Proficiency vs Level Bonus


Playing the Game

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I loved the idea of multiple tiers of proficiency when I read about it on the blog, but reading the actual book, it's actually very underwhelming when compared to the the fact that every level, all of your rolls go up by one, no matter whether it's something you ought to be good at or not.

Let's say we have a level 7 rogue who has reached Master level of proficiency in deception, and has a charisma of 20. She's a darn good liar, with a proficiency bonus of her level (7) +2 (Master) +5 (charisma) for a total of +14.

Now let's say we have a level 20 dwarven wizard with a charisma of 8, who is untrained in deception. Her proficiency bonus alone, despite being untrained, is 18, because being untrained still lets you add your entire level -2 to your skill check, and even with the lowest possible charisma in the game, this dwarf is still a better liar than the above rogue.

This also makes the age-old dilemma of 1000 orcs vs one high level fighter even sillier, especially considering that you add your "proficiency" to your AC now, which effectively translates to adding your level to your AC. Even in Pathfinder 1, the fighter would win, but now the fighter's going to win without getting hit at all even if she's only wearing padded armour. Heck, now a high level bard with no spells prepared and wielding a sharpened stick could wade through that many orcs, just because her level gives her such a high bonus to _everything_.

Anywho, for folks who are also finding this getting on their nerves, the fix that I'm planning on running at my home table is just to remove the factor of level from proficiency bonuses, and to increase the difference between levels of proficiency to 2 per shift instead of 1. (Untrained: -2. Trained, 0, Expert, +2, Master, +4, Legendary, +6). I think that the built-in restrictions between what level you can become a master or legend should be enough to ensure that a level 7 character is still going to be better at the things that she's good at than a level 1 character is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will simply be omitting the +Level treadmill, did the same with the +1/2 level treadmill of 4th Ed, to great success.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I will simply be omitting the +Level treadmill, did the same with the +1/2 level treadmill of 4th Ed, to great success.

this is so true.

+1 per level is absurd power creep.

It's should be left in PF1/3.5e


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
I will simply be omitting the +Level treadmill, did the same with the +1/2 level treadmill of 4th Ed, to great success.

this is so true.

+1 per level is absurd power creep.

It's should be left in PF1/3.5e

Yeah, I am over number porn, if I can roll d20+7 vs. DC 20, instead of d20+27 vs. DC 40, I will choose the former every time. I also like that removing the treadmill opens up monsters to be a threat over a wider range of levels, taking on 20 hobgoblins is always a problem.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, at level 20 you're approximately on par with dragons that have lived for over 800 years. I should hope 1000 orcs pose little difficulty to a character like that. (Though a Bard with a standard dagger using no spells actually might lose at that point - even if you're killing an orc with every swing, the numbers will probably overwhelm you.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. When they originally mentioned doing tiered proficiency, I was expecting the proficiency mechanic as it was in 5e, which is a gradual progression that feels like it kind of matters, but can be bypassed by proper buffing and character building.

This? This is currently a stronger progression than PF1e. It's full BAB on every class's attacks and skills, rather than a moderate progression that favors customization.


You're forgetting that proficiency gives other advantages (like turning crit fails into regular fails) and some uses of skills require certain levels of proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you opt for the 5e system of bounded accuracy, then


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have found this proficiency system makes the numbers feel far less relevant to what you can do with skills than PF1. Perhaps even too much so.

Who cares if your craft is +20, it is untrained? you aren't actually crafting anything.
Your stealth is +15? you might be able to hide in very basic situations but you aren't doing anything creative with that stealth advantage.

What really feels lost is the ability to make a character who feels like they know a little bit about something. Skill increases are at such a premium I don't see any paladins of Shelyn reciting poetry and studying its lore on the side.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ill be running it by the book for the playtest, but removing the universal level progression is one of the first house rules ill look into. I love the idea of buffing prof levels to compensate.


The +level thing is certainly controversial. I'm not sure the deva are ready to move to a 5e style of bounded accuracy, given than 20 hobgoblins being a threat to a high level fighter os explicitly something they DONT want. They need a niche out of 5e narrative style


The real problem here honestly is that we didn't see enough of the Proficiency Gating in action in the rules. As a numbers game yeah it's a huge difference by level with Prof. not really meaning anything it's gated actions like traps and locks that will make a lower level expert shine over a high level novice.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
NyarIathotep wrote:

Let's say we have a level 7 rogue who has reached Master level of proficiency in deception, and has a charisma of 20. She's a darn good liar, with a proficiency bonus of her level (7) +2 (Master) +5 (charisma) for a total of +14.

Now let's say we have a level 20 dwarven wizard with a charisma of 8, who is untrained in deception. Her proficiency bonus alone, despite being untrained, is 18, because being untrained still lets you add your entire level -2 to your skill check, and even with the lowest possible charisma in the game, this dwarf is still a better liar than the above rogue.

That level 7 Rogue likely has some skill feats to use with that skill. Something like Charming Liar so that the person they are talking to starts to like them, or perhaps Confabulator so that targets have less of a chance of seeing some of your other lies.

Your level 20 Wizard also can’t feint in combat since they are not trained in Deception. The table on pg. 143 calls out where you need training in order to use the skills in some way.


Pan wrote:
Ill be running it by the book for the playtest, but removing the universal level progression is one of the first house rules ill look into. I love the idea of buffing prof levels to compensate.

There is no compensation needed, simply omit +Level from everything, the maths work fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I completely agree.

I would want bounded accuracy as extreme as 5e’s - we have 5e for that - but +1 per 2 levels would feel much less absurd, while still giving meaningful differences between higher and lower levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atlatl Jones wrote:

I completely agree.

I would want bounded accuracy as extreme as 5e’s - we have 5e for that - but +1 per 2 levels would feel much less absurd, while still giving meaningful differences between higher and lower levels.

Totally, you can go that route, too, simply replace +Level with +1/2 level, across the board, will work fine.


I really like the +1/2 level and doubling all proficiency penalties and bonuses. Or removing level bonus all together and doubling.

I've already toyed with higher level characters and it's kinda dumb. I'm pretty confident saying that it will keep Game Masters ending campaign at level 13+.

Sovereign Court

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Pan wrote:
Ill be running it by the book for the playtest, but removing the universal level progression is one of the first house rules ill look into. I love the idea of buffing prof levels to compensate.
There is no compensation needed, simply omit +Level from everything, the maths work fine.

I'd like a little more differentiation among the prof ranks. I mean you are investing in those and you should see a noticable benefit there. Just getting better because you leveled doesn't sit well with me.


