Armor absolutely does increase with level, just like pretty much anything else in the new system.
It has to, to keep up with the increases in attacks.
A Fighter 20 has at best an attack of d20 + 20 level + 7 STR + 3 prof + 5 magic = +35
A wizard 20 has at best an AC of 10 + 20 level + 5 DEX (probably less) + 3 prof (if heavily investing) + 5 (item or mage armor) = 43
So that fighter has to roll an 8 or better to hit the wizard, critting at an 18+.
Those 200 goblins level one would have an attack of around +5 yeah.
The Crit blog does not detail if a natural 20 is still an automatic hit, but it surely isn't a crit in this case (as it has to meet or exceed the DC/AC), so damage against that wizard would be 10d6? about a quarter of the wizards hitpoints or so.
Armor absolutely does increase with level, just like pretty much anything else in the new system.
It has to, to keep up with the increases in attacks.
A Fighter 20 has at best an attack of d20 + 20 level + 7 STR + 3 prof + 5 magic = +35
A wizard 20 has at best an AC of 10 + 20 level + 5 DEX (probably less) + 3 prof (if heavily investing) + 5 (item or mage armor) = 43
So that fighter has to roll an 8 or better to hit the wizard, critting at an 18+.
Those 200 goblins level one would have an attack of around +5 yeah.
The Crit blog does not detail if a natural 20 is still an automatic hit, but it surely isn't a crit in this case (as it has to meet or exceed the DC/AC), so damage against that wizard would be 10d6? about a quarter of the wizards hitpoints or so.
I missed that AC scaled with level. That makes things quite interesting.
Unless 20's auto hit it is impossible for 200 level 1 goblins to threaten a level 20 wizard . Which does actually make a lot of sense if you think about it, the wizard being able to summon tidal waves and call meteors from the sky... It kinda makes sense those goblins don't achieve much.
If we can get the gobo's to a +23 bonus, then we suddenly can start threatening the wizard again, so when is that feasible?
If they are fighters, and depending on when "Certain strike" becomes available we would only need a +13 bonus to be able to deal some damage to the wizard.
Come to think of it... The natural 20 brings the attack roll to ~25, which is way below the AC of 43, so that could be a Critical Failure (Blog isn't quite detailed enough here as well) on the Goblins attack (and all those that didn't roll a 20). So yeah, odds are that even the natural 20 goblins aren't doing any damage.
The best goblin fighter level 1 would have an attack bonus of +8 if he somehow has an expertly crafted weapon. So as long as the Wizard 20 is above AC37, he should be pretty save against level 1 goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sound like we might need a mob/swarm template.
Plus level really makes a lot of things wonky.
|
A wizard 20 has at best an AC of 10 + 20 level + 5 DEX (probably less) + 3 prof (if heavily investing) + 5 (item or mage armor) = 43
This breakdown is a bit off. They've made it clear you can't usually get Proficiency to things like AC higher than +0 out-of-class, so the Wizard is at +0 Proficiency. They've also noted that Bracer of Armor/Mage Armor give +1 AC on top of the +5 'magic' bonus, so that'd be +6. This thus totals out at 41 rather than 43.
Unless 20's auto hit it is impossible for 200 level 1 goblins to threaten a level 20 wizard . Which does actually make a lot of sense if you think about it, the wizard being able to summon tidal waves and call meteors from the sky... It kinda makes sense those goblins don't achieve much.
They've explicitly stated that 20s auto-succeed and 1s auto fail regardless of bonus. They only crit if the roll would've been a success without this fact (and only crit fail if it would've been a failure), but 10 out of 200 goblins do still hit the wizard for 10d6 damage (average 35) or thereabouts.
I don't know about 200 goblin archers, but 200 goblin skirmishers should cause any single level 20 hero problems I think. One suicidal charge to swarm the hero and flanks and aid anothers might be enough?
How would that go in the rules?
|
|
I don't know about 200 goblin archers, but 200 goblin skirmishers should cause any single level 20 hero problems I think. One suicidal charge to swarm the hero and flanks and aid anothers might be enough?
How would that go in the rules?
With that level disparity? Poorly. Only a max of 8 of them can attack in melee per turn without reach, 24 with reach. 24 attacks, even aiding each other, just can't equal 200, not with thek kind of disparity that makes them need a nat 20 to hit by something like 25 points.
We know flanking makes the target flat-footed (-2 AC this edition), but don't know how Aid Another works, but it pretty much doesn't matter under these circumstances.
|
|
So about 35 damage, per attack. Three attacks per round and iterative attack penalties not meaning anything means about 105 damage per round.
That's substantially correct assuming they're using shortbows, yeah. Of course, that's ignoring Wind Wall, Stoneskin, and other similar effects that would make this sort of thing auto-fail.
