Suggestion: A Tale of Two Pathfinders 2nd Edition: Bound and Unbound


Playing the Game

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
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.

Ok, please tell me what it changes about a party of level 10 characters tackling a pair of level 10 enemies. Please, what exactly about the came does it restructure?

The answer is nothing, it changes absolutely nothing about the designed balance point of the game, what it does is alter threats roughly equally above and below that. As a simple change it breaks nothing and only necessitates a new encounter table and static skill DC table.


,, Seems easy enough to do just note the proficiency in the bestiary and put a little notion near each attribute it affects than bound players can simply deduct it.


Okay, but, yeah, I am with you on the option of fiddling with +Level.

20th level fighter (+20), 22 Str (+6), with Legendary Proficiency (+3, swords) and a +5 sword, for +34 to hit.

A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44.

If you omit +Level, the fighter goes down to +14 to hit, and the Pit Fiend's AC goes down to 24.

You still need a 10 to hit, either way.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zman0 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Ok, please tell me what it changes about a party of level 10 characters tackling a pair of level 10 enemies. Please, what exactly about the came does it restructure?

The answer is nothing, it changes absolutely nothing about the designed balance point of the game,...

That is an assumption you are having, because no such rules exists, which is why my answers have been vague. I'm responding to hypotheticals.

You keep claiming this is super easy to fix and implement, that this hypothetical rule will make everything better. If you have said rule then run it and see how it plays out, but going off the post I originally replied to that started this conversation it doesn't exist.

Edit: looking at your OP you're advocating for one system to include less number relating to proficiency, alongside the normal numbers if I read that right. That would be immensely confusing.


Kodyboy wrote:
,, Seems easy enough to do just note the proficiency in the bestiary and put a little notion near each attribute it affects than bound players can simply deduct it.

That would work. I guess things in order of importance would be...

1. Variant listed in the Rulebook including a Static Skill DC Table. List of how to modify the attributes in things like spells when they show up.
2. Full Variant support, anywhere a modifier is listed, in parenthesis it lists the bound value.
3. Variant support and encounter table in the Bestiary.
4. Full Variant support in the Bestiary, ie bound value in parenthesis in the monster's entry.
5. Seperate Bestiary.* We've pretty much thrown this out in favor of number 4. Just can't edit the original post unfortunately.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Ok, please tell me what it changes about a party of level 10 characters tackling a pair of level 10 enemies. Please, what exactly about the came does it restructure?

The answer is nothing, it changes absolutely nothing about the designed

...

You mean "better for players like me." There is a wealth of experience similar to this, its called 5e. And I have hundreds of hours working in that bounded system. The core principles do not need massive amounts of playtesting to figure out, especially since nothing about the core balance point of this system is altered. Against the same level threat every single die roll is going to be exactly the same. What changes is the spread of the enemy strengths. It won't break the game, allows for support of meaningful static DCs. Changes the feel of the game to a bounded one.

This is all about making the game work for a wider player base. And the core of P2 is so well done, it is very easy to implement and works. It just works better than any large sweeping variant rule in any system I've ever encountered.

This isn't an argument about which way is better, it is about finding a way to offer what people want to more players in the easiest manner.


I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming the scaling in PF2 stays as is then removing that scaling is going to be a common houserule since many people seem to want it and 5e made bounded accuracy popular. I think at the very least a sidebar near the proficiency section explaining how you can change the scaling of the game as a variant rule is necessary.


So, um, I know adding numbers just to add numbers feels kinda pointless, but I don't think this is a big deal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Unicore wrote:
I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build.

Well, let's not get hysterical, an Ancient Red Dragon would have an AC of 23.

A milita guard would have, what, +3 or 4 to hit?

This also helps explain why dragons have not taken over the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RangerWickett wrote:


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

The developers have been careful to make sure that all essential defenses and saves are trained, but even with just applying to skills, being untrained in acrobatics or athletics could probably result in character death by level 10 or higher if you only got half your level to something that a monster might deliberately be targeting with an attack.

