|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you ok with a 10th level Wizard untrained in athletics with a 10 strength, ie +8 routinely beating a level 1 barbarian with 18 strength, +5 in an arm wrestling match? Are we ok with every single higher level character obsoleting the other specialists lower level accomplishments. Are we ok with a high level character being better at everything than any lower level specialist, often untrained?
This specifically is game killer to me. destroys immersion. adding levels to everything removes customization, nerfs skills characters, and was a major reason i cant seem to get into dungeons and dragons recently. i know we are trying to do something different here...but lets not copy my most hated version of D&D please...
|
Wow this a pretty good discussion on Bounded vs Unbound system. While I think I have a small tilt towards Bounded (Currently Running DnD 4e without the 1/2 level adjustment, cause players got burnt out fast on the lack of content being added to 5e, and some of them find pathfinder 1 just too complex) I think it falls down to 1 of 2 things.
1 I think the extreme heroics and mythical legendary progression of natural skill falls in line with the Designers personal preference, or 2. they will never consider Bounded system, because dnd 5e does it and they want something to just scream "This is different"
I also saw +1/level and immediately thought "Hey I could super easily drop that part!"
It seems to me, from a design standpoint, that if seeing +1/level was something that people feel they could "super easily drop", then maybe that is a design decision that should be re-evaluated.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go to page 337. Look at table 10-2 titled Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. That is an abomination, it is also very representative of a major problem with P2: adding your level to everything, especially when it is mostly unnecessary.
......
By removing your level from everything you have zero impact against things of equal level to the party. That balance point is completely unchanged, all that needs to be adjusted are your recommendations for effective encounters for xp. Against weaker things you can keep them relevant a lot longer, while simultaneously allowing the party to riskily...
@Zman0 I agree with you basically 100%. The +level scaling is another holy relic from the past that needs to be sacrificed.
The ideas that +level provides progression or power are really just illusions. I'll write a longer post later when I have time to clearly lay out my arguments, but I definitely vote for a bounded system and feel that it is superior to an unbounded/elevator system.
make nothing per level as default system.
Add option to add +1 per level to characters and monsters in bestiary.
Or vice versa.
Just put both in, so we don't have to house rule it and second guess how much did we frakked up the balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ideas that +level provides progression or power are really just illusions. I'll write a longer post later when I have time to clearly lay out my arguments, but I definitely vote for a bounded system and feel that it is superior to an unbounded/elevator system.
Please read up thread where I dispute some of the common arguments against a +lvl system before you post and addres or consider those points. I look forward to reading your argument.
make nothing per level as default system.
Add option to add +1 per level to characters and monsters in bestiary.
Or vice versa.
Just put both in, so we don't have to house rule it and second guess how much did we frakked up the balance.
I expect they will have a side at for removing the +lvl but leave +lvl as default. PF2 is Golarion incorporated and Golarion is a very high magic heroic fantasy setting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please read up thread where I dispute some of the common arguments against a +lvl system before you post and addres or consider those points. I look forward to reading your argument.
The ideas that +level provides progression or power are really just illusions. I'll write a longer post later when I have time to clearly lay out my arguments, but I definitely vote for a bounded system and feel that it is superior to an unbounded/elevator system.
I have been reading along, will definitely try to address your points in a constructive manner. =)
On the topic of publishing options for removing +level and/or doing 2 bestiaries:
I don't think either of these things addresses the underlying point. I would argue bounded is better, and if P2 gets published unbounded, the damage is already done and a DM option sidebar isn't really going to fix it because all the published material will have +level incorporated, and as a DM having to subtract it for everything for creatures and hazards of various levels would be a nightmare.
A bounded bestiary sounds great, but Paizo and other developers are highly unlikely to publish everything in 2 formats. Second Edition is (as I think they have stated) a chance to sacrifice the holy cows of the past and try to make a better system. Deciding bounded versus unbounded is THE biggest decision they have to make. Rather than debate sidebar options or double bestiaries, I think we are better off trying to grind through our differences to weigh the pros and cons of bounded versus unbounded and help Paizo make the best decision.
