Concerned about the math


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

BretI wrote:
BryonD wrote:


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.

Ok,

So again, my system only changes things above L5 and you have to be well above L5 before it sinks in. So lets look at your example.

An untrained L12 wizard wants to use acrobatics to maneuver past a L8 fighter. Let's assume a Str 16 fighter and Dex 14 for the wizard.
So the fighter is at +11 and *at least* trained.
As written then wizard gets a +12 (12+2-2).
My way the wizard gets a +5 (5+2-2)
So as written the wizard is just above 50/50. My way the trained fighter has the upper hand in a melee combat thing.

You are welcome to disagree. I'm not commenting on your preference.
But I have a hard time seeing how a 1 in 4 chance for an completely untrained wizard to dance past a skilled fighter is anything other than charitable.

Liberty's Edge

BryonD wrote:

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.

I agree absolutely and completely. You know what else makes being able to swim seem petty and beneath consideration? Being able to survive a dozen sword blows before slowing down.

In PF2, very reasonably, someone with superhuman physical prowess in the form of resistance to harm (which comes automatically from level in the form of HP) can similarly avoid needing to swim. High level characters are indeed Hercules, or Odysseus, or Gilgamesh. They are epic heroes and such things are simply not an issue to some degree.

BryonD wrote:

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 doubt that's exactly how the gating rules are gonna work. Let's wait to see them before we make complaints like this.

BryonD wrote:
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.

The math is not trivial. It's also not the whole picture, but ruining the basic math assumptions sure won't make the game work better

BryonD wrote:
OK, I'm ready for your justification of this forceful declaration.

Sure.

BryonD wrote:
Point 1: skill points are trivially easy to me, so scratch that one.

The game is not made exclusively for you. A lot of people find skill points in their current form fiddly and annoying. Getting rid of them is thus super nice for many people.

BryonD wrote:
Point 2: I remain unconvinced that narrowing the range is a good thing. And proclamations fall way short of making it true.

It's good because it makes the math predictable so writers and GMs can actually gauge threats and challenges appropriately based on level. Something verging on the impossible in the current system, where system mastery can matter far more than +4 or 5 levels on many things.

BryonD wrote:
But that aside, if a character is banned from certain rolls then the idea of a "narrow range" literally does not exist.

It does if the banned things are specialized uses rather than generic ones. Sneaking is a general use, anyone can do it. Monster Knowledge is a general use, anyone can do it. You need to get pretty specific before things become Trained Only.

BryonD wrote:
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.

Depends on the narrative. High level PCs are demigods or superheroes in most ways. When's the last time you saw a superhero have trouble swimming?

BryonD wrote:
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".

The former I strongly disagree with (though it's an opinion thing rather than an objective fact), the latter is true to some degree, but only to some degree.

See, the point of a range is not solely to distinguish the untrained from the trained, it's to make the trained within the same ballpark as each other. In PF1, i can make a character with a pretty good Diplomacy (say, +20 at 10th level), and find out that someone else made a character with a +40 or +50 at the same level and I just shouldn't have bothered. This is a huge problem for GMs as well, since there's no way to calibrate what a +20 means in the world. Is it high for 10th level, low, or mediocre?

With a clear range, you can calibrate things vastly better.

BryonD wrote:

Again, proclamations don't make it so.

You have not shown your position to make any sense.

My position is entirely internally consistent. You may disagree with it, but it makes sense. Your position in and of itself makes sense as well, though I feel your solution ignores profound mathematical truths about the system. I disagree with it, but disagreement does not mean it doesn't make sense.

BryonD wrote:
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.

Right, but cutting the number of things you can be alright at at, say, 20th level, from 10 Trained or higher Skills, to only the three you've been forced to max at Legendary is a huge change.

So, saying 'it will have zero effect' when in most characters it will drastically reduce their bonuses in most of their skills, it kinda not true.

I also think it's a bad change, but my point here was that it's a large one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
BryonD wrote:

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.

I agree absolutely and completely. You know what else makes being absle to swim seem petty and beneath consideration? Being able to survive a dozen sword blows before slowing down.

In PF2, very reasonably, someone with superhuman physical prowess in the form of resistance to harm (which comes automatically from level in the form of HP) can similarly avoid needing to swim. High level characters are indeed Hercules, or Odysseus, or Gilgamesh. They are epic heroes and such things are simply not an issue to some degree.