I think that once GMs get a better sense of how to arbitrate what characters can and cannot attempt with untrained checks, a lot of concerns about untrained characters being too good at things will probably stop feeling like such an issue. Maybe it would be cool to have a developer blog where some of the designers put out more specific examples of this kind of thing, maybe a couple for each skill eventually.


In terms of avoiding character deat if the only change you make is that untrained is -2 instead of lvl -2. Then I think the major changes needed are in acrobatics and athletics. Specifically escape grapple, balance, and grab edge could all be made into reflex saves (and therefore automatically scale) and that would help. Everyone is trained in perception, all saves, and at least one form or defence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If we are talking about numbers simplicity, 5e is actually pretty complicated to what PF2e is proposing.

5e relies on fractional increases...for example, with the bounded accuracy of Proficiency bonuses...it is 1/4.

That means every four levels is a bonus of +1. That actually is NOT as simple as a straight up +1/Level.

Smaller numbers do NOT necessarily mean less complex.

Having bounded accuracy simply to have bounded accuracy is foolish. +6 is so randomly put out there, it actually does not make much sense to even have that as the set number one works with as the max.

The ONLY reason it works with 5e is because it has the name D&D slapped on it. They did not make the rest of the system overly complex, and it's not something that is going to drive people away from playing like other versions may have. Hence, as long as it's not driving people away, it's probably not doing anything overly horrible.

We have a source that there are 9-10 million D&D players right now, with no evidence of it except the words of Execs at WotC who have been known to twist the truth in the past (for example, when 4e was published they stated that the original books outsold 3e and were the best selling books ever, nefariously close to what they claimed with 5e as well...are they telling us the straight up truth or have they twisted it in some way to still be the truth, but not completely the whole picture?).

Taking them at their word though, that is a great increase from prior editions of the game, but it only means that people recognize the D&D name and are playing it because it's not horrendously bad.

That does not mean taking a random number like +6 or that bounded accuracy is actually a good idea.

The best games (for example, poker only is limited by the cards, and how much money a player has on them, if they have a billion dollars to bet, the game can go up that much, if it's only 10 dollars, the game stops there...there are no arbitrary limits on betting in poker) do not have arbitrary limits placed upon them, and neither does real life. If one has set a world record...there's always eventually someone else who may be able to get just that much faster, farther, or higher...etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build.

Well, let's not get hysterical, an Ancient Red Dragon would have an AC of 23.

A milita guard would have, what, +3 or 4 to hit?

This also helps explain why dragons have not taken over the world.

I think a major problem many people have with 5e is this bounded accuracy thing where 20 militia can take down an ancient red dragon.

It's ridiculous from the fantasy tropes.

Especially when in legends and fairy tales Dragons (not even ancient ones at that) level entire cities and even nations on their own...

Not even the entire ARMY can stop the dragon.

That's why you have the hero come in that can actually slay the dragon (Granted, in the fairy tales normally it's only ONE individual instead of an entire party).

In 5e...take the local militia and the problem is solved...why even hire heroes in the first place. The entire idea of adventurers needed is a moot point in 5e...any local militia should be able to solve the same problems as well if not better as a party of adventurers.

There's no reason for them to even exist.

However, people put up with it in 5e because

#1. A HUGE amount of people are playing it and when it is the only real option...that's what you choose.

#2. It's being promoted more than other games systems and you see it a LOT in popular culture. When people see it on TV and don't know what else is out there...that's what they end up playing. It's not that they feel that they think the ideas or design are the best, but it's what they know.

It's also part of why D&D is such a valuable brand name in the RPG world.

By itself, it doesn't make 5e as big as it would be, but when you have Geek and Sundry and multiple other highly visible media pushing 5e...it makes for a huge factor in 5e's popularity.

#3. And biggest of all, It doesn't stink and rather then reprinting it anew or a different version, they've kept the same rules in print for longer than any other edition since 3e has been in print (AD&D versinos were in print longer).