The think I like BEST about 5E is that it is bounded. It may not be perfect, but I think those are imperfections in design that can be overcome and not an inherent flaw with bounded systems.
Are you ok with a 10th level Wizard untrained in athletics with a 10 strength, ie +8 routinely beating a level 1 barbarian with 18 strength, +5 in an arm wrestling match? Are we ok with every single higher level character obsoleting the other specialists lower level accomplishments. Are we ok with a high level character being better at everything than any lower level specialist, often untrained?
This specifically is game killer to me. destroys immersion. adding levels to everything removes customization, nerfs skills characters, and was a major reason i cant seem to get into dungeons and dragons recently. i know we are trying to do something different here...but lets not copy my most hated version of D&D please...
I have never and can never expect to have characters roll a "arm wresting" check.
Bab = +1/level
Maximum 3+ level skill ranks = 1/level
same concept.
Actual new concept
+1/level to AC (its kind of replacing all the items you used to have to do that. )
It doesn't have to have any other meaning then what you mentally assign to it. Thats why you will not convince each other. One side has no problem imagining high level characters are just better at everything. while the other side can't or doesn't want to.
Its a preference thing.
In response to the Original post.
I think your solution is TOO extreme. Remember, we are playing pathfinder and are Pathfinder players here.
Many came here because they didn't like 4e (with it's powers system and the start of bounded accuracy as an idea).
Others prefer the way Pathfinder does things to how 5e does things (ala...they do not like bounded accuracy).
In both groups, deflating combat numbers to the way 5e does it would be an anathema.
Hence, I think you HAVE to keep the +1/level for combat related bonuses (plus...I actually prefer that myself being one who absolutely LOATHES 5e).
On the otherhand, with all those who did not like 4e (I did like 4e but I saw serious problems arise from this) the escalating skill table on page 337 is an abomination. It is an instant turn off and would need to go.
In that, I think you may find a LOT of allies if you narrow it simply to dealing with just the skills portion of it.
I may not be in favor of a bonded accuracy idea of skills, but I don't like the escalating DCs either as I think it's a one way route to the same failures that 4e had.
I DO LOVE the way skills are handled otherwise with this system. Making it so skills are available to everyone, but keeping many of the better abilities with skills hidden behind skill feats and limited to certain classes with signature skills at the higher levels is actually pretty awesome. I actually really love the elegance of it and how it operates.
I could favor a system that does not add the +1 bonus/level for skills.
HOWEVER, that does not mean I want it to apply to everything. There is a REASON I play Pathfinder, and it's specifically is because it is NOT like 5e.
If I wanted to play 5e, I would PLAY 5e as my main game rather than pathfinder.
I want to keep the +1/level in regards to other things as it's easy to remember and simple to apply while at the same time elevating a characters power differentiating them between a lowly 1st level character and that of a higher level character (say...20th level).
I want it where a 1st level character stands NO chance at all against a 10th level character, and that 10th level character might even laugh and yawn at the 1st level characters feeble attempts to even hit them, much less hurt them.
I want spells and saves to be reflective of power and experience.
However, with skills, as they already have skill feats and abilities gated behind training (trained, expert, master, legendary) they already have another subsystem reflecting how much better one is at things at one level than at another. Thus, yes, I wouldn't mind doing away with the escalating DCs and other things.
But I do NOT want that same principle applied to everything. Skills...that's fine.
Anything else...no way in heck. Let's keep the +1/level unless I see something better to reflect combat and magical prowess.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bab = +1/level
Maximum 3+ level skill ranks = 1/level
same concept.Actual new concept
+1/level to AC (its kind of replacing all the items you used to have to do that. )It doesn't have to have any other meaning then what you mentally assign to it. Thats why you will not convince each other. One side has no problem imagining high level characters are just better at everything. while the other side can't or doesn't want to.
Its a preference thing.
I disagree. I would argue that bounded is better for a variety of game design reasons, not just because some prefer it. Let's focus on game design objectives and how well bounded versus unbounded systems perform.
