Another way to handle +1 per level progression


Playing the Game

Scarab Sages

13 people marked this as a favorite.

I like PF2 a lot.

I am concerned about the +1/level to everything.

I am having difficulty expressing how I think this mechanic is a pitfall.

I am looking for a collaborative thread in which we discover a solution to the +1/level to everything mechanics.

I realize that some of you may think I'm using hyperbole when I say +1/level to everything so I'll be more specific.

+1/level for PC and all NPC's AC,TAC,Attacks,saves,all Skill,Spell DCs, Skill DCs by level and difficulty table, ad nauseam.

Now, this is not a new thing D&D4ed did it with +1/every 2 levels.

I'd like others to share their thoughts on the good and bad of this mechanic. If you are leaning toward bad, I would like to hear some possible solutions.

I would like to share one possible solution. This idea is kind of a hybrid of D&D5e, PF2, and other TRPGs I have played.

Keep everything as is but instead of the current level bonus use this prgression:
Level...... Bonus
1-3. ...... +0
4-7........ +1
8-11. ..... +2
12-15.......+3
16+.........+4
So, what I am proposing is the modifiers for experience be closer to the modifiers of other factors, not a huge disparity. for example, I don't want +5 from my ability, +3 from my skill, +2 from a buff, +3 from an item, and then a huge number of +16 from just being level 16. Do we earn level 16 yes of course, do I think it should net me +16? No.

Note: I am very fond of the -2,+0,+1,+2,+3. It's genius, you always want the non proficient to be a negative, and the proficient, or the thing characters and NPCs use most of the time, to be the least amount of math. D&D 5ed actually shouldn't have done +2 proficient starting out, but instead -2 if not proficient, and baseline +0 for proficient.

In the GEN CON Q&A the designers got asked about the +1/level to everything, and they spent a very long time explaining why they did it. I think much of the answer was somewhat misguided, listening to people complain that there wizard sucks at grappling, or their fighter's will save sucks, etc. etc. I believe you need a healthy balance of clear weaknesses by each class, and not just limited to a -2 or +2.

If you support the current mechanic. I would love to hear viable reasons to maintain the +1/level mechanic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd agree with you that the +1 per level has issues.

Everyone's skill modifiers are only off each other's by a few point points per skill. For 60% of skill checks characters will largely get the same results.

What's bizarre about it is that a fighter without trying is only a few points off a wizard for arcana and occultism and a few points off a druid or cleric for medicine.

Beyond that making any sense from a character theme standpoint, there are couple of game play issues that I have with it. As a GM, I do want all players to feel that they can contribute to the party's success.

If everyone has a roughly the same chance of success on most skill checks, a huge portion of the player character's roles overlap. Either the GM has to direct who makes the checks and do something lame like go in a circle or try and be random, of if the players volunteer to do it, the more aggressive players will make all of the first checks.

Because has as strong a chance for success as everyone else, for less likely successful checks, every player will make a check, which is much more time consuming than if one or two players have a reasonable chance. If will make those encounters take longer.

For saves, what it means is that instead of one or two characters being significantly likely to succumb to something, there will be more circumstances where every character succumbs, and more circumstances where no one succumbs. If everyone succumbs to poison or charms, that's a total party kill. If the DCs are lowered to avoid that, then it will be more frequent that no one succumbs, and that kills a part of the drama and conflict and adventure of it. It's not bad if the barbarian occasionally gets charmed or the wizard gets poisoned. If everyone does, that is bad. If no ever does, that's also bad.

I hate it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's my biggest gripe with the system so far too. It's silly that a level 20 Wizard is an even match with a level 15 Fighter for arm wrestling (or mighty close - the stat difference actually closes with leveling since you get 4 stats boosted every 5 levels). And AC increasing by level makes the range of balanced enemies very small compared to what you can throw at a party in 5th. Combined with full Hitpoint gain each level and you can outlevel things quickly.

I would rather see level drop to lvl/2 or so and increase the gap in the proficiency tiers (maybe -3/0/+1/+3/+5).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yep, this is the mechanic I loathe. I posted my suggestions in another thread a couple of hours ago.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2vasf?Suggestion-Removing-level-bonus-to

Essentially, just remove your level from all of those calculations. The Bestiary works by subtracting the monster level from those stats. The end result is a zero change in like level comparisons, it makes lower level monsters more relevant longer, and it allows characters to reach further up. The range of viable opposition is expanded beyond level +/- 4.

We already have lots of ways to grow in power, we gain HP, we increase our proficiency, we get access to higher quality weapons and armor, we get magic armors and weapons, we deal significantly more damage, have access to more and more powerful spells etc. We do not need the artificial number bloat this created.

