Ranger and Rogue. But, it also acts like a skill for opposing skills etc. Monsters treat it very much like a skill and it progresses like one. This is doubly bad for PC competence. Essentially PC's have a significantly harder time sneaking against monsters than they do against them in addition to having pretty significant initiative disadvantages.

Scaling for Low and High DCs

Low and High DCs scale quickly and outpace PC's ability to compete. This is directly related to the assumptions for Proficiency, Ability, and Item bonus factored with with a big emphasis on Item Bonus. Any PC that does not have some kind of reasonably item bonus, or hasn't focused on proficiency and ability sans item bonus will quickly fall behind.

Trivial/Low/High over the course of lvls 1 through 20 goes from 10/12/14 to 29/38/41. That +0/+7/+8 scaling without level is what we need to zero in on.

"A high-difficulty skill DC can be overcome by a character who has increased their proficiency rank in a skill but doesn’t have a high score in the associated ability"

So, that +8 over the course of 20 levels assumes a modest increase in Ability score ie and or increase in proficiency. You'll notice that those modest ability and proficiency improvements only account for about half(+3-4) of that expected +8 improvement. Even if it is high by 1 because of the aforementioned smoothing problem, we're still looking at a +3-4 expected Item Bonus. Low is even worse and the situation gets extremely bad for any untrained skill. Essentially, with out high to max item bonuses in most skills PCs fall behind the Low/High DCs when they shouldn't. It looks like Devs are assuming ~+3 for Ability Mod improvement from level 1-20.

Any PC that doesn't horde skill items, or is caught without the right one invested, is going to be at a severe disadvantage. PCs that horde skill items have an outsized bonus compared to other PCs. Also, Resonance becomes a limiting factor.

When each skill is looked at individually, we can find ways for most PCs to keep up, but when aggregated and the whole breadth of PC skill competence is examined we see that most PCs, even with magic skill items, are falling behind Low/High DCs when they really shouldn't be.

Item Bonus

This is the crux of the real problem. Both Monsters Skill/Perception and the Low/High DCs on the 10-2 table assume significant item bonus scaling on virtually every single DC track outside of Trivial. Any PC that does not acquire item bonuses to their skills will fall behind. And often, they will need these bonuses to be reasonable ie +3 or higher by late levels to remain competent.

One major problem is skill item availability. There isn't universal availability of items across all ranges ie +1-+5, or the items are not available to all character types, or locked behind rarity for all skills. Some skills ie Perception have very limited item availability, limited at +2 for reasonably accessible item, but that limitation isn't factored into Monster's competence.

Any character that does not invest in skill items will fall way behind not only the Skill DCs and Monsters, but also fellow PCs who are skill item hoarders. Currently, the back end maths assumes all characters are effectively item hoarders who have all the skill items as default.

Also, one of the assumed bonus sources is Mundane skill items, but there are limited availability of these items and often they have no combat uses when compared to Monsters which can give the appearance of PC competence that falls behind Monster comparisons.

One other compounding problem is that PC's suffer armor check penalties that can be quite steep. This can really tax the expected competencies at low levels before higher quality items are acquired to mitigate ACP.

Monster Scaling

Monster's Skill/Perception scaling suffers the same item assumptions as the 10-2 Skill DC Table mentioned earlier. Worse, it assumes essentially maxed item bonus progression to each and every Monster Skill tier including their generic Skills +X. This puts Monster's capabilities for their named skill essentially hitting High to Severe DC at PC competence levels, or equivalent to an Optimized PC to Optimized -~3. So Monster Skills effectively assume an optimized PC's ability Mod, max Item Bonus for level, and effectively Trained to Legendary Proficiency. Monster's "Untrained" catch-all Skills +X +Ability level is enough to match Low DCs and has a substantial assumed item/proficiency contribution.

With all of the aforementioned problems regarding PC's abilities and the innate assumptions about item bonuses we see just how far Monsters outpace PC's abilities to compete on a skill footing. When you look at Perception, this gets even worse.

It does get worse, Monsters don't suffer an Armor Check Penalty adding insult to injury.

-----------------------------------

How do you fix these problems?

Now that we've isolated the problems and determined the root causes of those problems our next step is to look at options for fixing them. We can ignore the smoothing issue as that will be addressed on its own.

