| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).
There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.
Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.
None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...
Its simple. Monsters do not follow PC rules.
If you do not like this, it is a different argument and has nothing to do with level bonus.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine that you as a GM want your campaign to eventually involve climbing a mountain. At level 1, maybe one PC could do it, but the rest just couldn't do it, and their classes don't get many opportunities to improve on this. Because Athletics improve as you gain experience, eventually the party could have a decent enough bonus that the DCs you presented at level 1 are now attainable.
In a system where you have to deliberately choose every improvement, some choices get prioritized over others, and it can lead to a high-level PC encountering something that he could have beaten easily if he built himself to do it, but gets humiliated by something much more low-level than him because he didn't.
In my experience, just because only one characer can CLIMB the mountain, the rest of the party usually sure as duck has other means to reach the mountain top. after all, figuring out how to get there is half the fun.
honestly, every party member being good at everything sounds incredibly boring
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine that you as a GM want your campaign to eventually involve climbing a mountain. At level 1, maybe one PC could do it, but the rest just couldn't do it, and their classes don't get many opportunities to improve on this. Because Athletics improve as you gain experience, eventually the party could have a decent enough bonus that the DCs you presented at level 1 are now attainable.
In a system where you have to deliberately choose every improvement, some choices get prioritized over others, and it can lead to a high-level PC encountering something that he could have beaten easily if he built himself to do it, but gets humiliated by something much more low-level than him because he didn't.
In my experience, just because only one characer can CLIMB the mountain, the rest of the party usually sure as duck has other means to reach the mountain top. after all, figuring out how to get there is half the fun.
honestly, every party member being good at everything sounds incredibly boring
Agreed.
This might be overreaching or hyperbole, but if everyone has a decent chance of success, why don't I roll for everything? Why do I need the rest of the group besides just gaining more rolls?
Oh combat. Okay.
I've heard stories about "That guys" that roll on everything, doesn't matter if they have the skill leveled or not. Well I bet those stories are going to be something to read going forward.
A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).
That's a good point, I suppose. Though what it really comes down to is that 'enemies' and 'characters' are built with completely different methods and intentions. Is this against the inner logic of the world? Yes, unless you put in some 'chosen one' thing. Is it necessary for entretaining play and challenge? Maybe. Haven't had time to GM it myself yet, so I can only conjeture and read the forum.
I will say though that the CONCEPT of both using different rules doesn't not bother me, as long as it helps play. Maybe a -1 to hit for all enemies in the playtest would make a noticeable difference? Something to test I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).
There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.
Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.
None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...
Its simple. Monsters do not follow PC rules.
If you do not like this, it is a different argument and has nothing to do with level bonus.
We were never promised they'd follow PC rules. But what we were told is that they would roughly follow PC NUMBERS, as in HP/Attack/Skills/Saves. Since they have levels just like characters you can do equivalences a lot more easily. Lv1 mons would hit like lv1 chars (Maybe not like Fighter, but Barb or Cleric) and have 12-25 HP while lv0 would have be -1 lower than the PCs.
I guess roughly means "Superior" in this case.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm okay with the 20th level fighter fighting off an army of low levels Orcs and truly being a master of combat in comparison to them that is only hampered by the luckiest of blows from his enemy. Until the high level leader (if one exists) of the army finally comes and faces the fighter.
To me, that's exactly how it should work.
Ah, the Boromir effect. And he was most assuredly no higher than level five or six.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, getting rid of the requirement to explain why the 20th level character is a better farmer than the 1st level farmer, despite never having farmed, is certainly a bonus. (Yes, I know about trained/untrained uses of skills and skill feats. But isn't it better to just have a system where a 20th level character doesn't have a +20 bonus to untrained skills?)
Not really. First of all, as the rules currently exist, "Practicing a Trade" is a trained only skill. So the Barbarian can't effectively farm at all. He MIGHT be able to win a trivia contest about exotic crops, If the GM allows for it untrained (I am pretty sure the GM can gate what you get from such checks regardless of being trained or not) but that's because he's seen more of the world and been exposed to more things, where the 1st level farmer has only known about whatever group of crops he's raised on the small plot of land he's never left in his life. (Keep in mind that most NPCs that have actually traveled or done anything with their life aren't 1st level anymore.)
Also, farming, practicing law, making delicious baked goods, or whatever other example people point to these discussions? They are pretty much irrelevant to adventuring and therefore the game at large. How often do you actually see the 20th level Barbarian wanting to prove he knows more about farming than a 1st level farmer? Why is the Barbarian talking to 1st level farmers and trying to outdo them? The 20th level Barbarian can literally scare people to death by growling at them. What's he got to prove exactly.