Simplified example
(considering ONLY proficiency bonus, assuming going from trained to legend):
Unbounded:
Level 1: +1 attack, 10+1 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Level 20: +23 (+20+3) attack, 10+20+3 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Results:
-Chance to hit an opponent of ~level is the same at level 1 or 20
Pros:
-Absolute Power Growth: Level 20 characters much more powerful than level 1 characters. However, this is not useful from a game design standpoint because it is calibrated for scenarios that are uninteresting and rare. This benefit is an illusion (more on this later). The game should be designed for the common gameplay case which is challenges against reasonable opponents. You may argue that +level gives you more design space, but it really doesn't. We are still rolling d20s which means that your design space is already bound to a success chance in the range 5%-100%. Adding +20 to both the roll and DC does nothing to chance that. At the end of the day, the thing that matters is your chance to succeed at a task of difficulty X against challenge Y. Everything else is just numbers.
Cons:
-Understanding: Big numbers are hard to understand. Bonuses make less sense. At level 1 a +2 bonus from flanking sounds super powerful! At level 20 a +2 bonus when I am already adding +20 seems insignificant. HOWEVER, +2 is still a bonus 10% chance to hit, which is important, but that is no longer obvious.
-Inconsistent: True value and power of a number vary by level. Look at X spell or item that gives me AC 30! Is that good? I don't know, depends on what level you are. Let me do the math. You have to constantly mentally subtract various level values from various things to compare them.
-Complexity: Lots of extra math adding +level everywhere (or mentally subtracting level).
Bounded:
Level 1: +0 attack, 10+0 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Level 20: +3 attack, 10+3 AC -> 45% chance to hit (roll 10+)
Results:
-Chance to hit an opponent of ~level is the same at level 1 or 20
Pros:
-Understanding: Small numbers are easier to understand. Numbers always make sense in context. A +2 bonus always feels important when your typical bonus ranges from -2 to +3.
-Consistent: Bonuses and DCs make sense regardless of level. DC20 is always fairly difficult. AC30 is always powerful.
-Less math.
-Characters get slightly more powerful numerically, giving high level characters an advantage, which makes sense. This advantage is not super large, which makes it easier to find a wide range of monsters to use as an interesting challenge for the players. The game is designed around reasonable encounters.
Cons:
-Static skill challenges are not overcome very quickly as you level.
I feel like the design goals should be the following:
-Characters get more powerful as they level.
-The game supports creating interesting balanced encounters.
-Combat scales with level and stays balanced (chances to hit are always in a reasonable range) for encounters that are interesting and challenging.
-Skill challenges that vary by level stay balanced.
-Skill challenges that are static start out balanced and become easier.
Bounded systems can do ALL these things while keeping the math and numbers easy to understand. That makes life easier for new players, DMs, and game developers. The numerical range from level 1 to 20 may be smaller, but again, the only thing that matters when creating good gameplay and interesting challenges that are level appropriate is the % chance to fail or succeed.
The ONLY advantage that unbounded systems have is that they more quickly make static skill challenges easy to pass, with the downside that a level 20 wizard is uncharacteristically good at athletics.
But that doesn't make a bounded system bad. How could we fix this? Two options (we can use either or both):
1.) Every time you get a skill feat, it gives you a +1 bonus to that skill. This is like a soft +level elevator that lifts characters up above static challenges. But it's better! Because it is tied to feats, it lets THE PLAYER CHOOSE. By focusing on certain skill feats they get to choose which skills they level up. This is the same benefit that having proficiency introduces. You are better at the things you are proficient in and that you focus on. It's not just a blanket +level.
2.) Add traits/proficiencies to ordinary static skill challenges that allow you to automatically succeed. Imagine Table 10-3 like this (written vertically so its easier to read):
Balance on a fallen log
Level 1
Difficulty Adjustments: Narrow, rotten, slippery
Trivial: Level 9 or Expert in Acrobatics
In fact, as written, the Playtest in the rules on page 336-337, already effectively uses option 2! The rules list ordinary tasks that become trivial after a certain level. This same thing could be done in a bounded system. Which means that the unbounded +level isn't really needed even for overcoming static skill checks.