We need to address the Low/High DC scaling problem resulting in general PC incompetence in all but a few skills.

We need to address the Monster Skill problem, ideally in a way that addresses the Perception imbalance at the same time.

Suggestion 1: Lightest Touch: Change only what is needed to address the core problems:

This approach addresses the underlying issues with as light of touch as possible.

Low/High Skill DCs: The scaling of these DCs needs to be shifted to be more in line with PC expectations for those skill DCs ad defined on pg336. Currently the lvl 20 DCs for Trivial/Low/High/Severe/Extreme are 29/38/41/44/47 representing scaling from lvl 1 DCs of +0/+7/+8/+10/+10. A more viable and effective set of DCs for lvl 20 would be 29/34/39/43/47 representing scaling of +0/+3/+6/+9/+10.

Skill Items: Left largely unchanged. Fill out the gaps in availability of skill items ensuring a more equal availability of both skills and magnitude of static bonuses.

Monster Skills/Perception: Monsters effective proficiency tracks for their skills need to be revised. Monsters "Legendary" track, ie their highest ability track doesn't need to change, but their lower proficiency named skills need to be addressed. Right now named Monster skills exhibit ~4pt range, expanding that to a 6 or 8 point range would diversify named skills. Monster unnamed skills would need to be addressed down correspondingly with the bottom of lowest named skill tier. Perception could be addressed by using the Master and Legendary monster perception tracks more sparingly, focusing most Monster Perceptions off of the Trained and Expert Tiers. When coupled with more available PC Perception options this would narrow the existing gap.

Potential Problems: There still exist some substantial pitfalls of this approach including the large gulf between item hoarding PCs and those PCs who do not buy skill items as soon as they reasonably affordable. Resonance remains a problem, the weight of the required skill items on resonance is still quite high. Monster Perception is still likely to outpace PC perception by a couple of points.

Suggestion 2: Moderate Touch: Static Skill Item Rework to +3 Maximum with additional required core fixes.

This approach is largely the same as the lightest touch method, but it it limits the static Item Bonus to skills to a +3, shrinking the rank and scaling of all problem areas. Coupled with the core fixes it further reduces the existing problems.

Low/High Skill DCs: DCs are re-scaled similarly to the lightest touch fix, though with the reduced static modifier the Exteme DC is scaled down with the others below it. A reasonable set of DCs under this change would be 29/33/37/41/45 representing a level 1-20 scaling of +0/+2/+4/+7/+8.

Skill Items: Skill Items can be left largely unchanges with their magnitudes changing from +1-2 becoming +1, with +3-4 becoming +2, and with +5 becoming +3. At the end of this post I will include a pdf of skill item templates, the second page referenced default item templates adhering to this style. It offers a variety of different kind of skill item functioning.

Monster Skills/Perception: As the lightest touch method, except it closes things down further. A scaling of monster skill tiers of a 6pt range instead of the current 4pt range would work better. As above, the skills+X would need to be addressed downward to compensate.

Potential Problems: As the lightest touch, though smaller.

Suggestion 3: Heavier Touch: Proficiency Based Skill Items

This approach changes how skill items function and structurally changes how DCs are calculated. It shrinks the absolute range maximum end of the range to +2, but offers potentially higher bonuses for the least skilled characters.

Proficiency Based Items: If a character has a Proficiency bonus lower than the of the item, their Proficiency Bonus is calculated as if the character had that item's level of proficiency. If the character's proficiency is equal or greater than the items they receive a +1 Item bonus instead. If the character and item are both of Legendary Proficiency, they receive a +2 Item bonus instead.

Skill Items: Items follow the basic outline above with +1-2 Items becoming Expert Items, +3-4 Items becoming Master Item, and with +5 items becoming Legendary Items. In the pdf below I've made Item templates using Proficiency.

Low/High DCs: These DCs are shifted to be more in line with the moderate touch DCs. Reasonable DCs for this modification would be lvl 20 DCs of 29/33/37/41/44 representing scaling for levels 1-20 of +0/+2/+4/+7/+7.

Monster Skills/Perception: Scaled similarly to the moderate touch. The Tier tracks will shift down 1 due to the reduced maximum skill item bonus. A level 20 6pt range in skills should be sufficient to vary Monster skills as well as the corresponding reduction in Skill +X. This variation eliminates completely virtually and problematic distinction between Monster Skills and Perception in relation to PC's capabilities.

