| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no problem that the 20th level wizard, master of powers both subtle and profane and one of the most powerful beings on the face of the planet, might be able to beat out a 1st level fighter at basic athletics tasks.
I'd want to narrate these victories as being obviously supernatural in potency instead of being actual feats of strength, but the raw fact of them happening holds no disconnect for me.
Likewise a 20th level fighter should be able to school a 1st level wizard as to whether they are up against a devil or a demon.
The 20th level fighter should damn well be able to do athletic things the 20th level wizard can't and the 20th level wizard should know not only that it is a devil they are up against, but the type of devil and quite possibly who it is or at least who its boss is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 1st level anything is like a sophomore majoring in their class. There's a reason we have the term "sophomoric."
A 20th level anything doing something against class is like an experienced professional who also regularly traveled the world, dabbled in various hobbies, read widely if shallowly (and for a long time) on several topics, and developed general wisdom and experience that can be broadly applied to intuit how to do things he hasn't directly done before.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have absolutely no problem that the 20th level wizard, master of powers both subtle and profane and one of the most powerful beings on the face of the planet, might be able to beat out a 1st level fighter at basic athletics tasks.
I'd want to narrate these victories as being obviously supernatural in potency instead of being actual feats of strength, but the raw fact of them happening holds no disconnect for me.
Totally. This is even a trope. The ancient, sickly-looking man walks into the tavern, challenges the local village tough guy, seems to be losing for a moment, looks at the youngster a weird way and beats him without a sweat. Nothing special there, easy to explain: The sheer accumulation of arcane power somehow gives the feeble old wizard the ability to dominate lesser men at all sort of tasks, even without bothering to cast any actual magic.
What you do with your third action.
Have one of your weapons be one with parry, like the bo staff has, and you can do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.and what nerf would casters receive to valance that?
Cap spells at 7th maybe? Still let the characters get the slots, so they can heighten into them, but ban 8th-10th level spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm listening to the recording now and my reaction is somewhat mollified by the fact that you A) have to be Legendary proficiency and B) have to have the appropriate Skill Feat. It doesn't appear to be an auto-get for hitting Legendary proficiency.
I...I specified both of these facts in my above post, didn't I?
What you do with your third action.Have one of your weapons be one with parry, like the bo staff has, and you can do that.
Yep. Shield Spikes/Shield Boss are also a weapon and thus viable for Two-Weapon Fighting allowing you to use your action to raise your Shield.
I'm not saying there aren't options. Even optimal options that work really well mechanically (TWF with a Shield is looking very solid mechanically, if a bit static at early levels). I'm saying that if aiming for raw damage alone, Power Attack with a two-handed weapon is likely better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: The level 20 untrained guy beating the level 1 trained guy: Even without magic, there are narrative ways you can describe old age and treachery defeating youth and skill. :)
Young fighter: Old man, how about an arm wrestling contest, you and me!
Old Wizard: (wry grin) really, huh? Don’t you have better things to do, son?
YF: nope! No magical tricks, you versus me!
OW: very well, then.. on my mark, then? Count of Three?
YF: (sits down, rolls sleeve) sure thing, old timer!
OW: very well, then... (offers arm) you ready?
YF: yep!
OW: well, then.. one... (applies pressure suddenly before YF tenses, wrenching arm back towards YF by extending his and hyper extending a ligament in YF’s arm)
two three!
YF: yow! you cheated!
OW: you agreed to my count of three, son... next time be ready before you SAY you’re ready...
On the other hand, one could argue a perfectly fair arm wrestling contest is more a straight STR on STR comparison than a skill contest, so if the old wizard agrees to that, he’s getting what he deserves.
Then it's even easier. You don't have to left out all legendary stuff, just the individual feats that you don't feel confortable with. It's no different than when some people ban a certain spell or magic item from their table.I do like the intimidate example of a legendary skill. I undertand that many people won't like it, tho. I think it'll be easy to excise from the game. Just allowing only proficiencies up to Master (or whatever is called the one before legendary) should clean the board for the most part. It's certainly easier to remove them, than to build them from the scratch.I'm listening to the recording now and my reaction is somewhat mollified by the fact that you A) have to be Legendary proficiency and B) have to have the appropriate Skill Feat. It doesn't appear to be an auto-get for hitting Legendary proficiency.
Hopefully, yes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm listening to the recording now and my reaction is somewhat mollified by the fact that you A) have to be Legendary proficiency and B) have to have the appropriate Skill Feat. It doesn't appear to be an auto-get for hitting Legendary proficiency.I...I specified both of these facts in my above post, didn't I?