Adding +level to everything just inflates the numbers and makes them hard to understand. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters for good and interesting gameplay is balanced success chances (which are tied to the 5%-100% of the d20, NOT the +level you add to each roll).
Adding big numbers to a roll is the illusion of power. Rolling big damage dice feels good and makes more sense. Rolling big numbers that boil down to 5%-100% success chance doesn't.
And in terms of progression, which is better:
A.) Every level I get a cool feat that gives me customization, and sometimes I get a +1 bonus to something specific.
B.) Every level I get a +1 bonus that is opposed by a +1 DC and turns out to be a +0 bonus instead.
|
|
If anyone is interested, I'm running a play by post arena. Essentially its running a pair of level 4 characters through an arena of varied challenges. I'm offering it Bound and Unbound. Good place to learn P2 and show some of the bound/unbound stuff.
Here is the thread where I explain it better.
Planning on running it on another forum because that's the one I'm familiar with. Want to compare character in bound/unbound or try out concepts or just play some P2, come and give the Arena a go.
Sounds cool, I'll probably come join!
|
|
In response to the Original post.
I think your solution is TOO extreme. Remember, we are playing pathfinder and are Pathfinder players here.
Many came here because they didn't like 4e (with it's powers system and the start of bounded accuracy as an idea).
Others prefer the way Pathfinder does things to how 5e does things (ala...they do not like bounded accuracy).
In both groups, deflating combat numbers to the way 5e does it would be an anathema.
Hence, I think you HAVE to keep the +1/level for combat related bonuses (plus...I actually prefer that myself being one who absolutely LOATHES pathfinder).
On the otherhand, with all those who did not like 4e (I did like 4e but I saw serious problems arise from this) the escalating skill table on page 337 is an abomination. It is an instant turn off and would need to go.
In that, I think you may find a LOT of allies if you narrow it simply to dealing with just the skills portion of it.
I may not be in favor of a bonded accuracy idea of skills, but I don't like the escalating DCs either as I think it's a one way route to the same failures that 4e had.
I DO LOVE the way skills are handled otherwise with this system. Making it so skills are available to everyone, but keeping many of the better abilities with skills hidden behind skill feats and limited to certain classes with signature skills at the higher levels is actually pretty awesome. I actually really love the elegance of it and how it operates.
I could favor a system that does not add the +1 bonus/level for skills.
HOWEVER, that does not mean I want it to apply to everything. There is a REASON I play Pathfinder, and it's specifically is because it is NOT like 5e.
If I wanted to play 5e, I would PLAY 5e as my main game rather than pathfinder.
I want to keep the +1/level in regards to other things as it's easy to remember and simple to apply while at the same time elevating a characters power differentiating them between a lowly 1st level character and that of a higher...
But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.
At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.
And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?
There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.
But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.
At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.
And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?
There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.
It's only an illusion of power if you ONLY fight against equal level threats always.
For those who play otherwise, it's a VERY real way to express differences of power.
If you go fight a bunch of goblins that have 6 HP and are equivalent to level 1 creatures, they may have a +6 to hit and an AC of 14.
For a 10th level character in leather armor who has an AC of 27, the goblins suddenly have a very HARD time of hitting that character. In addition, that 10th level character has at least a +8 (though normally a +10 or greater) to hit the goblin. That goblin is excessively easy to do away with. In fact, that 10th level character could probably wade through 20 goblins with ease and not worry that much about getting hit. If they do, it probably would be three or four hits (not that threatening to a 10th level characters HP).
On the otherhand, in a system that is like 5e, that same 10th level character may only have a +4 to hit those goblins (+3 if they are equivalent of that +8 character above). In addition, the goblins have a +6 chance to hit that characters AC of 16. Suddenly, it's not just those 20 goblins they can face, a goblin has a 50% chance of hitting that character. 10 goblins are going to MURDER that 10th level character...this guy is no Hercules, no Aragorn, and definitely not representative of half the fantasy tropes out there.