It may not be the best system made, but 4e put a bad enough taste in enough people's mouths (I know this, even if I enjoyed 4e and saw many play it) that when 5e came out, they jumped onboard with both feet. With them pushing it AND how long 5e has been kept in print (if you want a similar number you'd have to combine how many PHB's 3e and 3.5 sold...all together for the same timespan), it shouldn't be a surprise at how many copies of the PHB has been sold (what's more interesting though is when one asks how many copies of the DMG was sold and there is dead silence...).

Hence, in my opinion...

D&D 5e succeeds despite bounded accuracy...not because of it.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

If we are talking about numbers simplicity, 5e is actually pretty complicated to what PF2e is proposing.

Wow, i have not seen anyone say 5th edition is complicated before.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
D&D 5e succeeds despite bounded accuracy...not because of it.

I happen to agree with you regarding the problems of a bounded accuracy system in terms of world building but people like it so I think it still deserves at least a side bar.


Kerobelis wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

If we are talking about numbers simplicity, 5e is actually pretty complicated to what PF2e is proposing.

Wow, i have not seen anyone say 5th edition is complicated before.

I didn't say 5e is complicated as a whole, but the portion people are proposing taking from 5e IS more complicated.

It's the same idea behind THAC0 being more complicated than what 3e did. It's simply that mathematically, people have a harder time with subtraction than with addition, even if overall they do the same thing.

This applies to 5e's basic idea of starting at +2 for a proficiency, and then adding +1 every 4 levels. It is a fractional increase, meaning that you get 1/4.

Fractions inherently are more complex than simply adding up numbers...or...+1/1 level.

In addition, an arbitrary number like +6 is typically harder to remember than something like a 5 or 10 or number in that accord.

And remembering that it is a +2 at first and than +1 every 4 levels is a lot harder than simply remember that whatever your level is...is what your modifier is equal to.

Hence, for someone who is 10th level...it's very quick to say your total bonus is +10.

Now ask someone who is brand new to 5e what their proficiency bonus is at 10th level.

Without being able to look at the book they'll just stare at you and have no idea.

Someone experienced could say it is +4, but it is not as intuitive as the idea of a simple +1 per level.

One is inherently simpler than the other in that light...which is what I was stating about the complexity of numbers and what some are proposing.

In essence, fractions are always more complex or complicated than straight forward counting.


Such a system would mean that:
- Equal level fights work the same way as they do adding level to proficiency.
- Lower level enemies are a bigger challenge, while higher level ones become relatively easier. From the examples above, we have seen that it's not extreme: an high level monster will probably still trample over a small town, but won't be able to do that unscathed.
If a bunch a mid-level heroes groups together to face the menace, the monster would better find another town to raze, if it's smart enough! Or use different tactics than brute force.
The fact that an extremely powerful monster can be resisted by enemies several levels lower than itself may feel strange, but it's just a different touch.
- Environment keeps playing an important role even at higher levels. Surviving in the desert is still a tough challenge, jumping over a chasm is always risky. Conversely, extreme situations that in the standard rules can put higher level characters in danger will be outright impossible to handle (except for that PC who is legendary in the applicable skill, maybe). I guess this could be seen as a feature instead of a problem; but...
- Spells! Even toned down as they are, spells are powerful enough to trivialize those challenges, and that's bad enough when a skilled character could overcome them without recurring to magic; it's even worse when skills aren't powerful enough and thus you NEED magic.
Granted, spellcasters get less slots than before and resonance keeps the spamming of wands/scrolls in check, but I think that in such a system a Wizard would be even more godly than we are used to see in PF1e.

In any case, I believe that it's very unlikely that removing level from proficiency will ever be an official variant rule, let alone double numbers on the bestiary.
Someone will probably publish a PDF with guidelines on how to do it, and if it really works it will become a common variant like gestalt rules or spheres of power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:
This is all about making the game work for a wider player base. And the core of P2 is so well done, it is very easy to implement and works. It just works better than any large sweeping variant rule in any system I've ever encountered.

