I wouldn't be surprised to see form of bounded accuracy in Pathfinder 2e though, and some folks seem to have an unnatural objection to it because they perceive it would hurt their competence at basic skills. I think that's important to diffuse somewhat, so that when and if Pathfinder 2e playtesting arrives, folks don't have an immediate "reject" disposition and actually give that part a try.
If/when a pathfinder version on bounded accuracy comes to pathfinder, it'll be time for me to drop the game like a hot potato and go play another game without looking back. No amount of spreadsheets will change my mind. I've played with it and found it just awful for my taste.
There's an article on bounded accuracy here:
http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604Bounded accuracy really comes down to doing with 95% of other RPGs do and not having characters increase their numbers by 1-3 every level so the DCs being used against characters remain constant.
I'm more than happy with the increase as it gives a feeling of advancement. Cutting the numbers in 1/2, like the 'middle ground', doesn't really do anything in my book. it's the same math, just checking a dc 10 vs a dc 20... What was the gain?
As to crazy high, who decided what was high? Maybe your way is 'too cazy low for no real reason'...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in 3.X and 4e there was no improvement because the rogue wouldn't face a wall of the same DC at level 1 and level 20. The wall would gain DC at the same rate the rogue gained skill ranks so the chance of success would be a constant 50%.
That's insane. Hell 3.X/PF even explicitly has rules for climb DCs based on types of walls, so unless once you hit level 11 every wall in the world is suddenly a wall of force or a slick ice wall or something, and every normal wall mysteriously vanishes or is replaced with a different higher level wall, that doesn't happen. The higher level character is better at climbing, and will climb lower level things without needing to roll. Because when you are really skilled at things, it is good to be able to just say "I can do that" and not have to worry about the 50% failure chance.
I have no idea how many people actually played with a literal treadmill in their games where their bonus never actually mattered and all that mattered was rolling a 10 or better on a d20, but holy s%+& if I played a game like that I would definitely walk out and would be very tempted to punch the DM on the way out because that is b+~$@@% crazy. For my own sanity I am going to assume that any references to this sort of playstyle is forum rhetoric and not actual experience.
it was a suggestion in 4e, and from my interpretation (remember, much of this is THEIR interpretation) it didn't work like they are saying it did.
The suggestion was that as characters level, what they face should become harder and this would be reflected in DCs.
For example, at 1st level you may try to climb a typical wall and it's DC is 9 (we'll say, just as an example).
Now you are level 5, and the DC is now 12. That isn't the same wall, it actually could be a tougher wall, but for your skillset that is what is going to be of an average challenge for you.
Now you are level 10 and the DC is now a 16, once again, this is the average challenge to your abilities. On the otherhand, unlike the super rocky wall you could climb on average at 1st level, this one is made of brick that is closely held together. It's of an average challenge to you, but for a 1st level character it may be a tougher challenge.
The idea is that as your skills get better, the average of what you deal with will also increase and get harder.
That was my interpretation.
Similar in 3.X it had given DC's for tasks. Those DC's might stay the same, but the challenge of the DC's could elevate accordingly as the harder tasks became the average tasks that you tackled.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In hundreds tables of PFS scenarios from levels 1-11, I've come across (and played) more than my share of PCs with +30 to +70 on Diplomacy.
Now, these scenarios regularly feature "challenges" (notice the quotes ~ it's a relative term depending who sits at the table) whereby the party needs to overcome some sort of complex Diplomacy challenge. Perhaps they need to convince the Kellid barbarian tribe of their good intentions, which is an involved series of roleplaying where you are supposed to share stories, hitting on the right topics to impress your audience for a crucial +2 circumstance bonus here or there.
When you implement a skill system in a game, it's good to imagine it based on d100, since that represents the full gamut of 1% to 100% success (then conversion to d20 is just divvying that up into 5% units).
When trying to do something, there's hopefully some part which is innate to your character, some part that is dice, and some part that is circumstantial.
The circumstantial part is intending to add excitement and teamwork to a roleplaying game.
Table 1:
John: "Man it sure is a good thing Valeros told that story about how he single-handedly beat that tribe of orcs into submission, I totally needed that +2 on my Diplomacy roll."
Lucy: "Yeah, and it was great that Lem jumped on that table and played his flute, I can't believe he rocked the 20 for another +2 on our negotations!"