Numbers DO represent REAL differences in power and ability. It's not illusionary.
As you pointed out, if you had every game session slaughtering goblins...it may turn out boring...but we don't play ever game session like that.
But we don't want the same type of threat every game session either...we want VARIETY and that includes variety in power.
So, we can fight those goblins, we can also face off with threats that are equal to ourselves...and...we can even face off with threats that are FAR above us, see the BBEG for how powerful he is...hopefully make the wise decision to run away and then build ourselves up over time to eventually face him (yeah, the entire idea of a small hero slowly gaining power and eventually being able to challenge the BBEG is also a major fantasy trope)...we want that variety of gaming.
Edit - Pathfinder IS about the customization that one has, but it also is about the tier system and multiple ways to play. It's about customization...not just in character building, but adventure building and playing the game.
|
|
But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.
At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.
And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?
There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.
It's only an illusion of power if you ONLY fight against equal level threats always.
For those who play otherwise, it's a VERY real way to express differences of power.
If you go fight a bunch of goblins that have 6 HP and are equivalent to level 1 creatures, they may have a +6 to hit and an AC of 14.
For a 10th level character in leather armor who has an AC of 27, the goblins suddenly have a very HARD time of hitting that character. In addition, that 10th level character has at least a +8 (though normally a +10 or greater) to hit the goblin. That goblin is excessively easy to do away with. In fact, that 10th level character could probably wade through 20 goblins with ease and not worry that much about getting hit. If they do, it probably would be three or four hits (not that threatening to a 10th level characters HP).
On the otherhand, in a system that is like 5e,...
But you can do all that in a bounded system, but with the added benefit of numbers that make more sense and less math!
In both systems, you roll a d20 and that determines your 5%-100% chance of success.
If you want to be powerful and wade through goblins, the DM provides you goblins that have 6 hp, you hit 85% of the time (roll a 4+), and have only a 5% chance to hit you on a natural 20. They can do the opposite too, where you have a low chance to hit and a high chance to be hit by the BBEG and the best you can do is trick him through smart gameplay (which is invariant to numbers in a bound/unbound system) or survive long enough to run away.
You can have the gameplay you want in both systems. A bounded system doesn't mean you don't get to be powerful, it just means the math makes sense. But in the unbounded system you have bonuses and DCs with ever increasing and hard to understand numbers, and in the unbound system the numbers are smaller, make more sense, and are consistent.
Wow, that was a string of meaty posts.
The +1/level isn't illusionary when compared to opponents above and below you. It does create a relatively limited +/-4lvl zone of valid competition. With Bounded that changes to more +/-8lvls.
With the other thread I moved towards not trying to prove people who like a diffent style of play wrong, but finding a way for the beautiful core system to serve both kinds of playstyles.
I've been a 3.P player and was constantly frustrated, to the point I can't stomach another game of it. With +1/lvl, I will not play P2. Or if I do it will be modified. I am not a lone in that sentiment. What we want to see is support for out playstyle.
I do welcome you to try the different styles out and see what it feel like in my Arnea.
And that I can appreciate.
Go to page 337. Look at table 10-2 titled Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. That is an abomination...
An abomination? I'm glad to see we're out of the hyperbole phase. ;-)
Meanwhile, I'll just cross-post this:
I think a good way of summarizing "+level to everything" is that it effectively makes level the most important stat. If you can make peace with that, then the rest of 2E really falls into place. On the other hand, if you can't, then you are probably deeply unhappy with 2E.
I think it is key to keeping everyone on a (mostly-level) playing field, so Joe McCasual isn't completely useless next to Hugh G. Optimizer. But it is relatively narrativist -- or game-ist, if you prefer -- and that just rubs some people the wrong way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go to page 337. Look at table 10-2 titled Skill DCs by Level and Difficulty. That is an abomination...An abomination? I'm glad to see we're out of the hyperbole phase. ;-)
Meanwhile, I'll just cross-post this:
I think a good way of summarizing "+level to everything" is that it effectively makes level the most important stat. If you can make peace with that, then the rest of 2E really falls into place. On the other hand, if you can't, then you are probably deeply unhappy with 2E.
