|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lets talk about the elephant in the room, +1/Level to Proficiency. No, I don't want to discuss the merits of it, we've already got a dozen threads on that very subject. What I want to do is talk about solutions, and I think I have one. We've got two schools of thought that want to play different games, so lets do just that. Let's make P2 two separate games, Bound and Unbound. It would require one rulebook with some additions explaining the two ways to calculate proficiency, a static DC table, and some other minor tweaks. As for a Bestiary, print an unbound and bound version. Bare with me, it isn't as crazy as it sounds.
What is P2? At its core it is a solid bound or semi-bound system with level scaling tacked on. The bound portion falls into three portions: to hit and AC, saves, and skills.
To hit and AC uses the proficiency system ie -2-+3, with a heavy focus around +0-+2, it also has built in progression around ~lvls 4/8/12/16/20 in the for of +1/2/3/4/5 magic items. Abilities also add bonuses in play, ie +3/4 to +5/6 for your attack statistic.
Saves use the proficiency system within a range of +0-+3 with a heavy focus around +0/+1. It has some progression in the form of magical items. Abilities play a larger role in saves, the targeting attack will be calculated off of a +3-+6 ability, and the defending save will be calculated off of a +0-+6 range. Saves and save affecting abilities use a tighter range than to hit and AC.
Skill us the proficiency system within a range of -2-+3. Three is magic support in the neighborhood of items granting an additional +4. Abilities play a strong roll in skills offering an additional +0-+6.
Proficiency's built in level scaling simply adds your levels to each of those things, friend and foe making Unbound and Bound functionally identical against equal level threats. When compared to lower leveled threats you rapidly outpace them, against stronger foes they are vastly more powerful. This is intentional from the designers, it makes heroes extremely heroic, and it happens fast and is unrelenting. It has a myriad of impacts, some of which are problematic for many players. For instance, at mid and later levels any character is an order of magnitude more competent at everything than they were at earlier levels. Worse, they are an order of magnitude more competent at something untrained with a weak ability than a focused specialist was at lower levels. In combat it narrows the range of viable foes to +/- 4 levels. It makes setting skill DCs harder, ie look at the 10-2 table on pg 337 for an example. For many this causes a host of verisimilitude problems for some players.
It is quite clear that there are two distinct and vocal camps. I am going to call these the Bound and Unbound camps.
The Bound camp includes people like myself who probably have been playing 5e. We generally like a more restrained system, a world we can rationalize, one where a horde of orcs with big axes is still scary after level five. We don't like minions needing 20s to hit and getting hit on 2s.
The Unbound camp includes people who have been playing 3.5 and Pathfinder and enjoy the zero to godlike hero power curve. They want their mid to high level character to be able to wade through literal hundreds if not thousands of weak foes.
Now, there are also those who fall in the middle, they may be uncomfortable with the pace of the level scaling and advocate for things like 1/2 level or 1/4 level etc. This would give them a choice.
If you look around the forums you will find a host of threads on this very topic. In general they are very intractable, and neither side wants to budge, because they want to play different games.
That brings me to my point, lets make them different games. That isn't as crazy of an idea as it sounds so hear me out. One will yield the intended high fantasy game, the other a more restrained lower fantasy game. The core of the system is a solid bound game with level scaling tacked on. So, we make a Bound and Unbound version.
Rulebook: Only one rule book is needed, and a section that explains how to calculate your proficiency either the Bound or Unbound way. There would need to be a separate Bound skills DC table with examples, but that is very easy and I've suggested one elsewhere. Sure, there are some other things that will need to be tweaked, like spells, some list a set modifier and those would need to specify a Bound and Bound modifier. That is really it. It would be less than a 10pg addition to the rulebook.
Bestiary: Print different versions, name them Bestiary: Bound and Bestiary: Unbound or something like that. Yes, a second print run has cost and challenges, but the amount of work required to make this work isn't that crazy. You go though and modify the included monsters a bit. You go and work out the encounter building suggestions in the beginning opening up the effective range from +/- 4lvs to +/-6-8 levels. Maybe you go through and increase the strength of the most iconic strong monsters since players can reach a bit higher. But, the work is already nearly completely done. Subtracting out level where it was added is easy.
That is it, make two Pathfinders, one Bound and one Unbound. P2 is already a solid bound game, just one where level scaling has been tacked on. Make them separate and optional. The amount of work required isn't that much. You will appeal to a much wider audience. You will be able to pull at the 5e crowd. You will give the 3.P crowd what they want. You will sell more books. You literally get to make two games appealing to who diverging schools of gamers with a single product.
Edit: Alternatively, it can still be done with one rulebook and one Bestiary. Simply putting the Bound value in parenthesis after the Unbound one will work. It a spell tell you your attack modifier is +20(+10). A Balor's stat block would read something like AC 44(24) or Melee +5 vorpal longsword +35(+15). This would be incredibly easy to implement.
A simple variant should take care of that, such as (and how a pit fiend shakes out, I made a few formatting changes):
+Level is omitted.
Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):
Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):
Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8
Pit Fiend
Devil, Evil, Fiend, Large Lawful
Perception +15; greater darkvision, true seeing
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal, telepathy 100 ft.
Skills +2; Acrobatics +15, Arcana +15, Deception +16, Diplomacy +15, Intimidation +15, Religion +15, Society +15, Stealth +15, Survival +17
Str 28, Dex 26, Con 28, Int 26, Wis 28, Cha 26
AC 24, TAC 21; Fort +13, Ref +11, Will +10, +1 conditional to saves vs. magic
HP 300, fast healing 30; Immunities fire; Resistances physical 15 (except silver), poison 15; Weaknesses good 15
Commander's Aura (aria, divine, enchantment) 100 ft.
Commanded or allied evil creatures of lower level than the pit fiend within the aura gain a +1 circumstance bonus to attack, rolls, damage rolls, AC, saves, and skill checks.