Whether or not Piazo figures it out and changes it or not, I'll be running it this way at my table. I hate hate hate bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers. And don't get me started on table 10-2 on page 337. *Shiver*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GrandReaper wrote:
I would rather see level drop to lvl/2 or so and increase the gap in the proficiency tiers (maybe -3/0/+1/+3/+5).

+1 to this, though I'd be fine with keeping it at a full level if the difference between tiers is still something you can feel in your die rolls. I'm fine with my angry anarchist Barbarian picking up enough decorum over time to be able to hold a conversation with a noble, but I'm not fine with a Barbarian with 6 Charisma and untrained Diplomacy being able to potentially beat a Legendary diplomat Bard with 22 Charisma and a Circlet of Persuasion with a roll of 16+


I like the current system. It allows more customization. I really dislike being pigeon-holed with your X+Int trained skills, and then locked into them unless you spend a feat to expand your skill list later. I normally don't plan out my character from the start: my character evolves as time goes on. I might emphasis certain skills at the start, then later switch it up. Just follow the Starfinder approach please.


I'm thinking the proficiency scale should be non-linear. It's one point to go from 1-5, 2 points to go from 6-10, 3 points to go from 11-15 and 4 to go from 16-20. There's 16 skills not counting lore. Give PCs 10 skill points/level +INT bonus to distribute as they see fit. (or heck, give them the same number of skill points as their int score). And no going partway to the next skill level when you level. You either hold onto those skill points or put them into something you haven't got a lot of points in.

You'll see a lot of "i got the basics" down but very little "I'm the greatest ever". Once you get past 5, which IMHO is (Or should be) a basic grasp of something, the number of people who are that good at it should fall away dramatically.

I think it's a relatively simple fix.


I don't see much of a problem with a linear progression. I can see the case for a 1/2 level progression, and honestly that might even be my preference, but anything less than that would be difficult for me to accept. I had many issues with 5e, but one of many was the fact that 20 (I think; it's been a while since I tested) first level characters with longbows could take down a dragon. In addition, the critical system in 2e makes level matter to a degree that I like, at least to my limited calculations. The action advantage of many lower level enemies is mitigated by the lower chance to crit, while the reverse is true for higher level enemies. It's not mathematically equal, but it's actually surprisingly close, and provides a different type of challenge, even for equally leveled encounters based on the encounter design of the Playtest bestairy. I feel that 1/2 level could perhaps provide a better feel, but as is, I don't see an issue besides the pace of advancement relative to enemies (which can somewhat be mitigated with the advanced template provided)


I played 4e. I can accept this mechanic for PF2, but I am not wowed by it. There's good and bad.

Good
It means higher level characters get better at things (which we all agree should happen), and it's simple and easy to remember.

It demonstrates an attention to keeping PCs playing in about the same ballpark, even if you can still have a pretty huge gap in skills (level -3 Diplomacy for a gruff dwarf, or level +5 for a suave . . . goblin).

When it comes to lore, it represents that adventurers ought to just pick up on some things. Yeah, I'm okay with a 10th level barbarian being able to see a neh-thalggu and figure out what it can do.

I have no problem with a 15th level wizard being able to climb a rope with ease. The 20th level druid knows how to get one over on some simple townsfolk, even if he's not trained in bluff. Heck, I don't mind that the 5th level dwarf who's lived on a mountain his whole life can handle himself swimming in deep water. He's a hero; he'll figure it out.

Bad
A paralyzed 10th level character is harder to hit than a paralyzed 1st level character.

You have to update every number on your sheet every time you level, but since you're probably facing higher level foes now, all those changes don't actually change things.

Big numbers are harder to add in your head than small ones. Not by much, but really, what is gained by having a high level monster roll d20+27 instead of d20+7?

It's a little weird that every mid- or high-level character is a deft hand with every musical instrument ever.

My Preference
On the balance, it seems like a harmless mechanic, but a few tweaks could help. Maybe untrained should only granted half your level as a bonus. Maybe you should be able to Take 10 (just as in PF1) if you're at least Expert?


I like the idea of linking the progression scale more with the proficiency, so that its a combination of both their level and proficiency tier that decides what the bonus is. Likely going to be some that hate the idea but what I was planning on using is...

Trained = level / 5
Expert = level / 4
Master = level / 3
Legendary = level / 2

Increasing the proficiency requires that the related ability score be at a specific value or higher.

Trained >= 12
Expert >= 16
Master >= 20
Legendary >= 24

If the related ability score drops below the required level for any reason then the character would temporarily drop down to the appropriate proficiency for where their ability score is currently at.