I think it is key to keeping everyone on a (mostly-level) playing field, so Joe McCasual isn't completely useless next to Hugh G. Optimizer. But it is relatively narrativist -- or game-ist, if you prefer -- and that just rubs some people the wrong way.
Respectfully @buglyman, I have to entirely disagree.
1.) +1/level to everything is a meaningless stat BECAUSE it gets added to everything. Every character gets +1/level to attack and AC. So it does literally nothing. The only thing it does is ensure that opponents that are many levels below you are impotent and uninteresting, and opponents way above you are almost impossible.
If you want to make a hard or easy encounter, the only important distinction is the RELATIVE numbers between the PCs and the NPCs, not the absolute numbers of +1 or +20.
The key to keeping everyone on a level playing field is what Paizo already did with 2E which was limit how many bonuses you could stack. Things gets wonky when Hugh G. Optimizer can stack an enhancement bonus with a divine bonus with a +5 weapon with a ... But in 2E you get basically proficiency (level + -2 to +3) plus an ability bonus (which is harder to buff up now) plus an item bonus and a conditional bonus. That's about it. The ability/item/conditional bonuses are the only important ones because they add the variation. The +1/level is just a bloated way to make all the numbers (both +roll and DC) bigger. Does that make sense?
Respectfully @buglyman, I have to entirely disagree.1.) +1/level to everything is a meaningless stat BECAUSE it gets added to everything. Every character gets +1/level to attack and AC. So it does literally nothing. The only thing it does is ensure that opponents that are many levels below you are impotent and uninteresting, and opponents way above you are almost impossible.
If you want to make a hard or easy encounter, the only important distinction is the RELATIVE numbers between the PCs and the NPCs, not the absolute numbers of +1 or +20.
The key to keeping everyone on a level playing field is what Paizo already did with 2E which was limit how many bonuses you could stack. Things gets wonky when Hugh G. Optimizer can stack an enhancement bonus with a divine bonus with a +5 weapon with a ... But in 2E you get basically proficiency (level + -2 to +3) plus an ability bonus (which is harder to buff up now) plus an item bonus and a conditional bonus. That's about it. The ability/item/conditional bonuses are the only important ones because they add the variation. The +1/level is just a bloated way to make all the numbers (both +roll and DC) bigger. Does that make sense?
Ah yes, it does. I understand now. I should have written "I think it is key to keeping everyone on a (mostly-level) playing field WHILE allowing for a sense of progression." That's what I get fro drive-by posting... ;-)
If I understand your argument correctly, you're saying that the progression is an illusion, because DCs will just scale with you as you level. I don't think that's true. The book takes pains to clarify that a tree is just a tree, and that the difficulty of a given task doesn't scale. It's just that as you level up, you're generally facing harder tasks -- but if you went and found that tree, it would now be trivial. I'll admit I've not read the whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed, but I don't see how you'd maintain the sense of growing power without some kind of scaling.
That does create the "level 15 wizard with no training is better with a flute than a level 4 bard" problem, but as others have pointed out much better, I think the untrained-> trained-> expert-> master-> legendary progression can handle many of the weird artifacts of scaling; they'll just have to be sure that they're careful about what they let you do untrained. Playing a musical instrument, for example, should be trained only (excepting drums, perhaps?).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the unified skill system removing the +lvl would mean that certain things always have a risk of failure. Like climbing a basic wall or identifying a low level spell. With scaling the PCs basically auto succeed at low level tasks.
This is what the Proficiency system should be used for. If you're Untrained, then yeah there should be a chance to fail basic skill uses. If you're Trained, then you should be able to pass basic skill uses. And so on. Each level of Proficiency should allow for greater and better uses of skills. Someone Legendary should be able to do far greater things than someone just Trained.
A better system would be if they got rid of the Character Level as Modifier and, at least for Skills, make it so every tier of Proficiency in skills just adds a +5 modifier to that Skill. Keep the standard DC chart.
