|
So one thing I've noticed is because of +lvl on everything you can never stay bad at something. I use swimming as an example but this could apply to almost any skill
In 1st if I want to play a char which cant swim(lets say they're scared of water) I can roll up with 7 str and never put ranks in it and my swim check would be -2 forever. Pretty good way of playing a non swimmer still a chance at passing simple checks but almost always fail the moment it gets difficult.
Now in 2ed the lowest str you can start with is 8 (I think) but being untrained also gives -2 so starting Athletics of -2. now the problem comes in when you begin to lvl as regardless of whether I want to become a better swimmer I will get better.
So by lvl 8 I have +5 Athletics (the same as a lvl 1 with trained and +4 str) so despite wanting to have a char who can't swim I can now swim as good as lvl 1 who has a good set up for swimming.
I'm left two options 1 arbitrary say I fail any swim check and artificially hamper my char or 2 I have to come up with an excuse for why my char got over what ever was stopping them from swimming. Compare this with 1ed where not only do I not have to artificially limit my char I freed up skill and attributes points to invest in other aspects of my char.
I've always tried to come up with at least one thing my characters are good at and one there bad at as a basic way of fleshing them out but now the worst I can be at something is lvl -3.
As far as your ability scores go, you can voluntarily have a lower score for RP reasons. You do not get any bonus points to spend from this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as your ability scores go, you can voluntarily have a lower score for RP reasons. You do not get any bonus points to spend from this.
I've never like this augment tbh, I think it should be possible to play a weakness in ways which don't involve making a objectively worst character charter power-wise. To continue the swimming example in this case lowering my str would drop my swimming (but it still gets better as I lvl which is my concern here) but it also gives a lower bulk among other downsides.
I want someway of my skill not getting better unless I want it to without having to result to housing ruling a penalty. Something along the lines of you don't add your lvl to untrained skills would be fine for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.
One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.
They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.
I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM/Player, I concur with the aspect that skills shouldn't just level with you regardless.
Leveling has always had a sense of "For sake of game play you gain these skills this moment" mentality, but now its taking that and running with it.
If I run a group and they never touch water in the campaign, but then I throw in a curve ball and make them have to do swim checks, it just doesn't sit well with me to allow them to roll checks with some degree of success because they are "x" level.
|
|
The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.
One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.
They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.
I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.
I can see the augment of hindering other players. It might just be my knee jerk reaction of a lvl of control being removed from 1ed where I could fine tune my skills E.G max ranks in one thing, a point in another for to show some lvl of competence, then nothing in a knowledge I know nothing about.
One thing I want to say in addition to my starting point is if no skill can be bad no skill can be particularly good ether. If you have two PCs with the same abilities the score the skill difference is barely noticeable.
I will be playing as written for the playtest ofc but I'm hoping for a more flexable version of skills in release. On the bright side it is still better than DND5ed skills where your forced in to certain skills based on class, I can at least choose to be untrained here even if it doesn't make much difference from being trained.
This is why the devs implemented DC scaling. So a easy skill check will lv with you as well. That way you can keep sucking at crossing that stream whether you are lv 1 or 20.
What i'm more concerned about is that I can't be the worlds greatest climber and a terrible swimmer at the same time.
This is why the devs implemented DC scaling. So a easy skill check will lv with you as well. That way you can keep sucking at crossing that stream whether you are lv 1 or 20.
What i'm more concerned about is that I can't be the worlds greatest climber and a terrible swimmer at the same time.
That is specifically not the way DC scaling works. It's the level of the challenge not the level of the player. You can only suck at a "level appropriate" challenge. Crossing a stream at level one and crossing maybe a roaring river with baby cthulhus in it at level 20.
As a level 20 character it is impossible to suck at crossing any stream a level one character could have any hope of crossing at all.
To the OP the devs wanted to eliminate min/maxing part of the way they did that is eliminating minimizing anything, or at least eliminate minimizing anything and getting a corresponding benefit.
The game, like most games, is made to assume you want to be good at things. It's not going to cover corner cases of wanting to be bad at things.One of the unspoken rules of games like Pathfinder is that you get to play the character you want to play. Having arbitrary limitations on common fantasy tropes is antithetical to this.
It is EXTREMELY common for characters in fantasy novels/movies/videogames to be "bad" at things. It's also common for these characters to have exceptional skills in other areas to compensate (otherwise you wouldn't adventure with them).
This rules theme of PF2 paints a very "play the way we want you to play" mentality, that is NOT acceptable for a sequel to PF1.
One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.Heaven forbid you have to accommodate a party member that isn't sufficiently skilled in required field at this moment. I guess that's why wizards past level 12 or so never adventure with non-wizards. (Sarcasm, if you need the hint).
They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.This is very situationally dependent. A party that let's Hodor die because he's to stupid to avoid a trap is a jerk party. The party that let's your quadriplegic, deaf, mute, and blind character die because he decided to flop into the water and drown (because his Wisdom is 3) is probably just telling you that you need to play a more competent character.
It's a balance. "I can't swim" or "I'm pretty dumb" are perfectly acceptable character flaws that fall within the realm of believability for a heroic character, especially if they have an extra boost elsewhere to compensate.
I'd just talk to the GM about allowing you to be bad at ____ if that is what you want.I don't accept homebrew solutions as valid solutions when the problem at...
---------------------------
PF is more combat simulation with RP than it is a full RP game. Your arguments work when RP is the core of the game, but the core of the game isn't RP.
At least preliminarily, I would be in favor of making Untrained rolls be at half your level instead of level -2. If you really don't know anything about it, you'll get marginally better because you're that much more experienced, but it won't keep pace with everything else.