Frightful Presence (aura, divine, emotion, enchantment, fear, mental) 20 feet, DC 18
Attack of Opportunity (1 reaction)
Disruptive In addition to its normal triggers, the pit fiend’s Attack of Opportunity can also be used when a creature within the pit fiend’s reach uses an action with the concentrate trait. Furthermore, the pit fiend doesn’t take the normal –2 penalty when it makes an Attack of Opportunity.
Speed 35 feet, fly 60 feet
Jaws (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 10 feet), Damage 4d8+18 piercing plus pit fiend venom
Claw (1 action) +15 (melee, agile, reach 10 feet), Damage 3d6+18 slashing
Tail (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 10 feet), Damage 3d8+18 bludgeoning plus Improved Grab
Wing (1 action) +15 (melee, reach 15 feet), Damage 3d6+18 slashing
Constrict (1 action) 20 bludgeoning
Wingover (1 action) The pit fiend Flies and makes a wing Strike at any point during its movement.
Improved Grab (free action) A pit fiend can use Improved Grab with its tail Strike
Pit Fiend Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 20;
Maximum Duration 10 rounds; Stage 1 6d6 poison and drained 1 (1 round); Stage 2 7d6 poison and drained 2 (1 round); Stage 3 8d6 poison and drained 3 (1 round).
Divine Innate Spells DC 20; Constant (8th) true seeing; 10th meteor swarm, miracle (once per year), power word stun (×2); 5th dimension door; At Will bind soul, dimension door, dispel magic (8th), divine decree (8th), fireball (8th), scrying, wall of fire (8th)
Rituals infernal pact, shape devils (see sidebar)
Masterful Quickened Casting
Frequency Once per round
Trigger The pit fiend starts to cast an innate spell of 8th level or lower. The spell must require two or more spellcasting actions to cast.
Effect The pit fiend chooses one of the spell’s spellcasting actions. The pit fiend doesn’t need to use that action to finish casting the spell.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once (which inevitably will just lead to further confusion when groups accidently use materials for one version when they meant to play another.
Also I think the level system is such a major cornerstone of the system that adjusting it requires reworking and playtesting the whole thing, to keep it balanced.
MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once (which inevitably will just lead to further confusion when groups accidently use materials for one version when they meant to play another.
Also I think the level system is such a major cornerstone of the system that adjusting it requires reworking and playtesting the whole thing, to keep it balanced.
It isn't a cornerstone, it is just a treadmill that effects CR (monsters threat. etc), the maths are fine (this has been proven at length by Deadmanwaikng and some others). I did the same with 4th Ed, worked out great for the campaign at the time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hmm... The Bestiary could be written out in proficiency format. There might be some math for the players, not as easy as just reading the number. I'm still fine with two books, but a change to how is written could work too.
An attack could be listed as...
Melee jaws Legendary +12 (reach 10 feet).....
Instead of...
Melee jaws +35 (reach 10 feet), Damage 4d8+18 piercing plus
pit fend venom
I don't like that. It means a player of Unbound would need to add level + Prof, ie +23 onto that number. That isn't any better than having to subtract it out. Too much math, easy math, but cumbersome.
What about something like this... Just putting the Bound numbers in parenthesis? We get away with a single Bestiary, and it should still be easy to read.
Melee jaws +35(+15) (reach 10 feet), Damage 4d8+18 piercing plus
pit fend venom
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once (which inevitably will just lead to further confusion when groups accidently use materials for one version when they meant to play another.
Also I think the level system is such a major cornerstone of the system that adjusting it requires reworking and playtesting the whole thing, to keep it balanced.
I disagree. Its the same game. They have balanced it around equal level threats. The underlying math still works. The big change is using static skill DCs and different guidelines for effective encounters.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Let's say an adventure requires some mid-level characters to deal with twenty basic orc archers (or something of the sort). In the Bound system this would be a dangerous encounter. In the Unbound system this would be trivial. So as well as different bestiaries, we'd need different adventures.
Is this really the difference of opinion that merits two parallel versions? Why not one for alignment and one for no alignment? One for Resonance and one for no Resonance?
Zman0 wrote: MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once (which inevitably will just lead to further confusion when groups accidently use materials for one version when they meant to play another.
Also I think the level system is such a major cornerstone of the system that adjusting it requires reworking and playtesting the whole thing, to keep it balanced.
I disagree. Its the same game. They have balanced it around equal level threats. The underlying math still works. The big change is using static skill DCs and different guidelines for effective encounters. Bingo.
Matthew Downie wrote: Let's say an adventure requires some mid-level characters to deal with twenty basic orc archers (or something of the sort). In the Bound system this would be a dangerous encounter. In the Unbound system this would be trivial. So as well as different bestiaries, we'd need different adventures.
Is this really the difference of opinion that merits two parallel versions? Why not one for alignment and one for no alignment? One for Resonance and one for no Resonance?
You make a good point, even if it is exaggerated. The orcs would be somewhat more difficult for the Bound characters than the Unbound, but not far from trivial True. Would it be the difference between trivial and dangerous? No, it would only be around one shade of difficulty different. This is balanced by the tougher foes being a shade easier for the Bound than Unbound. And I'd argue they'd serve the purpose often intended in APs.
I'd argue that there rarely would need to be any changes to the adventures themselves. And if they were required, it wouldn't require a whole separate adventure. A simple side box with a recommendation would suffice, ie If playing bound reduce the number of Orc archers from 20 to 16 or if playing bound two lieutenants accompany the commander.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once Actually it's surprisingly simple to do. It shows how elegant the underlying framework is of PF2 that you can change the way proficiency scales and everything holds together. From that perspective PF2 is imho really impressively well put together.
I did a set of spreadsheet checks with no +level, +1/2 level and default +1 level. Each gives a very different feel.
I think it would be quite viable for PF2 to have a 'dial' that you can set for the feel of game you like. Or at least an optional rule where you can dial the +1 / level down to 1/2 if you want your fantasy lower rather than higher.
It does have some knock-on effects and for flavour you'd probably want to tune a few other variables. Achieving weapon damage via either proficiency or potency runes comes to mind as one of them.
While I would like an option to have this kind of bounded game, it is not easy as it seems.