Frank: "It was sure funny when Ezrem hit on the old woman and got her to speak for all of us for that last +2"
John: "Yeah, the +6 from you three is what got me from my roll of a 7 and my normal +10 all the way up to 23!"
... Four hours later Table 1 compares notes with Table 2...
Lucy: "How did your negotations with the Kellids go? I saw you guys were done with the scenario in just over an hour"
Matt (looks bored): Eh, we had Larry's kitsune, so he "took 1" for a 40 Diplomacy and our GM hand-waved that part.
**
Now, our experiences may vary, but I can tell you that tables who perceive a possible risk of failure have a more exciting gaming session that tables who felt there was zero risk of failure.
Whether you like it or not, bounded accuracy stems some of this part of a game system for creating more variability and more teamwork, by limiting the math to acceptible ranges so that different groups can feel some thrill in the challenges set before them.
I wouldn't implement bounded accuracy in a skill system exactly like it is in 5e, but it is on the right track for fixing one of the more broken parts of the 3.5/PF ruleset.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have misinterpreted the discussion if you think people are saying PF's skill system is god's gift to gamers. It's definitely better than 5e's (very little isn't), but it's still not very good and there's a lot you could do to improve it.
Magic dominating skills is a problem with Pathfinder's magic system, not its skill system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic dominating skills is a problem with Pathfinder's magic system, not its skill system.I actually would argue that it's both. The magical s&*@ that's overriding skills should primarily be granted BY skills.
But if you aren't playing with casters, it's not a problem. Thus, a problem with the magic system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It remains a problem, since skills don't enable you do to very much beyond opposed checks after a while. They're part of a leveled system and don't let you do level appropriate tricks, and are often shackled to an attempt at "realism" past low levels.
It remains a problem, since skills don't enable you do to very much beyond opposed checks after a while. They're part of a leveled system and don't let you do level appropriate tricks, and are often shackled to an attempt at "realism" past low levels.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. I can actually agree with that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something of a moot point, since Spider climb is the easiest magic way to get a climb speed.Climb speeds only allow you to take 10. If you can't beat the DC with that, you have to roll. (Spider climb is the only exception I've seen.)Climb speed trumps skill in climbing, however many points you put in it.
|
|
For example, at 1st level you may try to climb a typical wall and it's DC is 9...
Now you are level 5, and the DC is now 12...
Now you are level 10 and the DC is now a 16...
It may draw rage (I know, not from you), but this is how adventures have existed since 3e was printed.
You can pick up any AP from Shackled City to Giantslayer and scan the DCs in book 1 through book 6.
Both systems feature this, so it's independent of bounded accuracy. As you level up, the checks to use Acrobatics against enemy CMDs, to demoralize enemies using Intimidate, to use Diplomacy to convince a crucial NPC to do something, to use Stealth to get past a certain guard... they all keep increasing.
In "system A", they increase in difficulty by X per level, and a reasonable character who wants to be good at that improves by X per level as well.
In "system B", they increase in difficulty by 0.5X per level, and a reasonable character who wants to be good at that improves by 0.5X per level.
Bounded accuracy tries to ensure in "system A" that a character doesn't improve by 3X per level or a character in "system B" doesn't improve by 1.5X per level (when the respective challenges are only increased by X and 0.5X each level, respectively).
I didn't write the rules or the adventures, but 3.x/PF uses a system where they keep moving the goalposts to make it so that your basic characters are challenged when it comes to rolls they are making. Without there being a challenge, it's a yawn-fest.
Now, our experiences may vary, but I can tell you that tables who perceive a possible risk of failure have a more exciting gaming session that tables who felt there was zero risk of failure.Whether you like it or not, bounded accuracy stems some of this part of a game system for creating more variability and more teamwork, by limiting the math to acceptible ranges so that different groups can feel some thrill in the challenges set before them.
I'd agree with this. I'm quite surprised by the posts here that don't even want to roll anymore?! Even highly skilled acrobats and mountain climbers can still die if they make a single mistake... I can understand wanting to do better at things as they level up.. but I can't imagine wanting to just skip them completely.
Works for DMs too... I can see DMs get frustrated when they can't challenge a party. "Yeah guys... you remember the room with 10 guards you just fought through.... this room has 2 more. We're just gonna say you schooled them and keep moving.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certain DCs should scale- mostly those based on opposed checks and enemy action. When you're facing a higher level foe, they should be harder to sneak past, fool, tumble around, whatever. That's not in question, and really doesn't bother me.