+1 this. I'll add that it is pretty easy to get a PC strength up to 28 in PF1 by level 16 off of belt and level adjustments alone, and you can get it substantially sooner on monsters. I ran a perplexing encounter with a swashbuckler fleeing a CR 8 giant tarantula. They had the reasonable idea that running until they found a river and then diving in it would help lose the thing. Except... the spider had a strength of 35 and was a far better swimmer than the swashbuckler accordingly.

Someone built using PC rules in PF1 could have a strength score in that vein eventually, have never seen a body of water, and still be better at swimming than most sailors. And if they had swim as a class skill it cost a trivial resource to add +4 to that check between levels.

Quote:
Do you really think bring HP into the conversation will simplify things or any any way make a more clear resolution?

Not at all. My point is this stuff has never actually made a lot of sense when we try and hold it under the lens we examine novels in. More examples to follow.

Quote:
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.

Wizards in novels also tend to become better wizards by locking themselves in towers and focusing on nothing other than perfecting their spellcraft. In games, this only gets you to level 1, but you don't tend to gain XP during downtime. No, in games a wizard gets more powerful by going out and adventuring, which tends to include stuff like getting dropped into a pit trap and needing to climb your way out or trying to keep your ahead above water when that rickety bridge collapses over the river.

Games run on different rules. That is part of what makes things like Order of the Stick and Overlord fun; they lampshade and/or highlight these differences. And honestly I find the playtest's approach to PCs as polymaths with an internal battery of magical resonance a lot more consistent with how their stories tend to operate than what we had before.

Quote:
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.

So I've actually seen the Balrog fight parsed with a fine tooth comb, and it seems to involve Gandalf grappling the flaming balrog for a fall at terminal velocity, and then getting up when he hits the ground. He then engages in a fight/chase with the thing which involves them climbing up a mountain as they fight, and culminates in mountain top being shattered by their clash.

In PF1 terms, Gandalf seems to display thicker meat (fall damage and Balrog fire,) better BAB (he's physically throwing down with the thing,) and a pretty solid climb score to not fall off mid-fight. (Didn't they hit water after the fall too? Add swim to that list if so.)

In PF2 terms, Gandalf was a high level wizard and his level seemed to get added to his HP, athletics score, and to hit/AC bonuses. Gandalf is actually a perfect demonstration of the opposite of what you are advocating for. (He also operated at various divine limitations through out the series, which helps explain why be brought "the help" along.) Harry Potter would be the example to point to in popular fiction of a wizard who doesn't get thic and beefy. But Harry gets better at magic through schooling, where Gandalf goes out and kicks ass on rough and tumble adventures. Gandalf certainly seems closer to what PF2 emulates, and to what I'd argue most level based adventure games have always emulated as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

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...

I think thats the best written explanation of consistency in a game that i think i ever heard in almos 30 years of RPGs.

And one example i always bring to table is the Cave troll fight:

An advanced troll... lets say Level 10... Gimli and Legolas are around that level, Aragorn a little above, but with focus on skills, so fighting around the level of Gimli and Legolas, and Gandalf is far higher level, but since he is swordfighting/meleeing, he is around the same bonus as everyone else as a wizard.

The hobbits are much lower level... but since the game uses a more limited range for numbers... they are not skilled fighters as the others, but can also here and there do some damage and cause of their "low hp pool", are the most vulnerable of them all.

If you just add level to everything, the hobbits just dont attack cause fumble is more likely than hits, Legolas and Gimli will fight well... Aragorn will shine more and Gandalf will simple own everybody needing not even to move since no enemies can hit him.

There are other mechanics (armor making you being harder to hit) that are contributing to this second unfun scenario, but of course adding to much level is the main problem. I still hope for a middle ground until the end of the playtest in one year.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
RafaelBraga wrote:


And one example i always bring to table is the Cave troll fight:

An advanced troll... lets say Level 10... Gimli and Legolas are around that level, Aragorn a little above, but with focus on skills, so fighting around the level of Gimli and Legolas, and Gandalf is far higher level, but since he is swordfighting/meleeing, he is around the same bonus as everyone else as a wizard.

The hobbits are much lower level... but since the game uses a more limited range for numbers... they are not skilled fighters as the others, but can also here and there do some damage and cause of their "low hp pool", are the most vulnerable of them all.