Finally changing the way that Signature skills work so that they're not gating Master/Legendary but instead reduce the required ability score for those skills by 1 tier.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that some people are misunderstanding me. I totally agree with the fact that, the proficiency spectrum of -2 + 0 +1 +2 +3 does do exactly what we need to have a variance in the skill of characters. What I am trying to convey is that you don't need to, nor should you make the level bonuses go all the way up to 20 or more, in other words the +1/level. I would like them to be not +1/lvl, but around the same amount as all the other factors, which are ability, magic buffs, spell buffs, armor, circumstances and so on.
Now there is a very big advantage to having a bunch of inflated numbers, and that advantage is that you sell more content, you can fill your bestiary with more monsters, in fact thats exactly what D&D 4thed did they had numerous monster stats that were just level differences of the same creature, because you can make one monster several different level. and so on you see where I'm going with this. The bounded accuracy of 5thed avoided tons of monster splat books, because all the monster are relevant at all levels of play. That's great for the hobby, not so great for sales maybe. This is just a speculation. I think maybe the designers were pressured into the +1 to everything / level system. I'll bet you anything there were some designers who wanted to call this out. But some how it didn't get voiced. I refuse to believe competent Pathfinder Players/designers would come up with something so meaningless as +1 to EVERYTHING/level.

I went through the bestiary, and every creature has the same +1/level to everything. Bounded accuracy worked for 5thed. There could be a happy medium, Paizo is poised to make an exceptional system. If they adopt the +1 to everything / level I think they will miss the mark. I for one would play it after bastardizing the system where I take away the level bonus. Their is no point for my characters to roll 17 + 34 targeting an AC 45, When they can just as easily roll 17 +14 targeting an AC 25. Its the same exact math, same percentages. Its misguided to think the former numbers are simulating "skill" better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am really glad we're getting rid of the skill points straight jacket from PF1. Especially those characters that had little points per level, and so many to choose from. "Ehm no, my Paladin never put any points into swimming, climbing, ice skating..., i concentrated on religion and diplomacy"
This gets really annoying as DC's go up, but your skills don't, and the GM keeps telling you, to not even bother trying on relatively mundane tasks...

The TEML-system helps make everybody feel at least a little useful in every situation, but with the new crit-system it also allows characters to shine in their individual fields.
What's also great, they use it on different aspects aswell, like weapon quality. It's just easier to understand/explain to new players, when you can just say M means +2.
-
I have mixed feelings about the +1/level on everthing. I realise that this prevents level1's to tackle an adult dragon. But we're gonna get ridiculously high numbers, and it is always gonna come down to that +-5 margin that matters.
Maybe +1/2levels would keep the numbers a little more in check.


charissi wrote:

...and it is always gonna come down to that +-5 margin that matters.

...

A character really bad at something has -1 from the relevant ability, while someone particularly good at the same thing might start with a +4 ability modifier. And might have an item bonus on top.

On Level 1, the really bad untrained character is at -2 (-1 ability, -2 untrained, +1 level), while the invested character could start out at (+4 ability, +1 level, +1 if expert, +1 with item = ) +7.

This gap only expands slowly, but it does over the course of levels, with ability modifiers, proficiency bonuses and item bonuses rising for the invested character, whereas the really bad untrained character will most likely stay at [level-3].

Yes, that's the extremes.
But that's a good thing about the system in my view: There are bounds. Without circumstance and conditional modifiers, at level 20 the bonus can only be between +17 and +35 (IIRC), while in PF1 it was somewhere between -2 and +50 or so for any given skill.

Also: yes, this system is building a narrative as well. High level characters are superheroes/demigods/... And I like that
If you take away +level or adjust it down, that narrative is going away as well.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alchemaic wrote:
GrandReaper wrote:
I would rather see level drop to lvl/2 or so and increase the gap in the proficiency tiers (maybe -3/0/+1/+3/+5).
+1 to this, though I'd be fine with keeping it at a full level if the difference between tiers is still something you can feel in your die rolls. I'm fine with my angry anarchist Barbarian picking up enough decorum over time to be able to hold a conversation with a noble, but I'm not fine with a Barbarian with 6 Charisma and untrained Diplomacy being able to potentially beat a Legendary diplomat Bard with 22 Charisma and a Circlet of Persuasion with a roll of 16+

I also think the +1 per level is way too much and offsets any difference that untrained/trained/expert provides. IMO the lvl/2 is plenty sufficient (may be even too generous) and I would also increase the gap in the proficiency tiers as suggested above (-3/0/+1/+3/+5).

I find it totally unbelievable that an Untrained level 4 character (skills at -1+4=3) is better than a Trained level 1 character (skills at +1+1=2). Try equating that to a person trained in a musical instrument - a level 10 PC should not be getting bonuses to Perform without ever investing any effort (i.e. skill training) into it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shade2077 wrote:

...

