It still would be without the level bonus. Is the level bonus all you gain each level?
No, but many levels you gain one feat or skill increase, and x hp. That is not very much leveling. Especially when you don't gain a class feat. The system doesn't give you enough to make those levels very significant.
For GMs who are experimenting with removing the level bonus from PF2, how are you adjusting the monsters and challenges? Are you using higher level monsters at all and modifying them? Keeping them the same? Just using lower level threats? I'm curious to see what adjustments such a change would entail.
You'd have to modify them. Roughly speaking by subtracting their level from all of their stats.
So a Creature 5 with a +14 attack and 22 AC becomes +9 attack and 17 AC. Ditto saves, skills, ability DCs, and perception.
(Numbers pulled out of thin air, may not represent a real critter)
It'll at least bring them to within the same ballpark as the players not gaining +level to everything (although Paizo's already admitted that creatures above ~13th have some extra boosts that no longer reflect the current progression and said in a stream that 13+ might come down by 1 and 17+ by 2 or so*).
*Numbers from memory.
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
*So, when you reach 20th level your AC might be 24 NOT 54 and still within the range of a creature with a +9 to hit. This low experience enemy most likely won’t come close to defeating you but it can hit you. So, if I use this enemy, I’ll use 5 or 6. But If I use it or not it’s a Practical and Organic decision NOT imposed by a 9-level limit.
Now after reading this CONSIDER THE CONCEPT NOT THE NUMBERS.
It is true that in a system without +level you can use low-level critters more. It is not objectively true that will necessarily be more fun.
Simply making low level monster math work to hit a PC, does not necessarily make that an interesting challenge. Higher level critters usually also have cool abilities and interesting features that make them more fun and tactically interesting.
I am not saying it isn't fun to occasionally fight 20 orcs whose tactics are limited. But I am also not convinced the math matters at that point. Whether a PC stands amongst them and they only hit on a 20 and deal 10 damage to a 120 HP character or that same PC stands amongst them and they can hit on a 16 and that PC takes 50 damage. The story is pretty much the same. Who really cares about the maths at that point?
|4 people marked this as a favorite.|
So you opt for the 5e system of bounded accuracy, then
+1 per level is far too step. A difference of 3 levels is brutally overpowering for skills and combat in this system.
Bounded accuracy is a reasonable idea. Poorly implemented in 5th ed because they didn't account for magical armour especially magical shields. PF2 is already better here with its treatment of shields.
I don't want to have to throw all my monsters away every 4 levels and come up with a new set of monsters to challenge the players. It hurts the campaign and feel of the world.
This is a major issue for me.
+1 per 2 levels is much more reasonable. Especially when you add in the additional bonuses that accumlate through better equipment and spells.