Pan wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Pan wrote:
Ill be running it by the book for the playtest, but removing the universal level progression is one of the first house rules ill look into. I love the idea of buffing prof levels to compensate.
There is no compensation needed, simply omit +Level from everything, the maths work fine.
I'd like a little more differentiation among the prof ranks. I mean you are investing in those and you should see a noticable benefit there. Just getting better because you leveled doesn't sit well with me.

Yeah, you could shift item bonus to proficiency, so the proficiency spread goes up to +6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My suggestion, keeping with the DCs as set forth by the playtest, is that the proficiency level should give a scaling benefit based on level:
untrained: flat -2; and +1 per 5 levels
trained: flat +0; and +2 per 5 levels
expert: flat +1; and +3 per 5 levels
master: flat +2; and +4 per 5 levels
legend: flat +3; and +5 per 5 levels

All other things being equal (and assuming 0 other bonuses), at level 20 the disparity would be:
untrained: +2
trained: +8
expert: +13
master: +18
legend: +23

Note that this can have big impact on using skills in combat. At level 20 somebody that is merely an "expert" in Athletics is unlikely to be able to Disarm anybody.

Although I specify +X per 5 levels; the actual skill growth would be smooth by level - not a lump-sum every 5 levels. An appropriate table or something would sort that out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think overall there's here two problems. Maybe not both need to be resolved, but probably at least one need.

First one is the flat bonus from being "Legendary" is quite underwhelming. Really, only +3 drm for being "Legendary" relatively to merely trained?
I'm with people stating that the step between each level of proficiency should be wider. At least +3 I think, better with +5.

Maybe one way to mitigate this is to define when to roll and when not to roll. Surely a task soemone merely trained could succeed someone Master would have no trouble to overcome, so no need for him to roll?

The GM chooses a DC and a proficiency to the task. Any character two steps more proficient than the task succeeds. Any character as proficient or only one step more proficient than the task rolls. Any character less proficient than the task fails.

The second one is the level based value. I've played my share of DnD4, well still play. One point I dislike is how each other level I have to erase and rewrite my whole character sheet. Somehow I really hope this level based proficiency will not make it to the final rule.


NyarIathotep wrote:

I loved the idea of multiple tiers of proficiency when I read about it on the blog, but reading the actual book, it's actually very underwhelming when compared to the the fact that every level, all of your rolls go up by one, no matter whether it's something you ought to be good at or not.

Let's say we have a level 7 rogue who has reached Master level of proficiency in deception, and has a charisma of 20. She's a darn good liar, with a proficiency bonus of her level (7) +2 (Master) +5 (charisma) for a total of +14.

Now let's say we have a level 20 dwarven wizard with a charisma of 8, who is untrained in deception. Her proficiency bonus alone, despite being untrained, is 18, because being untrained still lets you add your entire level -2 to your skill check, and even with the lowest possible charisma in the game, this dwarf is still a better liar than the above rogue.

This also makes the age-old dilemma of 1000 orcs vs one high level fighter even sillier, especially considering that you add your "proficiency" to your AC now, which effectively translates to adding your level to your AC. Even in Pathfinder 1, the fighter would win, but now the fighter's going to win without getting hit at all even if she's only wearing padded armour. Heck, now a high level bard with no spells prepared and wielding a sharpened stick could wade through that many orcs, just because her level gives her such a high bonus to _everything_.

Anywho, for folks who are also finding this getting on their nerves, the fix that I'm planning on running at my home table is just to remove the factor of level from proficiency bonuses, and to increase the difference between levels of proficiency to 2 per shift instead of 1. (Untrained: -2. Trained, 0, Expert, +2, Master, +4, Legendary, +6). I think that the built-in restrictions between what level you can become a master or legend should be enough to ensure that a level 7 character is still going to be better at the things that she's good at than a level 1 character is.

The smart Rogue gets Assurance feat instead as soon you can.

A Master Rogue gets to take 20 (no penalties or bonuses) at all times now. A Legendary Rogue will take 30. It is the best feat for skills.

BTW, your Dwarf should have a 17 (20-2 level -1 Cha =17 bonus to skill).

But yes, a Dwarf who lived that long and is that Legendary is usually a better liar; except the rogue can choose to never fail

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Agree, that +1 per level scaling looks like mechanic that gets totally broken at higher levels. Gonna test how bad it actually is, but i expect it to be nerfed after playtesting


Starbuck_II wrote:
A Master Rogue gets to take 20 (no penalties or bonuses) at all times now. A Legendary Rogue will take 30. It is the best feat for skills.

Not quite true. You don't "take 20" or "take 30" at master and legend levels. You "get 20" or "get 30" at master and legend levels.

"20" isn't your die roll. It is your result. Depending on how much you push a skill, that is like taking 3 or taking 8. The most efficient use of Assurance is in a skill that you only put the minimum of effort.

For example, a gnome rogue (on 8 Strength) that increases Athletics to master by level 7 so that she doesn't have to worry about swim/climb checks. Just "get 20" all the time. At level 7 her bonus to the skill would be +8, so it would be like taking 12. But by level 12 her bonus would be +13 so then it would only be like taking 7.

Scarab Sages

LoreKeeper wrote:

My suggestion, keeping with the DCs as set forth by the playtest, is that the proficiency level should give a scaling benefit based on level:

untrained: flat -2; and +1 per 5 levels
trained: flat +0; and +2 per 5 levels
expert: flat +1; and +3 per 5 levels
master: flat +2; and +4 per 5 levels
legend: flat +3; and +5 per 5 levels

All other things being equal (and assuming 0 other bonuses), at level 20 the disparity would be:
untrained: +2
trained: +8
expert: +13
master: +18
legend: +23

Note that this can have big impact on using skills in combat. At level 20 somebody that is merely an "expert" in Athletics is unlikely to be able to Disarm anybody.

Although I specify +X per 5 levels; the actual skill growth would be smooth by level - not a lump-sum every 5 levels. An appropriate table or something would sort that out.

This has merit. I like this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Endless adding of Level via the Proficiency/Level bonuses not only leaves about 60 erase marks on your sheet every level (LOL) but it just gives the ILLUSION of leveling. What am I going to do with a Stealth of 30...Hide from myself?

Instead, use Core Abilities, HP, items/equipment, special abilities/Feats and Skill Levels (T,E,M,L) to make us/them more dangerous as we level. It's enough. This is Organic and Natural NOT Mechanical.