1st example: The rogue may have had more in-depth training, but the wizard has more life experience, and may have picked up a trick or two even the rogue doesn't know. Makes total sense to me.
2nd example: What she lacks in formal training, she makes up for in raw talent. Makes total sense to me.
3rd example: High level fighters have survived hundreds of combats over the years and have learned numerous tricks and techniques that help them NOT DIE. High level fighters taking longer to kill one another makes total sense to me.
4th example: Life experience often matters more than raw talent or formal training. Makes total sense to me.
The fact that people will have varying levels of life experience, raw talent, and formal training; and the amount of each will determine whether or not they will succeed at life's challenges; is highly intuitive.
Someone with high levels in all three areas for a given skill would be hard to match. Makes total sense to me. What about this system feels off exactly?
A wizard 20 has at best an AC of 10 + 20 level + 5 DEX (probably less) + 3 prof (if heavily investing) + 5 (item or mage armor) = 43This breakdown is a bit off. They've made it clear you can't usually get Proficiency to things like AC higher than +0 out-of-class, so the Wizard is at +0 Proficiency. They've also noted that Bracer of Armor/Mage Armor give +1 AC on top of the +5 'magic' bonus, so that'd be +6. This thus totals out at 41 rather than 43.
Well, I was close enough, I think.
Also, wouldn’t/shouldn’t Wizards get at least Trained in Unarmored (at some point in those 20 levels)? Then Expert Unarmored might be possible.Unless 20's auto hit it is impossible for 200 level 1 goblins to threaten a level 20 wizard . Which does actually make a lot of sense if you think about it, the wizard being able to summon tidal waves and call meteors from the sky... It kinda makes sense those goblins don't achieve much.They've explicitly stated that 20s auto-succeed and 1s auto fail regardless of bonus. They only crit if the roll would've been a success without this fact (and only crit fail if it would've been a failure), but 10 out of 200 goblins do still hit the wizard for 10d6 damage (average 35) or thereabouts.
Ah, did not remember reading that.
105 damage per round from a giant mob of the entirety incompetent archers against somebody who can fight demigods, not bothering to defend themselves? That sounds reasonable enough to me.
|
|
Well, I was close enough, I think.
Number wise? Sure. But not being able to get to Legendary in things like Armor Proficiency outside of Class is an important rule I think people should be aware of. As is Bracers of Armor being equal to leather armor.
Also, wouldn’t/shouldn’t Wizards get at least Trained in Unarmored (at some point in those 20 levels)? Then Expert Unarmored might be possible.
My numbers assume Trained. The Monk blog seemed to indicate that higher than Trained in Unarmored was Monk exclusive.
Ah, did not remember reading that.
I think it was clarified early in the comments of the degrees of success blog rather than the blog itself.
Also, wouldn’t/shouldn’t Wizards get at least Trained in Unarmored (at some point in those 20 levels)? Then Expert Unarmored might be possible.My numbers assume Trained. The Monk blog seemed to indicate that higher than Trained in Unarmored was Monk exclusive.
From class alone, I would presume.
I should have clarified that I meant gaining Expert Unarmored would require the Wizard spending a (general?) feat on that.
You are right though, Master (and Legendary) Unarmored is (and should be) very much out of reach for the Wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I skimmed the thread)
One of the ideas for system tweaks I'm toying with in my mind is tying the level bonus to your proficiency.
So, for example you get 1/2lvl to things you're Untrained in, 3/4lvl to things you're Trained or Expert in and your full lvl to things you're Master or Legendery in.
It's a very interesting tweak I think, especially since the difference between two adjacent categories is "only" +/- 5. But it'll be interesting to see how it adds up to the math.
But if it doesn't upset the math too much, it would be a rather easy houserule to implement.
This really screws the game's math entirely and profoundly. Especially several of the fundamental system goals (like there not being more than 20 point swings between the capabilities of equal level people).
+/-5 is a huge and game changing bonus in PF2. I'm pretty sure it comes close to straight up doubling damage, just to give one example, and is equally meaningful in other situations.
Certainly adding the 1x the level of the charcter to just about everything creates a distinct flavor to the stories it generates. Someone about 10 levels higher than someone else will tend to be succeeding all the time, and making critical successes when their opponent would have just succeeded. At a 19 level difference, a wall of minions is mostly only a threat by death by random papercuts, and likely something that would only soften them up, not guaranteed to kill them outright.
But I have to admit that this seems a completely appropriate style, but admittedly high fantasy. But lets specifically look at it from a math's standpoint. This is also stylistically the most distinct style from the largest recent competing RPG's default play-style. (which averages a 1/4 per level bonus)
But what if we decide even most powerful warrior should be concerned about a reasonably large band of even the smallest goblins. Is there a way to help this happen, within the current framework?