At least preliminarily, I would be in favor of making Untrained rolls be at half your level instead of level -2. If you really don't know anything about it, you'll get marginally better because you're that much more experienced, but it won't keep pace with everything else.
I was going to suggest this too.
The other thing that makes things "wonky" in "add your level to everything" is that Spell DCs and Saving Throws are just about 50-50 all the time for everyone. The worst I was able to make this was something like a 35% chance of success: you had to be trained in the save (not expert) and have that stat be a dump stat. And even then, even then it was still 1d20+Big vs. A Little Bigger (roll a 13+). The highest I've seen was the Ancient's Blood dwarf monk that at level 5 has +12 on all of his saves (comparable DCs are 19-20).
Weapon attacks vs. AC looks like it has this effect too, though I haven't done the math on it yet.
Basically: when everyone adds their level to everything all the time on both sides of the coin, things flatten out and its harder to distinguish yourself.
Now, I'll admit, having a tank in the same party as the AC 12 wizard makes it so the wizard has binary HP (if he gets hit by an attack that would only just not-hit the tank, the wizard explodes into gore) and that's A Problem, but I'm not sure this is the right fix (ditto lower level spells losing their usefulness as DC doesn't scale).
This is why the devs implemented DC scaling. So a easy skill check will lv with you as well. That way you can keep sucking at crossing that stream whether you are lv 1 or 20.
What i'm more concerned about is that I can't be the worlds greatest climber and a terrible swimmer at the same time.
this is dumbest thing ever.
If things are easy, they are easy.
No need to scale everything up per level.
IHMO, per level bonus of +1 should take the axe ASAP.
If you don't know how to pick pocket and you never trained it, but you managed to kill 17 orcs and now you are better at picking pockets?
There should be investment, cost for every increase?
Sure, some things can come passive, but it should be smaller part of your training.
Now in 20 levels you get training from -2 to +3. 5 pts. And you get 20 pts from passive increase. That is too much auto boosting.
IMHO, it should be:
untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legend +8
halve bonus for AC
per level bonus: none if you ask me. +1 per 5 levels if you have to have some.
One of the unspoken rules of games like Pathfinder is that you get to play the character you want to play.
Within limits. You don't just get to play any character you want at any table. Another unwritten rule is to not make things difficult for the party.
It is EXTREMELY common for characters in fantasy novels/movies/videogames to be "bad" at things. It's also common for these characters to have exceptional skills in other areas to compensate (otherwise you wouldn't adventure with them).
I agree with this, but in PF1 at least, you pretty much on superhero status later in the game. Most fantasy tropes don't have you reaching the power levels that come with PF/D&D so they won't always apply.
One reason is because being bad at things can make things more difficult for the party, not just for you.Heaven forbid you have to accommodate a party member that isn't sufficiently skilled in required field at this moment. I guess that's why wizards past level 12 or so never adventure with non-wizards. (Sarcasm, if you need the hint).
Being a jerk won't help you prove your point.
With that being said helping your party members is a good thing, but since you didn't go into detail about how much help is ok before it becomes an issue I can't really say much more.
They may have to save you due to a weakness, and therefore put themselves in danger. If they elect to not save you it could cause OoC issues.
This is very situationally dependent. A party that let's Hodor die because he's to stupid to avoid a trap is a jerk party. The party that let's your quadriplegic, deaf, mute, and blind character die because he decided to flop into the water and drown (because his Wisdom is 3) is probably just telling you that you need to play a more competent character.
I agree that the situation determines how much of a burden is too much of a burden.
It's a balance. "I can't swim" or "I'm pretty dumb" are perfectly acceptable character flaws that fall within the realm of believability for a heroic character, especially if they have an extra boost elsewhere to compensate.I agree this works for normal fantasy stories. So if you're low level and almost drown in a mild stream it makes sense, but if you're a 19 level cleric who can almost solo balors then dying in a weak stream is not heroic.
He faced down entire drow hunting parties, dragons, Balors, and removed the curse from a kingdom. However his end came when he crossed a bridge in near of repair and drowned in still water. <----This should not happen if we're talking about heroes.
With all of that being said I get understand that it feels like Paizo is not giving you full ownership of the character.
At the same time I see as no different than forcing BAB to scale or saving throws to scale.
Let's go back to the topic of swimming or any other individual build. Ideally I'd prefer for the player to choose what skills he was good/not good at, as long as he accepts what happens, and doesn't blame the party.
Maybe Paizo could get rid of the ability to always get better at ____ and give a feat or something in place of it. That way the player will get something.
PS: Since you seemed pretty angry I want you to know I didn't hate your idea. I was just explaining why I thought Paizo took the route it did. You may not be the type to choose a weakness and blame the party if circumstances prevent them from saving you, but there are players who will. That is one reason why I said leaving it to the GM may be the best option since he might know how likely his players are to accept responsibility.
I went through an AP with an AC below 15, however I was never going to blame anyone but myself if I had been killed. Well, the character did die, but was raised.
"Anyone can use a skills untrained uses unless some circumstance, condition, or effect bars them from doing so"
I'm pretty sure being afraid of water is a very good circumstance or condition. And you can write that on your sheet. And because it only effects water then it won't effect your other athletic skill checks. Problem solved.
I happen to agree with the changing of the flat bonuses. Though I'd say 1/2 untrained, lvl+0 for trained, lvl+2 for expert, lvl+4 for master and lvl+6 for legendary.
It would severely lower untrained users leaving characters with no Stat bonus at +10 for 20th which is lower then a lvl 5 expert with a +4 Stat. It would make much more sense and still give that ability of being able to do mundane stuff fairly easily at higher lvls with a fairly good Stat bonus and no training. Or if you have no Stat bonus you could still fail a DC 10 check up to level 17 (+8 half level rounded down and no Stat bonus).