The issue is when you have situations like in 4e where what constitutes a challenge of a particular level is undefined and confusing (the book doesn't tell you what the hell a "Level 30 wall" is, you're left to guess), leading to overburdened GMs deciding it means DCs are just supposed to naturally scale- that same stone wall that was DC 9 at 1st level should be DC 16 now, because it still needs to be a challenge right!?- or in 5e where bounded accuracy constricts your bonuses so much that you never actually master the lower level challenges. A master 20th level climber still has not insignificant odds of failing to climb a lower level DC 15 wall that was a challenge 10 levels ago and should be a footnote now, and a master thief still has a real risk of being spotted by any untrained commoner, because they fail to outscale low level challenges that shouldn't even be on their radar anymore.
EDIT: Though, it occurs to me that DCs are pretty much undefined and confusing across the board in 5e. The closest you can get to actually nailed down DCs are what shows up in their adventures, and that establishes a pretty awful standard with things like normal wood doors that take a DC 20 strength check to bust down- meaning an arcane locked house door requires a 20 from an ancient red dragon to break.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monkeyfish.Something of a moot point, since Spider climb is the easiest magic way to get a climb speed.Climb speeds only allow you to take 10. If you can't beat the DC with that, you have to roll. (Spider climb is the only exception I've seen.)Climb speed trumps skill in climbing, however many points you put in it.
Spider climb is still easier.
You only have to have the Core rules. :)
*points to PRD*
That's all on the GM though. You could say the same in 5E if you really wanted to. But even in Pathfinder those level 1s could get some 20s and hurt the PC a bit. If it was a high level 5E character he would still be able to wipe out those level 1s pretty easily unless there was a lot of them, which is the same for Pathfinder.
I think bounded accuracy is stupid. The maths in this game aren't hard.Bounded accuracy isn't about the math.
It's about playing a game with mechanics whose extremes can't be abused such that they'd interfere with telling and sharing an awesome story.
If a table doesn't have problems with the numerical extremes in printed adventures, then they're already using "gentleman's" bounded accuracy without even knowing or calling it such.
No, not all, though that's probably accurate for many. :)
EDIT: Ah, ninja'd.
EDIT: For clarity, I switched around the order of some of the quotes.
The hivemind minions with one roll for the group is a GM decision rather than the RAW of it.
The other scenarios (walking through a warzone unscathed, finding a lvl 27 minion at lvl 1) are statistically insignificant.
I don't remember if the book explains this, but minions should always be relative to the PCs. Something lvl 27 should never be represented as a minion for lvl 1 PCs.
Hm. Interesting points. The answer is "sort of", however presuming that the creatures exist in some sort of weird quantum state is... bizarre. Either the PCs have the ability to go about finding creatures or they don't. If they don't, it's probably because the GM is using fiat to ensure that they don't. That can very solidly break immersion on its own.
That's not to say that it's wrong, but just to explain.
Really the immunity to all "half damage" things bugs me a lot. It creates a guy that can potentially walk unscathed through a warzone with explosions everywhere and cascading lava and fire, where repeated instances of half damage would eventually wear down the actual "tough" monster but the minion is just fine because reasons.
Heck, it would solve a lot of problems for me if you just gave minions 2 hp. Making a Reflex save or the like would do 1 hp damage, so you can guarantee taking out the group with 2 AoE attacks. 2hp is still low enough that they die in one actual hit as well.
(I actually give my minions 1 hit point plus 1 hit point/tier; I have missed attacks deal 1 damage/tier. This means missed attacks hit and affect them, while not killing them.)
Now for the competing claims.
Edit: Also there was the exploit of find a level 27 minion, use an effect that did 1 point of guaranteed damage, and catapult from 1st to 9th level from the xp. Silly but it illustrates a problem with the minion system.
Heh. Post-errata magic missile. (That said, it'd be four to get to 7th level. One'd only get you to, like, third level. :D)
From the DMG
No Controller: Not having a controller can free the defender up to move around more, since at that point the defender lacks a soft ally to protect. However, as with a striker, a missing controller means that monsters last longer. Large groups of monsters, and minions in particular, survive much longer in the absence of a controller who can damage multiple creatures with a single attack.