Right now, the goblins would likely have to rely on sheer numbers to get regular hits, via natural 20s and nickle and dime them to death a few HP at a time. While, the fighter gets critical hits with all but natural 1s, wiping out the goblins quickly.
Honestly, if you prefer most of the aspects of Pathfinder's many choices, but that story doesn't sit as well with your style you are attempting to create, I think it might be almost as simple as changing it from + level to only +1/2 bonuses level. While this would definitely require a table to help you convert arbitrary set DCs that were set for the games default style/scale, to more achievable DC results in this new style. Guess what, the basis for that very table may even already actually exist, with the mention of the 'high dc target?' table, mentioned briefly in the bard preview. If you subtract 1/2 level from the expected DC at each expected level, you can get a new standard DC conversion table, or potentially work out a workable formula. We may have to see what that table shows.
I'd of course still recommend playing it as intended first, but this could potentially be used to create a distinct home flavor.
But, I think this might decent dial to play with, if you want a more gritty feel with the most powerful individuals still feeling a greater fear of the weak masses, at least en masse. I think you could get that grittier feel by dropping it to 1/2 per level and we wouldn't need/want to go to 1/4.
I have to admit that only seeing bonuses advance every 4 levels is a distinct disadvantage/negative in my view of the competing product.
But what if we don't like less trained people regularly beating out the more trained ones simply because they are higher level? Is there a way of trying to address this? First is it really an issue, or just a perceived one?
If your issue with the math is more tied to the untrained individual seeming to be on-par with a little lower level trained or expert adventurer for simple tasks, I can understand the feeling. It was a notable distraction when I first read about it. As it sunk in that simply speaking, despite potentially having a +20 modifier, you might not be able to preform an action because you'd need to be trained to pick an actual lock. I think understanding that, helped me believe that once we see all the rules, this won't be as bad a problem as it might have first felt like.
People have complained that comparing two people of different levels and different competencies became more difficult, because it would not be uncommon for the expected underdog to potentially roll a higher number than the more trained individual. I would suggest however that when two differently proficient characters go through a head-to-head competition of skill. The higher trained individual should simply normally win. Let them both roll. If the higher trained individual fails, and the lesser trained one succeeds, that when the opportunity for the underdog to win. You might give the underdog a chance to win if they get a critical success compared to the trained individual's normal success, but I'm less positive about that. This basic rule might help people resolve this perceived inconsistency.
I'll admit however, for some this might be enough to at least accept and understand things as currently presented in the rules. However, some I'm sure would understandably indicate it doesn't really solve their concern. Especially when talking about untrained
Specifically, what if we don't want Untrained people to seem to be able to compete with a less experienced individual who has specific relevant training? Again, how can we address this? Can we keep it from breaking the back of the Math it was designed around?
If that doesn't feel like it solves the issue, I've contemplated around the idea that has been floated around already. Make untrained proficiency only add fraction of your level(such as 1/2), for applicable checks. This appealed to me, but I recognized that it meant that this person would likely be making critical failures as DC's advanced as the hardness advanced, and with the bounded (by expectation) accuracy within a level got wider than planned for in the game's math.
However, it eventually occurred to me that I didn't have a problem with a person's generic experience making them far less likely to critically fail on something. And with that in mind, while only allowing 1/2 level applied to determine success, I was perfectly fine with if they fail. Allowing them to apply the rest of their level to the roll to determine if they avoid a critical failure. This means a high level character, who would might be completely untrained in something, could get to the point where they tend not to succeed at the related tasks as they get harder and harder, but they also don't botch very often at all, unless it is also beyond the scope of their peers who are trained.
What if tweaking the rules above the above breaks some Core assumptions relating to saves/bab and such? After all we have only seen a small slice of the rules.
I worry that this idea, especially not having seen all the rules yet, might open up some other math issues with classes, saves, and such. I quickly got the idea that if one of those were identified, one could reset the behavior to more core-like behavior, by the way of some new/custom proficiency levels that could be assigned. By opening this up, if we identify things it breaks that there isn't a simple solution to fix otherwise, simply say adventurers/everyone is considered at least Competent in this Saves, or BAB, Armour class, etc.
Incompetent (as untrained, but level doesn't affect your roll at all, for any of the four levels of success) You might apply this to certain NPCs, or allow a PC to take a flaw, causing this to apply to them for some skill(s).
Untrained (as per RAW, but only add 1/2 your level to determine success/critical success. You can add your full level to determine failure and avoid a critical failure.
Competent (as per the original RAW Untrained, allows you to add full level to rolls but applies the standard modifier for RAW Untrained)
Trained (as usual)
Expert (as usual)
Master (as usual)
Legendary (as usual)
This could allow us to mark saves, or bab/attack skills as competent, instead of untrained, if it is found untrained is too much of a hit on the math for some of those such aspects of the game.
If you feel the problem isn't only around untrained/experienced being able to beat out trained, but trained beating a master and the like?
While I don't feel that is going to be a great problem, having had no experience with the system just yet, if on the other hand you find that proficiency should have more impact between these levels, you could consider giving Trained/Expert/Master levels up to which they get to count all their level, but only count levels above that for half value for determination of success as per the mechanic above. (such as trained=10, expert=15, master=20) Meaning a 20th level trained in stealth would get to count trained skills as +15 for success (and +20 just for avoiding botches), and at expert the first would be +17. You would then also need to remember to add the specified proficiency bonus(penalty)
Note that this one might be a little harder to calculate the exact changes that might need to be applied to the DCs of higher DC tasks, due to people not being at the master proficiency for things despite being trained, and very high level. I think it is a bigger deal than dealing with untrained, where almost the goal was to make untrained people less likely to succeed. Trained folks have a reason for their experience adding to their score/roll.
If one wants both a grittier feel, and bigger impact on proficiency ranks, can one apply all the potential adjustments above? I think so.
If you wanted to combine the Gritty feeling of dropping the base modifier to 1/2 level, you could make 'extra' levels past the defined proficiency tier, be 1/5 level.
Meaning a master of stealth might get a +10 from level(20/2), an expert a +8 (15/2 + 5/5), a trained would get +7 (10/2 + 10/5) and untrained gets +4 (20/5) But in all these cases you'd get your full/standard gritty +10 when verifying if you hit a critical failure.
When you also add the actual proficiency bonuses that would be +2/+7/+9/+12/+13 for untrained/trained/expert/master/legendary for a gritty feel, that significantly bounds your level bonuses by proficiency.
Despite all those thoughts on how one could adjust dials that are currently in the game, I intend to give it a try as is, as I think it deserves a go. It just has occurred to me that there might be a relatively easy scale that could be applied to it that could adjust the feel without completely breaking the core mechanics as long as you apply the adjustment across the board.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For clarity, adding only 1/2 level to everything instead of level works great. Heck, you can choose to not add level at all, and that still works fine, too.
Both work perfectly well with the game's math and just rebalance how much of a threat creatures of much lower level are to those of level X, though that's their only major game impact other than the purely aesthetic.
What breaks the game's math on a profound level is having 1/2 level on some levels of training and then full level on others. That's what I was objecting to as a bad idea.
You can still have a goblin or an orc plot, if the story you want to tell allows giving said goblin/orcs class levels. If the threat the PCs deal with scale with them, and the lower level hordes aren't threatening the PCs but instead putting pressure on the common folk; or the town guards' abilities -- then the RAW works for those stories.
If you're wanting a high level, small band against an army of generally homogeneous low-level army, you still need to decide which types of stories you want to tell.
Is the intent that the small party against the army is suicide and you want them to do hit and hunt tactics? Do you want primarily non-combat role-play working behind the scenes, creating infighting? Do you want them nibbling away at supply lines?
Do you want the epic 'they take on he army and win, but have to work for it'?
I think I could make the RAW work for the different stories, but would require a bit more creativity at times (and might still undermine the stories).
For instance in the "fight the whole army and have a chance of success, but also a chance of failure" case, you'll need to give the squad leaders/captains/warcheifs what have you of the army some anti-magic mcguffins. Then the party can't completely/always negate the 5% hits from nat 20s.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned about the implication that a 10th level fighter has a +8 to check his email and do online banking, because he gets his level added to any theoretical skill that can be done without training, even for things he may never have even heard of.
For a more fantasy-oriented example, imagine a Fremen or Aiel expy who inexplicably knows how to swim or sail, just because they happen to be 8th level or whatever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more concerned about the implication that a 10th level fighter has a +8 to check his email and do online banking, because he gets his level added to any theoretical skill that can be done without training, even for things he may never have even heard of.
Trained only uses are very much a thing and cover just about all of this. For people on Golarion, knowing anything about advanced technology is definitely a Trained Only Lore (Technology) check, which they simply can't attempt without the skill.
For a more fantasy-oriented example, imagine a Fremen or Aiel expy who inexplicably knows how to swim or sail, just because they happen to be 8th level or whatever.
Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.
One thing people is forgeting when saying "+1/2 level was horrible" is that 4ed put 10 more levels on the table, meaning that in the end the comparison was +0 to +15 instead +0 to +10, and that MAKES A LOT of difference.
With half level bonus, an unprepared level 14 would have around 20 to 25 AC, depending on items, meaning specially at 20 AC that even level 1 creatures can damage it, probably dont really kill unless with are talking dozens, but have a chance of at least forcing some wasted recourses.
With full level, by level 10 the difference is so absurd that you will fumble more than miss.