Potential Problems: If implemented this method has the fewest potential problems as far as the existing fundamentals are concerned. It has the greatest ability to affect the outlined problems. Potential new problems created are similar to the moderate hand set of fixes which is reducing the total scale and range of potential skill modifiers at all levels. Some will view this as a bug, others will view it as a feature.

Skill Item Templates

[b]Bonus Fix: Armor Check Penalty[/roll]

ACP is extremely punishing at low levels for heavy armor wearers and is needlessly complex.

Problems: ACP is hugely punishing to PCs at low levels. It is quite varied, changes often, and is ultimately greatly reduced to inconsequential by high levels. Heavy Armor and especially Full Plate is some of the worst armor available long term. Heavy Shields are vastly more desirable than Light Shields.

Suggested Fix: Light Armor has an ACP of -0. Medium Armor has an ACP of -1. Heavy Armor has an ACP of -2. Light Shields have an ACP of -0. Heavy Shields have an ACP of -1. Superior Armor quality no longer reduces ACP, instead it adds to AC in the same way weapons attack modifier is increased. Like Magic Weapons, that modifier would be overwritten by potency runes.

Potential Problems: This cramps some of the design space around armor differences. Virtually all are fine with these changes except for Splint which needs to be modified. Something along the lines of a 100sp cost and only a 5' speed penalty would suffice. Mithril Armor will become more desirable to reduce the ACP of of Medium of 0 as well as reduce that for Heavy Armor to -1.

http://com.paizo.downloads.watermarked.s3.amazonaws.com/139110/v5748aid7vrg w/v5748btpya25i/PathfinderPlaytestRulebookUpdatesPDF.zip

If that link doesn't work for people which it probably wont.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest#downloads

The 1.2 Errata dropped today.

*Signature Skills are gone. Ass classes get one trained skill for "free" before they select their X+Int skills. This results in most classes getting an additional skill or two.

*Multiclass feats no longer have a skill requirement, but grant that classes main skill.

*Fixed Taking damage while dying.

*Soothe is now 30ft.

*Frightened specifically affects AC.

*Dragon Totem has been toned down.

*Bards have a 10th level spell feat for 20th level.

Heroic Recovery

There seems to be an elephant in the room. Healing. We've got a blog post referencing Resonance points and how they were being used to curve low level item "abuse". I'm not going to argue if that is good or bad. What it was was a solution to a healing problem. We've got a thread about using Stamina from Starfinder. We've got numerous discussions about the efficacy of healers and the feel and tone of needing them.

What problems do we have relying on healers? Well, that means Cleric as they are the only class that is really competent at healing. Druids, Bards, and mundane healers just don't cut it. Necessitating a particular class for each party doesn't feel good and limits customization.

What problems do we have just abusing CLW Wands and consumables? Firstly, it bumps into a hard cap of Resonance which was partially designed to stop this kind of spamming. It doesn't "feel" right for a lot of people as the low level items are more efficient and desirable than the higher level counterparts. They often obsolete healers and healer abilities.

What problems does using Stamina from Starfinder cause? Adding Stamina Points creates another pool to track. It operates off Resolve Points which necessitates yet another pool to track. Resolve as written in Starfinder can be used numerous times a day and in its own way obsoletes healers in the traditional sense. It really changes the feel of P2.

My Suggestion: Heroic Recovery
Spend 1 Hero Point allows you to dig into reserves of strength and resilience only heroes have. Anytime outside of encounter mode you can spend 1 hero point to recover half of your HP(rounded up).

Why is this a better solution? We already have a Hero Points Pool, it is limited and self contained coming with substantial opportunity cost. Heroic Recovery just adds another use for Hero Points. We don't need any new pools, no new resource tracking. Just a simple rule added to an existing mechanic.

Thematically it represents your hero spending a few seconds or minutes catching their breath, digging down into their heroic resolve, and finding what they need to keep pushing and taking abuse. It fits the "hero" them well. This also represents a useful tool for the DM, when putting the heroes through an epic set of encounters, you can give out hero points for performing heroic deed. Characters only earn more hero points by doing heroic things, and using those hero points to heal to keep doing heroic things just works.