Organic example:
Imagine my group is L10 and a group of 10 L1 Goblin Commandos ambush us and start chipping at 1d10 (deadly!) per hit. Could happen if my AC wasn't bulked with the Lvl bonus. And to me it's more fun!
With the current PF2 rules their Attack bonus wouldn't be high enough to mechanically hit us (without a crit). What fun is that? Mechanical.

Prof/Lvl bonuses are just bulk and have no base and no need. No disrespect intended but Prof/Lvl bonuses should be called the "Bulk" Bonuses. Encounters may look tougher with big numbers BUT the PCs that will go up against them are just as bulked. So what is the purpose? It's a leveling Illusion.

Over the years I would go to the book/game store and look at all the cool stuff I could get/collect for Pathfinder. However, I never bought because it was still 3.5 meaning bloating at every level. (YES, Many DID and DO buy. Not me; still bloated levels)

I wont play PF2 if the Prof/Lvl bonuses, old and outdated technology, are in the final. I'll stay with the 5th edition of the OTHER game that essentially dropped this effect. You know the OTHER game. I'll WANT to collect PF2 but wont because of the broken Prof/Lvl bonuses. The OTHER game has nowhere near the great source books, maps, pawns and so much more fun and useful stuff I could collect with PF2. But, to me, the OTHER game will be a better game. No bloated levels.

Paizo, remove the Prof/Lvl bonuses from PF2 and I predict that MANY (if not ALL) gamers, that play the 5th of that OTHER game, will migrate to PF2! I know I will. PF2 will be better and I will buy your stuff.

My opinion.
Peace.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My players are indifferent to +Level as a game mechanic, but do already feel uncomfortable at how much level washes out proficiency and ability as you advance, and we haven't even gotten to the highest levels yet. I am even more uncomfortable with it than they are. I'd definitely be happier if they did something like 1/2 level and doubled the proficiency modifiers, then just adjusted skill DCs and monster numbers downward.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gamemasterbob wrote:

Prof/Lvl bonuses are just bulk and have no base and no need. No disrespect intended but Prof/Lvl bonuses should be called the "Bulk" Bonuses. Encounters may look tougher with big numbers BUT the PCs that will go up against them are just as bulked. So what is the purpose? It's a leveling Illusion.

Over the years I would go to the book/game store and look at all the cool stuff I could get/collect for Pathfinder. However, I never bought because it was still 3.5 meaning bloating at every level. (YES, Many DID and DO buy. Not me; still bloated levels)

Could you please explain that in more detail? I view the +1/level built into proficiency as boring, because it is numbers without flavor. But it avoids bloat. No new class features or feats or even equipment is needed to make a level-up character stronger; instead, the better numbers are enough to add power.

I have a banker's box of Pathfinder hardcover books and Player Companion and Campaign Setting softcovers near my gaming table and that does not include the Adventure Path modules. A new class or new country is easy to ignore if it does not relate to my campaign, so bloat is not baggage that I must lug into every game. It is a toolbox that I can leave on the shelf. In contrast, the +1/level proficiency is baked in at the playtest future-core rulebook.

gamemasterbob wrote:

Endless adding of Level via the Proficiency/Level bonuses not only leaves about 60 erase marks on your sheet every level (LOL) but it just gives the ILLUSION of leveling. What am I going to do with a Stealth of 30...Hide from myself?

Instead, use Core Abilities, HP, items/equipment, special abilities/Feats and Skill Levels (T,E,M,L) to make us/them more dangerous as we level. It's enough. This is Organic and Natural NOT Mechanical.

The Stealth of +30 is necessary to hide from the level-appropriate adversary with a Perception of +30. It is numbers vs. numbers, and I would have preferred a nice Hide in Plain Sight class ability to a +30 that is useless in the middle of a field.

I view HP increase as another inflated number.

gamemasterbob wrote:

Organic example:

Imagine my group is L10 and a group of 10 L1 Goblin Commandos ambush us and start chipping at 1d10 (deadly!) per hit. Could happen if my AC wasn't bulked with the Lvl bonus. And to me it's more fun!
With the current PF2 rules their Attack bonus wouldn't be high enough to mechanically hit us (without a crit). What fun is that? Mechanical.

A group of 10 Goblin Commandos counts as a level 8 challenge. A good ambush could add 1 to the challenge rating, but it will still be an easy battle for a 10th level party. Let's make it 16 Goblin Commandos to make it plausible, according to the highly-flawed challenge rating math.

A 10th level bard would probably have AC 28 (+4 item bonus from +2 studded leather armor, +4 Dex bonus, +10 trained). So the +8 ranged attacks of their shortbows would hit 5% of the time, each one a crit on their first attack and never a crit on their second and third attacks. One goblin attacking three times a round would deal about 1 damage per round to the bard. At over 80 hit points, the bard could laugh at the entire group and take them on alone. The challenge rating is terribly wrong.

On the other hand, if the trained 10th-level proficiency gave the bard +5 to AC instead of +10, then those first attacks would be hitting 30% of the time. That doubles the damage from the goblins, and makes the battle look more balanced. The bard's 80 hit points still let him laugh at the goblins, but if he has to climb a rock wall to reach them (assuming the climb is not easy due to a +10 bonus to Athletics) he would take some noticeable damage from their arrows by the time he reached them.

That is why I am in the +0.5/level camp rather than the +1/level camp. It is a small and lonely camp, though. And really I want +0.4/level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, would using a proficiency system where proficiency level was both a threshold for a specific action as well as a multiplier to determine bonuses?

In example, you must be trained in Athletics to grapple, this is a specific action that requires some basic training to do well.

In order to determine bonuses instead of level + prof modifier, would the system work better as:

Untrained = - 2

Trained = 1/4*Lvl

Expert = 1/2*Lvl

Master = 3/4*Lvl

Legendary = Lvl

This gives you the following spread for proficiency modifiers at 20th:

-2, 5, 10, 15, 20

You then add your ability modifiers and bonuses.

A system like this also allows additional Feats to help with your attack routines or damage, to improve proficiency, and really differentiates the different levels of proficiency. If you prefer smaller numbers, in my head I really like: - 2, 2, 5, 8, 11.

It would require some major math adjustments, but personally I want proficiency to really matter.


Mathmuse wrote:
gamemasterbob wrote:

Prof/Lvl bonuses are just bulk and have no base and no need. No disrespect intended but Prof/Lvl bonuses should be called the "Bulk" Bonuses. Encounters may look tougher with big numbers BUT the PCs that will go up against them are just as bulked. So what is the purpose? It's a leveling Illusion.

