I am excited to have a new edition and there are numerous aspects that I like. I want to love this game.
Now that I have the book in my hands I’m finding the proficiency system to be a bigger challenge than expected.
I’m looking for different perspectives for how I can make this system work for my play style. So I’ll offer a few points where it doesn’t work for me, and hopefully someone can help me out.
I was hoping that the Tiers and gating system would keep character archetypes and support story-telling based on the novels and movies I’ve loved. I was very disappointed to see that being trained is a gate for remarkably few things and higher tiers unlock nothing. [I appreciate the access to feats, and note the general guidance for GM imposition of other gates].
For example, according to Table 10-3 that walking a tightrope is DC17. (Let’s ignore that looking up a single value that points you to a single value in a second table is really bad presentation). Balance attempts are allowed “untrained”. A level 7, Dex 14 wizard, untrained has a +7 acrobatics. So a 1 is an auto crit fail here. Ok, it’s a 1. A 2 to 9 is a failure, which results in “must stay stationary”, so my wizard is swaying but stable on a wire, with no magic, no nothing just sheer untrained acrobatic mojo. On a 10 to 19 he succeeds, allowing him to move his normal speed (though really at half speed for the difficult terrain). On a 20 he crits and moves his speed. Walking across a tightrope is really no big deal at all for a completely unoptimized character.
IMO, walking a tightrope should be gated behind Expert. The stories I like don’t feature untrained characters scampering across wires. Expert characters of the correct archetype scampering freely? Sure thing. Even without gating, +7 acrobatics makes no sense here.
How do I fix this? I understand the game solution offered. But story trumps game for me every time. How do I use this system and stay story first?
Sneaking past the guards is a rally cry for some. In games going back close to two decades now, my groups have faced this kind of challenge numerous times. Sometimes they just attack. That is fine. But sometimes, as with others, they want to avoid the fight. Usually there is a really sneaky character who can go scout the situation despite the complete lack of sneakiness for the fighter and cleric. Then, with information gathered, maybe they cast some silence and invisibility. Maybe they use disguises or illusions. Maybe they go for diplomacy. Maybe they chart out some good dimension doors. Maybe they go back to Plan A and frontal assault. Figuring out the options and picking one is FUN. Now the fighter and cleric can just sneak by. I guess we could just *not*. But not using a system has never been a good defense of that system.
How do I fix this? Can the system support the story telling and challenge solving I want? I want enough gap in stealth bonuses so that the rogue CAN sneak around in way that blow the socks off of the fighter. I want him to be at least reasonably confident so he can go shine at something the fighter knows is hopeless. That, to me, is not just a feature, but a core required function. Can I do that?
In my current game my wife plays a L13 Bard (AC20). There are a couple front line tanks that are AC27. She knows that she needs to not have things swinging at her. They all really like the value her character brings to the team. And they work together. Adding level to AC and making that the largest factor removes the tension and thus removes some fun they we want.
How do I fix this?
Does 2E support my story first play style that 1E does? Or am I just too old school and need to get out of the way.
Am I missing something?
I'd love to have a different perspective change my mind.
Thanks
I don't intend to be a prima donna about this. But it is a big deal to me personally, so I'm gonna try to ask my question differently and see if I can get a response. I don't want to just whine about not having the game cater to me. I want to be a fan.
Is it an intentional design choice to remove this play area from the Pathfinder brand because it is perceived to bring in more than it removes?
If it is, then I assume it isn't on the table for any major changes through the playtest process.
Is there a way to adapt this game through some combination of promoting rules changes in the final and house rules? Right now there is a big gap between what this system offers and what 1E offers out of the box.
Does this existing PF playstyle have a home in the future of PF?
A stated goal is that at the highest levels the differences between AC, saving throws, skill checks etc will be less than 20, so as to avoid auto successes or failures (e.g.if the best PC can fail at the task, it's not an auto failure for anyone). That seems bound to push the numbers closer at 13. If supporting your play style means not fixing high level play, I'm afraid you're probably out of luck.
On the other hand, the gap will still widen, so it will come back at higher levels, so maybe patience and level up?
Not what you want to hear I know.
A stated goal is that at the highest levels the differences between AC, saving throws, skill checks etc will be less than 20, so as to avoid auto successes or failures (e.g.if the best PC can fail at the task, it's not an auto failure for anyone). That seems bound to push the numbers closer at 13. If supporting your play style means not fixing high level play, I'm afraid you're probably out of luck.
On the other hand, the gap will still widen, so it will come back at higher levels, so maybe patience and level up?
Not what you want to hear I know.
No, I appreciate your comments.
A stated design goal was also to "still be Pathfinder", which isn't to be argumentative but just to offer why I'm still here.As to leveling, I'm messing around with converting L13 characters from my existing game and the issue gets worse because as character should be getting more awesome at their niche they don't shine nearly as well.
I don't accept the idea that I'm opposed to "fixing high level play".
I didn't mean to imply you did.
You're ahead of me reading the book,though. I haven't got the printed copy I ordered yet, and am finding using the pdf slow and tiring. Also, without a gaming group, I've little prospect of actually playing, so little incentive to start builds.
I will say that your group have developed a way of play under one set of rules, and now you're changing the rules, which is bound to cause some issues. If you were starting now with these rules, you would most likely find different solutions.
Paizo have said they're going to show play sessions from the module on Twitch, which will go on you-tube. Maybe wait and watch the 12-ish level game for ideas?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simplest solution to your concern is to make untrained a -10 instead of -2.
The only only fix is to remove level from everything but that creates a lot of other problems, like having to change every DC in the book!
One last comment or alternative is you could not add level to untrained.
Hope these help
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, their hope is to separate out people who are good at a skill by making them able to do things other people can't, instead of them having +30 over the next-best party member. They're aiming for Expert, Master, and Legendary characters to have more -breadth- of ability than characters that are merely trained.
In general, yeah, this doesn't fit with your vision as stated above. It does offer a few avenues to fix it, though.
1) As other people have said, fiddle with the math for proficiency on skills. Maybe only add your level if you're trained, or try any of the other proposed solutions here.
2) An alternate approach would be to gate skill uses further than they're gated RAW -- say, make walking a tightrope require trained or expert proficiency.
Thanks for the good responses
I had proposed a house rule for skills (before seeing the full book) that was this:
Untrained Level-2 (max 3)
Trained Level (max 10)
Expert Level+1 (max 16)
Master Level+2 (no max)
Legend Level +3 (no max)
As an aside to that, I am sympathetic to those who want more ways to get signature skills, but in the book as written it seems close to pointless. Expert + needs to open A LOT more doors than is currently offered. I'm willing to assume that this is largely a function of the game being in playtest stage. But still, the material in my hands is underwhelming on a cool idea.
Anyway, that was a proposed 2E house rule.
I could use it as a 1E house rule and gain the cool Tiers aspect of 2E without losing the functionality of 1E.
Totally shooting from the hip here but:
Keep BAB and AC unchanged in 1E.
Rework saves and spell DCs to include level opening the math for crit success and failure.
Switch to max HP/die and grab the +dice for magic weapons.
In effect combat and magic would both have the same mechanic, but the numbers would fall in significantly different parts of the scale, which is ok.
There could be issues here, like I said I'm total grasping right now.
But I do think the best of both worlds could exist.