Heh. "Flurry of Misses" comes to mind.
Sometimes you want monsters to come in droves and go down just as fast. A fight against thirty orcs is a grand cinematic battle. The players get to enjoy carving through the mob like a knife through butter, feeling confident and powerful. Unfortunately, the mechanics of standard monsters make that difficult. If you use a large number of monsters of a level similar to the PCs, you overwhelm them. If you use a large number of monsters of much lower level, you bore them with creatures that have little chance of hurting the PCs but take a lot of time to take down. On top of that, keeping track of the actions of so many monsters is a headache.
Minions are designed to serve as shock troops and cannon fodder for other monsters (standard, elite, or solo). Four minions are considered to be about the same as a standard monster of their level. Minions are designed to help fill out an encounter, but they go down quickly.
A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage. Damage from an attack or from a source that doesn’t require an attack roll (such as the paladin’s divine challenge or the fighter’s cleave) destroys a minion. If a minion is missed by an attack that normally deals damage on a miss, however, it takes no damage.
Use minions as melee combatants placed between the PCs and back-rank artillery or controller monsters.
A lot of this is actually pretty "meh" advice. Some of it's great, but some... meh.
Minion XP is on page 56. I'll repeat it later, though.
Level: As you select individual threats to make up your encounter, keep the level of those threats in mind. Monsters or traps more than four levels below the party’s level or seven levels above the party’s level don’t make good challenges. They’re either too easy or too hard, even if the encounter’s level seems right. When you want to use a single monster to challenge the PCs—or a large mob of monsters, for that matter—try using minions, elites, and solo monsters instead.
So, six levels higher is "cool" encounter design (or at the limits of "acceptable"). That's a +6 to attack, and AC and defenses. (Ability scores also increase by +3, so a +1-2 damage, on average.)
Elite, minion, and solo monsters are designed to be interesting challenges for PCs of their level, but they’re tougher or weaker than one standard monster of the same level. For that reason, they don’t count as individual monsters when you use them to build an encounter. Elite monsters count as two standard monsters and solo monsters count as five. It takes four minions to fill the place of one standard monster.
<snip>
Minion Monsters: To incorporate minions into an encounter, replace one standard monster with four minions of the same level. A Commander and Troops encounter takes on a different feel when you replace standard brutes or soldiers with several times their number of minions—a vampire lord surrounded by his brood of vampire spawn, for example, or a war devil with a regiment of legion devils.
So, replace a single standard monster with four minions of the same level.
In addition to using different monster groups to vary the complexity of your encounters, try to vary the kinds of monsters the characters face in ways that are more basic as well. Don’t fill a dungeon with nothing but humanoid monsters, at the risk of losing the sense of fantasy and wonder. Make sure to include minions and solo monsters from time to time, so not every fight pits five PCs against five monsters. Use different encounter templates, and vary the composition of those groups as well, using controllers and soldiers for some encounters, artillery and brutes for others.
Vary encounters. Cool advice.
XP For Combat Encounters
The Monster Manual indicates the XP reward each monster is worth. That number comes from the Experience Rewards table on this page, and it depends on the monster’s level. A minion is worth one-quarter of the XP of a standard monster of its level. An elite monster is worth twice as much XP, and a solo monster is worth five times as much XP.If you apply a template to a monster (see page 175), you turn it into an elite or solo monster (see “Creating New Solos,” page 185) and therefore adjust its XP value. Likewise, if you alter a monster’s level, its XP value changes.
100 XP + 25/lvl from levels 2-5; +50/lvl from levels 8-9; +100/lvl from levels 10-13, +200/lvl from levels 14-17; +400/lvl from levels 18-21; +950/lvl from levels 22-25; +2,000 from levels 26-29; +4,000 from levels 30-33; +8,000 from levels 34-37; +8,000 from levels 35-36; +16,000 from levels 37-40.
Even in a fantastic settlement, there shouldn’t be many nonplayer characters with classes from the Player’s Handbook. The player characters are exceptional, in part because they have these classes and gain levels through their adventuring. Most citizens are 1st-level minions or other low-level examples of their races drawn from the Monster Manual or created using the design guidelines in Chapter 10. The priests in a temple are ordinary people who might have some mastery of rituals—and might not. A hedge wizard might be the human mage from the Monster Manual, with simple spells and rituals. Reserve classes for exceptional and important NPCs, particularly patrons and villains.