Subtracting level from attacks, DCs, saves and everything else brings high-level, powerful entities to the ground. While this may be intended for characters, it shouldn't be the case for monsters.
What does a demon lord become? Something with slightly higher stats than a goblin, when you apply that -20 (or whatever level it is) to everything. The only things that remain are HP, damage and special abilities, but I guess that a troop of commoners with a bow would be able to take it down easily. And there goes the world-eating terror from the Abyss...
Again, I would really like if it was so easy to tweak the game, but I think it's not.
Matthew Downie wrote: Let's say an adventure requires some mid-level characters to deal with twenty basic orc archers (or something of the sort). In the Bound system this would be a dangerous encounter. In the Unbound system this would be trivial. So as well as different bestiaries, we'd need different adventures.
Is this really the difference of opinion that merits two parallel versions? Why not one for alignment and one for no alignment? One for Resonance and one for no Resonance?
True. But I imagine the adventures would be written for unbound in mind. That way all of their encounters would work for either method.
Bounded math doesn’t remove encounters. It just adds potential encounters.
Okay, you can’t do the pest control fight with dozen insignificant goblins who can’t touch the party with bounded accuracy. But that fight isn’t in adventures as it’s a waste of time. You can handle it narratively. It’s rolling to open a door or climb a ladder.
Also, you could only do a battle with 50 or a against a high level party trusting most wouldn’t hit. But that fight never happen either because moving 50 minis is annoyingly, as is tracking their damage.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Megistone wrote: While I would like an option to have this kind of bounded game, it is not easy as it seems.
Subtracting level from attacks, DCs, saves and everything else brings high-level, powerful entities to the ground. While this may be intended for characters, it shouldn't be the case for monsters.
What does a demon lord become? Something with slightly higher stats than a goblin, when you apply that -20 (or whatever level it is) to everything. The only things that remain are HP, damage and special abilities, but I guess that a troop of commoners with a bow would be able to take it down easily. And there goes the world-eating terror from the Abyss...
Again, I would really like if it was so easy to tweak the game, but I think it's not.
That Demon Lord has a ton of HP, much higher raw abilities, has much higher proficiency, deals much more damage, and has the inherent benefits of magic weapons and armor baked in. They have spells and abilities. The gulf between them and a Goblin is still comically large.
Again, the commoners with a bow, or hired soldiers with a bow argument again and again. So that commoner who is untrained in martial weapons, has what a 12 dex needs 20s to hit the Demon Lord in Bound. Hmm... don't they need a 20 to hit the Demon lord in Unbound? Oh, wait, yeah they do. Even trained archers with a 14 Dex still need a 20 to hit the Demon Lord. There is no difference.
We also have the narrative schtick, why doesn't an army do it, well because the story doesn't want an army to do it. Because any powerful foe won't sit tight and wait for the army to get them. Dragons have lairs an army can't readily get to and they pick off and demoralize the foe before they get there. An army just can't do it. The dragon doesn't fly out to meet the army on an open field, it razes their camp at night etc etc.
It really is that easy to tweak this game, because the foundation was made for it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Megistone wrote: While I would like an option to have this kind of bounded game, it is not easy as it seems.
Subtracting level from attacks, DCs, saves and everything else brings high-level, powerful entities to the ground. While this may be intended for characters, it shouldn't be the case for monsters.
What does a demon lord become?
Absolutely true for the 'not adding your level to proficiency option'. The 'add 1/2 your level' mitigates it slightly, and adding your full level is what we have now.
For example (just subtracting 10 & 20, we don't know the internal monster building rules yet):
Goblin Warrior (level 0)
Attack: +6 Damage 1d6
AC: 14
Stealth: +5
Hit points: 6
Fort save: +1
Balor Demon (level 20).
Playtest version:
Attack: +35, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 44
Stealth: +32
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +30
1/2 level into proficiency:
Attack: +25, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 34
Stealth: +22
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +20
No level into proficiency:
Attack: +15, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 24
Stealth: +12
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +10
And, just for perspective, here's a Balor from PF1:
Pathfinder 1
Attack: +31, Damage 2d6+13 (plus power attack, more attacks, etc)
AC: 36
Stealth: +26
Hit points: 370
Fort save: +29
Interesting to see that PF1 stats sit somewhere between +1 per level and +1/2 per level to proficiency, varying depending on which stat you're looking at.
On a personal note, I gotta say the spread between the goblin warrior and the balor in the 'no level into proficiency' option is much too small for my tastes. Also the saves of +10 on the Balor make it feel exceptionally vulnerable to lower level spellcasters. Which turns me off that option. Your mileage may vary!
Yossarian wrote: MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once Actually it's surprisingly simple to do. It shows how elegant the underlying framework is of PF2 that you can change the way proficiency scales and everything holds together. From that perspective PF2 is imho really impressively well put together.
I did a set of spreadsheet checks with no +level, +1/2 level and default +1 level. Each gives a very different feel.
I think it would be quite viable for PF2 to have a 'dial' that you can set for the feel of game you like. Or at least an optional rule where you can dial the +1 / level down to 1/2 if you want your fantasy lower rather than higher.
It does have some knock-on effects and for flavour you'd probably want to tune a few other variables. Achieving weapon damage via either proficiency or potency runes comes to mind as one of them. Nice, and, yeah, for the weapon damage/armour deal, something like:
Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):
Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):
Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8
So, a 20th-level fighter still ends up with the same to hit and damage as having a +5 weapon and the same AC as having +5 armour.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Nice, and, yeah, for the weapon damage/armour deal, something like:
Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):
Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):
Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8
So, a 20th-level fighter still ends up with the same to hit and damage as having a +5 weapon and the same AC as having +5 armour.
Personally i think if you drop down to 1/2 per level it seems you can leave the proficiency bonuses where they are, as they really start to matter!
Agree that magic weapons being the only mainstream way to increase damage dice is a problem. I'm fine with:
Expert weapon proficiency: +1 to hit, 2x damage dice
Master weapon proficiency: +2 to hit, 3x damage dice
Legendary weapon proficiency: +3 to hit, 4x damage dice.
+4 potency rune: +4 to hit, etc
Important note: damage dice from potency runes and weapon proficiency should not stack!
So legendary only takes you up so far, and magic weapons are still worth having, but not utterly essential asap as they are now.
But i'm less clear on the hp versus damage scaling, so it's hard to say. That's one hell of a spreadsheet to work that out - the proficiency calculations are much easier to make. So... not sure tbh.
Yossarian wrote: Megistone wrote: While I would like an option to have this kind of bounded game, it is not easy as it seems.
Subtracting level from attacks, DCs, saves and everything else brings high-level, powerful entities to the ground. While this may be intended for characters, it shouldn't be the case for monsters.
What does a demon lord become?
Absolutely true for the 'not adding your level to proficiency option'. The 'add 1/2 your level' mitigates it slightly, and adding your full level is what we have now.
For example (just subtracting 10 & 20, we don't know the internal monster building rules yet):
Goblin Warrior (level 0)
Attack: +6 Damage 1d6
AC: 14
Stealth: +5
Hit points: 6
Fort save: +1
Balor Demon (level 20).
Playtest version:
Attack: +35, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 44
Stealth: +32
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +30
1/2 level into proficiency:
Attack: +25, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 34
Stealth: +22
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +20
No level into proficiency:
Attack: +15, Damage 6d8+18
AC: 24
Stealth: +12
Hit points: 460
Fort save: +10
And, just for perspective, here's a Balor from PF1:
Pathfinder 1
Attack: +31, Damage 2d6+13 (plus power attack, more attacks, etc)
AC: 36
Stealth: +26
Hit points: 370
Fort save: +29
Interesting to see that PF1 stats sit somewhere between +1 per level and +1/2 per level to proficiency, varying depending on which stat you're looking at.
On a personal note, I gotta say the spread between the goblin warrior and the balor in the 'no level into proficiency' option is much too small for my tastes. Also the saves of +10 on the Balor make it feel exceptionally vulnerable to lower level spellcasters. Which turns me off that option. Your mileage may vary! Thanks for posting that.
Too vulnerable to low level spellcasters, lets unpack that. I believe its more knee jerk than you're thinking.
Ok, so a low level caster's save DC is going to be what, Trained with a 14, 16, or 18 in the casting stat and that is it. So their save will be 12-14.
The Balor's Fort/Ref/Wil saves are +10/+10/+13 with a conditional +1 vs magic.
Against the Ab14 Caster they need a 2+/2+/2+
Against the Ab16 Caster they need a 2+/2+/2+
Against the Ab18 Caster they need a 3+/3+/2+
Is that really so much worse than 2+/2+/2+ of Unbound, or 1/2 level?
I think it was a knee jerk reaction. Each +1 means a lot more in Bound, you need to reset your scale. A +15 to hit doesn't seem like much until you realize the absolute best a Fighter can get is a +14, that is with a 22 Str, a +5 Weapon, and getting to Legendary in the weapon.
One huge benefit to Bound, is all those piddly +1s here or there really feel like they matter. Mathematically, they matter the same, but when you've got a +30, are you really worried about that additional +1. It's about perception.
Yossarian wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote:
Nice, and, yeah, for the weapon damage/armour deal, something like:
Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):
Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):
Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8
So, a 20th-level fighter still ends up with the same to hit and damage as having a +5 weapon and the same AC as having +5 armour.
Personally i think if you drop down to 1/2 per level it seems you can leave the proficiency bonuses where they are, as they really start to matter!
Agree that magic weapons being the only mainstream way to increase damage dice is a problem. I'm fine with:
Expert weapon proficiency: +1 to hit, 2x damage dice
Master weapon proficiency: +2 to hit, 3x damage dice
Legendary weapon proficiency: +3 to hit, 4x damage dice.
+4 potency rune: +4 to hit, etc
Important note: damage dice from potency runes and weapon proficiency should not stack!
So legendary only takes you up so far, and magic weapons are still worth having, but not utterly essential asap as they are now.
But i'm less clear on the hp versus damage scaling, so it's hard to say. That's one hell of a spreadsheet to work that out - the proficiency calculations are much easier to make. So... not sure tbh.
The math on the proficiency Mods is pretty darn good, the -2-+3 scale works for differentiating ability. Maybe we could use some more variability in armors and weapons proficiencies, but those are pretty core assumptions and adding too much variability will give you problems. I'd leave them alone, especially for skills. If anything, making them more accessible for weapon and armor proficiencies would be better.
I would advise caution going down this road. Magic weapon's to hit and damage modifiers are pretty essential assumption of the game. They are assumptions that are built into the Monster's. P2 assumes you get your magic weapons somewhere around lvl 4/8/12/16/20. Monster's are scaling with those to hit and AC bonuses intact. I'd bet money HP has been calculated in some fashion to make that extra damage at those levels pretty necessary.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.
In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.
There is no way in the 9 layers of hell should any company do this. You do not publish a new set of rules with in reality is two new sets of rules. Talk about confusion and alienating your fans. A company needs to commit to one ruleset (for better or worse).
This is a playtest, your best option is to give feedback about why you dislike + level to everything. Maybe it will change.
Zman0 wrote: Lets talk about the elephant in the room, +1/Level to Proficiency. No, I don't want to discuss the merits of it, we've already got a dozen threads on that very subject. What I want to do is talk about solutions, and I think I have one. We've got two schools of thought that want to play different games, so lets do just that. Let's make P2 two separate games, Bound and Unbound. It would require one rulebook with some additions explaining the two ways to calculate proficiency, a static DC table, and some other minor tweaks. As for a Bestiary, print an unbound and bound version. Bare with me, it isn't as crazy as it sounds.
...
Proficiency's built in level scaling simply adds your levels to each of those things, friend and foe making Unbound and Bound functionally identical against equal level threats. When compared to lower leveled threats you rapidly outpace them, against stronger foes they are vastly more powerful. This is intentional from the designers, it makes heroes extremely heroic, and...
I like this idea a lot. +1 to you good sir.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Coldermoss wrote: The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.
In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.