Mechanically it gives non healer a way to heal a substantial amount of hit points when they need to. It makes non healer parties more viable. It does not obsolete healers or consumables as it uses Hero Points which are a valuable commodity. There is a hard cap on hero points of 3, and characters start the session or adventure with only one. The only real way to earn more is by doing heroic things, easily defined as the things likely to get you hurt and in need of healing. The more heroic things they do, the more heroic recoveries they can take and the more hero points they earn. It becomes a very good way of throttling adventures and greatly reduced the 15 min adventuring day. Often when the adventuring day comes to an end is when you've depleted your resources, including your hero points. You just have run out of mythical hero go juice and need to fall back.

What about healers, magical and mundane, and consumables? They are still useful and desirable. Firstly, you can't use Heroic Recover in encounter mode, so if you're running out of HP in a fight, it doesn't do you any good. Secondly, any healing that doesn't deplete hero points leaves that precious pool for staving off death, or for that critical reroll or extra action. Your mundane healing, consumables, and healers all have a place. Their healing hasn't been obsoleted, and the more they do the less pressure players feel on their hero points.

One potential change to hero points. Maybe, if this was adopted it would be better to codify that the hero point pool is to reset it to 1 after a long rest so long as there was an encounter since the last long rest preventing abuse. The "Session" mechanic may not quite work ideally for this change.

Inspired by DMW's pointed thread, I figured I'd try and tackle the back-end math for monster skills aiming to find something that hits the desired sweetspot.

If you haven't followed his thread, it boils down to many monster skills, especially perception, being calculated as if they are completely optimized in certain skills, sometimes to the the point of being flat out better than an optimized PC in that particular skill. This is especially egregious in regards to Perception. Essentially many monsters would not only gain higher proficiency as they leveled but they were also getting the expected magic item bonuses in every single one of their "trained" skills.

Correctly calibrating Monster skills can be a bit tricky. First, you can't list every individual skill for ease of use considerations and you need some kind of cat all ie the Skills +X used for any unlisted skills. Secondly, you have to approximate specialization for certain skills which won't always coincide with ability modifies plus proficiency. Thirdly, you have to consider magical enhancements to specialized skills that on some level are expected.

My suggestions will overall bring Perception back in line, diversify the ranges of skills Monsters exhibit, and overall have them "make sense". The new ranges should allow specialized characters to demonstrate competence while offering the tools to build focused monsters.

My suggestions:

Skill +X: Equals 0+Level or Lowest Ability Mod + Level whichever is higher
Expert(E): Equals Level + 1 + Ability Mod
Master(M): Equals Level +1 + Ability Mod + an additional +1 at levels 5/10/15/20
Legendary(L): Equals Level + 1 + Ability Mod + an additional +1 at levels 2/5/8/11/14/17/20
Monster Specialization(S): +4

These skill levels model an approximate aggregate of expected proficiency and magical enhancement. Only a Monster's Legendary skills in a dominant skill should outpace an optimized characters. Moderately optimized PCs should be able to readily exceed Expert skills and match Moderate skills.

Monster Perception: Monsters generally are considered to have Expert Perception as a default. If they have physical attributes that enhance perception they are specialized, if they are skilled in perception they are Master or very rarely Legendary.

Monster Skills: Monsters with listed skills are generally Master level of proficiency or Expert for generic competence. Occasionally a Monster will have an iconic skill and is Legendary in that skill. Monsters with specialized advantages such as extra limbs, eyes, senses etc may be Specialized in a particular skill.

Lets look at a couple sample Monsters to see how they would change and in some cases be constructed differently to have greater variety in a monsters strengths and weaknesses, etc.

Level 0
Bobcat(Old): Perception +4; Skills -2, Acrobatics +4, Athletics +3, Stealth +5
Bobcat(New): Perception(E,S) +6; Skills +0, Acrobatics(M) +4, Athletics +0, Stealth(E,S) +8

Level 7
Hill Giant(Old): Perception +14; Skills +7, Athletics +15, Intimidation +13
Hill Giant(New): Perception(E) +8; Skills +7, Athletics(E) +14, Intimidation(M,S) +11

Medusa(Old): Perception +14; Skills +7, Deception +15, Diplomacy +15, Stealth +13
Medusa(New): Perception(E,S) +13; Skills +8, Deception(M) +11, Diplomacy(M) +11, Stealth(E) +12