Setting aside the question of whether level 10 is an overestimation of of the power level of LoTR, I don't see what about this has changed between editions.

Quote:
If you just add level to everything, the hobbits just dont attack cause fumble is more likely than hits

Fumbles aren't a thing. A critical failure on an attack roll is just a regular failure, a miss. There will be some exceptions, like special reactions that let you capitalize on a critical failure from an enemy attack, but I expect those to be the domain of expert fencers, not dumb bruisers like trolls.

All that is to say the hobbits can still potentially land hits on lucky rolls, but are also very fragile if they get hit.

Quote:
Legolas and Gimli will fight well... Aragorn will shine more and Gandalf will simple own everybody needing not even to move since no enemies can hit him.

Serious question: Did Gandalf ever actually get hit by something that wasn't extremely high level, like the Balrog or Saruman? I certainly don't recall it. He ran into the same fights as well armored dwarves wearing nothing but a robe and came out just fine.

As I alluded to earlier, Gandalf is a pretty good example of what a PF2 character looks like. Narratively, dude was basically an angel working with divine limitations. But if we examine him through the lens of a player character, he was high level wizard who was slumming it with a low level party, and who conserved his small number of higher level spell slots for the moments where they REALLY mattered.


RafaelBraga wrote:

And one example i always bring to table is the Cave troll fight:

An advanced troll... lets say Level 10... Gimli and Legolas are around that level, Aragorn a little above, but with focus on skills, so fighting around the level of Gimli and Legolas, and Gandalf is far higher level, but since he is swordfighting/meleeing, he is around the same bonus as everyone else as a wizard.

Nah, none of the fellowship are above 6th level at best. (Gandalf is an exception since he's technically an outsider)


Captain Morgan wrote:


As I alluded to earlier, Gandalf is a pretty good example of what a PF2 character looks like. Narratively, dude was basically an angel working with divine limitations. But if we examine him through the lens of a...

For sure he was way above the level of anyone else... and for sure he HAD to worry about his life during the fights.

Otherwise he could just bodyblock the door and no orc could go trough and everyone is safe :P

His HP was very high, for sure, but he wasnt unhittable and he needed to keep moving and attacking to not get ganged up.

Static AC you just bodyblock :P


RafaelBraga wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


As I alluded to earlier, Gandalf is a pretty good example of what a PF2 character looks like. Narratively, dude was basically an angel working with divine limitations. But if we examine him through the lens of a...

For sure he was way above the level of anyone else... and for sure he HAD to worry about his life during the fights.

Otherwise he could just bodyblock the door and no orc could go trough and everyone is safe :P

His HP was very high, for sure, but he wasnt unhittable and he needed to keep moving and attacking to not get ganged up.

Static AC you just bodyblock :P

Let's say a 10th-level wizard using a 4th-tier slot on Mage Armour. Apparently that's going to give him +5 AC (1 base, +2 from Heightened 2, +2 from Heightened 4). Let's say he has 16 Dex for 28 AC. The melee specialist ogres (or orcs in this case), with a +10, are still going to hit that on an 18. Though he can keep cutting them down for a good while, he's going to get overwhelmed eventually, especially if he gets surrounded.


Cyouni wrote:


Let's say a 10th-level wizard using a 4th-tier slot on Mage Armour. Apparently that's going to give him +5 AC (1 base, +2 from Heightened 2, +2 from Heightened 4). Let's say he has 16 Dex for 28 AC. The melee specialist ogres (or orcs in this case), with a +10, are still going to hit that on an 18. Though he can keep cutting them down for a good while, he's going to get overwhelmed eventually, especially if he gets surrounded.

I think is misread the discussion dude.

We are talkting about a fight with very variable level party.

The wizard in case is around 15th level, Fighters at 10, one Fighter/Ranger around 12 total level, and some fighter and rogues hobbits around level 2. (to be honest, the wizard is even higher level)

The problem is that a level 20 wizard, even without spells, will start with an AC so high, that the 10 level ogre will not have a chance of hitting even if the wizard bodyblock the passage.

If we use the mage armor spell you described, a very few levels above will be more than enough to reduce the odds to less than 15%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
RafaelBraga wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


As I alluded to earlier, Gandalf is a pretty good example of what a PF2 character looks like. Narratively, dude was basically an angel working with divine limitations. But if we examine him through the lens of a...