Most creatures are 1st level minions. Not really relevant, but showing that they attempt to have a "same" areas.
Monsters also get damage (on 185), but super-meh on the writing that one out.
PCs get +1/6th level+1 from magical equipment plus 1/2 level from level bonus plus ability modifiers to attacks (which are generally +3-4 plus 1/8 level) plus 2-3 proficiency bonus. Converting that to normal standard fractions, we want x/24ths based on the lowest common denominator. Damage is highly irrelevant.
1/6 -> 4/24
1/2 -> 12/24
1/8 - > 3/24
~> (4+12+3)/24 = 19/24 level plus 6-8 = PC attack values. (Defense values will be similar +10, but differ due to armor values and class defense bonuses.)
It's a rough kludge for figuring things out, but it'll do.
So...
A monster six levels more than you? What does that get us?
The format below is "PCs/Monster (Level): XP needed to level [presuming current XP from previous level]/XP gained (total presuming 16 minions [4 monsters replaced by 4 minions each])"
01/07: 1,000/75 (1,200)
02/08: 1,250/88 (1,408)
03/09: 1,500/100 (1,600)
<skiiiiiip>
10/16: 5,500/350 (5,600)
11/17: 6,000/400 (6,400)
12/18: 7,000/500 (8,000)
13/19: 8,000/600 (9,600)
<skiiiiiip>
20/26: 32,000/2,250 (36,000)
21/27: 35,000/2,750 (44,000)
22/28: 45,000/3,250 (52,000)
23/29: 55,000/3,750 (60,600)
Highest level minions in the MM:
- lich vestige (level 26)
- abyssal ghoul myrmidon (level 23)
- grimlock follower (level 22)
- angel of valor/legion devil [legionnaires] (level 21)
Lich vestiges are kind of terrifying v. a low-level party (due to their high AC and defenses), but abyssal ghouls not-so-much (their paralysis could be deadly, but it could easily be avoided). They're 35 AC is going to be really tough to beat until level 19 (50% chance on average with low-proficiency, no buffs) which makes them ideal to farm from level 19+, or from 17+ with a few typical buffs or feats, or from 15+ with high ranged weapons.
Level 21 Legion Devil Legionnaires, on the other hand? Eeeeeeexcellent, even from level 10 onward. (Angels of Valor Legionnaires have a really solid fly speed that could prove troublesome to an unprepared 10th level party, though their AC and land speed is lower: luring them into confined spaces would be ideal.)
Heck, a PH1 7th level party could do worse than taking on a Legion Devil Legionnaire or even angel.
But a 33 group attack (level 10 has 13-14 low-range attacks sans buffs, but +6 from Aid Another effects and/or a few common buffs or feats can shift that to +4 more for a +23 attack/33 area attack check on average) can level large groups of them* in relatively little time, especially considering the 8-9 damage they deal is piddling enough even at 10th level that anyone there can afford to have a several direct hits in the battle without too much worry (in fact, exactly nine for the tanks...).
* Some examples of lower-than-10th level (utility varies based on foe) channel divinity, lance of faith, righteous brand, divine glow, bless, blazing beacon {though it's risky}, spiritual weapon, astral defenders; villain's menace, armor-piercing thrust (!), precise strike; prime shot, careful attack, fox's cunning (!), split the tree, hawk's talon (!); using rogue weapons, rogue's luck (!); prime shot, HUNGER OF HADAR (!!), dark one's own luck; tactical presence (!), surprise attack (!); wand of accuracy (!!), cloud of daggers (!!), <magic missile>**, scorching burst, thunderwave, flaming sphere (!!), freezing cloud (!), fireball, stinking could (!!), invisibility, winter's wrath (!!), ice storm, mordenkainen's sword, wall of fire (!!); action surge, blade opportunist, combat reflexes, elven precision, channel divinity (harmony of erathis), hellfire blood, nimble blade, precise hunter. After you hit level 11, though, everyone who qualifies should just take hammer rhythm and never fail.
** If you play post-errata, this becomes the "screw minions, I'm through" button.
Counter exploit: Find a high CR monster without flight or long range attacks, whittle it down from a height it can't reach, gain a ton of exp.
