| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but that does not change the inherent maths of the gameThe people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.They said it would invalidate the encounters and the playtest data. But what Vic is saying is that it doesn’t break the rest of the system. But this is only useful if you are more interested in playing then playtesting which is not something the devs (or I) would encourage.
Does the change in maths invalidate any and all playtest feedback? Yes
Does it break the math of the game where it no longer works as a game? No, the equations are balanced on each end so that as long as the GM is determining their own CR combats then the rest of the game will run very similar.
I'm pretty sure it's going to devastate anything related to critical success/failure, and anything based around shifting result levels up/down. I suspect it's going to hit spells the hardest, since you're basically never going to see any critical failure results (whereas before you could expect one if you hit someone significantly lower level), and basically turn the vast majority of fights into ones where you'd only ever crit on a natural 20. (Minor exception being something like a zombie - which has low AC - being crit on an 18, if I remember my numbers right.)
I'm pretty sure it's going to devastate anything related to critical success/failure, and anything based around shifting result levels up/down. I suspect it's going to hit spells the hardest, since you're basically never going to see any critical failure results (whereas before you could expect one if you hit someone significantly lower level), and basically turn the vast majority of fights into ones where you'd only ever crit on a natural 20. (Minor exception being something like a zombie - which has low AC - being crit on an 18, if I remember my numbers right.)but that does not change the inherent maths of the gameThe people who designed the maths of the game say you are wrong.They said it would invalidate the encounters and the playtest data. But what Vic is saying is that it doesn’t break the rest of the system. But this is only useful if you are more interested in playing then playtesting which is not something the devs (or I) would encourage.
Does the change in maths invalidate any and all playtest feedback? Yes
Does it break the math of the game where it no longer works as a game? No, the equations are balanced on each end so that as long as the GM is determining their own CR combats then the rest of the game will run very similar.
You will see less criticals against foes lower then you, and less critical fails against enemies higher then you. But provided if in the base game it’s possible to get +10 or -10 of a target role against creatures of your level then moving creatures closer to your level of power doesn’t undermine this system. Proficiency, saves and attributes scores will make the difference on if you in high critical success or high critical failure territory just as the game should be right now if you are playing creatures of your level.
|
That's not the point, yes, we know due to flattering, that changes monster CR/encounter challenge, no longer need a natural 20 to hit 20th level monsters, but that does not change the inherent maths of the game, just removing a treadmill, like you can with +1/2 level in 4th Ed.
Once again, an actual Paizo developer says the exact opposite of what you're claiming in the same post.
As others have noted, you're doing significantly more than removing a treadmill if you remove +level from the scaling, and you are in fact changing numerous underpinnings of the game's expected math, particularly as it affects encounter design.
Not at all, the maths work the same, as has been proven by several posters, all systems are in place (crit/fail, UTEML, etc), a treadmill is simply removed. This is all old news, again, I guess maybe for some it is new, frightening, confusing, and apparently cause for hostility or something.Repeating this over and over still doesn't make it true.
Besides, if your version of the game wouldn't change anything about the math at all, then there really is no point in doing it, is there?
Eh, if you have a universal party level and subtract that from all rolls and numbers, it's the exact same game but with a very different number style. In the example with the level 1 bandits, a solid portion of their attacks will result in negative numbers as a result, but since both the roll and the AC decreased by the same amount, it doesn't affect the game's math.
I think the primary result is a game that literally revolves around the players - their numbers don't move as much, but the world's adjust to fit them. It's not my style, but I could see why someone would want that.
So instead of adding +level to everything, the GM is subtracting 'level difference' from monsters' hits and AC and saves? Not seeing how that's less work, especially if the monsters' 'levels' aren't spelt out