I find it totally unbelievable that an Untrained level 4 character (skills at -1+4=3) is better than a Trained level 1 character (skills at +1+1=2). Try equating that to a person trained in a musical instrument - a level 10 PC should not be getting bonuses to Perform without ever investing any effort (i.e. skill training) into it.

And I can totally see that working.

Person A: untrained in a piano can play a simple tune ("Twinkle twinkle little star").
Person B: trained playing the piano can read a sheet of music and play more complex tunes.

A might be better (and in fact has a ~5% bonus on B) in simple tasks, but anything that requires training (like reading and playing from sheet) A just can't attempt. No matter if A is 3 levels or 10 levels higher than B.

That is even backed up on Table 4-1 (page 143): An untrained person can perform, but only a trained person can Stage a Performance ( = make money).

Scarab Sages

Franz Lunzer, you made some good points. Do you have any comments that address my original post?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's always the idea of *gasp* not using a d20 for randomness. Maybe it's 1/2 skill point / level and you use a d10 for variance.

I mean, they sell us those dice in packs of 6.

Point is that with a d20 that first level character rolls a nat 20 and that high level character rolls a nat 1 and the first level character is up by +19. Yeah, it doesn't happen often, but think of the combinations that occur to give the 1st level character a +15 over the high level character.

Also it'll reduce your DC numbers a bunch.

If you want to think of it a different way, think of it as automatically "taking 10" on every roll.


Luceon wrote:
Franz Lunzer, you made some good points. Do you have any comments that address my original post?

Not really,

derail:
because, as I said in a previous post, I like the narrative that +level builds into the system.

If you don't like that Superhero/demigod/... narrative baked into the system, you can change +level to +(level/2) or +(level/4) or simply leave it out completely. You have to rework some DC's, and think about the balance of hitpoints if you have a fight with a high difference in level (i.e. goblins level 1 vs. PC's level 20), but the system seems to work, from a maths perspective. (My first game will be on Saturday.)

The things I picked up on here were that proficiences is a 5 point range, but that's not the whole range of difference two characters can have, and that simply because you have a high bonus doesn't mean you can do all things better than someone lower level.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
charissi wrote:

I am really glad we're getting rid of the skill points straight jacket from PF1. Especially those characters that had little points per level, and so many to choose from. "Ehm no, my Paladin never put any points into swimming, climbing, ice skating..., i concentrated on religion and diplomacy"

This gets really annoying as DC's go up, but your skills don't, and the GM keeps telling you, to not even bother trying on relatively mundane tasks...

The TEML-system helps make everybody feel at least a little useful in every situation, but with the new crit-system it also allows characters to shine in their individual fields.
What's also great, they use it on different aspects aswell, like weapon quality. It's just easier to understand/explain to new players, when you can just say M means +2.
-
I have mixed feelings about the +1/level on everthing. I realise that this prevents level1's to tackle an adult dragon. But we're gonna get ridiculously high numbers, and it is always gonna come down to that +-5 margin that matters.
Maybe +1/2levels would keep the numbers a little more in check.

Except that always worked really well. A newbie in stealth could never defeat a master of perception. But even a relatively untrained character could do most basic things, since they had static DCs (e.g. first aid was always 15, control mount in combat was always a 5, climbing DCs were static based on the wall material, etc.) Now, the expectation is clearly that you'll always face obstacles that have leveled with you.

In PF1, I could throw a DC 15 wall at a group of level 8 characters, and some would struggle while others made it easily, making it a group exercise. In PF2, everyone will scale the same DC 15 wall in one or two attempts.If I want it to challenge some, I have to figure out some DC based on their level, instead of being able to drop a specific, logical obstacle that scales to the player's level, like putting thorns on the wall or something that might not jibe with what I had intended for the wall to be.

And before we get arguments of "well, in the course of adventuring, everybody learned about everything": no, that's not how learning works. It's not even how adventuring works. The wizard will never climb a wall in his life - he'll fly over it, or at low levels, the fighter will hoist him up. He's never going to get more experienced at climbing because he'll never have a reason to climb enough for it to be worthwhile - he has better things to spend his time on. The PF2 system subverts that, meaning that the wizard who never tried to better himself at climbing or had any reason to practice repeatedly during adventures is now nearly the fighter's equal.

In PF1, since you had to invest points to increase the skill significantly, you could justify this as "the wizard spent time every night trying to climb trees". There's no way the wizard spent time every night practicing every skill to the point he could have seen gains in every one.


Franz Lunzer wrote:
Luceon wrote:
Franz Lunzer, you made some good points. Do you have any comments that address my original post?
Not really, ** spoiler omitted **

Only a Mary Sue superhero is good at everything. Most are skilled in some areas, but not in others. Almost like a different edition of this game...

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Another way to handle +1 per level progression All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game