I for sure will try a "double skill bonus bonus, half level" approach, were i double all the bonuses from skill levels and use the half level. Bringing lower level "hobbits" on your "10 level cave troll fight" still will be risky, but they will have a chnace to hit and contribute to damage.
And the differences would be even less extreme if armor gave damage mitigation instead of AC.
Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.
I doubt many people are going to stress over whether a character with a 30 STR can swim ok or not. :)
But swimming is a good example of where this system can get wonky.
I really love the idea of tiers and locked abilities.
But if you are L14 with a 10 STR and untrained, then you are at +12. So you probably won't fail much of anything you can try and for anything else, well, you can't try. Seems odd.
I think it is clear that there is a lot behind the curtain with skills so far. So it is hard to make much of a judgement here.
But in my mind I've already started thinking about a house rule:
The class portion of you bonus is capped by your rank.
Untrained Cap = 5
Trained = 10
Master = 15
Expert = 20
If you choose to devote resources and make a character good at something, this rule would have pretty much zero effect.
But you can still be relatively bad at swimming, were it to come up.
Untrained guy swimming across a simple river (Call it a L1 low from the latest blog). So your L14 guy is at +5. He fails 30% of the time, but never critically fails, succeeds 50% and critically succeeds 20%. [and anyone L7 or better would be the same] This sounds ok to me for a completely untrained character doing a task solo with zero aid. I'd presume that at and above L7 your ability to use a variety of resources to better overcome the challenge would be present.
I just thought about this.... a 10th level anything would also have a higher initiative than anything lower level than it without the dex or wis to back it up. Since it's all skill or perception based.
And an 11th level fighter in PF1 can attack three times as fast as a 1st level character without the Dex or wis to back it up. Initiative isn't even really a skill that represents something big in game either, it is just a mechanical conceit. Which makes it a weird example to point to.
What it really represents is how quick you are on the draw, not how dexterous you are, and I'm pretty comfortable with a basic rule of thumb that the more battles you have fought the quicker you are on the draw.
Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.I doubt many people are going to stress over whether a character with a 30 STR can swim ok or not. :)
But swimming is a good example of where this system can get wonky.
It sounds like quite a few of you have had very bad experiences with the people you've played with. One would think that some type of common sense and roleplaying (you know, in a roleplaying game) would be more prevalent. If your character has never encountered any body of water large enough to swim in, then maybe... oh, I don't know, roleplay that?
Now, granted, I've met people who are adamant that all the rules have to be followed 100% according to how they're written in the books and if the book says that your skill technically would give you a big bonus to swimming, then gosh darn it, you have to use that bonus!They've just been very, very, very far between (and most likely on the spectrum to some degree). But maybe they're more prevalent in your areas?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.I doubt many people are going to stress over whether a character with a 30 STR can swim ok or not. :)
My point was that a Str 30 desert nomad is a brilliant swimmer in PF1. People being able to swim well untrained is not new to PF1.
But swimming is a good example of where this system can get wonky.
I really love the idea of tiers and locked abilities.
But if you are L14 with a 10 STR and untrained, then you are at +12. So you probably won't fail much of anything you can try and for anything else, well, you can't try. Seems odd.
That seems totally reasonable to me. I'm pretty darn good at a variety of basic tasks despite having no skill at all or ability to attempt advanced applications.
Many people can manage, say, the basics of swimming without being able to manage deep diving or swimming during a storm. You could argue that the latter are higher DC, but not being able to attempt the latter without training is an equally valid mechanical construction.
I think it is clear that there is a lot behind the curtain with skills so far. So it is hard to make much of a judgement here.
The math is actually crystal clear. A lot of ancillary stuff not so much, but the math is very clean and makes the game work really well.
But in my mind I've already started thinking about a house rule:
The class portion of you bonus is capped by your rank.
Untrained Cap = 5
Trained = 10
Master = 15
Expert = 20
This is an awful idea. Full stop. One major point of the system is to simplify what bonus you have in what skill as you go up in level (people screwed up skill points frequently, and they were distinctly un-fun to work with), and the other is to make the difference in capabilities between characters of the same level fall into a narrower range. Both are very good ideas for the sort of game Pathfinder is.
This takes both those ideas and f%+#s them up completely.
If you want level to play less of a role, then by all means do so. You can have level not add to anything, or add only 1/2 level to everything. Those both make level matter less, but the math still works out fine as long as you convert adversaries as well.
The idea of varying it ;like this, though? It makes the mechanics not work right. Do not do it.
If you choose to devote resources and make a character good at something, this rule would have pretty much zero effect.
Given that almost nobody but Rogues will ever have more than 3 skills maxed out, this is deeply untrue.
But you can still be relatively bad at swimming, were it to come up.