Or drink a potion of Fly so it truly has no chance of climbing up to where you are.Edit: The Tarrasque is a favored example for a creature that has no answer to flight unless the person is flying low enough for it to jump to his level.
Will DC 27 each round v. minor debuff.
Six spines for 2d10 to handle ranged attacks.
Immunity or reflection for most low-level attack effects.
Powerful leaping ability to deal with "anywhere nearby" flying.
Regeneration 40 and DR 15/epic.
1/round 150 ft.
The ways of killing it quickly and thoroughly generally involve incorporeal things that deal ability drain (hole plugged as of Inner Sea Gods, though I think it's kind of lame), wrapping it in darkness and beating it while it's blind (again, plugged as of Inner Sea Gods, and again, needless and lame), and magic jar (still works; also, once again, "10" is the magic number, though the SR 36 is a very minor bit of a pain to get through).
Other than that, the already-high-level martial beats it down until it can't move, kills it, and the caster uses animate dead to make it stop existing.
Beyond that, Big T is a bit of a joke-monster. Of the CR > 20 Monsters, he's a lesser critter (especially compared to, say, solars, but also in general).
Further, you're comparing one-shotting a CR 27 creature (which is definitely possible, if requiring a good amount of luck) to taking a laborious and long-ranged approach in PF - because in PF, a CR 27 would have 640 hit points, 45 AC, 30-38 attack, 155-210 total damage, 26-32 DC, and a 23-28 saving throw.
The difference between the two examples is startling: in one case, you've got a 5% chance per round you survive (to land a natural 20, presupposing you're using a non-auto-damage attack) - and, based on minion damage, you will probably survive -, whereas in the other, you've got a 5% chance per round to deal 18+3d6 damage out of 640 (presuming you roll maximum damage on the largest damage-dealing weapon I can think of and max out your STR) {presuming you're any player race with a maxed out strength, an enlarge person effect running and swinging away with a 2d6 (now 3d6) two-handed weapon; you can eke out 6 more points as a barbarian in rage}. Only ~16 more rounds to go! Or, if you take the ranged approach, and you've blown 600 out of your 300 starting gold (presuming a fighter, paladin, or ranger), and gotten an ally to enlarge you the same way from 1d8+5/x3->2d8+5/x3, you can deal 63 damage per round! You've only got ~11 rounds instead! Presuming it does absolutely nothing within those 11 rounds that you've rolled all 20s and all max damage: great job!
But then again, the difference is, once again, startling in the rewards.
In general, the counter-argument holds less weight only because there are fewer easy-to-grab examples, and accomplishing the task is usually a lot harder, but the rewards of the original were overstated: it's only third level achieved instead of 9th (9th comes from eight minions; at worst, this is 8 natural 20s, though auto-damage powers exist as well). With PF, one slain CR 27 is 3,276,800 which is enough to pop you to 18th level - which comes from a bare minimum 32 natural twenties and 64 maximum damage dice and spending triple your maximum possible starting budget instead (or, more likely, a loooooooooooooooooooooot more).
That said, both are possible. Just one is substantially more improbable (and I'd probably slap mythic alongside whoever did that so fast their head'd spin).
The issue is when you have situations like in 4e where what constitutes a challenge of a particular level is undefined and confusing (the book doesn't tell you what the hell a "Level 30 wall" is, you're left to guess), leading to overburdened GMs deciding it means DCs are just supposed to naturally scale- that same stone wall that was DC 9 at 1st level should be DC 16 now, because it still needs to be a challenge right!?-I'm actually pretty sure that the book gives examples of high level "walls", but even if it doesn't, I'm not sure how DMs being bad at making stuff up (also known as Profession:DM) is the system's fault.
On that note PF also doesn't give you example what a DC40 wall should be... A city wall is only 30.
Actually, the climb skill is perfect to illustrate what's wrong with the PF skill system, since it gives the whole "A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical (or inverted) surface cannot be climbed" line. What, not even if your roll to climb is more than +40 on a 1? Not even if your fingers essentially have suction cups on them because you are so good at climbing?
Nope, you can not climb it, period.
My reference to 4e was not an argument. It was a citation and an example of actual problems and events. :p
And once again, I'm not defending the PF skill system. I've said on this very page that I think it's problematic as well. Saying the Pathfinder system has problems as well is in no way a useful defense of 5e's skill system and the general issues with bounded accuracy.