And I'd only do this for Skills.
But I'm all for making the game have more Bounded Accuracy. I think changing the Character Level as Modifier to Half your Character Level could also work. Instead of +1 to +20 swingyness, make it +1 to +10 instead.
I have been reading through both sides of this debate and I find it interesting. Both sides have valid points. It seems silly to add character level to all of the die rolls on both sides when the characters and their opposition are of equal or nearly equal level. But it also doesn't feel right to have high level characters outclassing low level characters 'just because'. Especially on things that the high level character hasn't put any effort into training.
As a compromise, I suggest having limited benefit of the various tiers of proficiency. Characters that put training into a skill or a weapon can get full benefit of their level. Characters that don't put any training into it, don't get any benefit.
So keep the +1/level for the proficiency bonus, but cap the level bonus based on proficiency tier.
Untrained would add nothing to the roll for proficiency. You are relying solely on your raw natural ability. That will prevent random high level wizard from challenging the town blacksmiths to an arm wrestling match.
Trained or higher would add +1/level and the +1 for each tier higher than trained. But they would cap the level bonus at some point. Say max 7 for trained; max 12 for expert; max 15 for master; max 20 for legendary.
That would still let the highly proficient rogue steal and sneak past everything. Especially lower level NPCs. The mid level sorcerer that trained up their stealth skill to master level could probably even keep up.
Now the downside to this would be how it would affect attack rolls, AC, and saves at high level. Martial characters with easy access to high tier weapon and armor proficiency would chew through clerics and wizards when in melee combat. Assuming that the wizards and clerics didn't blow him off the planet since mr. guy with pointy object has a terrible reflex save. Same goes with monsters. Combat heavy monsters would be comparatively really good against less combat trained player characters. And spell casting monsters would tear apart anyone not at high tier proficiency on their saves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just an illusion of power. Sure, rolling bigger damage dice is more powerful and fun. But that +20 attack roll? It's against an AC of 31, so you still only have a 50% chance to hit. The reason you have escalating DCs is BECAUSE the bonuses on rolls escalate by +1/level.
At the end of the day, balanced gameplay comes down to rolling a d20 and having a 5%-100% chance of success. Adding +level to both the roll and the DC doesn't change that, it just makes the number bigger.
And yes, adding +1/level to your rolls makes a level 10 numerically slaughter a level 1, but is that good gameplay? How much fun would it be if every play session your rolls had a 90% chance to hit and you only got hit 10% of the time? Would that feel like a challenge?
There problems with 4E and 5E were lack of customization. THAT is where Pathfinder shines. The new Pathfinder systems of feats, proficiencies per weapon/skill, greater use of critical success/failure, weapon crit specializations, multi-classing by feat, etc. all make Pathfinder awesome and have NOTHING to do with adding +1/level.
It's only an illusion of power if you ONLY fight against equal level threats always.
For those who play otherwise, it's a VERY real way to express differences of power.
There are other ways to represent power, rather than number porn; but, I guess, some like the whole "...but...but this goes to eleven..." deal.
This whole thread reeks of 2008/2012.
Tip: being rude(-ish) doesn't make people listen to you more it does the opposite.
I do not need your defensive, adversarial, nasty little tips, save it...please, for all of us...
Tip: You do not speak for "all of us."
I'm on a phone this weekend so I can't do long or involved posts. But another benefit to a more dramatically scaling system is that it acts to counter the advantages groups have in action economy. This helps with big monsters when it's four PCs vs a single monster the beast having a larger numerical advantage helps counter the fact it's outnumbered four to one and similarly helps the PCs vs groups of lower level foes. Of course in 5e they get around this by adding legendary actions and lair actions to monsters designed to be lone bosses. This is the more practical side of the army vs dragon anecdote. In a bound system action economy is proportionally steonger.