Level 13
Adult Blue Dragon(Old): Perception +25; Skills +17, Acrobatics +26, Arcana +26, Deception +26, Diplomacy +26, Intimidation +23, Society +26, Stealth +23, Survival +26
Adult Blue Dragon(New): Perception(M) +19; Skills +16, Acrobatics(M) +19, Arcana(M) +19, Deception(M) +19, Diplomacy(M) +19, Intimidation(M) +19, Society(M) +19, Stealth(M) +19, Survival(E) +17

Level 20
Fire Demon(Old): Perception +35; Skills +26; Acrobatics +32, Arcana +35, Deception +35, Diplomacy +32, Intimidation +35, Religion +35, Society +35, Stealth +32
Fire Demon(New): Perception(M) +31; Skills +26; Acrobatics(M) +32, Arcana(M) +32, Deception(L) +36, Diplomacy(E) +29, Intimidation(L) +36, Religion(M) +31, Society(L) +34, Stealth(E) +28

Optimal PC Skill
Lvl1: +5
Lvl5: +12(Expert, +2 Skill Item)
Lvl10: +20(Master, +3 Skill Item)
Lvl15: +28(Legendary, +4 Skill Item, Ability Item)
Lvl20: +35(Legendary, +5 Skill Item, Ability Item)

The exactly placement of E/M/L skills for each monster is debatable, but what is more important is are these ranges going to be viable for non optimal and optimal pcs.

Let me know your thoughts. Does this go far enough to correct the existing skill imbalance? Does it go too far? Are we satisfied with using Generic Skill +X to estimate non specific skills?

I'm very curious to hear what DMW or Mark Siefter think of my suggestion.

Sunday I was able to run the custom playtest arena with my friend Mike in person. We are set to do the official playtest this upcoming weekend with a couple of other people. If anyone is interested in giving the arena a go, I am offering it as Play By Post over on giantitp.

I constructed it as a way to learn the mechanics and test different aspects like skill checks, complex hazards, and different monster power levels etc. I also designed it to test Bound(no +lvl) and Unbound(P2 as written). The whole thing takes place in encounter mode and is timed.

Players get a team of two level 4 characters with +1 Magic Weapon and +1 Armor and WBL 30gp.

Mike brought an Elven Wizard and Dwarven Fighter. Not really optimized towards the challenge.

Order of the Challenges.

Hallway of Arrows
Grand Chamber
The Stubborn Door
Pitted Hallway
Hall of Ice
Hallway of Statues
Hall of Sand
The Wall of Many Faces

What were my big take aways after 34 rounds of P2?

Persistent Damage: Damn. This is super strong. This will kill players. Spending all three actions does give you like a 76% chance to end the effect.

Action Economy: Love love love it. Takes a bit to get used to, but I am a huge fan of the action economy and the PAL for subsequent attacks. No AoO(mostly) takes a bit to get used to, but definitely changes how combats move, and IMO for the better. They felt more granular.

Armor Check Penalty: Man, it was rough. Most especially against the dragon. His AoE knockdown vs acrobatics put the Dwarf on his back twice. And when he hit, he got slowed. So his turn was get up, swing, get slowed.

Detailed Skills: For things like Leap, etc, it was nice to know exactly what you could do. For Climb, knowing you needed two hands free and had to expend your action putting your sword away was kind of nice. It sucks, but makes sense, and IMO it works. So much better than the finicky problems of other systems.

Character Building: That book needs to be better organized, and way too many references to things not located on your page. You need more page reference links, or sidebars telling us where to go. Characters are kind of a pain to build etc.

Rsonance: Needs to be more clear. Pretty sure no investment for +1 sword or +1 armor, but it was tough to figure out. Less tough to spend 1 per potion used. The 8 Cha lvl 4 fighter character definitely doesn't get to abuse potions, haha. If he would have had to invest armor and or weapons, it would have been crippling and would have required a different build.

Power Swings: With +lvl things below your level are easy. Things above your level are very hard. The different of +/-2 is pretty significant. This kind of confirms my fear about how narrow the viable monster range is compared to the character's level. The animated armor were pretty outclassed, and the +2 dragon definitely outclassed the party. The +4 Bulette was just leagues above for only a four level difference. I can see how a party of four will take it out, but it seems swingy. All the combat ranges felt swingy as well. The -4 skeletons felt ignorable... they just rolled for 20s... esepcailly with MAP, and when they did get super lucky, it hurt.
Haven't gotten to run the Arena Bound yet, but look forward to seeing how it plays differently.