Untrained guy swimming across a simple river (Call it a L1 low from the latest blog). So your L14 guy is at +5. He fails 30% of the time, but never critically fails, succeeds 50% and critically succeeds 20%. [and anyone L7 or better would be the same] This sounds ok to me for a completely untrained character doing a task solo with zero aid. I'd presume that at and above L7 your ability to use a variety of resources to better overcome the challenge would be present.
Past level 7 we're getting into superhero or mythological heroes level stuff (action movie hero stuff at the very least). Characters getting steadily better at most things is actually pretty genre appropriate for things at that level of power.
I just thought about this.... a 10th level anything would also have a higher initiative than anything lower level than it without the dex or wis to back it up. Since it's all skill or perception based.
Huh. I actually really like that. It means past a point we can jump directly into combat and only roll initiative for the surviving mob members, rather than either generalising all of them or rolling for each. I mean, actually. If the PCs are high enough level I don't need to roll initiative at all and can simply order them based on perception.
I also just like the idea of PCs mowing down hordes of woefully unprepared minions. Ninjas getting caught mid-assassination, guards getting blindsided, ogres spontaneously detonating. It sort of points to a possibly different sort of resource attrition game. One that's less "roll for initiative" and more "I wanna roll stealth, slink around, and then bonk the guard in the back of the head."
Why does it make more sense that a 15th level wizard can take 15 times as much damage as a 1st level wizard? Leveling up makes you tougher across board. It makes you withstand poison better (fortitude) and better at dodging and reaction to things (reflex.) It also makes you better at hitting things (BAB). This was all true for every class in PF1, albeit at different rates.
So why is it hard to believe the character whose body can now hold 15 times the spells and 15 times the hit points is also stronger?
Also, you don't seem to understand how the ability boost system works. It isn't "universal Stat bonuses every 4 levels."
It is a "+2 to 4 stats every 5 levels." Which means in your example the wizard chose to invest resources into strength instead of Dex or Con or whatever. So why shouldn't they be able to do strong guy stuff?
Why does it make more sense that a 15th level wizard can take 15 times as much damage as a 1st level wizard? Leveling up makes you tougher across board. It makes you withstand poison better (fortitude) and better at dodging and reaction to things (reflex.) It also makes you better at hitting things (BAB). This was all true for every class in PF1, albeit at different rates.
So why is it hard to believe the character whose body can now hold 15 times the spells and 15 times the hit points is also stronger?
Also, you don't seem to understand how the ability boost system works. It isn't "universal Stat bonuses every 4 levels."
It is a "+2 to 4 stats every 5 levels." Which means in your example the wizard chose to invest resources into strength instead of Dex or Con or whatever. So why shouldn't they be able to do strong guy stuff?
Its because we don't see that in movies or fiction. The high level wizard uses a spell to open the door, not just bash it in. How did Gandalf not solve the issue with the hidden door to Moria? Being higher level than all those hobbits he should have solved it no problem. He needed a hint from a Hobbit to remember.
I am sure we can find many examples to support both arguments, I am on Captain's Morgans side with this one though.
EDIT: I mean't I am on Squeezeboxes side. I prefer not to add level (or at least to the extent of PF2).
Well, it sounds like PF2 won't be for you and neither was PF1. Being able to have distinct high tier play where low level enemies are a joke is one of the major mechanical features of both systems. It is also built into the narrative of Golarion. It is part of why the kingdom needs the adventurers to save it, after all. And Golarion has lots of high powered things running around in it. That's why there are hundreds of monsters in the bestiary: so you have lots of interesting things to fight at all levels of play.
Also, you're using hyperbole and eroding your point. An enemy 5 levels higher will indeed make for a tough battle, but not mathematically impossible to land a hit or anything. With superior numbers and planning a party might even beat it. You need a significantly higher gap before it becomes impossible..
And if you are disappointed that 1st level characters can't take down the Tarrasque, you should probably not be playing anything with levels in the first place.
Why does it make more sense that a 15th level wizard can take 15 times as much damage as a 1st level wizard? Leveling up makes you tougher across board. It makes you withstand poison better (fortitude) and better at dodging and reaction to things (reflex.) It also makes you better at hitting things (BAB). This was all true for every class in PF1, albeit at different rates.
So why is it hard to believe the character whose body can now hold 15 times the spells and 15 times the hit points is also stronger?
Also, you don't seem to understand how the ability boost system works. It isn't "universal Stat bonuses every 4 levels."
It is a "+2 to 4 stats every 5 levels." Which means in your example the wizard chose to invest resources into strength instead of Dex or Con or whatever. So why shouldn't they be able to do strong guy stuff?
Its because we don't see that in movies or fiction. The high level wizard uses a spell to open the door, not just bash it in. How did Gandalf not solve the issue with the hidden door to Moria? Being higher level than all those hobbits he should have solved it no problem. He needed a hint from a Hobbit to remember.