I'm leaning towards just making the default unbound, and offering variant rules for Bound. In the Bestiary they just need some variant encounter building guidelines and can put the bound values in parenthesis in the Bestiary.
Kerobelis wrote: There is no way in the 9 layers of hell should any company do this. You do not publish a new set of rules with in reality is two new sets of rules. Talk about confusion and alienating your fans. A company needs to commit to one ruleset (for better or worse).
This is a playtest, your best option is to give feedback about why you dislike + level to everything. Maybe it will change.
Companies release variant sets of rules all the times. This is the same ruleset with in reality one change. Sure, they could just do one Bestiary with the Bound values in parenthesis. It could be a sidebar in the relevant sections in the rulebook. It is far from a separate ruleset.
Zman0 wrote: Coldermoss wrote: The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.
In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.
I'm leaning towards just making the default unbound, and offering variant rules for Bound. In the Bestiary they just need some variant encounter building guidelines and can put the bound values in parenthesis in the Bestiary. Yeah, that sounds perfect. 100% on board with that suggestion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zman0 wrote: Yossarian wrote:
Expert weapon proficiency: +1 to hit, 2x damage dice
Master weapon proficiency: +2 to hit, 3x damage dice
Legendary weapon proficiency: +3 to hit, 4x damage dice.
+4 potency rune: +4 to hit, etc
Important note: damage dice from potency runes and weapon proficiency should not stack!
I would advise caution going down this road. Magic weapon's to hit and damage modifiers are pretty essential assumption of the game. They are assumptions that are built into the Monster's. P2... Curious why you see it that way, i see it the opposite, but maybe i'm missing something. It's for this reason:
There's no inbuilt cap on when players can get magic items. A level 1 fighter might somehow find a +5 magic sword and kill everything.
But there is an inbuilt cap to weapon proficiency - it's character level. Weapon proficiency unlocks at fixed points in various class progressions. Such as Fighter - mastery level weapons at level 13.
In other words: ownership of magic weapons is less predictable than player level. So building power off the first is more unpredictable than building it (also) off the latter.
This change to weapon proficiency would necessitate a few classes getting weapon proficiency that don't in a few specific groups to keep them viable. But thats easy to do. Eg: for a battle cleric. That could potentially be done with specific class feats.
Yossarian wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote:
Nice, and, yeah, for the weapon damage/armour deal, something like:
Weapon Proficiency (Weapon Quality/magic Item bonus omitted):
Expert +2 to hit/2 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Master +5 to hit/4 x Weapon Damage.
Legendary +8 to hit/6 x Weapon Damage Dice.
Armour Proficiency (potency runes omitted):
Expert +2
Master +5
Legendary +8
So, a 20th-level fighter still ends up with the same to hit and damage as having a +5 weapon and the same AC as having +5 armour.
Personally i think if you drop down to 1/2 per level it seems you can leave the proficiency bonuses where they are, as they really start to matter! I only increased armour and weapon proficiency bonus to account for getting rid of item quality bonus to hit and potency runes for armour.
So instead of Legendary Proficiency +3 and a +5 magic weapon = +8 to hit, you simply get +8 to hit with weapons in which you have Legendary proficiency.
Same for armour.
I must admit that I thought the spread between a goblin and a balor would be lesser than that. Anyway, if a bunch of commoners can't kill it that easily, I wonder why a bunch of mid-level demons hasn't already torn apart their boss...
Well, it may work, but there may also been other things we didn't consider. If it's really so easy, it will become a common houserule for gritty campaigns.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Yossarian wrote: Zman0 wrote: Yossarian wrote:
Expert weapon proficiency: +1 to hit, 2x damage dice
Master weapon proficiency: +2 to hit, 3x damage dice
Legendary weapon proficiency: +3 to hit, 4x damage dice.
+4 potency rune: +4 to hit, etc
Important note: damage dice from potency runes and weapon proficiency should not stack!
I would advise caution going down this road. Magic weapon's to hit and damage modifiers are pretty essential assumption of the game. They are assumptions that are built into the Monster's. P2... Curious why you see it that way, i see it the opposite, but maybe i'm missing something. It's for this reason:
There's no inbuilt cap on when players can get magic items. A level 1 fighter might somehow find a +5 magic sword and kill everything.
But there is an inbuilt cap to weapon proficiency - it's character level. Weapon proficiency unlocks at fixed points in various class progressions. Such as Fighter - mastery level weapons at level 13.
In other words: ownership of magic weapons is less predictable than player level. So building power off the first is more unpredictable than building it (also) off the latter.
This change to weapon proficiency would necessitate a few classes getting weapon proficiency that don't in a few specific groups to keep them viable. But thats easy to do. Eg: for a battle cleric. That could potentially be done with specific class feats.
There is no inbound cap for the magic items, but the underlying level assumptions are built into the Bestiary. Giving out a +5 sword at level one is going to hugely unbalance the assumptions of the game. That is on the DM to manage. With crafting and how they want you to treat buying magic items it seems pretty clear they intend character to have access to the WBL in magic items of their choice, and they will need to be withing a +1 of the best magic item available or they will start to fall behind. Tying the extra damage to proficiency means that you would need predictable proficiency increases for different classes to maintain the underlying assumptions built into the Bestiary. That might turn into a house of cards or trying to herd cats.
Yossarian wrote: MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once Actually it's surprisingly simple to do. It shows how elegant the underlying framework is of PF2 that you can change the way proficiency scales and everything holds together. From that perspective PF2 is imho really impressively well put together.
Running two product lines means that for every adventure/splat, you will need to do separate rounds of editing or formatting for any product, beyond the rules revisions and changes to encounter design. also, let's say that 50% of the customer base goes for one version, the other folks go for another. So this means that each product takes about twice the effort to produce, without a commiserate increase in volume sold. It's just not really feasible to do on the scale that Paizo operates on.
Coldermoss wrote: Zman0 wrote: Coldermoss wrote: The way I see it, a second product line is totally unnecessary. Just take a few minutes to subtract the level values from what monsters you're going to be using for the session. I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate support for bounded Pathfinder (mostly through alternative encounter building rules in the Beastiary), but there's no need to print a second version of all the rulebooks for such a simple fix.