Welcome ladies and gentleman, children of all ages, to Zman's Arena. When 5e came out I found it a great exercise to learn the basics of the game and put them into play. Well, I decided to bring the tradition back with a brand new P2 dungeon I just made for the occasion.

What do you have to do? Survive the dungeon. And do it as quickly as you can.

One character, or a party? Two 4th level characters.

Is this just combat? No, the challenges spread the gambit with number skills, physical challenges, a complex trap, multiple combats, and even a social challenge. So don't neglect anything. Ideally, your characters are somewhat representative of a character you'd run in a game.

You mentioned it was timed? Yes, the whole thing is being run on the encounter scale. So, round by round. No rests. We will know down to the second how long it takes you to complete the dungeon or perish.

Any houserules or other important information? Yes, I will be offering two modes, Bound and Unbound. Unbound is Pathfinder 2nd Edition as it is written in the playtest material, it will feel similar to 3.P. Bound is a variant that doesn't include level scaling and will feel similar to 5e. The dungeon is set up for both variants, and I welcome people to take their characters through it both ways to gather data on how Bound effects gameplay.

How do we get started? Follow the character creation guidelines below and create your party. I will likely be taking people on a first come first serve basis, and if there is sufficient interest I will be giving priority to those who commit to trying out both Bound and Unbound.

How will we do this? Play By Post. Over at giantitp. For each run through the arena I'll create an IC thread. We will spoiler the nitty gritty of the rolling. In the body of the posts we can try to make it cinematic. Have no fear, this is not theater of the mind, I will be using a nice spreadsheet map that will update a new tab for every round or two depending if its just a movement turn. I look for semi rapid posting, ie a couple of posts a day. There may be a day or two, like this weekend, that I won't be able to post. But, I expect to be able to get through an Arena in a week or so if we each post a handful of times a day.

If you are interested, stop on over for some fun! Sorry about being on a different forum, that is where I've made my home over the years.

Lets talk Magic Weapons. I suggest removing the damage increase from magic weapons and making that damage increase inherent to leveling.

Magic weapons are the primary mechanism for balancing martial damage throughout the levels. The inbuilt assumptions are roughly earning or crafting +1/2/3/4/5 weapons at levels 4/8/12/16/20th. This pretty closely tracks with monster damage increases.

Casters already have built in damage scaling in the form of cantrips, and their spells in general scale damage over the levels.

Why is the damage increase tied to magic weapons? Why can't it be in innate aspect of leveling? Why do caster's at will damage scale with their level, but martial's don't? My suggestion is that melee weapon damage increases by one die at levels 4/8/12/16/20. Doesn't matter if the weapon is mundane or magical, at 4th level the fighter or wizard or cleric deal 2dX when the make a melee strike.

What about magic weapons? Now they're just +X? Well, yes. This does rob some of the thunder of the magic items, but because of how the game is balanced having a +1/2/3/4/5 to hit is very significant. Now, a character could get an Expert, or Master, or Legendary mundane weapon to get +1/2/3, but magic weapons are straight up better. You get them quicker and they can have additional runes for other magical effects.

I see this as a good balancing mechanism, it ensures that as characters level they have some kind of relevant competency in melee. So a character without their magic sword still does level expected damage, it just gets harder for them to hit. When the Wizard finds himself in a pickle and risks swinging his staff, he still does level appropriate damage. But, thanks to his poor proficiency, likely lack of powerful magic weapon, and poor strength he really isn't good at it.

We don't need to rely on downtime as soon as we hit the proper level to upgrade every magic item, it can happen more organically. Losing an item doesn't gimp a martial. A stingy DM doesn't break the game. Even improvised weapons remain have the right amount of punch throughout the game.

It isn't the sword that deals the damage, it is the person wielding it. A level 20 fighter holding a mundane longsword should be dealing more damage per swing than a tenth level fighter with a +2 longsword.

What does everyone think about that?