Yes, you did. Apparently, multitasking while reading posts on my phone imposes a -10 on my reading comprehension check and I failed the roll. Error was all mine.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please please please somebody tell me that we aren’t doing “+1 to four stats every 5 levels” instead of “+2s”.
One of the things I’ve been most excited about is the removal of the awkward odd ability scores that don’t effect anything. Everything so far in terms of character creation, enfeebled and similar conditions giving a penalty to rolls, and monster statblocks has led me to believe that we would only be gaining even numbered boosts to ability scores, so that we could effectively translate every bonus as a +1 to the actual rolls.
I’m the “DnD uncle” in my family and have been regularly introducing the kids to the game every year or so at the family reunion and they’re so excited to get that 4th Level Ability Increase in PF1. Then they turn their 18 into a 19, nothing changes, and there’s this palpable feeling of disappointment. The odd ability scores feel exactly like the sort of thing that’s stapled to Pathfinder’s Hip because of 3rd Edition compatibility. It would be so much simpler to explain stats to my players by just removing the actual ability scores and telling them their modifiers instead. And then “+2 to four Ability Scores every four levels” translates to “+1 to four ability modifiers every four levels”.
I don’t want to attack the Core Math of the game too harshly, but does what comes to an effective difference of +2 to a roll at 20th Level really break the game enough to justify the existence of unsatisfying odd ability scores?
Also whether or not it uses Starfinders “+2, only +1 if 18 or older” doesn’t change my stance on the subject. +1s in a system where bonuses are determined for every 2 points feels dissapointing. If my player increases their constitution by virtue of gaining experience and adventuring, then they’ll always want to see that bonus improve their character in some of way beyond “only 4-5 more levels to go before this bonus actually matters”.
So...Did anyone else catch this 10th level spell mentioned?
"There is a Tenth Level Divine Spell that turns you into an Avatar of your God."
Just...Holy...what?!
That's insane. Suddenly the 10th level spell they mentioned that sounds like it turns you into the Tarrasque makes sense.
|
|
Please please please somebody tell me that we aren’t doing “+1 to four stats every 5 levels” instead of “+2s”.
One of the things I’ve been most excited about is the removal of the awkward odd ability scores that don’t effect anything. Everything so far in terms of character creation, enfeebled and similar conditions giving a penalty to rolls, and monster statblocks has led me to believe that we would only be gaining even numbered boosts to ability scores, so that we could effectively translate every bonus as a +1 to the actual rolls.
Yeah, the math evidence is pretty compelling that this is what's happening. I'd be shocked if it isn't.
I’m the “DnD uncle” in my family and have been regularly introducing the kids to the game every year or so at the family reunion and they’re so excited to get that 4th Level Ability Increase in PF1. Then they turn their 18 into a 19, nothing changes, and there’s this palpable feeling of disappointment. The odd ability scores feel exactly like the sort of thing that’s stapled to Pathfinder’s Hip because of 3rd Edition compatibility. It would be so much simpler to explain stats to my players by just removing the actual ability scores and telling them their modifiers instead. And then “+2 to four Ability Scores every four levels” translates to “+1 to four ability modifiers every four levels”.
It doesn't help with the simplicity, but the feeling of disappointment is ameliorated a lot by getting +2 to three other stats. Generally speaking you keep getting +2 to three stats every time you do this for most of your career (technically it can drop to two stats, while the other two get +1, as early as 10th level, but that's very much the exception rather than the rule). You can, in fact, easily add +2 to three stats every time you get ability ups all the way through 20th just by spreading them out a little.
I mean, yeah, going from Str 18 to 19 is underwhelming, but Con 14 to 16, Dex 14 to 16, and Wis 12 to 14 are all a bit more exciting.
I don’t want to attack the Core Math of the game too harshly, but does what comes to an effective difference of +2 to a roll at 20th Level really break the game enough to justify the existence of unsatisfying odd ability scores?
Unfortunately, yes. The math is tight enough that you'd need to drop something else that gives bonuses right now in order to do this. I'd be pretty comfortable with that, but it's definitely not a situation where you can just add the stats and the math will work out.
Also whether or not it uses Starfinders “+2, only +1 if 18 or older” doesn’t change my stance on the subject. +1s in a system where bonuses are determined for every 2 points feels dissapointing. If my player increases their constitution by virtue of gaining experience and adventuring, then they’ll always want to see that bonus improve their character in some of way beyond “only 4-5 more levels to go before this bonus actually matters”.
It very clearly is the Starfinder version. All the evidence is pretty compelling that this is the case.