In D&D 5th edition, this kind of thing would be a Variant rule, and would have a sidebar in the DMG. And for a tweak as simple as this (it's far-reaching, yeah, but it's really simple), that's all you'd need besides the aforementioned alternative encounter rules.
I'm leaning towards just making the default unbound, and offering variant rules for Bound. In the Bestiary they just need some variant encounter building guidelines and can put the bound values in parenthesis in the Bestiary. Yeah, that sounds perfect. 100% on board with that suggestion. I am going to edit it into the original post, as the preferred alternative to a second book.
Edit: Hmm... I can no longer edit it to be more prominent in the OP.
MMCJawa wrote: Yossarian wrote: MMCJawa wrote: That's going to be a ton of work, and is asking Paizo to basically develop and run two separate games at once Actually it's surprisingly simple to do. It shows how elegant the underlying framework is of PF2 that you can change the way proficiency scales and everything holds together. From that perspective PF2 is imho really impressively well put together.
Running two product lines means that for every adventure/splat, you will need to do separate rounds of editing or formatting for any product, beyond the rules revisions and changes to encounter design. also, let's say that 50% of the customer base goes for one version, the other folks go for another. So this means that each product takes about twice the effort to produce, while selling half the volume. It's just not really feasible to do on the scale that Paizo operates on. It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it.
As has been discussed and edited into the OP, not creating two separate lines is preferable and making it a prominent variant rule in the rulebook in the relevant sectinos is fine. As for the Bestiary it just needs some different encounter building guidelines and can get away with something simple like putting the Bound values in parentheses.
Also, when you assume 50% customer base, you need to factor in an expanded total customer base. The amount of original effort required to support two lines, which isn't even necessary, is greatly reduced. And as I said before you wouldn't need separate lines for Splats. The more this is discussed, the more I lean towards making it a prominent variant rule in the rulebook and the bestiary.
Megistone wrote: I must admit that I thought the spread between a goblin and a balor would be lesser than that. Anyway, if a bunch of commoners can't kill it that easily, I wonder why a bunch of mid-level demons hasn't already torn apart their boss...
Well, it may work, but there may also been other things we didn't consider. If it's really so easy, it will become a common houserule for gritty campaigns.
Yeah, that's all it is, an easy variant you can implement for a feel: +nada, +1/4 level, +1/2 level, +Level, whatever you like.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Zman0 wrote:
We also have the narrative schtick, why doesn't an army do it, well because the story doesn't want an army to do it.
Largely tangential but this would kill my immersion. A group of demi-gods being called in I could handle, else I rather would literally throw an army at it.
There are better explanations for why IMO. Like the fact that a Pit Fiend has DR high enough to soak arrows for zero damage and has certain abilities that allow it to easily slaughter an army with AOE damage etc.
Anyways, funnily enough I'm looking forwards to god-on-earth PCs fighting elder horrors from beyond the veil of time being automatically covered by the rules. My 5e game ended up like that with constant escalation as is but it took a pointless amount of effort on my half to keep it fun and functional.
As for the topic. I wouldn't object to a full bounded low power world variant being present, but if that happens I'd rather it wasn't the default. If nothing else it will likely give the game a really distinct power level from 5e.
Zman0 wrote: It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it. That adds up REEEEEEAAAAAAAAL quick. Not viable in the slightest. I rather have more pages dedicated to the adventure and support articles rather than being taken up by a system I don't use.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Elleth wrote: Zman0 wrote:
We also have the narrative schtick, why doesn't an army do it, well because the story doesn't want an army to do it.
Largely tangential but this would kill my immersion. A group of demi-gods being called in I could handle, else I rather would literally throw an army at it.
There are better explanations for why IMO. Like the fact that a Pit Fiend has DR high enough to soak arrows for zero damage and has certain abilities that allow it to easily slaughter an army with AOE damage etc.
Anyways, funnily enough I'm looking forwards to god-on-earth PCs fighting elder horrors from beyond the veil of time being automatically covered by the rules. My 5e game ended up like that with constant escalation as is but it took a pointless amount of effort on my half to keep it fun and functional.
As for the topic. I wouldn't object to a full bounded low power world variant being present, but if that happens I'd rather it wasn't the default. If nothing else it will likely give the game a really distinct power level from 5e. Those are the schools school of thought on play. We don't need to hash out which is better, because the two veiwpoints are pretty irreconcilable.
The leading idea is to make Bound a prominent variant rule, and add support to it in the Bestiary. The current Unbound level scaled version would be default.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it. That adds up REEEEEEAAAAAAAAL quick. Not viable in the slightest. I rather have more pages dedicated to the adventure and support articles rather than being taken up by a system I don't use. I disagree. For Monsters it is as simple as removing the +level where it was added. Thats it. For the Bestiary is is making a modified encounter guidlines table. Thats it. For the Rulebook, it is literally a couple of sidebars and a couple variant tables for set skill DC.
For Adventures is very easy, they will work as written. The easy encounters will be more draining, the hard encounters will be easier. They should balance out on the whole pretty well. If they run into a problem, they can sidebar some guidelines for modifying it... or wait for it... rely on the guidelines where the variant is mentioned in the Bestiary.
See, you don't want to waste pages on a variant that makes players like me enjoy the game much more for a lot less work. See, players like me want to enjoy the game without wanting to light the stupid level scaled book on fire. I'm trying to offer a solution that makes both sides happy.
Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zman0 wrote: Elleth wrote: Zman0 wrote:
We also have the narrative schtick, why doesn't an army do it, well because the story doesn't want an army to do it.
Largely tangential but this would kill my immersion. A group of demi-gods being called in I could handle, else I rather would literally throw an army at it.
There are better explanations for why IMO. Like the fact that a Pit Fiend has DR high enough to soak arrows for zero damage and has certain abilities that allow it to easily slaughter an army with AOE damage etc.
Anyways, funnily enough I'm looking forwards to god-on-earth PCs fighting elder horrors from beyond the veil of time being automatically covered by the rules. My 5e game ended up like that with constant escalation as is but it took a pointless amount of effort on my half to keep it fun and functional.