This is what i'm finding really interesting about your suggestion. Pathfinder 2 could be a default high fantasy game, but with trivial effort could play as a low fantasy or bounded (gritty fantasy?) game. All by adding a single 'variant rules option' to the back of each book increasing the page count by only one page. Just let the GM change to +1/2 level or ranked (bounded) only if thats what they and their players are looking for.

That could be one hell of a selling point if done right. I don't know an RPG that's done that before. Not even FATE or GURPS, the most universal systems I know. Has it been tried? Successfully?

That Pathfinder 2 could do that so mechanically simply is an eye opener. +1 to the dev team for that. Impressed.


GreyWolfLord wrote:


The ONLY reason it works with 5e is because it has the name D&D slapped on it. They did not make the rest of the system overly complex, and it's not something that is going to drive people away from playing like other versions may have.

We have a source that there are 9-10 million D&D players right now,...

That does not mean taking a random number like +6 or that bounded accuracy is actually a good idea.

You make some very good points there.

On the 5e and market size stuff, there's something important to remember. The number of new players coming into tabletop RPGs at the moment is enormous. Visible to all of us online, and personally anecdotally i've had increasingly more and more people ask me about them and want to play in the last few years.

Pathfinder doesn't have to beat 5e. It has to help to continue to grow the market alongside it. And perhaps do well as an 'advanced' version of D&D for those who have grown out of the 'basic' version.

Edit: looks at THAC0. Even the rose tinted specs aren't making those memories pleasant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yossarian wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
This is all about making the game work for a wider player base. And the core of P2 is so well done, it is very easy to implement and works. It just works better than any large sweeping variant rule in any system I've ever encountered.

This is what i'm finding really interesting about your suggestion. Pathfinder 2 could be a default high fantasy game, but with trivial effort could play as a low fantasy or bounded (gritty fantasy?) game. All by adding a single 'variant rules option' to the back of each book increasing the page count by only one page. Just let the GM change to +1/2 level or ranked (bounded) only if thats what they and their players are looking for.

That could be one hell of a selling point if done right. I don't know an RPG that's done that before. Not even FATE or GURPS, the most universal systems I know. Has it been tried? Successfully?

That Pathfinder 2 could do that so mechanically simply is an eye opener. +1 to the dev team for that. Impressed.

Bingo. That is exactly what I'm saying.

They've done a fine job with the core system. They literally built a solid bound system and tacked on level scaling to achieve their design goal of high fantasy. Except, you don't need to do that, it could serve all ends of the fantasy spectrum pretty darn well.

And in my opinion, it would be a damned shame to relegate that to house ruling. Give it some kind of official support, even if its just a variant rule, and reap the benefits.


Megistone wrote:


- Environment keeps playing an important role even at higher levels. Surviving in the desert is still a tough challenge,

I recently GM'd a group through RotRL anniversary edition. In the last book, it was tricky making the now high level PCs feel the true struggle against nature that crossing the Kodars was. There was a disconnect between the tone of the first section (tough gritty mountain struggle) and the PCs level 15 abilities. This is numbers directly connecting to story.

In PF2 we now have one number that can dictate the entire tone of a campaign. If Pathfinder is about true flexibility, how much power should the GM have to control what that tone should be? How much power is too much power?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build.

Well, let's not get hysterical, an Ancient Red Dragon would have an AC of 23.

A milita guard would have, what, +3 or 4 to hit?

This also helps explain why dragons have not taken over the world.

I think a major problem many people have with 5e is this bounded accuracy thing where 20 militia can take down an ancient red dragon.

It's ridiculous from the fantasy tropes.

Especially when in legends and fairy tales Dragons (not even ancient ones at that) level entire cities and even nations on their own...

Not even the entire ARMY can stop the dragon.

That's why you have the hero come in that can actually slay the dragon (Granted, in the fairy tales normally it's only ONE individual instead of an entire party).

In 5e...take the local militia and the problem is solved...why even hire heroes in the first place. The entire idea of adventurers needed is a moot point in 5e...any local militia should be able to solve the same problems as well if not better as a party of adventurers.