EDIT: I guess calling it a benefit is my own opinion. In a vacuum it is just a feature which may be good or bad depending.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm on a phone this weekend so I can't do long or involved posts. But another benefit to a more dramatically scaling system is that it acts to counter the advantages groups have in action economy. This helps with big monsters when it's four PCs vs a single monster the beast having a larger numerical advantage helps counter the fact it's outnumbered four to one and similarly helps the PCs vs groups of lower level foes. Of course in 5e they get around this by adding legendary actions and lair actions to monsters designed to be lone bosses. This is the more practical side of the army vs dragon anecdote. In a bound system action economy is proportionally steonger.
EDIT: I guess calling it a benefit is my own opinion. In a vacuum it is just a feature which may be good or bad depending.
But you don't need to add +level to everything to give the boss an advantage. You could add a template to a standard monster whose CR is equal to the party's level that give the monster +2 to everything and +X% hit points. It's EXACTLY the same encounter, but you get to use numbers that make sense.
In unbounded the boss rolls at +20. Is that good? I don't know, what level is he? If he is level 20 that a crappy bonus because standard AC at that point defaults to AC 30, but any reasonable PC is gonna have an AV closer to 36-40, which means the BOSS only has a 5-25% chance to hit.
In bounded, a boss with +20 to his roll is ALWAYS crazy. You know it just by looking at it. You can have easy, normal, or difficult challenges without the need to add level to everything.
What's more fun?
A.) High level characters that roll big numbers against big numbers?
or
B.) High level characters that have crazy feats like "Whenever you critically succeed on a Strike, you get a free Strike" or "Whenever an opponents fails to hit you with a melee attack, you may make a Strike against them with your shield as a reaction action."
Not saying these are balanced, but you can have character progression that makes a level 5 more powerful than a level 4 that don't involve +1 bonuses. Wouldn't that be more fun? And easier to understand since if you did get a +1 bonus on your +5 roll, it makes sense, as compared to a +1 bonus to a +20 roll?
As I am 100% in bounded accuracy camp,
let me suggest one more thing for skills and also remove that assurance feat from the game.
Bonuses
untrained: +0
Trained: +2
Expert: +4
Master: +5
Legendary: +6
bonuses +0 per level or +1 per 5 levels(to match stat boosting)
now when you have training in a skill, your d20 roll will have minimum value that is higher than 1.
That is all numbers lower than minimum number will be treated as minimum number.
I.E.
trained, minimum roll on d20 is 5
Expert, minimum roll on d20 is 8
Master, minimum roll on d20 is 10
Legendary, minimum roll on d20 is 12
This way prevent huge number bloat, and also gives reliability on skills so highly trained individuals do not fail easy or average tasks.
|
|
As I am 100% in bounded accuracy camp,
let me suggest one more thing for skills and also remove that assurance feat from the game.Bonuses
untrained: +0
Trained: +2
Expert: +4
Master: +5
Legendary: +6bonuses +0 per level or +1 per 5 levels(to match stat boosting)
now when you have training in a skill, your d20 roll will have minimum value that is higher than 1.
That is all numbers lower than minimum number will be treated as minimum number.I.E.
trained, minimum roll on d20 is 5
Expert, minimum roll on d20 is 8
Master, minimum roll on d20 is 10
Legendary, minimum roll on d20 is 12This way prevent huge number bloat, and also gives reliability on skills so highly trained individuals do not fail easy or average tasks.
Not sure I understand you minimum values, did you mean trained to be minimum 3?
|
|
As I am 100% in bounded accuracy camp,
let me suggest one more thing for skills and also remove that assurance feat from the game.Bonuses
untrained: +0
Trained: +2
Expert: +4
Master: +5
Legendary: +6bonuses +0 per level or +1 per 5 levels(to match stat boosting)
now when you have training in a skill, your d20 roll will have minimum value that is higher than 1.
That is all numbers lower than minimum number will be treated as minimum number.I.E.
trained, minimum roll on d20 is 5
Expert, minimum roll on d20 is 8
Master, minimum roll on d20 is 10
Legendary, minimum roll on d20 is 12This way prevent huge number bloat, and also gives reliability on skills so highly trained individuals do not fail easy or average tasks.
Not sure I understand you minimum values, did you mean trained to be minimum 3?