Over the years I would go to the book/game store and look at all the cool stuff I could get/collect for Pathfinder. However, I never bought because it was still 3.5 meaning bloating at every level. (YES, Many DID and DO buy. Not me; still bloated levels)

Could you please explain that in more detail? I view the +1/level built into proficiency as boring, because it is numbers without flavor. But it avoids bloat. No new class features or feats or even equipment is needed to make a level-up character stronger; instead, the better numbers are enough to add power.

I have a banker's box of Pathfinder hardcover books and Player Companion and Campaign Setting softcovers near my gaming table and that does not include the Adventure Path modules. A new class or new country is easy to ignore if it does not relate to my campaign, so bloat is not baggage that I must lug into every game. It is a toolbox that I can leave on the shelf. In contrast, the +1/level proficiency is baked in at the playtest future-core rulebook.

gamemasterbob wrote:

Endless adding of Level via the Proficiency/Level bonuses not only leaves about 60 erase marks on your sheet every level (LOL) but it just gives the ILLUSION of leveling. What am I going to do with a Stealth of 30...Hide from myself?

Instead, use Core Abilities, HP, items/equipment, special abilities/Feats and Skill Levels (T,E,M,L) to make us/them more dangerous as we level. It's enough. This is Organic and Natural NOT Mechanical.

The Stealth of +30 is necessary to hide from the level-appropriate adversary with a Perception of +30. It is numbers vs. numbers, and I would have preferred a nice Hide in Plain Sight class ability to a +30...

I think you need to review the encounter building rules. 16 Goblin Commandos is never a viable encounter for a 10th level party. 16 of them is a deadly encounter for a 5th level party. It doesn't register as a viable encounter for even a 6th level party.

There is plenty of built in power scaling without +lvl. With potency enhancements, damage improvements, HP increases, spell increases, class abilities etc there already exists significant differentiation as characters level. Currently Level +/-4 is the appropriate challenge rating, removing +level makes that +/- 6 with more utility and possible usage of monsters slightly above and below that.

I'm much more of a fan of +1/2 level over +1 level which opens it up to about +/-5. But, I much prefer removing +level at all. The underlying system in P2 is solid, I hate hiding it behind level scaling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
gamemasterbob wrote:

Organic example:

Imagine my group is L10 and a group of 10 L1 Goblin Commandos ambush us and start chipping at 1d10 (deadly!) per hit. Could happen if my AC wasn't bulked with the Lvl bonus. And to me it's more fun!
With the current PF2 rules their Attack bonus wouldn't be high enough to mechanically hit us (without a crit). What fun is that? Mechanical.

A group of 10 Goblin Commandos counts as a level 8 challenge. A good ambush could add 1 to the challenge rating, but it will still be an easy battle for a 10th level party. Let's make it 16 Goblin Commandos to make it plausible, according to the highly-flawed challenge rating math.

A 10th level bard would probably have AC 28 (+4 item bonus from +2 studded leather armor, +4 Dex bonus, +10 trained). So the +8 ranged attacks of their shortbows would hit 5% of the time, each one a crit on their first attack and never a crit on their second and third attacks. One goblin attacking three times a round would deal about 1 damage per round to the bard. At over 80 hit points, the bard could laugh at the entire group and take them on alone. The challenge rating is terribly wrong.

I think you need to review the encounter building rules. 16 Goblin Commandos is never a viable encounter for a 10th level party. 16 of them is a deadly encounter for a 5th level party. It doesn't register as a viable encounter for even a 6th level party.

Zman0 and I have differing views on Table 3: Hazard Experience, on page 13 of the Playtest Bestiary. It lists that a complex hazard, such as a creature, of level 4 less than party level awards 10 xp to the party. It continues through 3 less (15 xp), 2 less (20 xp), 1 less (30 xp), equal to (40 xp), and so on up to to 4 more than party level (150 xp). I see the pattern in the table--it is the same pattern as Table 12-2: Experience Point Awards, on page 398 of the Pathfinder 1st Edition Core Rulebook--and can extend it mathematically as level 5 less than party level awards 7 xp, level 6 less than party level awards 5 xp, etc. I believe that Zman0 sees that Table 3: Hazard Experience does not extend lower than 4 levels less than party level and therefore such encounters are not allowed to give xp. Or maybe instead that a 6th-level character is never ever allowed to encounter a 1st-level character when xp might be awarded.

The Playtest Rulebook says, on page 339, "Use the rules for creating encounters in the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary to determine these values."

I prefer to play in a gameworld where squadrons and platoons exist as viable encounters, though they are a pain to manage in combat. The alternative would be something like the troop rules from Reign of Winter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem I see with continuing to use enemies 5 and more levels below is that the PF2 math paradigm means they quickly cease to be meaningful challenges. If they can't hit you and you always crit them with every attack, they aren't really a challenge. That's fun sometimes to show player power progress, but wouldn't necessarily be worth XP under the normal setup. It works fine for how I prefer to give out per session XP based on progress rather than per-enemy XP, but as a fight it's a waste of time save for that specific case of letting players feel good once in a while.

There should definitely be some kind of mob / troop rules though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
The problem I see with continuing to use enemies 5 and more levels below is that the PF2 math paradigm means they quickly cease to be meaningful challenges. If they can't hit you and you always crit them with every attack, they aren't really a challenge.

The +1/level effect makes the numbers inaccurate with enemies 3 and 4 levels below party level. I would rather fix the progression so that the table works than restrict all encounters to nearly same level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syndrous wrote:

Out of curiosity, would using a proficiency system where proficiency level was both a threshold for a specific action as well as a multiplier to determine bonuses?

In example, you must be trained in Athletics to grapple, this is a specific action that requires some basic training to do well.

In order to determine bonuses instead of level + prof modifier, would the system work better as:

Untrained = - 2

Trained = 1/4*Lvl

Expert = 1/2*Lvl

Master = 3/4*Lvl

Legendary = Lvl

This gives you the following spread for proficiency modifiers at 20th:

-2, 5, 10, 15, 20

You then add your ability modifiers and bonuses.

A system like this also allows additional Feats to help with your attack routines or damage, to improve proficiency, and really differentiates the different levels of proficiency. If you prefer smaller numbers, in my head I really like: - 2, 2, 5, 8, 11.

It would require some major math adjustments, but personally I want proficiency to really matter.