PS: There aren't any climb DCs above 35 (a slippery city wall). There is no such thing as a DC 40 wall in Pathfinder. That's not the same problem as saying walls that have DC X exist without giving any examples for what those walls might be.
The highest DC wall being 35 doesn't mean that's the hardest climb check you can make. The hardest checks you can make are DC 55 to catch yourself while falling from the hardest wall, DC 45 to catch someone else, and DC 40 to climb twice as fast.
There's plenty of room to go up in challenge. The issue with PF is that the ceiling is too low and mundane. That guy with 20 ranks in "Athletics" ought to be enduring a climb up a smooth surface into orbit through a rain of blood and arrows.
Meanwhile in 5e, he's no more than 30% more likely to succeed at any given task when he's a demigod than when he's barely above a commoner, and that difference is far too small to measure meaningful growth.
The highest DC wall being 35 doesn't mean that's the hardest climb check you can make. The hardest checks you can make are DC 55 to catch yourself while falling from the hardest wall, DC 45 to catch someone else, and DC 40 to climb twice as fast.
There's plenty of room to go up in challenge. The issue with PF is that the ceiling is too low and mundane. That guy with 20 ranks in "Athletics" ought to be enduring a climb up a smooth surface into orbit through a rain of blood and arrows.
Meanwhile in 5e, he's no more than 30% more likely to succeed at any given task when he's a demigod than when he's barely above a commoner, and that difference is far too small to measure meaningful growth.
I agree about the difference in the two games - I think the point is that a level 20 5E character isn't a demigod though. Nor is a level one PC "barely above a commoner", in my view.
It's not like they tried to replicate the power spread of PF using bounded accuracy. They explicitly decided to create a game with a different power scale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tactics
I think both are exceedingly unlikely, because how are these low level characters going to find this ideal high CR that they can take out.
You make a good point about T's spines, but there are other high CR creatures that don't have any answer for anyone using elevation against them. Maybe I shouldn't have editted in the Tarrasque, but I think you got my point regardless.
Meanwhile in 5e, he's no more than 30% more likely to succeed at any given task when he's a demigod than when he's barely above a commoner, and that difference is far too small to measure meaningful growth.
How long do your characters usually get to grow? Honestly the demigod comparison is something that has occasionally bugged me given how short most adventures/campaigns last.
I have less trouble with Batman getting hit in combat or failing a roll once in a while (which happens in the comics too,) then I do characters going from level 1 commoner with 2 spells to his name to Grand Archmage in 6 months...
I've only had two games with enough downtime to really justify the commoner to Demigod jump believably.
Hence why I think I prefer the small but measurable differences as opposed to 6 months ago I couldn't climb a low hill with a rope... but now am scaling glass towers without rolling...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The highest DC wall being 35 doesn't mean that's the hardest climb check you can make. The hardest checks you can make are DC 55 to catch yourself while falling from the hardest wall, DC 45 to catch someone else, and DC 40 to climb twice as fast.
There's plenty of room to go up in challenge. The issue with PF is that the ceiling is too low and mundane. That guy with 20 ranks in "Athletics" ought to be enduring a climb up a smooth surface into orbit through a rain of blood and arrows.
Meanwhile in 5e, he's no more than 30% more likely to succeed at any given task when he's a demigod than when he's barely above a commoner, and that difference is far too small to measure meaningful growth.
I agree about the difference in the two games - I think the point is that a level 20 5E character isn't a demigod though. Nor is a level one PC "barely above a commoner", in my view.
It's not like they tried to replicate the power spread of PF using bounded accuracy. They explicitly decided to create a game with a different power scale.
The 5e DMG slices up levels into different scales (as I mentioned before) with the top one from levels 17-20 being "masters of the world" where it explicitly compares the PCs to demigods and talks about them facing challenges that determine the fate of the world.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I'm using the scale that Mike Mearls and friends use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's literally only one thing I'd like PF to take from 5e, divine magic having it's own prestidigitation.
In hundreds tables of PFS scenarios from levels 1-11, I've come across (and played) more than my share of PCs with +30 to +70 on Diplomacy.
