|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm missing something.
The difference between trained in a skill and legendary is only +3..
Which hardly seems worth much :-(
I get that it also opens up the ability to buy some special abilities. So, I'm looking at diplomacy as an example. At level 15 I can buy an ability to let me make diplomatic checks quicker.
So, my legendary diplomat is only a little more likely to succeed than the equally charismatic sorcerer who is barely trained in the skill. But I can do it quicker? And that is the ONLY effect of being legendary?
Doesn't feel all that legendary to me :-)
Oh, and my legendary diplomat STILL has a 5% chance of failing at a DC 5 check :-).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The prof gating stops folks from trying the things only a legendary guy can do. So its like BA, but gated with feats. I like BA for combat, it sucks monkey nuts for a skill system. Though im curious to see how Paizos skill feats shakes things up. It looks like a potential minefield given feats lack of balanced history, but who knows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no clue what BA is.
And, as far as I can tell, there is NOTHING that somebody with legendary diplomacy can do that somebody with expert can't do EXCEPT to buy a couple of specific skill feats.
I believe they are referring to bounded accuracy, a 5e core design philosophy that me and others particularly despise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a shot in the dark since I haven't read the adventure at all, but tasks at least in the previews were gated not just with a DC but a proficiency, so certain tasks you just are unable to accomplish unless you are Experienced, Master, or Legendary.
For example, disarming magic traps, or (successfully) negotiating with a dragon. Though part of that might have been my own reading between the lines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, from the way the Pathfinder Playtest adds level directly to all checks and DCs, it is clear that it has completely different design goals from D&D 5E. D&D 5E wants low level mooks to remain threats to high level characters in sufficient numbers, but in the Pathfinder Playtest rules, 1st level creatures would not be threats to 20th level characters regardless of numbers.
|
|
This is a shot in the dark since I haven't read the adventure at all, but tasks at least in the previews were gated not just with a DC but a proficiency, so certain tasks you just are unable to accomplish unless you are Experienced, Master, or Legendary.
For example, disarming magic traps, or (successfully) negotiating with a dragon. Though part of that might have been my own reading between the lines.
I've found nothing to indicate that is actually in the rules. Obviously I could well be missing something but I didn't even see a suggestion to GMs to do that, let alone an actual rule.
One of the reasons that I mostly ignored the previews is that I'm far more interested in what the rules actually say than what the developers think they say :-) :-)
since there is +1 per level on EVERYTHING we cannot talk about bounded accuracy.
IMHO best thing that happened in any d20 system.
|
|
And, from the way the Pathfinder Playtest adds level directly to all checks and DCs, it is clear that it has completely different design goals from D&D 5E. D&D 5E wants low level mooks to remain threats to high level characters in sufficient numbers, but in the Pathfinder Playtest rules, 1st level creatures would not be threats to 20th level characters regardless of numbers.
To bring this back to skills, in 5E with BA (bounded accuracy) your skill is training plus proficiency plus stat mod. The difference between high levels and low is pretty minimal. The GM decides when things are possible or not for various levels of training.
In PF2 you add level to all that so the gap between a level 1 and level 20 is much larger. On top of that, there are feats that are supposed to gate what different characters can do.
Really the issue isnt BA but the universal progression system. It is easier to understand and design for, but is overall homogenized and awkward in situations like this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps which require a certain proficiency to disable are a thing (see the examples on page 343; "disabling" a hidden pit trap doesn't have a proficiency prerequisite, while disabling a spear launcher requires you to be Trained, and disabling a poisoned dart gallery requires Expert proficiency), and page 336 does have a section discussing proficiency-gated tasks.
I'd missed that. Thanks.
But if they're planning on that being a key component of high level adventure design they REALLY need to greatly expand that with (at the least) examples for every skill.
In the game master section on DCs, they actually talk about some checks possibly requiring certain proficiencies to even attempt, and give examples of which would be the most common. They do state that you should be wary of making the requirements too high for a level, though (i.e. not putting Master on a level 6 or lower check, or Legendary on a level 14 or lower). Also, if I remember right, there were some mentions of snares only being able to be seen if the opponent had certain a perception proficiency, but I don't remember exactly where.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bounded accuracy is a great idea, WoTC could have execued it a bit better, ACs up to around 30 instead of 25 and maybe half your level to proficiency.
A tweaked Pathfinder armor system could alos be better than 5Es where you really only have 3 types of armor maybe even 2 (studded leather+ plate).
Bounded Accuracy is nothign new the 5E numbers are not that drastic from the old BECI numbers by level 20.
Conceptually i think you could make a great D&D using concepts from B/X, pathfinder and 5E. Looks like Pathfinder II is going to be more simple relative to PF1 but the math might be off here and there. I don't think low level stuff should be a threat to high level stuff but I like the idea they are dangerous to level 10 PCs.
Right now PFII reminds me a bit of the old Star Wars Saga rules.
Bounded accuracy is a great idea, WoTC could have execued it a bit better, ACs up to around 30 instead of 25 and maybe half your level to proficiency.
A tweaked Pathfinder armor system could alos be better than 5Es where you really only have 3 types of armor maybe even 2 (studded leather+ plate).
Bounded Accuracy is nothign new the 5E numbers are not that drastic from the old BECI numbers by level 20.
Conceptually i think you could make a great D&D using concepts from B/X, pathfinder and 5E. Looks like Pathfinder II is going to be more simple relative to PF1 but the math might be off here and there. I don't think low level stuff should be a threat to high level stuff but I like the idea they are dangerous to level 10 PCs.
Right now PFII reminds me a bit of the old Star Wars Saga rules.
IF you inflate numbers to what you are suggesting, then it is not exactly bound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bounded accuracy is a great idea, WoTC could have execued it a bit better, ACs up to around 30 instead of 25 and maybe half your level to proficiency.
A tweaked Pathfinder armor system could alos be better than 5Es where you really only have 3 types of armor maybe even 2 (studded leather+ plate).
Bounded Accuracy is nothign new the 5E numbers are not that drastic from the old BECI numbers by level 20.
Conceptually i think you could make a great D&D using concepts from B/X, pathfinder and 5E. Looks like Pathfinder II is going to be more simple relative to PF1 but the math might be off here and there. I don't think low level stuff should be a threat to high level stuff but I like the idea they are dangerous to level 10 PCs.
Right now PFII reminds me a bit of the old Star Wars Saga rules.
By level 20 a fighting man had the equivalent of what would be a +13 to hit just from his class in BEMI. In adition, they had up to +5 weapons (no, +3 is the max in BECMI) and coul dhave had a +5 weapon. He also could have had another +3 from STR (or higher) for a +16 to hit, without even having a magic weapon. That's a vast difference than a +14 to hit with a +5 in their primary stat (if the BECMI fighter had a 20 STR that would give them, lets say a +4 so that increase it to a +17 without magic weapons...while the +14 for a 5e fighter is WITH the maximum magic weapon allowed).
A magic-user and Cleric only had an equivalent of a +9 at level 20 in BECMI, but if they had the STR (Which they almost never did) could also have another +1 to +4 added on top of that (normally +3 would be the maximum.
5e bonuses to hit are weak compared to B/X, BECMI, AD&D, or just about any other edition prior to them or to 5e coming out. 5e seriously nerfed bonuses to hit no matter what the edition, and seriously deflated the differences in the speed of advancincing to hit with fighters and between fighters and other classes.
Yeah...not a fan of 5e...at all.