For sure he was way above the level of anyone else... and for sure he HAD to worry about his life during the fights.

Otherwise he could just bodyblock the door and no orc could go trough and everyone is safe :P

His HP was very high, for sure, but he wasnt unhittable and he needed to keep moving and attacking to not get ganged up.

Static AC you just bodyblock :P

I think you have misunderstood what level to AC represents. It represents you being better at getting out of the way of being hit. That's why it adds to touch AC too. Gandalf and high level wizards aren't yawning and letting swords bounce off their face. They have just been getting swords swung at them long enough to be better at dodging.

Body blocking doors has more to do with weird interactions with how 5 foot squares have always worked than BAB or whatever, though.


RafaelBraga wrote:
Cyouni wrote:


Let's say a 10th-level wizard using a 4th-tier slot on Mage Armour. Apparently that's going to give him +5 AC (1 base, +2 from Heightened 2, +2 from Heightened 4). Let's say he has 16 Dex for 28 AC. The melee specialist ogres (or orcs in this case), with a +10, are still going to hit that on an 18. Though he can keep cutting them down for a good while, he's going to get overwhelmed eventually, especially if he gets surrounded.

I think is misread the discussion dude.

We are talkting about a fight with very variable level party.

The wizard in case is around 15th level, Fighters at 10, one Fighter/Ranger around 12 total level, and some fighter and rogues hobbits around level 2. (to be honest, the wizard is even higher level)

The problem is that a level 20 wizard, even without spells, will start with an AC so high, that the 10 level ogre will not have a chance of hitting even if the wizard bodyblock the passage.

If we use the mage armor spell you described, a very few levels above will be more than enough to reduce the odds to less than 15%.

I mean, I gave an example of how a 10th level wizard can be threatened by a lot of 3rd level enemies. 10th level enemies can likely similarly threaten a 15th level wizard if they're not using spells. (I disagree with the levels presented, but that's a different story.)


Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.

All LoTR characters have some special background aside from the Hobbits. So only hobbits could be evaluated if this was the case.


I like that the scaling of mage armour and shield apparently let you don force fields and wade among your weaker foes.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.

This is a fair point, which I myself pointed out. Still, he's like the second thing the average person thinks of when they think of the word wizard.

Silver Crusade

Captain Morgan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.
This is a fair point, which I myself pointed out. Still, he's like the second thing the average person thinks of when they think of the word wizard.

What's the first?


RafaelBraga wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.
All LoTR characters have some special background aside from the Hobbits. So only hobbits could be evaluated if this was the case.

Most are not quite as special as that. Come on now ...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.
This is a fair point, which I myself pointed out. Still, he's like the second thing the average person thinks of when they think of the word wizard.
What's the first?

I'd imagine it is Harry Potter. I could be wrong about the exact order, but those are definitely the top 2.


Arssanguinus wrote:
RafaelBraga wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Sorry, but Gandalf is just a bad example as he is not something which is represented by a pc,built using normal system rules. He’s an angel. He’s not a normal,pc. So he doesn’t even belong in the conversation,one way or another.
All LoTR characters have some special background aside from the Hobbits. So only hobbits could be evaluated if this was the case.

Most are not quite as special as that. Come on now ...

technicaly speaking (i dont know the spelling of this word :P) Aragorn has the "most powerful" ancestry.

Gandalf, specially while still "The grey", in complete bound by mortal limits. His only "special trait" is not gaining age penalties and acumulating aging bonus (like the druid timeless body), he is a very powerful wizard cause of 3 thousand years of magical training.

Aragorn is the last TRUE dunedain, he is a sort of Azlant equivalent, with the Azlant rules aplying very well as a template to him (all normal human bonus feat amd skills plus +2 to all stats). Plus the fact that he lives more and dont start to age until very late in life, having lived his prime for almost 100 years by the time of the books.

Legolas, Gimli and Boromir are for sure of a less special lineage, but all thee of them, by Tolkien mythology, would be on a lineage one step higher than common people cause the 3 of them are decendand of direct noble pure houses, which in this universes, carries bonus over to descendant (like Holy blood from Fire Emblem).

Only the hobbits are true "player like" candidates :P

Oh, and Grimma Wormtongue :P

101 to 119 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Concerned about the math All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion