|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels. That's how D&D 4ed was, and I'm not a fan of that version, But surprisingly I think it could work well in PF2 structure due to the proficiency bonuses.
I think it works well for my purposes, because I rarely run campaigns past lvl 16, so it would max at +8, that bonus of +1 to +8 shouldn't eclipse the other type bonuses that much. The characters would have there other bonuses be more meaningful, like abilities, proficiency, aid and buffs etc.
What do you think?
Could you meet me half way, so to speak?
I think this one is a pretty easy home rule to implement. I'm not sure it goes with the design goals of the devs, but might happen if the playtest feedback says so.
I'm not going to run that way during the playtest (that'd destroy the point of the playtest), but might consider it in the final release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lowering it to 1 every two levels has a lot going for it, but some disadvantages too of course. The effect of doing it appears to be:
- Slower power gain, so a more 'realistic' feel. Less high high fantasy, more low fantasy?
- Proficiency ranks, attributes and item bonuses make a much bigger difference. Maybe too much of a difference? Needs to be heavily checked!
- Monsters of higher and lower levels will become relevant sooner and stay relevant longer. But at the same time, really high level monsters perhaps will feel less scary? (that's highly subjective), and those pesky goblin will remain a threat longer.
- The disconnect between spell level and actual level becomes less weird - since spell levels go up the same rate as proficiency now (1 every 2 levels). ie, solves the 'if only we had 20 levels of spells conundrum. This is funnily enough one of my favourite side-effects of +1 / 2 levels.
- Static DCs for eg climbing that tree, become easier at 1/2 the rate. It's going to be longer before your thief can leap over that 10ft wall with no effort.
- The maths is a bit more complex, lots of dividing by 2 to get your proficiency.
These seem overall not bad things? I can see why plenty of folks are leaning towards this kind of proficiency scaling rather than the +1 level that is looking to be the biggest sticking point for some here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is basically a matter of taste. Do you want a lvl 20 character be a God among mortals? Or just a really powerful character? How easy should be for a lvl 20 (or 15, or 10) character to kill n adult dragon? Are 100 orcs a match for a single high level fighter?
The answer to those depends on what stories you want to tell, and personal taste
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels. That's how D&D 4ed was, and I'm not a fan of that version, But surprisingly I think it could work well in PF2 structure due to the proficiency bonuses.
I think it works well for my purposes, because I rarely run campaigns past lvl 16, so it would max at +8, that bonus of +1 to +8 shouldn't eclipse the other type bonuses that much. The characters would have there other bonuses be more meaningful, like abilities, proficiency, aid and buffs etc.
What do you think?
Could you meet me half way, so to speak?
As I stated before,
with more than generous supply of ability boosts. you get 6,4 times more than in PF1, you get 3 times as 5e.
You really do not need +1/level treadmill to feel powerful.
You have more HPs, more damage, more skills, feats, spells, whatever.
+1/level only limits too hard encounter building. As monsters of 3+ levels are simply too powerful and -3 levels are trivial.
I also think, that level/2 might be a better solution. The Star Wars D20-system did it that way and it worked very well.That was not SWSE (except for damage), that was 4th Ed, I also removed that treadmill, to everyone's delight.
I liked how Star Wars d20 handled it. I never played Saga Edition, so they might have changed it with that edition. A lot of things in the Star Wars Revised edition were like precursors to 4e.
I endorse this suggestion, I would even recommend that it be +1 to the proficiency bonus every 2 levels rounded up.
Maybe raise the amounts of the TEML to 0, +1, +3 and +5 respectively so that the differences between each level of acquired proficiency feel more different from each other and are more relevant numerically. A +3 that is legandary between numbers as +15 of base proficiency feels little.
I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels. That's how D&D 4ed was, and I'm not a fan of that version, But surprisingly I think it could work well in PF2 structure due to the proficiency bonuses.
I think it works well for my purposes, because I rarely run campaigns past lvl 16, so it would max at +8, that bonus of +1 to +8 shouldn't eclipse the other type bonuses that much. The characters would have there other bonuses be more meaningful, like abilities, proficiency, aid and buffs etc.
What do you think?
Could you meet me half way, so to speak?
Nope. Not something I'm a fan of.
I prefer +1/level if they need to do something universal for classes. It means that a 20th level character is FAR better than a 1st level character.
Don't give us some +6 as the difference between a stumbling soldier about to kill themselves on their own weapon and a swordmaster. +10 is better, but not as good as a +20 difference.
Of course what I think many prefer is that there is a noticeable difference between how Fighters/warriors progress combat wise and how everyone else progresses, and perhaps a greater numerical difference between skills but not so great as it was in PF1, but nto as small as it is in the current Playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a large number difference should really be the defining trait of a legendary warrior, but rather what they can do with the weapons (i.e. feats or being able to use special properties of weapons better). Anyone can stab someone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe raise the amounts of the TEML to 0, +1, +3 and +5 respectively so that the differences between each level of acquired proficiency feel more different from each other and are more relevant numerically. A +3 that is legandary between numbers as +15 of base proficiency feels little.I thought so too, but multiple posts on this topic had me convinced, that +3 in this system is actually a huge difference (because of critical successes), even though it does not look like it. I still think that legendary should feel more legendary, though. But this can be done via skill feats and I hope there will be more in the final rulebook. "Scare to death" (p.170) is actually a great example of what a legendary skill feat should be, in my opinion.
This describes my findings as well, the current progression, looked bad at first glance, after playing and seeing it in action, it seems to work well. Although the blanket +1 to everything/level does not seem to offer anything to the system. I need to see more playtest at varying levels. This is all theory crafting anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels. That's how D&D 4ed was, and I'm not a fan of that version, But surprisingly I think it could work well in PF2 structure due to the proficiency bonuses.
I think it works well for my purposes, because I rarely run campaigns past lvl 16, so it would max at +8, that bonus of +1 to +8 shouldn't eclipse the other type bonuses that much. The characters would have there other bonuses be more meaningful, like abilities, proficiency, aid and buffs etc.
What do you think?
Could you meet me half way, so to speak?
This is not a solution ... the problem of the system has never been "the bonus too high" so it is useless to divide by 2.
The problem with this system is that all the characters have the same bonus and that some statistics are arbitrarily raised without the player having a choice.It is an obsolete or archaic system, we are in 2018, manage the difference in level by raising all the statistics of +1 is no longer thinkable.
|
what if instead we went with a Primary secondary and untrained categories for skills? have untrained never advance unless it becomes secondary or primary through feats or multiclassing. Primary can go up to legendary, secondary can be proficient and untrained doesnt increase. i personally would still like to see discretionary points be be gained every level to flesh out what your character has been doing and have their skill rolls reflect that after they level (maybe the barbarian does learn to enjoy giving speeches and puts a few points in the untrained performance skill. maybe at some point she will take a feat to make it secondary or even multiclass bard.)
do that for attacks too, wizards dont need to shoot crossbows anyways...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to offer a compromise with those of you who support the +1/level. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree with an adjustment to that mechanic to +1/every 2 levels.
I've been thinking +1/4 levels would be ideal for me. That would leave room for some meaningful Feats to add to values by +1 or maybe +2. The thing is not character would cross from +0 to +1 at the same time for each mechanic. A Fighter might go to +1 on to-hit early, while a Rogue might go +1 to skills early, or something like that.
I come at this from the angle that I like to run games where the common man is still a factor, though ultimately outclassed by PCs unless the common man appears in numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some solutions.
As mentioned in various posts it can be:
+1 per level
+1/2 per level(4E)
+1/4 per level(5e)
+1/5 per level(to match PF2 ability boosts)
+0 per level(using just training bonuses and abilities, plus also magic stuff).
I would go with +0 or +1/5.
Increase proficiency from -2/0/1/2/3 to 0/2/4/5/6
Add for weapons and spells +1 damage per level.
+damage is nice way to see little progress and does not break expected hit/AC probability.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with low bonuses is that you still end up with characters at level 20 that are largely incompetent outside of their area of focus. Despite a hundred exposures to gods, demons, and monsters, the Barbarian still knows nothing about them? Despite running for his life through a million miles of dungeons, the Wizard has no ability to climb a rope?
I like +1 per level. Every adventurer has basic competence in everything and it's only when they're up against someone or something "on their level" that the difference in ability and training comes out. From a roleplay perspective, it's the bonus given by sheer experience. So, a level 1 cleric might identify a poisoning because of book knowledge and training while a level 20 barbarian might recognize it because they've heard stories about it or experienced it themselves.
The caveat here is that GMs have to be careful about not scaling all of the DCs. If it should have been a DC 15 check at level 1 and nothing about it is harder, it should be a DC 15 check at level 20. Save the DC40 for a check that's presented by a level 20 challenge.
some solutions.
As mentioned in various posts it can be:
+1 per level
+1/2 per level(4E)
+1/4 per level(5e)
+1/5 per level(to match PF2 ability boosts)
+0 per level(using just training bonuses and abilities, plus also magic stuff).I would go with +0 or +1/5.
Increase proficiency from -2/0/1/2/3 to 0/2/4/5/6
Add for weapons and spells +1 damage per level.
+damage is nice way to see little progress and does not break expected hit/AC probability.
Try this out in your own DD campaign and see what happens. You have balanced a lot, so it might feel solid, but I think your level 20 fighter is going to be a murder machine and Legendary Armor proficiency is going to be one hot ticket that makes heavy armor much better than light armor (because more classes get access to boosting heavy armor proficiency). Getting hit critically by that legendary fighter with an extra +20 to damage, wielding a +5 weapon is going to be lights out for a lot of characters and monsters, and the fighter will crit more because Legendary weapon proficiency has been stretched up.
Try this out in your own DD campaign and see what happens. You have balanced a lot, so it might feel solid, but I think your level 20 fighter is going to be a murder machine and Legendary Armor proficiency is going to be one hot ticket that makes heavy armor much better than light armor (because more classes get access to boosting heavy armor proficiency). Getting hit critically by that legendary fighter with an extra +20 to damage, wielding a +5 weapon is going to be lights out for a lot of characters and monsters, and the fighter will crit more because Legendary weapon proficiency has been stretched up.some solutions.
As mentioned in various posts it can be:
+1 per level
+1/2 per level(4E)
+1/4 per level(5e)
+1/5 per level(to match PF2 ability boosts)
+0 per level(using just training bonuses and abilities, plus also magic stuff).I would go with +0 or +1/5.
Increase proficiency from -2/0/1/2/3 to 0/2/4/5/6
Add for weapons and spells +1 damage per level.
+damage is nice way to see little progress and does not break expected hit/AC probability.
It has not been streched out. Thas is why I put master and legendary training +1 bonus per tier, as any class can get majority of stuff expert but only few to master/legendary.
Also, every class should get one skill training per level, rogue should get 1 and a half.
If you get 19 extra skill trainings per level, it your fault that more than half of your skills are untrained just because you forced few of them to legendary.
with +1/5 level and 0/2/4/5/6
you get spread of +0 for 1st level untrained and +10 for 20th level legendary. Not counting ability bonuses. If you calculate that at 20th level your ability will be 4-8 pts higher you get 10-14 difference between 1st level untrained and 20th level legendary.
add +1 to +3 item later on and that is all powercreep you need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with low bonuses is that you still end up with characters at level 20 that are largely incompetent outside of their area of focus. Despite a hundred exposures to gods, demons, and monsters, the Barbarian still knows nothing about them? Despite running for his life through a million miles of dungeons, the Wizard has no ability to climb a rope?
I know lots of people with PhD's that can barely tight their shoes of pop the hood of their car.
They are in top 1% of their field, yet they know next to nothing about things they didn't spent any time working on it.
And that is the whole point.
The problem with low bonuses is that you still end up with characters at level 20 that are largely incompetent outside of their area of focus. Despite a hundred exposures to gods, demons, and monsters, the Barbarian still knows nothing about them? Despite running for his life through a million miles of dungeons, the Wizard has no ability to climb a rope?
I like +1 per level. Every adventurer has basic competence in everything and it's only when they're up against someone or something "on their level" that the difference in ability and training comes out. From a roleplay perspective, it's the bonus given by sheer experience. So, a level 1 cleric might identify a poisoning because of book knowledge and training while a level 20 barbarian might recognize it because they've heard stories about it or experienced it themselves.
The caveat here is that GMs have to be careful about not scaling all of the DCs. If it should have been a DC 15 check at level 1 and nothing about it is harder, it should be a DC 15 check at level 20. Save the DC40 for a check that's presented by a level 20 challenge.
This is where I have a major concern as we saw this play out in 4e already.
They need to stress this (like overstress it) in the rules, or it's going to turn out like 4e I think.
Even some of the official adventures made the mistake of a simple thing being made harder simply because the charaters were higher levels...which made absolutely no sense.
I'd say they, at a minimum, need to LABEL the level of the check...so that a level 1 challenge STAYS at level 1 and does not escalate to being harder just to reflect that the characters themselves are higher level.
It's far to easy to write an adventure and since the characters are now 6th level default that ALL challenges are at 6th level DC's, rather than saying...is this actually what I mean by a 6th level (or 10th level, or 20th level) challenge or not. Maybe this should actually be a 1st or 2nd level challenge because it's not as hard as the 6th level DC's indicate...and thus write it more accurately.