I have been examining that concept. I posted a table at Give Me an Argument for +1 / Level over +0.5 / Level, comment #16, but I have been fiddling with the table and my current values are:

Untrained modifier = (1/3)(level) - 1
Trained modifier = (2/5)(level) + 1.2
Expert modifier = (3/5)(level) + 1.6
Masterful modifier = (4/5)(level), minimum +3
Legendary modifier = level, minimum +4

Everything rounds down. At 1st level the proficiency modifiers would be -1, +1, +2, +3, +4 as they are currently. The spread of proficiency modifiers at 20th level would be +5, +9, +13, +16, +20.

I have some mathematical reasons for my numbers. I set the trained and expert modifiers so that when one increases during a level up, the other stays fixed. Untrained has a slope of 1/3 rather than 1/5 because it begins at -1 (-2 + 1 for 1st level), and ends closer to (1/5)(level) and so that untrained and trained modifiers seldom both increase during the same level-up. That helps smooth the effect of level rather than giving the character a big boost in bonuses every even level as +(1/2)(level) would, or every 4th level as +(1/4)(level), +(1/2)(level), and +(3/4)(level) would.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The PF2 Encounter system keeps PCs into a center weighted, upward moving 9 level LIMIT. As PCs level and therefore proficiencies rise, so does the ENTIRE GAME. Things aren't getting more difficult, instead the numbers are just getting bigger (PCs, Monsters, Traps etc...) Leveling is more of an ILLUSION. This is not my opinion. It's the math.

Almost exclusively, depending on the Party Level, any creature in the game below the 9-level limit CAN'T MECHANICALLY HIT the PCs and the PCs can't hit the ACs of those elements above the range. What fun is that??
Consider this. One of my favorite creature/enemies is the Orc. According to PF2 when a party reaches level 7, the PCs most likely won’t be encountering Orcs anymore. Orcs in the PF2 test cap at level 2 and would be below the 7th level encounter range. Suddenly the fantasy world is Orcless! Mechanically they are out of the game.

Yes, in PF2, there are rules for tweaking stats (creating a stronger/weaker version of a particular creature) and the following is some of what PF2 says about that " .... adjustments work best with martial creatures. Spellcasters—or creatures that rely heavily on innate spells or unique, noncombat abilities—typically need more specific adjustments." So, tweaking can be a pain. If I want to create a stronger/weaker version of a creature then this is OK. But if I have to tweak a creature/encounter element to keep it IN the game then the system is flawed. I propose we go ORGANIC.

When an RPG encounter system is ORGANIC, encounter building decisions are based on “The overall chance for Success”. This is how you would judge an encounter in REAL LIFE. Hence: ORGANIC. Organic inspires the imagination.
Currently in PF2 the encounter system means...well...No Orcs here...ahh...so much for imagination.

First step to Organic is for PF2 to STOP ADDING LEVEL TO PROFICIENCY SCORES! Then base everything on Core abilities, Background, Ethnicity, Feats and Class features-benefits. Values would then stabilize and stop bloating. What would make a PC/Creature dangerous (a PCs DC for instance) is HP, Core Abilities, Proficiency, Skills, Feats and items. Adding level to proficiency is NOT needed for this to work. This will also do away with the level-range encounter system and in turn make all game elements viable for the full 20 levels! Encounters would be built based on the DANGER expected with no forced mechanical limits. This is a better idea.

If PF2 goes more toward Organic, as I present the concept (not NECESSARILY my processes) it would give us a system where a DM can build an encounter using PRACTICAL decisions NOT mechanical rules that corral ideas. Let me have my Orcs without tweaking them. ;)

That’s my two copper pieces, for now...
Peace.


Mathmuse wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
gamemasterbob wrote:

Organic example:

Imagine my group is L10 and a group of 10 L1 Goblin Commandos ambush us and start chipping at 1d10 (deadly!) per hit. Could happen if my AC wasn't bulked with the Lvl bonus. And to me it's more fun!
With the current PF2 rules their Attack bonus wouldn't be high enough to mechanically hit us (without a crit). What fun is that? Mechanical.

A group of 10 Goblin Commandos counts as a level 8 challenge. A good ambush could add 1 to the challenge rating, but it will still be an easy battle for a 10th level party. Let's make it 16 Goblin Commandos to make it plausible, according to the highly-flawed challenge rating math.

A 10th level bard would probably have AC 28 (+4 item bonus from +2 studded leather armor, +4 Dex bonus, +10 trained). So the +8 ranged attacks of their shortbows would hit 5% of the time, each one a crit on their first attack and never a crit on their second and third attacks. One goblin attacking three times a round would deal about 1 damage per round to the bard. At over 80 hit points, the bard could laugh at the entire group and take them on alone. The challenge rating is terribly wrong.

I think you need to review the encounter building rules. 16 Goblin Commandos is never a viable encounter for a 10th level party. 16 of them is a deadly encounter for a 5th level party. It doesn't register as a viable encounter for even a 6th level party.
Zman0 and I have differing views on Table 3: Hazard Experience, on page 13 of the Playtest Bestiary. It lists that a complex hazard, such as a creature, of level 4 less than party level awards 10 xp to the party. It continues through 3 less (15 xp), 2 less (20 xp), 1 less (30 xp), equal to (40 xp), and so on up to to 4 more than party level (150 xp). I see the pattern in the table--it is the same pattern as Table 12-2: Experience Point Awards, on page 398 of the Pathfinder 1st Edition Core Rulebook--and can extend it mathematically as level 5 less than...

No, you're choosing to see something that isn't there. There is a very good reason they end the table at level -4, they cease to be a meaningful encounter.

If you want to change that, omit the +level and run bound. Then it roughly equates to level +/- 6 instead of +/-4. But, that +/-6 in the Bound version could be extended further, at least to +/-8 and still work and would follow roughly the mathematical progression you discussed earlier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

People seem pretty fired up here but I think all of us need to step back and calm down.

One point that I see with a lot of people arguing against adding the level bonus to proficiency is a desire for a wider range of monsters that a GM can effectively use against their PCs. I am sympathetic to this justification, but from a developer perspective, its importance is probably feeling over blown for the following reasons:

1. The developers are most concerned with the encounters that other developers will be designing in APs. APs generally progress in such a way that you are not fighting the same kind of monsters for many levels of play and they are happy to come up with reasons to add new or different templates to monsters rather than have them be the same creatures you fought 6 levels ago. (Writing this one out, it actually reminds me that this is probably a good idea even for homebrewers because fighting the same orcs for 10 levels of play Doesn't really make sense. If they keep losing with the troops they have, why are they not trying to make deals with more powerful creatures or at least training to become more threatening to their enemies?)