I'm not saying there aren't options. Even optimal options that work really well mechanically (TWF with a Shield is looking very solid mechanically, if a bit static at early levels). I'm saying that if aiming for raw damage alone, Power Attack with a two-handed weapon is likely better.
Okie dokie. I can see that if it's limited to 'what do I do with my 3rd action to damage my foe'. I was taking it as more of a general question.
PS: yes, 'sword and board' looks good. You could even leverage different damage types on primary weapon and shield to easily cover them all: do double slice on a normal attack and power attack with single one if the target is vulnerable. With just 2 feats, you've got a good solid hit and can raise your shield.
|
|
Okie dokie. I can see that if it's limited to 'what do I do with my 3rd action to damage my foe'. I was taking it as more of a general question.
Oh, it was. But not one I thought didn't have an answer. I was just saying that what you do with your third action after a Power Attack is obvious, while TWF does not have such an obvious option. You have to work one out.
PS: yes, 'sword and board' looks good. You could even leverage different damage types on primary weapon and shield to easily cover them all: do double slice on a normal attack and power attack with single one if the target is vulnerable. With just 2 feats, you've got a good solid hit and can raise your shield.
I'm pretty sure it's been mathematically proven that you're better off taking two attacks than using Power Attack. Power Attack comes into its own when you make one and then another attack.
But yeah, 'sword and board' looks very solid.
So...Did anyone else catch this 10th level spell mentioned?
"There is a Tenth Level Divine Spell that turns you into an Avatar of your God."
Just...Holy...what?!
That's insane. Suddenly the 10th level spell they mentioned that sounds like it turns you into the Tarrasque makes sense.
Yeah, but I remember hearing that from another source before so I didn't think it warranted mention. I don't remember where I heard it though...?
It very clearly is the Starfinder version. All the evidence is pretty compelling that this is the case.
Where can I find this evidence?
|
|
It very clearly is the Starfinder version. All the evidence is pretty compelling that this is the case.Where can I find this evidence?
Well, the most compelling is the leveling Blog, where they said the following:
You'll also amp up several of your ability scores every 5 levels. The process might be familiar to those of you who've been playing Starfinder for the last several months! There are, of course, a few tweaks, and we made all ability boosts work the same way instead of being different at 1st level. Learn it once, use it in perpetuity.
So...that's specifically several, and specifically very similar to Starfinder. I'd say that guessing it works the same is a fair guess.
Similar is not same. I guess, we'll see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does bug me is that the wizard can beat the level 1 fighter in an arm wrestling match.This is sort of my worry as well...but to be honest, there's enough tricks to winning an arm wrestling match with somebody stronger that I'm not sure arm wrestling specifically is a deal breaker.
Wow i was going to respond to thflame that arm wrestling is propably just a strength check and actually strength is weird ability and many times the results shouldn't even be random. Like a 20 strength dude should just win vs a 10 strength dude.
My houserule in 3.5 and pathfinder was to double the ability modifier in ability checks.Out of seer curiousty what tricks can you pull in an arm wrestling match?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of seer curiousty what tricks can you pull in an arm wrestling match?
Here's a list of easy positional tricks. There are lots more, feel free to do an internet search or three.
The same is actually true of most feats of strength. There are lots of tricks to make things easier and if you know what they are and remember to do them. Look up professional strong men sometime, a surprising amount of what they do, while necessitating high levels of strength, is actually about specific tricks to get the most out of that strength in a particular activity.
On the one hand, in order to have non-magical heroes compete with wizards and the like, you have to let them be able to do some mythic stuff. On the other hand, if a BBEG could scare a town to death with his voice, no magic required, that seems a bit too cheesy for my taste.
I would assume that scaring someone to death would require them to critically fail their save at least.
I think at this point, I would like to have seen level be LESS important for skill checks and Proficiency/Stats be MORE important.
If proficiency scaled from -2 to +8, stats did the same(6 to 24), and you only got half level to your rolls, it would make each facet of your character equally important. (And also add a ton more character customization when it comes to stats!)
The whole proficiency levels thing will have to be judged in how its implemented. It will be tricky to split all uses of skills to 3 basic levels.
Also the +1 per level mechanic does throw a big weight on your level. I deally I too would prefer a heavier role for abilities, though not so much on proficiencies as you say.
I also don't mind that all you abilities will end up being high this actually makes more sense to me than having players with 32 str and cha 8. This big differences make sense either for certain monsters or super heros, but high level dnd character though a bit super heroic are more like achilles or beowulf or even conan, so overall high stats can make sense.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that they really just do use Starfinder Ability ups, dropping to +1 and all, well, here are some expected level 20 score distributions:
The least distributed possible character (without ending on a useless odd score) at 20th will have 22, 20, 20, 20, 10, 8. Before magic.
