I wish they had gone with +1/2 level; +level will lead to bloat, rolling d20+35 and what-have-you.Congratulations, you understand the system!
Semantics aside, this exact problem you cite is the intent of the designers with their new four-degrees of success system being incorporated into their new d20 engine.
As you progress, it becomes easier and easier to achieve critical success (dx > DC+10) which means measuring how well you do against low encounters eventually falls into the realm of "don't bother rolling, unless you want to risk a 1" which honestly is how a lot of things worked in PF1, at least with regards to skill checks and incredibly lower CR encounters.
I believe the idea behind this design is not to have to reinvent the wheel, but to have a better road for that wheel to roll on.
Yes, I am not so thrilled with the 4 tiered action so far (obviously to get the most out of the swingy d20), it's cool for spells like flesh to stone, but not sure if all fighter attacks should be something like:
Critical Miss: No damage.
Miss: Minimum damage.
Critical Hit: Double or max damage.
Hit: Normal damage.My favourite part of PF2 so far is the Action Economy, and that's already a thing in PF1 (Unchained worth it, just for that).
That's fair skepticism, my own stems from other elements of the new engine, but I personally like where they are going with the d20 engine part of the game. It's all the other dice that are throwing me off.
Right on, what other dice are throwing you off?
On the bit about 5th Ed, Advantage doesn't really work that way, you either have it or don't, you can't keep rolling d20s, though there is that dreadful Elven Accuracy feat!
Also, with the 4 tiered deal, it could encourage meta-gaming. Also, there are those players that have a hard time adding 15+8, throwing in more target numbers/ranges could freeze them in their...
If I recall, the entire mechanic of inspiration is entirely about coercing the DM into giving you rerolls as well as attempting to gain advantage.
I think metagaming is such a destructive concept that making a new subsystem that deals with it might be necessary. Again, a character spending their resources increasing their already existing potential because the system rewards it might cause less metagaming than being able to wheel around the system as in my furious focus example.
Adding numbers from a table isn't really different from adding numbers from dice. Reducing the number of variables will help more than the numbers themselves in my gaming experience.
Check out the Power Attack Math thread and my thread on my (probably now) 17 minutes for more on my issues with the damage currency and what it forces them to design around mathematically.
And to be fair, I am certain the only person freaking out over 15+8 is Jim Carrey.
Really, the numbers are important in establishing a power level when you look at what monsters you fight at high levels. When a group of level 20 PCs are fighting a walking disaster like the Tarrasque, they should absolutely not be challenged by even level 10 things.
This is a large problem I have with 5e. It adjusts this power curve but still has these creatures from myth and lore that are supposed to be truly incredible. Nothing really feels that strong anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This *feels* a little lack luster to me, but I am not sure it really is, providing the Wizard doesn't go beyond Trained and you can get Legendary by 10.
They can't. They get it at 13th per the Fighter Blog.
Presumably the Fighter will have to use his Class Feats to raise his Proficiency as well.
He doesn't. It's a standard Class Feature and he gets to Master at 3rd level.
..
.
On the main topic, remember that small bonuses matter a lot more in a system where they all increase crit range as well.
Also remember that, from what we've seen of stats, it's likely that a Wizard maxes at Str 16 at 1st to the Fighter's 18, and they keep that 2 point difference for the rest of the game. Which helps as well.
And none of this is adding in any Fighter Feats, which probably help out quite a bit.
The biggest thing I dislike about the proficiency system is how minimal differences will be. The Theorised +2 to 4 abilities makes that even worse as there will be less differences. Everyone getting a proficiency boost at the same levels will just be yet another similarity. Sure everything is going to be balanced, mostly because everything is moving along at the exact same pace.
I'm concerned the biggest differences will be the flavour of the power sources people use to fuel their abilities.
|
|
Everyone getting a proficiency boost at the same levels will just be yet another similarity.
This actually seems to very much not be true. Skills probably increase in Proficiency at the same level for everyone but other stuff? Evidence suggests that happens at very different points (Fighters get Master level weapons at 3rd, while other people can't get that until at least 7th...clerics get Master Spellcasting at 16th level).
I'm concerned the biggest differences will be the flavour of the power sources people use to fuel their abilities.
Having spells and what spells you have seems like a big difference. As do several other Class Features (a Cleric's Channel energy for example). Even for non-casters, Rogues getting twice as many Skill Feats is a significant difference, and I'd imagine there are many others.
Having spells and the spells you get SHOULD be a big difference. We will have to wait and see if they are.
Really, the numbers are important in establishing a power level when you look at what monsters you fight at high levels. When a group of level 20 PCs are fighting a walking disaster like the Tarrasque, they should absolutely not be challenged by even level 10 things.
This is a large problem I have with 5e. It adjusts this power curve but still has these creatures from myth and lore that are supposed to be truly incredible. Nothing really feels that strong anymore.
I hear this time and again. Lets take the 5E village against a dragon approach. Lots of folks think dragons suck because an entire village could band together and kill it. However, what folks always do is assume that the people of the village are ok with 90% of them dying in the attack. They also forget that 90% of an entire village could kill a dragon, which is what their group of 4-6 adventurers can do by themselves. That sounds pretty damn heroic and powerful to me.
Though I get folks wanting zero to god. It is a different feeling of game entirely. Logically, it makes little sense that commoners exist in worlds with CR3+ things in it without BA, but those folks are often not looking for simulation or logical consistency. Which, I think makes both approaches fair for what they are trying to represent. Its all moot anyways Paizo has declared they are not for BA.
If I recall, the entire mechanic of inspiration is entirely about coercing the DM into giving you rerolls as well as attempting to gain advantage.Fortunately your recall is incorrect.
That might explain why I didn't have a good experience in 5e.
Ha, I don't think someone getting something fundamentally wrong with the game is an excuse for a bad experience.That might explain why I didn't have a good experience in 5e.If I recall, the entire mechanic of inspiration is entirely about coercing the DM into giving you rerolls as well as attempting to gain advantage.Fortunately your recall is incorrect.
I'm fairly certain not playing a game mechanic the way it's designed could skew your opinion of the game... also a quick google search yields:
Inspiration is a rule the Dungeon Master can use to reward you for playing your character in a way that’s true to his or her personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw.
Your DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.
(further down, after the example...) Additionally, if you have inspiration, you can reward another player for good roleplaying, clever thinking, or simply doing something exciting in the game. When another player character does something that really contributes to the story in a fun and interesting way, you can give up your inspiration to give that character inspiration.
So, I'm not entirely sure I was wrong...
My big problem with inspiration in 5E is it's basically a system to reward "big personality" popular players and punish quiet, shy players. The few times I've played 5E or watched a 5E game from outside, most of the inspiration flowed toward the player with the most charisma / presence, most of the rest was shenanigans like married couples giving each other inspiration, and the quiet players who needed more encouragement were ignored.
My big problem with inspiration in 5E is it's basically a system to reward "big personality" popular players and punish quiet, shy players. The few times I've played 5E or watched a 5E game from outside, most of the inspiration flowed toward the player with the most charisma / presence, most of the rest was shenanigans like married couples giving each other inspiration, and the quiet players who needed more encouragement were ignored.
I really do see what your saying I personally feel I have to do a little bit of extra work as a DM to encourage shy players. I'll specifically make them do thing, or place things that they are good at for them to do. It does take some give and take from the player too. So yeah I suppose I could see the situation where one player consistently gains the bonus and one player never gets it.