2. This design creates its own need for more monsters of all levels, meaning that the need for new bestiaries will be more pronounced as random encounter tables will have a more narrow range of levels that will be challenging. This sounds like a marketing issue, but really, I think that from a fun prospective, there are only so many orc adventures (or Kobold or goblin) adventures you can write before you are at least looking for ways to play with creatures who have been corrupted by abyssal energies or pushing that design so that the party is facing creatures that don't quite work the way they expect them to.

3. The developers have a better sense of what "power level" is in the Golarion than we do. It is probably most important that they develop the system that lets them tell the stories of Golarion in the best manner to fit what their idea of what a level 18 Dragon is than to have to re write everything, because I personally want to homebrew a world where my party fights the same monster for the entire campaign. As Vic has successfully argued for months now, the overall structure of this game is easy to play with, and if you need to change something to fit your own homebrew needs, it seems flexible enough to do so.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am of the opinion that removing level bonuses is a great idea for these reasons:

1) Less to update on character level. When you get new things, you focus on the big ones. Class features, new feats, and updating skill proficiency or getting a newly trained skill.

2) Less math. You don't have to recalculate everything every level, which presently you do.

3) Those saying that it will cause lower level encounters to be too effective have ignored the fact that players will have both more damage and more HP than those enemies. And, proficiency bonuses can be used to effectively gate lower level opponents (lots of untrained/trained vs PC's expert/master/legendary weapons, armor, etc).

4) The proficiency system is a great system, let it shine.

----------------------------------------
Long version:

As it is, the important parts of proficiency is the proficiency rank itself, and the level bonus both adds unnecessary mental processing while giving people false confidence in their skills. Someone has a +15 to that skill? Awesome! except you're untrained and can't actually do anything of significance.

Instead, with Procifiency bonuses alone you'd always have a clear indicator of what you are good in and not. This also makes the choice of things like armor more important while opening up an avenue for more interesting armor choices. As it is now there's a point where the armor you pick is secondary to its quality and your proficiency.

For example. With a 16 dex, and +1 scale mail at level 10 you currently have the following AC:
10 + 3 + 11 (prof) + 4 (item) = 28 AC

Without the level bonus, you'd have the following:
10 + 3 + 1 (prof) + 4 (item) = 18 AC

That seems like a perfectly reasonable AC to me. If we really want to sell the proficiency system, make it the primary way of adding to your bonuses and remove the level bonus. I love the proficiency system, but it feels drowned under the level bonus.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
People seem pretty fired up here but I think all of us need to step back and calm down.

When I am fired up, I tell stories. When I am calm, I explain mathematically.

Zman0 wrote:
There is a very good reason they end the table at level -4, they cease to be a meaningful encounter.

I have used such encounters meaningfully.

For example, in The Divinity Drive, the 6th module of the Iron Gods adventure path, my players pulled a plot twist. The module assumed that they would fight their way through the haunted, alien-inhabited, robot-controlled mile-long crash spaceship Divinity to reach the archvillain Unity. Instead, the PCs communicated with Unity via radio and persuaded him to hire them as a repair crew. (My players love to pull such twists. Fortunately, I love them, too.) The module's encounters where the party allies with friendly aliens while they fight Unity's robot minions were temporarily off the board. I had to make new encoutners, based on the helpful information in the gazetteer in the back of the module. As a further complication, my players had skipped a lot of encounters in the 5th module and the PCs were still 12th level.

Unity told them that he had a small problem with incorporeal undead. They could not harm his robots, but his robots could not harm them, either. Could his new repair crew start by clearing out some shadowy ghosts from a small medical clinic? I drew a map of a sports-medicine clinic in a shipboard sports complex, infested with 23 hidden shadows (CR 4 each, CR 13 cumulatively) and a CR 13 gruesome gurney haunt. In total it was a CR 15 challenge.

Why did I used 23 CR 4 undead rather than 6 CR 8 undead? Storywise, I wanted to give an impression of lots and lots of ghosts aboard the Divinity. And I wanted most of those ghosts to be low-level rather than ultra-powerful, due to the largely accidental way the ship became haunted. Mechanically, retreating from CR 4 spirits would be easier if the party were overwhelmed. Several levels had passed since the players last fought undead, and I did not know whether their newest tactics worked well against undead. And after that, I had planned encounters with other kinds of incorporeal undead, such as dread wraiths (CR 13) and a dybbuk (CR 15). Starting the challenges small and getting more powerful seemed best.

It was a storyworthy encounter. The challenge probably was not a full CR 15, for they managed to deal with the shadows and haunts separately as a pair of back-to-back CR 13 encounters. Or I could count that as effective battlefield control. By either interpretation, the encounter worked and they had fun.

Yet CR 4 is 8 levels below the party. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, a well-planned encounter with level minus 8 creatures is valid. If such encounters are not valid in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, then Pathfinder 2nd Edition would have lost an vital part of Pathfinder roleplaying.

Later, the party finally had to battle Unity. The module had planned that the party would weaken Unity down from CR 25 either by religious insight about reducing his divine powers or by hack-and-slash slaughter of his worshippers. The most balanced intended encounter was a 16th-level party versus a 20th-level divine avatar. My party had done little of either, so at 15th level they faced a CR 23 divine avatar. It was an epic battle where each side found ways to counter the strengths and ploys of the other side. And the party won. Once again, we had an 8-level difference between the sides.

Think about realistic encounters. Suppose a mid-level party is hired to eliminate a bandit camp. How many bandits would be in a camp? Ten would be small. Fifteen would be more plausible. (The classic list of Robin Hood's merry men has 18, not counting Maid Marian.) According to table 3 in the Playtest Bestiary, bandits 4 levels below would be worth 10 xp each. Fifteen of them would be worth 150 xp, a party-level plus 4 encounter, where a party has a 50% chance of surviving. Replace one with a bandit chief at the level of the party, and 14 bandits plus chief is too much. The reasonable solution would be to weaken the bandits a little, rebuilding some bandits at 5 levels below the party. But somehow in Pathfinder 2nd Edition that would make the encounter unmeaningful.


Okay, I wrote the previous comment yesterday and slept, so now I am calm. :-) Time to analyze an encounter with a 5-level difference mathematically. On one side, we have a 5th-level half-elf monk named Catseye. On the other side, a group of 0th-level Goblin Warriors.