The most distributed possible character (again, without ending up with a useless odd score) has more like 20, 18, 18, 18, 18, 16.
That's an interesting comparison, since the differences between the top 4 scores wind up relatively small (though the two bottom scores can be quite a bit bigger).
RE: The level 20 untrained guy beating the level 1 trained guy: Even without magic, there are narrative ways you can describe old age and treachery defeating youth and skill. :)
Lots of things can be justified. Using heal skill in a social skill challenge. Spending healing surges at the end of each combat. Or Str 8 wizards being better in athletics then Str 18 characters. The problem is the game system going from allowing you to make such justifications and forcing you to.
I still hold out hope that we will get something recognizable as Pathfinder. Everyone who plays it claims it is. But these previews sure sound like we're getting D&D 4th Edition: Returns. Right down to classes being split into Arcane, Divine, Primal and Martial power sources.
You say spell list, I say power source. Tomato vs tomato.The reuse of the word primal is close enough to raise eyebrows at my table at least.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so riddle me this.
Why is it bad and stupid for a Str 8 Level 20 Wizard to have a better Athletics modifier than a Str 18 Level 1 Fighter
But a Con 8 Level 20 Wizard having more hitpoints than a Con 18 level 1 Fighter is acceptable?
Ok so riddle me this.
Why is it bad and stupid for a Str 8 Level 20 Wizard to have a better Athletics modifier than a Str 18 Level 1 Fighter
But a Con 8 Level 20 Wizard having more hitpoints than a Con 18 level 1 Fighter is acceptable?
Because hit points as a mechanic get a pass?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that D&D novels are that representative of the game. At least I've never relay felt they were representative of my games.
Yeah I don't really feel its that much of a stretch to assume a 20 level character can do a lot of things better then a 1st level one. Even without much training.
Ok so riddle me this.
Why is it bad and stupid for a Str 8 Level 20 Wizard to have a better Athletics modifier than a Str 18 Level 1 Fighter
But a Con 8 Level 20 Wizard having more hitpoints than a Con 18 level 1 Fighter is acceptable?
Because the people who disliked that were weeded out in the 70s and what remains among the fan base are those who can tolerate it or enjoy it.
FYI: Those who dislike +level to everything were weeded out of the D&D fan base in 2008. Many of them ended up playing Pathfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has really gone off the rails...
Well I think arm wrestling is kind of a weird thing to pick I feel we should use something that is more common in the game. I guess it would be opposed athletic checks? IF it was just opposed str checks then its not really an issue. I would say also that is can't really be related to real life that well because people aren't actually leveled really. White wolfs dot system actually probably handles a closer degree of real life in that you can just rate everyone on a scale of 1-5 at something. It really comes down to your own definition of what being higher level means.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still hold out hope that we will get something recognizable as Pathfinder. Everyone who plays it claims it is. But these previews sure sound like we're getting D&D 4th Edition: Returns. Right down to classes being split into Arcane, Divine, Primal and Martial power sources.
I don't really understand this complaint, as spellcaster wise this already existed. Wizards and Clerics and their associated classes have been referred to as Arcane and Divine Casters since before Pathfinder 1E, and Primal just seems a rebranding of Nature, which again is something that predates PF 1E. There is no evidence of Martial Power/Casters at all.
This to me seems pretty much the same as the existing system
I would adjudicate an arm-wrestling match as whoever has the highest Str score, automatically wins, if they both have the same Str score, it is a simple opposed Str check. So, in PF2, that would be a d20 + Str modifier check vs. the opponent's Str mod +10?What does bug me is that the wizard can beat the level 1 fighter in an arm wrestling match.This is sort of my worry as well...but to be honest, there's enough tricks to winning an arm wrestling match with somebody stronger that I'm not sure arm wrestling specifically is a deal breaker.
Wow i was going to respond to thflame that arm wrestling is propably just a strength check and actually strength is weird ability and many times the results shouldn't even be random. Like a 20 strength dude should just win vs a 10 strength dude.
My houserule in 3.5 and pathfinder was to double the ability modifier in ability checks.Out of seer curiousty what tricks can you pull in an arm wrestling match?
Nice — I like this suggestion. And it fits with how some similar contests are adjudicated. In particular, in a contest about how much each can lift, the one with the higher strength will win because they can lift more. Full stop. Treating arm wrestling in the same way seems like a reasonable way to proceed.
(Of course, the general worry about skill modifiers not being large enough, relative to level bonuses, can be raised in other ways. But I like this way of treating this particular task.)