I am sure we can find many examples to support both arguments, I am on Captain's Morgans side with this one though.
Hey, Gandalf may have rolled bad there, and the Hobbits can still get nat 20s. ;)
For clarity, adding only 1/2 level to everything instead of level works great. Heck, you can choose to not add level at all, and that still works fine, too.
Both work perfectly well with the game's math and just rebalance how much of a threat creatures of much lower level are to those of level X, though that's their only major game impact other than the purely aesthetic.
Interesting. You know my good undead sir, that simple post sparked a home rule idea about 'difficulty settings' for my homebrew campaigns. Some kind of Heroic - Standard - Gritty.
But in my mind I've already started thinking about a house rule:
The class portion of you bonus is capped by your rank.
Untrained Cap = 5
Trained = 10
Master = 15
Expert = 20
It would work better if you capped the equipment bonus by their training. Someone Untrained really isn’t going to know how to take advantage of Legendary quality tools.
If you do this, make sure you do it across the board. Skills, weapons and armor are all supposed to have similar bonuses. Part of what is happening is the scaling is made the same for all actions so you can use Acrobatics versus someone’s combat skill to maneuver around them.
Interesting. You know my good undead sir, that simple post sparked a home rule idea about 'difficulty settings' for my homebrew campaigns. Some kind of Heroic - Standard - Gritty.For clarity, adding only 1/2 level to everything instead of level works great. Heck, you can choose to not add level at all, and that still works fine, too.
Both work perfectly well with the game's math and just rebalance how much of a threat creatures of much lower level are to those of level X, though that's their only major game impact other than the purely aesthetic.
I was looking at the option to just limit the proficiency level. If you do that you don't even need to change the math. No Legendary unlocks for the standard game and maybe no Master unlocks for a Gritty game. Then just limit what spells are available, but still let them power up. So if you limit to 3rd level spells you can still learn fireball and memorize it as an eighth level spell as an example.
It sounds like quite a few of you have had very bad experiences with the people you've played with. One would think that some type of common sense and roleplaying (you know, in a roleplaying game) would be more prevalent. If your character has never encountered any body of water large enough to swim in, then maybe... oh, I don't know, roleplay that?Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.I doubt many people are going to stress over whether a character with a 30 STR can swim ok or not. :)
But swimming is a good example of where this system can get wonky.
I'm not at all certain where you came to that conclusion based on what I said. And, much to the contrary, I've had great experience with people who want the game to be a good experience, which is why I complain abaout things like rewriting a whole new subsystem just stop CLW spamming, when you can stop CLW spamming by simply not spamming CLW.
That said, first, I was joking at a STR 30 character which seemed odd.
Second, If a game system mechanics says something works like "X" and the supports of that system defend it by saying "just don't do it" then something is really wrong with the system.
|
|
Interesting. You know my good undead sir, that simple post sparked a home rule idea about 'difficulty settings' for my homebrew campaigns. Some kind of Heroic - Standard - Gritty.
Totally valid. Just adjust adversaries accordingly and subtract from all static DCs (since those have a level chart of their own...they don't go up with you per se, but they have a level) and you are good to go. Easy as pie.
If using XP you'll need to recalibrate the rewards for fights involving enemies way out side the PC level range (lower level ones are harder, higher level ones are actually easier), but it'll work fine.
My point was that a Str 30 desert nomad is a brilliant swimmer in PF1. People being able to swim well untrained is not new to PF1.Sailing also falls under 'trained only'. Swimming probably doesn't, but someone with a +10 Str Mod could swim very well in PF1, too.I doubt many people are going to stress over whether a character with a 30 STR can swim ok or not. :)
Right, but he is a freaking *STR 30 character*. I don't think I've ever had a STR 30 character in play. This guy is Hercules. If a character is that far outside the bounds of normal nature, swimming by brute force seems petty.
And, I guess, to be more conciliatory, I can get on board with the point of STR always giving some basic swim ability being odd. But when your example jumps to preternatual levels of STR, then mundane swimming just seemed beneath consideration.
But swimming is a good example of where this system can get wonky.
I really love the idea of tiers and locked abilities.
But if you are L14 with a 10 STR and untrained, then you are at +12. So you probably won't fail much of anything you can try and for anything else, well, you can't try. Seems odd.
That seems totally reasonable to me. I'm pretty darn good at a variety of basic tasks despite having no skill at all or ability to attempt advanced applications.
Many people can manage, say, the basics of swimming without being able to manage deep diving or swimming during a storm. You could argue that the latter are higher DC, but not being able to attempt the latter without training is an equally valid mechanical construction.
But it isn't basics of swimming.