Lets talk about the elephant in the room, +1/Level to Proficiency. No, I don't want to discuss the merits of it, we've already got a dozen threads on that very subject. What I want to do is talk about solutions, and I think I have one. We've got two schools of thought that want to play different games, so lets do just that. Let's make P2 two separate games, Bound and Unbound. It would require one rulebook with some additions explaining the two ways to calculate proficiency, a static DC table, and some other minor tweaks. As for a Bestiary, print an unbound and bound version. Bare with me, it isn't as crazy as it sounds.

What is P2? At its core it is a solid bound or semi-bound system with level scaling tacked on. The bound portion falls into three portions: to hit and AC, saves, and skills.

To hit and AC uses the proficiency system ie -2-+3, with a heavy focus around +0-+2, it also has built in progression around ~lvls 4/8/12/16/20 in the for of +1/2/3/4/5 magic items. Abilities also add bonuses in play, ie +3/4 to +5/6 for your attack statistic.

Saves use the proficiency system within a range of +0-+3 with a heavy focus around +0/+1. It has some progression in the form of magical items. Abilities play a larger role in saves, the targeting attack will be calculated off of a +3-+6 ability, and the defending save will be calculated off of a +0-+6 range. Saves and save affecting abilities use a tighter range than to hit and AC.

Skill us the proficiency system within a range of -2-+3. Three is magic support in the neighborhood of items granting an additional +4. Abilities play a strong roll in skills offering an additional +0-+6.

Proficiency's built in level scaling simply adds your levels to each of those things, friend and foe making Unbound and Bound functionally identical against equal level threats. When compared to lower leveled threats you rapidly outpace them, against stronger foes they are vastly more powerful. This is intentional from the designers, it makes heroes extremely heroic, and it happens fast and is unrelenting. It has a myriad of impacts, some of which are problematic for many players. For instance, at mid and later levels any character is an order of magnitude more competent at everything than they were at earlier levels. Worse, they are an order of magnitude more competent at something untrained with a weak ability than a focused specialist was at lower levels. In combat it narrows the range of viable foes to +/- 4 levels. It makes setting skill DCs harder, ie look at the 10-2 table on pg 337 for an example. For many this causes a host of verisimilitude problems for some players.

It is quite clear that there are two distinct and vocal camps. I am going to call these the Bound and Unbound camps.

The Bound camp includes people like myself who probably have been playing 5e. We generally like a more restrained system, a world we can rationalize, one where a horde of orcs with big axes is still scary after level five. We don't like minions needing 20s to hit and getting hit on 2s.

The Unbound camp includes people who have been playing 3.5 and Pathfinder and enjoy the zero to godlike hero power curve. They want their mid to high level character to be able to wade through literal hundreds if not thousands of weak foes.

Now, there are also those who fall in the middle, they may be uncomfortable with the pace of the level scaling and advocate for things like 1/2 level or 1/4 level etc. This would give them a choice.

If you look around the forums you will find a host of threads on this very topic. In general they are very intractable, and neither side wants to budge, because they want to play different games.

That brings me to my point, lets make them different games. That isn't as crazy of an idea as it sounds so hear me out. One will yield the intended high fantasy game, the other a more restrained lower fantasy game. The core of the system is a solid bound game with level scaling tacked on. So, we make a Bound and Unbound version.

Rulebook: Only one rule book is needed, and a section that explains how to calculate your proficiency either the Bound or Unbound way. There would need to be a separate Bound skills DC table with examples, but that is very easy and I've suggested one elsewhere. Sure, there are some other things that will need to be tweaked, like spells, some list a set modifier and those would need to specify a Bound and Bound modifier. That is really it. It would be less than a 10pg addition to the rulebook.

Bestiary: Print different versions, name them Bestiary: Bound and Bestiary: Unbound or something like that. Yes, a second print run has cost and challenges, but the amount of work required to make this work isn't that crazy. You go though and modify the included monsters a bit. You go and work out the encounter building suggestions in the beginning opening up the effective range from +/- 4lvs to +/-6-8 levels. Maybe you go through and increase the strength of the most iconic strong monsters since players can reach a bit higher. But, the work is already nearly completely done. Subtracting out level where it was added is easy.

That is it, make two Pathfinders, one Bound and one Unbound. P2 is already a solid bound game, just one where level scaling has been tacked on. Make them separate and optional. The amount of work required isn't that much. You will appeal to a much wider audience. You will be able to pull at the 5e crowd. You will give the 3.P crowd what they want. You will sell more books. You literally get to make two games appealing to who diverging schools of gamers with a single product.