As for the topic. I wouldn't object to a full bounded low power world variant being present, but if that happens I'd rather it wasn't the default. If nothing else it will likely give the game a really distinct power level from 5e. Those are the schools school of thought on play. We don't need to hash out which is better, because the two veiwpoints are pretty irreconcilable.
The leading idea is to make Bound a prominent variant rule, and add support to it in the Bestiary. The current Unbound level scaled version would be default. I'm not hashing out which is better, I'm just noting my preference to make it clear that not all people coming over from 5e were ultimately enamoured with how 5e works. That's all.
As I've said, I'd be fine with it as a variant rule, possibly under a GMing section for variant rules. I think the current as the default is something I'd rather see though than e.g. listing everything twice in the main book.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I would hate to see 2 systems. There is enough debate around the table about rules in established games, to throw this in would be madness at the table. At least are our table.
K-Ray
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Elleth wrote: Zman0 wrote: Elleth wrote: Zman0 wrote:
We also have the narrative schtick, why doesn't an army do it, well because the story doesn't want an army to do it.
Largely tangential but this would kill my immersion. A group of demi-gods being called in I could handle, else I rather would literally throw an army at it.
There are better explanations for why IMO. Like the fact that a Pit Fiend has DR high enough to soak arrows for zero damage and has certain abilities that allow it to easily slaughter an army with AOE damage etc.
Anyways, funnily enough I'm looking forwards to god-on-earth PCs fighting elder horrors from beyond the veil of time being automatically covered by the rules. My 5e game ended up like that with constant escalation as is but it took a pointless amount of effort on my half to keep it fun and functional.
As for the topic. I wouldn't object to a full bounded low power world variant being present, but if that happens I'd rather it wasn't the default. If nothing else it will likely give the game a really distinct power level from 5e. Those are the schools school of thought on play. We don't need to hash out which is better, because the two veiwpoints are pretty irreconcilable.
The leading idea is to make Bound a prominent variant rule, and add support to it in the Bestiary. The current Unbound level scaled version would be default. I'm not hashing out which is better, I'm just noting my preference to make it clear that not all people coming over from 5e were ultimately enamoured with how 5e works. That's all.
As I've said, I'd be fine with it as a variant rule, possibly under a GMing section for variant rules. I think the current as the default is something I'd rather see though than e.g. listing everything twice in the main book. I agree, just somewhere in the game-mastering/variant rules section, would not take up much room, at all.
It's really nifty that you play with the +Level bonus so easily to get a different experience. I generally like taking on 20 guards solo to always be a problem, regardless of level, matches the fantasy fiction I am familiar with.
Mythology is different.
Zman0 wrote: Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it. That adds up REEEEEEAAAAAAAAL quick. Not viable in the slightest. I rather have more pages dedicated to the adventure and support articles rather than being taken up by a system I don't use. I disagree. For Monsters it is as simple as removing the +level where it was added. Thats it. For the Bestiary is is making a modified encounter guidlines table. Thats it. For the Rulebook, it is literally a couple of sidebars and a couple variant tables for set skill DC.
For Adventures is very easy, they will work as written. The easy encounters will be more draining, the hard encounters will be easier. They should balance out on the whole pretty well. If they run into a problem, they can sidebar some guidelines for modifying it... or wait for it... rely on the guidelines where the variant is mentioned in the Bestiary. A single variant (which is a world's difference than what I responding to) that's supposed to cover everything would also be a bad idea.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill. But in your system, a level 20 character trained in heavy armor, wearing a +5 plate armor AC of 6 (plate) + 0 (proficiency) + 5 (item) + 1 (dex) = 22
A paladin wearing that armor has an AC of 6 (plate) + 8 (your version of legendary) +5 (item) + 1 Dex = 30.
In the current system the difference is
AC 20th level trained = 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 + 1 = 47
AC level legend = 10+ 6 + 23 +5 + 1 = 50
That is seriously hurting everyone that can't advance past trained in their armor or saves.
Unicore wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill. But in your system, a level 20 character trained in heavy armor, wearing a +5 plate armor AC of 6 (plate) + 0 (proficiency) + 5 (item) + 1 (dex) = 22
A paladin wearing that armor has an AC of 6 (plate) + 8 (your version of legendary) +5 (item) + 1 Dex = 30.
In the current system the difference is
AC 20th level trained = 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 + 1 = 47
AC level legend = 10+ 6 + 23 +5 + 1 = 50
That is seriously hurting everyone that can't advance past trained in their armor or saves.
That was just an option for campaigns that omit item/magic weapon bonus (and damage dice) and potency runes, so instead of Legendary Proficiency +3 and a +5 weapon for +8 to hit, you merely have +8 to hit with any weapon with which you have Legendary proficiency.
You can just keep everything as it is, but simply adjust +level to whatever you like: +none, +1/4, +1/2, +full.
Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it. That adds up REEEEEEAAAAAAAAL quick. Not viable in the slightest. I rather have more pages dedicated to the adventure and support articles rather than being taken up by a system I don't use. I disagree. For Monsters it is as simple as removing the +level where it was added. Thats it. For the Bestiary is is making a modified encounter guidlines table. Thats it. For the Rulebook, it is literally a couple of sidebars and a couple variant tables for set skill DC.
For Adventures is very easy, they will work as written. The easy encounters will be more draining, the hard encounters will be easier. They should balance out on the whole pretty well. If they run into a problem, they can sidebar some guidelines for modifying it... or wait for it... rely on the guidelines where the variant is mentioned in the Bestiary. A single variant (which is a world's difference than what I responding to) that's supposed to cover everything would also be a bad idea. It was included in the OP shortly after it was posted to treat it as a variant located in the rulebook and bestiary.
Ok, you make a sweeping declarative statement and then just don't back it up. Why? Why would this be a bad idea. It is incredibly simple, does'nt affect the core math the game was balanced on. Why?