Oh man, I'm having trouble seeing because of my allergies. Must be hay fever from your strawman argument. /sarcasm

Oh, lets decompress that. You just claimed those 20 militia men are going to kill the ancient red dragon. In Bound P2 the dragon would appear and enter range, a quarter or so would be frightened and fleeting, most of the rest would be frightened 2, others frightened 1, they'd need 20's to hit. 20 of them would maybe get a handful of hits on the dragon over the course of the combat before they were all dead. Shockingly, this is almost the exact same result as unbound P2 because of 20s to hit.

In 5e, because of frightful presence and disadvantage, the median result is 0 damage to the dragon before they'd be dead.

So, no, 20 militia are not a threat to an Ancient Dragon. Not even close.

So, can that strawman argument please go away forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zman0 wrote:


They've done a fine job with the core system. They literally built a solid bound system and tacked on level scaling to achieve their design goal of high fantasy.

The funny thing about PF2 being dialled up numerically to high fantasy is that the feats overall don't feel nearly as high fantasy to me personally as PF1. Or more accurately: the characters when built don't feel as high fantasy. Perhaps mostly because many of the skill feats feel fairly realistic.

I'm really a fan of the idea of supported optional rules for a 3-setting dial for the game for GMs and players that want to have either a low-fantasy or gritty (bounded) feel. That flexibility feels very aligned with the stated design goals of the team.


I do believe +1/2 your lvl is a much simpler solution

No proficiency is just to much like 5e, where Orcus, the lord of dead and necromancy, that has a CR 26, has a AC 17. My lvl 4 group can beat that easy. Of course it would be very easier to new gamers to get it, but it would piss of old players, something paizo don't want to do. Without having to say that would be out of one of the P2 topics: stay true to pathfinder

Proficiency equal to its level its to complicaded and would imply the GMs to inflate their DCs (I'm not saying this is in the rules or that every one does that, just that without complicated tables upon every skill this would happen), of course old time players would like that, but a lot of new GMs would find that intimidating and might just stick to 5e or more interpretative systems

Proficiency with 1/2 level just fits, being epic to high level characters that would roll +10 not counting ability bonus and skill ratings [making my counts right it would get to +19], being welcoming to low-level characters that even having a low bonus would still be able to be lucky and do awesome stuff, and the most important part, it would simplify encounter buildings a lot


You know if you are worried about a single character beating up 20 low level guards...the simplest solution is to just use a troop instead of 20 individual NPCs. Given that troops are pretty popular as a concept I imagine they will show up early in the PF2 system.


baptestone wrote:

I do believe +1/2 your lvl is a much simpler solution

No proficiency is just to much like 5e, where Orcus, the lord of dead and necromancy, that has a CR 26, has a AC 17. My lvl 4 group can beat that easy. Of course it would be very easier to new gamers to get it, but it would piss of old players, something paizo don't want to do. Without having to say that would be out of one of the P2 topics: stay true to pathfinder

Proficiency equal to its level its to complicaded and would imply the GMs to inflate their DCs (I'm not saying this is in the rules or that every one does that, just that without complicated tables upon every skill this would happen), of course old time players would like that, but a lot of new GMs would find that intimidating and might just stick to 5e or more interpretative systems

Proficiency with 1/2 level just fits, being epic to high level characters that would roll +10 not counting ability bonus and skill ratings [making my counts right it would get to +19], being welcoming to low-level characters that even having a low bonus would still be able to be lucky and do awesome stuff, and the most important part, it would simplify encounter buildings a lot

Wait....... are you saying your group of lvl 4 characters can take out 5e Orcus? I mean, sure, his AC is only 17, which is the lowest of any high CR creature. But, at level 4 you won't have magic items so you can't hurt him. Sure, they they'll be able to roll and hit Orcus, but he has over 400HP and unless they have magic items, the don't even touch him. And on his first turn he just summons 200+ zombies because your adventurers aren't worth his time or effort to kill.

Anyway, you can roll and it Orcus fairly easily. Sure, at 17, his AC is the lowest of anything around CR20+. Usually they are in the low to mid 20s, which means you'd struggle to ever hit them at level 4. If you hit, you probably don't hurt them, and they can swat you like a fly.

Even a level 10 party would likely find Orcus so far beyond them they'd be best to just run away before he noticed them. Hell, Orcus summoning his 200+ skeletal archers and he can put down even level 20 characters like nothing.

What was the point of your comment?


Zman0 wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I think that this sounds like something that might be better left for a third party developer that wants to build an entire world around 20 militia guards with bows being able to drop a marauding dragon, then trying to balance it in to the world of Golarion the developers are trying to build.

Well, let's not get hysterical, an Ancient Red Dragon would have an AC of 23.

A milita guard would have, what, +3 or 4 to hit?

This also helps explain why dragons have not taken over the world.

I think a major problem many people have with 5e is this bounded accuracy thing where 20 militia can take down an ancient red dragon.

It's ridiculous from the fantasy tropes.

Especially when in legends and fairy tales Dragons (not even ancient ones at that) level entire cities and even nations on their own...

Not even the entire ARMY can stop the dragon.

That's why you have the hero come in that can actually slay the dragon (Granted, in the fairy tales normally it's only ONE individual instead of an entire party).

In 5e...take the local militia and the problem is solved...why even hire heroes in the first place. The entire idea of adventurers needed is a moot point in 5e...any local militia should be able to solve the same problems as well if not better as a party of adventurers.

Oh man, I'm having trouble seeing because of my allergies. Must be hay fever from your strawman argument. /sarcasm

Oh, lets decompress that. You just claimed those 20 militia men are going to kill the ancient red dragon. In Bound P2 the dragon would appear and enter range, a quarter or so would be frightened and fleeting, most of the rest would be frightened 2, others frightened 1, they'd need 20's to hit. 20 of them would maybe get a handful of hits on the dragon over the course of the combat before they were all dead. Shockingly, this is almost the exact same result as unbound P2 because of 20s to hit.

In 5e, because of frightful presence and disadvantage, the median result is 0 damage to the dragon before they'd be dead.

So, no, 20 militia are not a threat to an Ancient Dragon. Not even close.

So, can that strawman argument please go away forever.

Nice job, thanks for closing down that hyperbolic, ill-informed codswallop, I was too tired to bother last night before I went to bed.


baptestone wrote:
No proficiency is just to much like 5e, where Orcus, the lord of dead and necromancy, that has a CR 26, has a AC 17.

It's 20 with with his Wand, and I do not see him leaving it at home.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
baptestone wrote:
No proficiency is just to much like 5e, where Orcus, the lord of dead and necromancy, that has a CR 26, has a AC 17.
It's 20 with with his Wand, and I do not see him leaving it at home.

How id I forget the wand of Orcus AC boost? I've never ran him, but still. I need to slap my own hand for forgetting that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2e's OGL might solve this issue.

Imagine a site like the Archives of Nethys. Now imagine if in that site, a dedicated gamer(s) went through and tagged each numeric entry involving proficiency or DC. Include a reporting mechanism, so that visitors could report inconsistencies.

Users of the site could then use a coded toggle switch, to switch between versions. This would be something like the E6 of 3.x, just fan maintained and made.

I wouldn't expect Paizo to keep up with something like this, but it's well within the realm of the fandom.


MuddyVolcano wrote:

PF2e's OGL might solve this issue.

Imagine a site like the Archives of Nethys. Now imagine if in that site, a dedicated gamer(s) went through and tagged each numeric entry involving proficiency or DC. Include a reporting mechanism, so that visitors could report inconsistencies.

Users of the site could then use a coded toggle switch, to switch between versions. This would be something like the E6 of 3.x, just fan maintained and made.

I wouldn't expect Paizo to keep up with something like this, but it's well within the realm of the fandom.