Edit: Alternatively, it can still be done with one rulebook and one Bestiary. Simply putting the Bound value in parenthesis after the Unbound one will work. It a spell tell you your attack modifier is +20(+10). A Balor's stat block would read something like AC 44(24) or Melee +5 vorpal longsword +35(+15). This would be incredibly easy to implement.

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

It is messy, and it bloats the game numerically having an out sized effect on your power level. Except, everything of your level has the exact same bonus rendering it meaningless when compared to your peers or comparable monsters. It also has a very nasty side effect of rendering monsters even a few levels lower than you obsolete extremely quickly. Those even four to six levels above or below are wholly inappropriate to be used against the party, ie getting hit or hitting on 2s etc. Lower level mooks are obsolete extremely quickly, and in my opinion, for no real reason. When playing the monsters levels will need to be within a couple of the party or they will either be completely irrelevant or way too powerful for the party to face. Look what it does to DCs... I mean just look at the DC by level and difficulty table. That is atrocious. That is a shame and it is unnecessary. Compare it to my listed table, which is a simple DC5 scaling. Those names will always mean something, they don't feel arbitrary and are lasting. With better abilities, better training, circumstantial bonuses, magic, characters will strive to on rare occasion accomplish the impossible. And do I need to say how much easier to memorize and use that table is? Do your DMs and players a favor, please.

I've already written a house rule document to correct this design flaw, and since this in the play testing phase I implore you, paizo, to make these changes.

By removing your level from everything you have zero impact against things of equal level to the party. That balance point is completely unchanged, all that needs to be adjusted are your recommendations for effective encounters for xp. Against weaker things you can keep them relevant a lot longer, while simultaneously allowing the party to riskily reach up against higher level enemies. Characters still get some kind of feat, ability, HP, etc at every level and will be getting stronger, but it won't be a faux strength, the numbers will be real and mean something. Another benefit is that it would support mixed strength parties far better than it currently does.

Here is what I already put up over at giantitp today. It includes a link to a prettier version of my the houserules too.

# Bound Pathfinder 2nd Edition
##### By: Zman
8-6-18

## What is this?

This is a simple houserule system for those who really liked the bounded accuracy system expierienced in D&D 5e, but also love the new Pathfinder edition.

## What do these changes do?

Put simply, these changes flatten the world out. We remove the level bonus from every calculation, so the world doesn't suffer from bigger numbers. What this accomplishes is keeping monsters relevent longer, widening the range of viable monsters to put against your party. You'll hit harder and be able to reach further up against monsters of a higher level, but monsters that are lower level stay scary or at least relevevant much longer. It also makes setting DCs for skills much easier.

Against a challange that is equal to your level, be it a monster or harzard or skill check, there is absolutely no difference in the check you make. You'll still succeed and fail at the same rate. The numbers just aren't inflated.

Monsters significantly weaker than you will still be viable, their ACs, Saves, DCs and To Hits will still be relevant.

### Player Character Changes
Remove the level bonus from all calculations. Essentially calculate your character sheet as if you are a level 0 character.

#### Exceptions
Determining Resonance Points

### Skill DC Changes
Remove the level of the challenge from the DC. For unknown DCs, use the following guidelines.
##### Skill DCs
| DC | Difficulty |
|:----:|:-------------|
| 5 | Trivial |
| 10 | Easy |
| 15 | Moderate |
| 20 | Difficult |
| 25 | Very Difficult |
| 30 | Impossible |

* Uncertain DCs? Whenever possible subtrace the level of the challenge from the DC, if unavailable, subtrace the level of the attempting character from the DC.

### Spells
For spells that specify an AC, to hit, or specific DC, etc. subtract the level a caster would be to first cast a spell of that level. For example, the 10th level Avatar spell specifies an attack modifier of +31. Since a spellcaster would have to be 20th level, theat it as a +11 attack modifier.

### Bestiary Changes
Remove the monter's level from all calculations that include it: Perception, Skills, AC, TAC, Saves, To Hit, and Save DCs.

This also applies to Hazards and Traps.

Here is a pretty pdf version for anyone that is interested.

Bound Pathfinder 2nd Edition