Now, these scenarios regularly feature "challenges" (notice the quotes ~ it's a relative term depending who sits at the table) whereby the party needs to overcome some sort of complex Diplomacy challenge. Perhaps they need to convince the Kellid barbarian tribe of their good intentions, which is an involved series of roleplaying where you are supposed to share stories, hitting on the right topics to impress your audience for a crucial +2 circumstance bonus here or there.
When you implement a skill system in a game, it's good to imagine it based on d100, since that represents the full gamut of 1% to 100% success (then conversion to d20 is just divvying that up into 5% units).
When trying to do something, there's hopefully some part which is innate to your character, some part that is dice, and some part that is circumstantial.
The circumstantial part is intending to add excitement and teamwork to a roleplaying game.
Table 1:
John: "Man it sure is a good thing Valeros told that story about how he single-handedly beat that tribe of orcs into submission, I totally needed that +2 on my Diplomacy roll."Lucy: "Yeah, and it was great that Lem jumped on that table and played his flute, I can't believe he rocked the 20 for another +2 on our negotations!"
Frank: "It was sure funny when Ezrem hit on the old woman and got her to speak for all of us for that last +2"
John: "Yeah, the +6 from you three is what got me from my roll of a 7 and my normal +10 all the way up to 23!"
... Four hours later Table 1 compares notes with Table 2...
Lucy: "How did your negotations with the Kellids go? I saw you guys were done with the scenario in just over an hour"
Matt (looks bored): Eh, we had Larry's kitsune, so he "took 1" for a 40 Diplomacy and our GM hand-waved that part.
**
Now, our experiences may vary, but I can tell you that...
This is not the problem (high diplomacy) of the skill system, but the way skills are being implemented.
If someone kills the Barbarian's daughter no matter how high diplomacy one has they are looking at a short future at the executioner's chopping block.
IMO, a Diplomacy roll exists, if the GM is unsure of the outcome. Actions of the PC (with high diplomacy) and the specific situation plays a major role in the final outcome. A bit of common sense goes a long way.
edit: the problem is that the Diplomacy skill is overly codified.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quite surprised by the posts here that don't even want to roll anymore?! Even highly skilled acrobats and mountain climbers can still die if they make a single mistake... I can understand wanting to do better at things as they level up.. but I can't imagine wanting to just skip them completely.
Myself, I expect more and more tasks to become those that no longer require rolls as I level. When I'm an epic blacksmith, I don't want to have to pick up my dice to make a few nails.
For example, at 1st level you may try to climb a typical wall and it's DC is 9...
Now you are level 5, and the DC is now 12...
Now you are level 10 and the DC is now a 16...
It may draw rage (I know, not from you), but this is how adventures have existed since 3e was printed.
You can pick up any AP from Shackled City to Giantslayer and scan the DCs in book 1 through book 6.
Both systems feature this, so it's independent of bounded accuracy. As you level up, the checks to use Acrobatics against enemy CMDs, to demoralize enemies using Intimidate, to use Diplomacy to convince a crucial NPC to do something, to use Stealth to get past a certain guard... they all keep increasing.
In "system A", they increase in difficulty by X per level, and a reasonable character who wants to be good at that improves by X per level as well.
In "system B", they increase in difficulty by 0.5X per level, and a reasonable character who wants to be good at that improves by 0.5X per level.
Bounded accuracy tries to ensure in "system A" that a character doesn't improve by 3X per level or a character in "system B" doesn't improve by 1.5X per level (when the respective challenges are only increased by X and 0.5X each level, respectively).
I didn't write the rules or the adventures, but 3.x/PF uses a system where they keep moving the goalposts to make it so that your basic characters are challenged when it comes to rolls they are making. Without there being a challenge, it's a yawn-fest.
The difference is that if I go back to an area that is in the 1st AP, I'll face the same DC. If my level is high enough, I may not need to pick up the dice. No one came back and upgraded the DC while I was away...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game has also changed a bit since the playtest, greatly so depending on which version of the playtest was used.
For me the play-test got worse as time went on. I liked the Fighter iteration that had maneuvers and then came along second wind (non-associated mechanic) and bounded accuracy.
Found the nearest box of tissues and had a bit of a cry. I love playing martial characters with that make or break D20 rolling, and I was hoping to see a martial character that had options in combat, sadly it wasn't meant to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the play-test got worse as time went on.
Yes, same for me. Every new play-test seemed further away from what I wanted out of the game. By the end, I just had to throw my hands up in the air and walk away.