That is awesome. I didn't think of the OGL... been spending too much time in 5e. I definitely would do my part to maintain it!


Rysky wrote:
[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.

May I point to exhibit A: Pathfinder Unchained.


Zman0 wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:

PF2e's OGL might solve this issue.

Imagine a site like the Archives of Nethys. Now imagine if in that site, a dedicated gamer(s) went through and tagged each numeric entry involving proficiency or DC. Include a reporting mechanism, so that visitors could report inconsistencies.

Users of the site could then use a coded toggle switch, to switch between versions. This would be something like the E6 of 3.x, just fan maintained and made.

I wouldn't expect Paizo to keep up with something like this, but it's well within the realm of the fandom.

That is awesome. I didn't think of the OGL... been spending too much time in 5e. I definitely would do my part to maintain it!

+1 Awesome Points to that.

Some developer friends and I are very seriously considering building a structured-data version of the SRD. The aim is to assemble pages dynamically so all the stuff you need is there, removing all the clicking (page turning) back and forth whilst making maintaining the information highly efficient.

In laymans turns: we can show the same content in different places at once. So for example the Power: Lay on Hands can show up in the Powers list as well as the Paladin class page. Or you can make a page (or search) that says: 'show me all the actions with the attack trait' or 'show me every monster with the attack of opportunity ability'.

As you can imagine, building for example a dynamic character creator app on top of that would be very powerful. The level up button could immediately display all the available options for your specific character, taking into account their class, skills, feats etc you name it.

Adding the feature you describe to that would be a trivial piece of code. Since proficiency is universal, it's literally changing one number in the code.

The current static page construction of Nethys, d20pfsrd etc is not able to implement the feature you describe without some truly horrible coding. This is because they appear to be maintaining every page as static content, with no deeper re-use of data happening under the surface.

Our plan, should we do it, is to make the structured data we create open to access by Nethys and others, so they can use our feature(s) if they like. Not sure if we'll actually do it, but we all love pathfinder and we believe making the digital SRDs truly dynamic using structured data would make a massive difference to the quality of life for the pathfinder community. Would rather see Paizo do it, but they are about the least digital company I know!

It's a cool thing imho. Press 1 button and the entire ruleset converts between high / low / gritty flavour. Computers are really good at arithmetic!


Yossarian wrote:
Rysky wrote:
[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.
May I point to exhibit A: Pathfinder Unchained.

Yes, and after using the Revised Action Economy, I do not want to use the standard PF action economy, ever again.


Maybe it would just be better to scrap this entire dumpster fire and do what they should have done... do to pathfinder what 3.5 did for 3.0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Zman0 wrote:
MuddyVolcano wrote:

PF2e's OGL might solve this issue.

Imagine a site like the Archives of Nethys. Now imagine if in that site, a dedicated gamer(s) went through and tagged each numeric entry involving proficiency or DC. Include a reporting mechanism, so that visitors could report inconsistencies.

Users of the site could then use a coded toggle switch, to switch between versions. This would be something like the E6 of 3.x, just fan maintained and made.

I wouldn't expect Paizo to keep up with something like this, but it's well within the realm of the fandom.

That is awesome. I didn't think of the OGL... been spending too much time in 5e. I definitely would do my part to maintain it!

Ive seen comments like this a few times. Is it not widely known that you can publish books for 5E under the OGL?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Yossarian wrote:
Rysky wrote:
[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.
May I point to exhibit A: Pathfinder Unchained.

Pathfinder Unchained is an entire hardcover.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At least I'm not alone in the Bounded and Unbounded issue. Just put me in the Bounded corner, where I'll be sitting eating popcorn.


Stacie.Winters1 wrote:
At least I'm not alone in the Bounded and Unbounded issue. Just put me in the Bounded corner, where I'll be sitting eating popcorn.

At least it is dirt-simple to make PF2 bounded (simply ignore +Level, done), one of the things I am liking about this new edition.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Suggestion: A Tale of Two Pathfinders 2nd Edition: Bound and Unbound All Messageboards

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