He is going to be doing crit success after crit success on easy stuff and isn't even allowed to roll for slightly harder stuff.I think it is clear that there is a lot behind the curtain with skills so far. So it is hard to make much of a judgement here.The math is actually crystal clear. A lot of ancillary stuff not so much, but the math is very clean and makes the game work really well.
The math is trivial. The details for what is and isn't unlocked at various tiers remains behind the curtain. So we don't know enough.
This is an awful idea. Full stop.But in my mind I've already started thinking about a house rule:
The class portion of you bonus is capped by your rank.
Untrained Cap = 5
Trained = 10
Master = 15
Expert = 20
OK, I'm ready for your justification of this forceful declaration.
One major point of the system is to simplify what bonus you have in what skill as you go up in level (people screwed up skill points frequently, and they were distinctly un-fun to work with), and the other is to make the difference in capabilities between characters of the same level fall into a narrower range. Both are very good ideas for the sort of game Pathfinder is.
This takes both those ideas and f&$&s them up completely.
Point 1: skill points are trivially easy to me, so scratch that one.
Point 2: I remain unconvinced that narrowing the range is a good thing. And proclamations fall way short of making it true. But that aside, if a character is banned from certain rolls then the idea of a "narrow range" literally does not exist.I want untrained characters to sometimes fail at routine things. That is sound narrative sense to me. If my character is untrained in swimming, having him NEVER worried about basic swimming checks is narrative nonsense.
So for things that are fair to TRY untrained, being too good untrained undermines the point of being untrained. For things you are not allowed to try untrained, there is no such thing as a "range".
If you want level to play less of a role, then by all means do so. You can have level not add to anything, or add only 1/2 level to everything. Those both make level matter less, but the math still works out fine as long as you convert adversaries as well.
The idea of varying it ;like this, though? It makes the mechanics not work right. Do not do it.
Again, proclamations don't make it so.
You have not shown your position to make any sense.If you choose to devote resources and make a character good at something, this rule would have pretty much zero effect.]Given that almost nobody but Rogues will ever have more than 3 skills maxed out, this is deeply untrue.
I don't think you even thought that through. Any character can choose to be excellent at something. If you want you character to be good at particular thing, you are still free to do that.
In addition to the reasons DMW gave above, this is terrible because it means Training does nothing for 1/4 of the game.
But in my mind I've already started thinking about a house rule:
The class portion of you bonus is capped by your rank.
Untrained Cap = 5
Trained = 10
Master = 15
Expert = 20
I see that L5 is "1/4 of the game". But you must realize that my system exactly matches the rules as written for that exact 1/4 of the game.
Training still does exactly the same things
I have a much harder time imagining Gandalf struggling with a door than I have with him just blasting it open with Strength and a little ambient magic.
And yet he brought along a whole cast of character with skills and abilities which complimented his.
He didn't go around blasting every door in sight. To the contrary, he made a point of not doing so.
But that all still misses the point.
Why does it make more sense that a 15th level wizard can take 15 times as much damage as a 1st level wizard? Leveling up makes you tougher across board. It makes you withstand poison better (fortitude) and better at dodging and reaction to things (reflex.) It also makes you better at hitting things (BAB). This was all true for every class in PF1, albeit at different rates.
So why is it hard to believe the character whose body can now hold 15 times the spells and 15 times the hit points is also stronger?
Also, you don't seem to understand how the ability boost system works. It isn't "universal Stat bonuses every 4 levels."
It is a "+2 to 4 stats every 5 levels." Which means in your example the wizard chose to invest resources into strength instead of Dex or Con or whatever. So why shouldn't they be able to do strong guy stuff?
Do you really think bring HP into the conversation will simplify things or any any way make a more clear resolution?
But I'll just reply that I want stories that make narrative sense and would be awesome if I read them in a novel.
There are some real challenges to capturing the feel of a high fantasy novel in a tabletop RPG. It does take a shared sense of commitment amongst the people sitting at the table.
The rules can be designed to support that or to undermine that.
Wizards don't become great climbers in novels. I'm sure you can find exceptions. But it is not a truism that wizards become great climbers as an unavoidable result of becoming more powerful wizards.
Step away from the RPG community and start putting plotlines in which character ignore their archetypes and narrative background and they will fail terribly as an entertaining narrative.
I get that their character being awesome at everything is a popular gamist thing. I'm not rejecting that as an awesome way to have fun. But I want my game to reflect narrative consistency.
Nobody blinked when Gandalf stood toe to toe (briefly) against the Balrog. It would have struck everyone as absurd if Frodo had tried that. Is Gandalf made of thicker meat? Again, that is absurd. The audience simply understands and accepts the narrative concept behind Gandalf. And abstract hit points capture that. But Gandalf still has dwarves and humans for things like rowing boats and bashing doors.
It is reasonable for me to want that kind of narrative self consistency.