Catseye has Str 18, Dex 19, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 10, Skilled and Half-Elf (low-light vision) ancestry feats, Catfall, Powerful Leap, and Quick Jump skill feats, Stunning Fist, Tiger Stance, and Flying Kick monk feats, 68 hit points, and speed 35 feet. He could run away from the goblins, but we want a battle here rather than shortbow arrows in the back. Wearing level 4 Bracers of Armor, he has AC 22 (+4 dex, +6 prof, +2 item). Each goblin, with a +6 to hit, has to roll at 16 or higher to hit, 25% chance for 1d6 damage. Wearing +1 handwraps of mighty fists, Catseye has a +11 to hit (+4 str, +6 prof, +1 item) for 2d8 damage, with bleed damage on a critical success, via Tiger Stance. He can hit a goblin warrior, AC 14, on a roll of 3. The critical hits don't really matter, because we can count on a single normal blow taking down a goblin warrior.

Thus, with 90%, 65%, and 40% chances of hitting goblins on his three attacks per turn, Catseye takes down about 2 goblins per turn. We will ignore positioning, because Catseye is highly mobile. Meanwhile, each goblin in reach deals an everage of (0.4)(1d6) = 1.4 damage per turn, with the further goblins shooting with their bows. It would take 49 goblin-turns to take Catseye down.

Therefore, 15 goblins face Catseye. Turn 1: The monk gains initiative and takes down 2 goblins. 13 goblins attack and deal 18 damage. Catseye is at 50 hp. Turn 2: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. 11 goblins attack and deal 15 damage. Catseye is at 35 hp. Turn 3: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. 9 goblins attack and deal 12 damage. Catseye is at 23 hp. Turn 4: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. 7 goblins attack and deal 10 damage. Catseye is at 13 hp. Turn 5: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. 5 goblins attack and deal 7 damage. Catseye is at 6 hp. Turn 6: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. 3 goblins attack and deal 4 damage. Catseye is at 2 hp. Turn 6: Catseye takes down 2 more goblins. The last goblin attacks and misses. Turn 7: Catseye wins with 2 hp remaining.

It appears that 15 Goblin Warriors versus Catseye is an evenly matched fight. My extention of table 3 suggests 6 goblin warriors ought to have been fair, so we have a factor of 2.5 error. My error was 20% per level (1.20^5 = 2.5).

Let's check that with 1st-level Goblin Commandos. They are 4 levels below Catseye, so the table says 4 Goblin Commandos should be an even match for Catseye. With their horsechoppers, they have +7 to hit for 1d8+1 damage. Their AC is slightly higher at 15. And, significantly, they have 18 hp, three times the hp of a goblin warrior.

Catseye's chances of hitting a goblin commando are 85%, 60%, and 25% in three attacks per turn. That is 50%, 50%, 20% regular hits and 35%, 10%, 5% critical hits. On average he deals 10.8 damage per turn with regular attacks and has a 50% chance per turn of killing a goblin commando in one blow with a critical hit. Call that 1 goblin commando per turn. Catseye's powerful critical hits were wasted against the flimsy goblin warriors. A commando deals an average of (.45)(1d8+1) = 2.5 damage per turn. It would take 28 commando-turns to take Catseye down.

Therefore, 8 goblin commandos face Catseye. Turn 1: The monk gains initiative and takes down 1 goblin. 7 goblins attack and deal 18 damage. Catseye is at 50 hp. Turn 2: Catseye takes down 1 more goblin. 6 goblins attack and deal 15 damage. Catseye is at 35 hp. Turn 3: Catseye takes down 1 more goblin. 5 goblins attack and deal 12 damage. Catseye is at 23 hp. Turn 4: Catseye takes down 1 more goblin. 4 goblins attack and deal 10 damage. Catseye is at 13 hp. Turn 5: Catseye takes down 1 more goblin. 3 goblins attack and deal 7 damage. Catseye is at 6 hp. Turn 6: Catseye takes down 1 more goblin. 2 goblins attack and deal 5 damage. Catseye is at 1 hp. Turn 6: Catseye makes a critical hit and wins with 1 hp remaining.

Really, 8 Goblin Commandos versus Catseye is an evenly matched fight rather than the 4 predicted by the table. That error ratio of 2 is 19% error per level, about the same as before. And 2 Goblin Warriors can substitute for a Goblin Commando in a fight.

So why are Goblins Commandos a valid encounter for Catseye and Goblin Warriors aren't?


Unicore wrote:
1. The developers are most concerned with the encounters that other developers will be designing in APs. APs generally progress in such a way that you are not fighting the same kind of monsters for many levels of play and they are happy to come up with reasons to add new or different templates to monsters rather than have them be the same creatures you fought 6 levels ago. (Writing this one out, it actually reminds me that this is probably a good idea even for homebrewers because fighting the same orcs for 10 levels of play Doesn't really make sense. If they keep losing with the troops they have, why are they not trying to make deals with more powerful creatures or at least training to become more threatening to their enemies?)

The module writers can avoid putting Goblin Warriors into their 5th-level module without Pathfinder 2nd Edition forcing them to. Perhaps they have a plot-related reason for wanting an encounter with 0th-level goblins. Now that goblins are a core race, Catseye could be hunting his evil nemesis Cats-ear, the 5th-level goblin monk, who hid in an ordinary goblin war camp.

In a campaign featuring border conflicts with a neighboring orc kingdom the close-to-level style would use an orc thug level 1, orc warrior level 2, orc soldier level 3, orc veteran level 4, orc elite guard level 5, and continue up to orc gladiatorial champion level 10. Or we could offer more variety that the same-opponents-higher-numbers treadmill and let the 7th-level party attack a fortress guarded by thirty 2nd-level orc warriors. Because sometimes fighting the same orcs makes more sense than an orderly string of better orcs.

Maybe I shouldn't have slept. The time let me build a castle of text rather than my usual wall of text. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is something I dislike about the Level Bonus, and it's the same thing I dislike about Xianxia.

I have only read a few Xianxia, but I feel like I got the whole experience because they all were, basically, the same book and plot...Over and over again.

When someone raises their cultivation or power level or whatever, then all their abilities rise at the same rate.

Thus, someone who has better cultivation is better in every way. This usually ends up meaning that whoever spent the most time meditating wins the fight. (Except in the case of the Protagonist because he's special)

I prefer that someone can specialize their strength while excepting weaknesses elsewhere.

For example, Elder Elementals are strong in some ways. They are immune to a bunch of things, they have elemental powers, they are a higher CR than the party hopefully, etc.