Matthew Downie wrote: Let's say an adventure requires some mid-level characters to deal with twenty basic orc archers (or something of the sort). In the Bound system this would be a dangerous encounter. In the Unbound system this would be trivial. So as well as different bestiaries, we'd need different adventures.
Is this really the difference of opinion that merits two parallel versions? Why not one for alignment and one for no alignment? One for Resonance and one for no Resonance?
Because in 99% alignment can be hand waved off without any problem to game mechanics.
Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill. But in your system, a level 20 character trained in heavy armor, wearing a +5 plate armor AC of 6 (plate) + 0 (proficiency) + 5 (item) + 1 (dex) = 22
A paladin wearing that armor has an AC of 6 (plate) + 8 (your version of legendary) +5 (item) + 1 Dex = 30.
In the current system the difference is
AC 20th level trained = 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 + 1 = 47
AC level legend = 10+ 6 + 23 +5 + 1 = 50
That is seriously hurting everyone that can't advance past trained in their armor or saves.
That was just an option for campaigns that omit item/magic weapon bonus (and damage dice) and potency runes, so instead of Legendary Proficiency +3 and a +5 weapon for +8 to hit, you merely have +8 to hit with any weapon with which you have Legendary proficiency.
You can just keep everything as it is, but simply adjust +level to whatever you like: +none, +1/4, +1/2, +full. Can you two please take this particular discussion to another thread. Redoing proficiency is beyond the scope of this thread. Thanks!
Zman0 wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill. But in your system, a level 20 character trained in heavy armor, wearing a +5 plate armor AC of 6 (plate) + 0 (proficiency) + 5 (item) + 1 (dex) = 22
A paladin wearing that armor has an AC of 6 (plate) + 8 (your version of legendary) +5 (item) + 1 Dex = 30.
In the current system the difference is
AC 20th level trained = 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 + 1 = 47
AC level legend = 10+ 6 + 23 +5 + 1 = 50
That is seriously hurting everyone that can't advance past trained in their armor or saves.
That was just an option for campaigns that omit item/magic weapon bonus (and damage dice) and potency runes, so instead of Legendary Proficiency +3 and a +5 weapon for +8 to hit, you merely have +8 to hit with any weapon with which you have Legendary proficiency.
You can just keep everything as it is, but simply adjust +level to whatever you like: +none, +1/4, +1/2, +full. Can you two please take this particular discussion to another thread. Redoing proficiency is beyond the scope of this thread. Thanks! I am also talking about omission of +Level, so I'm good, thanks. This has all been discussed at length, previously, many times, Deadmanwalking broke it down, wonderfully. Or can we only talk about 2 separate books? I have weighed in on that too, terrible idea, a page or two at most in the CRB.
Zman0 wrote: Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: Rysky wrote: Zman0 wrote: It would not be nearly as hard as you are talking about. For adventure splat books its is a matter of a couple of side bars and a couple extra pages for the newly introduced Monsters. Thats it. That adds up REEEEEEAAAAAAAAL quick. Not viable in the slightest. I rather have more pages dedicated to the adventure and support articles rather than being taken up by a system I don't use. I disagree. For Monsters it is as simple as removing the +level where it was added. Thats it. For the Bestiary is is making a modified encounter guidlines table. Thats it. For the Rulebook, it is literally a couple of sidebars and a couple variant tables for set skill DC.
For Adventures is very easy, they will work as written. The easy encounters will be more draining, the hard encounters will be easier. They should balance out on the whole pretty well. If they run into a problem, they can sidebar some guidelines for modifying it... or wait for it... rely on the guidelines where the variant is mentioned in the Bestiary. A single variant (which is a world's difference than what I responding to) that's supposed to cover everything would also be a bad idea. It was included in the OP shortly after it was posted to treat it as a variant located in the rulebook and bestiary.
Ok, you make a sweeping declarative statement and then just don't back it up. Why? Why would this be a bad idea. It is incredibly simple, does'nt affect the core math the game was balanced on. Why? Making a seemingly simple rule that doesn't take up a lot of space but completely restructures everything in the game? That's not gonna work out well.
Vic Ferrari wrote: Zman0 wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Vic Ferrari wrote: Unicore wrote: Right now, Legendary proficiencies are very rare and only given out to one class per category. Bumping proficiency up and removing +level bonus is going to mean having to completely reexamine what characters get access to which proficiencies.
A class that only gets trained armor proficiency is in deep trouble in this system.
Not at all, everything stays the same, just the numbers are smaller: +7 vs. AC 15 or +27 vs. AC 35.
Just a treadmill. But in your system, a level 20 character trained in heavy armor, wearing a +5 plate armor AC of 6 (plate) + 0 (proficiency) + 5 (item) + 1 (dex) = 22
A paladin wearing that armor has an AC of 6 (plate) + 8 (your version of legendary) +5 (item) + 1 Dex = 30.
In the current system the difference is
AC 20th level trained = 10 + 6 + 20 + 5 + 1 = 47
AC level legend = 10+ 6 + 23 +5 + 1 = 50
That is seriously hurting everyone that can't advance past trained in their armor or saves.
That was just an option for campaigns that omit item/magic weapon bonus (and damage dice) and potency runes, so instead of Legendary Proficiency +3 and a +5 weapon for +8 to hit, you merely have +8 to hit with any weapon with which you have Legendary proficiency.
You can just keep everything as it is, but simply adjust +level to whatever you like: +none, +1/4, +1/2, +full. Can you two please take this particular discussion to another thread. Redoing proficiency is beyond the scope of this thread. Thanks! I am also talking about omission of +Level, so I'm good, thanks. This has all been discussed at length, previously, many times, Deadmanwalking broke it down, wonderfully. Or can we only talk about 2 separate books? I have weighed in on that too, terrible idea, a page or two at most in the CRB. I'm talking about your specific ideas and back and forth with unicorn about changing proficiency. That could have its own thread, or you can take it to their thread. Changing proficiency outside of the +level mechanic is beyond the scope of this thread.
The topic was about two versions, two books for the bestiary was suggested as has treating it like a variant rule with support in the bestiary. Unfortunately I can no longer edit that more prominently in the main post as it makes more sense.
|