But did you know they're incredibly easy to manipulate? Most have a terrible Wisdom and Intelligence score and no ranks in Sense Motive. A clever player, say a Rogue, who knows this can still 'beat' this enemy even when his normal tactic, Sneak Attack, is completely ineffective.

This adds an interesting weakness to a powerful foe.

This also works on the players.
A paladin has incredible AC and Saves but his lack of Touch AC gets him killed via Energy Drain.
A Wizard has a spell for every situation, but neglected his Swim skill and didn't prepare a Silent spell to save himself when pulled underwater.
A Phantom Thief has skills to cunningly solve almost any problem, but if he's drawn into a straightforward fight he's in trouble.

Each of these excels in an area but have a weakness that can be exploited by the players or the GM.

I personally, like it when players can be bad at some things while good at others. It means they have to shore up their weaknesses and not just focus on improving one thing.

That's my take at least.

Good day!


NyarIathotep wrote:


This also makes the age-old dilemma of 1000 orcs vs one high level fighter even sillier, especially considering that you add your "proficiency" to your AC now, which effectively translates to adding your level to your AC. Even in Pathfinder 1, the fighter would win, but now the fighter's going to win without getting hit at all even if she's only wearing padded armour. Heck, now a high level bard with no spells prepared and wielding a sharpened stick could wade through that many orcs, just because her level gives her such a high bonus to _everything_.

Lets be fair here, if your fighter gets attacked by 1000 orcs, he is going to get hit by 50 of them for about 5 damage each and there will always be a Mob Boss to deal with (maybe 20 or so in army that large).

Besides, what GM has the time or inclination to build an encounter with 1000 enemies, think that might crash my online battle map ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello fellow gamers,
I’m reading the posts here and feeling sad and frustrated. The replies to my posts don’t seem to address any of what I wrote. Maybe it’s my writing style. Don’t know.

Paizo, we have to stop adding Level to Proficiency.

Your adding Level to Proficiency, to keep the game in a nine-level range per the encounter builder.
*As the PCs level some encounter elements drop out of the game and others come in. As long as they are in the nine-level range. The elements you lose will NOT be back. Even if you want them to be they just don’ MECHANICALLY work now. That’s it.
*The elements outside of this range are outside for MECHANICAL reasons NOT Practical reasons.
*Mechanical does NOT inspire imagination. It’s math. It’s limiting. The current encounter system is based on limits.

By NOT adding level to Proficiency elements like AC, Skills and Saves are based solely on Core Abilities and base Proficiencies.
*As you level your Core Abilities will grow and give a boost to every element you have based on them.
*Proficiencies will grow based on Feats and Core Abilities.
*HP. Remember HP is NOT just Flesh and Bone. It is an abstract of staying power in a battle. It improves as you level. That is practical.
*Feats and Features. As you increase in level you will earn feats and Class features that will hone you into the Hero you envision.
*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.

Consider NOT adding level to Proficiency. Imagine the game.
Real leveling, not big numbers that just look like you leveled. No more choices forced on us by the current 9 level encounter system.

Instead, practical, Organic encounter choices. That’s what I would like to see. I want my Orcs (see http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v9y4?Proficiency-vs-Level-Bonus#35)

Peace.
Bob


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bob, I don't know if you saw it or not, but I responded to your earlier thread here.

I appreciate your desire for monster types to have a longer shelf life, but you are free to design an entire 20 level AP around orcs if you want, you just need to start giving them reasons to be more powerful instead of making the PCs fight the same enemy stat blocks for 10+ levels.

I promise you the developers have considered not adding level to proficiency. They are probably still considering it, but they want a game where level is a very significant part of what makes your character powerful. They have talked about wanting high level game play to feel completely different than low level. That includes facing different monsters.


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.


Talonhawke wrote:
The real problem here honestly is that we didn't see enough of the Proficiency Gating in action in the rules. As a numbers game yeah it's a huge difference by level with Prof. not really meaning anything it's gated actions like traps and locks that will make a lower level expert shine over a high level novice.

IMO to be fair, 20 hobgoblins SHOULD be a threat to a level 20 fighter.. he'll definitely take mosts of them down, will have better equipment, doing more damage and be able to take more hits, but it still should be a challenge


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

Bob, I don't know if you saw it or not, but I responded to your earlier thread here.

I appreciate your desire for monster types to have a longer shelf life, but you are free to design an entire 20 level AP around orcs if you want, you just need to start giving them reasons to be more powerful instead of making the PCs fight the same enemy stat blocks for 10+ levels.

I promise you the developers have considered not adding level to proficiency. They are probably still considering it, but they want a game where level is a very significant part of what makes your character powerful. They have talked about wanting high level game play to feel completely different than low level. That includes facing different monsters.

I concur.. if your character level gets added to everything from proficiency, to BAB, to AC, to skill DC's it actually makes it a zero-sum game. Why have it at all?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
tim hyde 706 wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
The real problem here honestly is that we didn't see enough of the Proficiency Gating in action in the rules. As a numbers game yeah it's a huge difference by level with Prof. not really meaning anything it's gated actions like traps and locks that will make a lower level expert shine over a high level novice.
IMO to be fair, 20 hobgoblins SHOULD be a threat to a level 20 fighter.. he'll definitely take mosts of them down, will have better equipment, doing more damage and be able to take more hits, but it still should be a challenge

By the level-adjustment system in the PF1 Core Rulebook, 20 of a creature increases the CR of the creature by 8 and a half. So 20 veteran hobgoblin soldiers (CR 4 each) would be a CR 12 challenge. That is still trivial for one lone 20th-level fighter.

60 veteran hobgoblin soldiers (CR 4 each) would be a 16th level challenge, an appropriate encounter for a lone 20th-level fighter. However, the simple system for estimating the CR of a group breaks down with that large of a group, so the encounter could be easier (the fighter activates his boots of flying and stays out of reach of most of them) or could be harder (the army of hobgoblins attacks a village to force him to defend the villagers at a tactical disadvantage).


Unicore wrote:

Bob, I don't know if you saw it or not, but I responded to your earlier thread here.

I appreciate your desire for monster types to have a longer shelf life, but you are free to design an entire 20 level AP around orcs if you want, you just need to start giving them reasons to be more powerful instead of making the PCs fight the same enemy stat blocks for 10+ levels.

I promise you the developers have considered not adding level to proficiency. They are probably still considering it, but they want a game where level is a very significant part of what makes your character powerful. They have talked about wanting high level game play to feel completely different than low level. That includes facing different monsters.

It still would be without the level bonus. Is the level bonus all you gain each level?

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Proficiency vs Level Bonus All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.