Basically, I feel like these examples are like the peasant rail gun. I don't care if you can push the system to an extreme situation that will never come up in an actual game that manages to break immersion. I care how the actual game plays, and whether I feel immersed while I play it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.
A more recent discovery I made by analyzing the math (that other people probably already figured out) Is that besides some edge cases (Goblins), monster AC is too low by the same amount that their attack is too high. This means even if the monster is more lethal, PCs are also more lethal against them, this sort of "balances" out these attack advantages and results in inflated damage/crit rate from both sides. However, it also results in jarring stat blocks that don't add up with PCs. Giving all PCs +1 or +2 prof bonus from trained but keeping AC the same (Base 8 or 9) would equalize this. We'd gain proper homogeneity between monsters and PCs without increasing the miss chance.
|
Plus, getting rid of the requirement to explain why the 20th level character is a better farmer than the 1st level farmer, despite never having farmed, is certainly a bonus. (Yes, I know about trained/untrained uses of skills and skill feats. But isn't it better to just have a system where a 20th level character doesn't have a +20 bonus to untrained skills?)
Not really. First of all, as the rules currently exist, "Practicing a Trade" is a trained only skill. So the Barbarian can't effectively farm at all. He MIGHT be able to win a trivia contest about exotic crops, If the GM allows for it untrained (I am pretty sure the GM can gate what you get from such checks regardless of being trained or not) but that's because he's seen more of the world and been exposed to more things, where the 1st level farmer has only known about whatever group of crops he's raised on the small plot of land he's never left in his life. (Keep in mind that most NPCs that have actually traveled or done anything with their life aren't 1st level anymore.)
Also, farming, practicing law, making delicious baked goods, or whatever other example people point to these discussions? They are pretty much irrelevant to adventuring and therefore the game at large. How often do you actually see the 20th level Barbarian wanting to prove he knows more about farming than a 1st level farmer? Why is the Barbarian talking to 1st level farmers and trying to outdo them? The 20th level Barbarian can literally scare people to death by growling at them. What's he got to prove exactly.
Basically, I feel like these examples are like the peasant rail gun. I don't care if you can push the system to an extreme situation that will never come up in an actual game that manages to break immersion. I care how the actual game plays, and whether I feel immersed while I play it.
You sound wise, do you have any justification for the +1 to everything / level, as opposed to a more bounded system like +1 every 2 or 3 levels?
+1 per level has its problems but it doesn't have any problems that bounded accuracy lacks... You still have level 20 characters being just better at everything than level 1 characters, the difference is simply smaller and you have a much higher chance of getting punked by a goblin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.A more recent discovery I made by analyzing the math (that other people probably already figured out) Is that besides some edge cases (Goblins), monster AC is too low by the same amount that their attack is too high. This means even if the monster is more lethal, PCs are also more lethal against them, this sort of "balances" out these attack advantages and results in inflated damage/crit rate from both sides. However, it also results in jarring stat blocks that don't add up with PCs. Giving all PCs +1 or +2 prof bonus from trained but keeping AC the same (Base 8 or 9) would equalize this. We'd gain proper homogeneity between monsters and PCs without increasing the miss chance.
Which to me looks like a bad idea. Sure it makes combat faster I suppose if the players are able to kill the monsters in fewer hits so you aren't bogged down.
But if the Monsters largely keep their high swings/damages, it can easily turn into just a series of glass cannons. Partially with the new crit rules. Depending on the dungeon, oh no. Monster died. Well I have 3 more in battle and another 12 more if not a larger number, further down into the dungeon.
Player eats a crit? Well that's death or resources down the drain. And if the monsters are able to crit just as often(Or worse, more) than the PCs, how often are we going to see death or parties falling back? Heck isn't there a topic about that over on the Doomsday Dawn section?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.
Level 0 goblins have 14AC and 6hps. They do d6 damage with a +6 to hit. All they are better at is the to hit.
The designers stated they will be not following and set formulas, i.e. abandoning the Universal Monster Rules. They will make monsters have signature abilities, and they have done so (see purple worm spitting people out that it eats).
I believe this is due to the 4 edition problem. Monsters in early 4th edition had ton a hit points, low attack and damage so battles lasted forever. It was later improved by reducing durability and increasing damage.
PF2 may be going in the same direction. But this is only a guess as we do not have the monster building rules. I am sure the concept is similar to 4th and 5th edition, which amounts to a large table of ranges for everything so characters are always hitting around the sweet spot (50-60% success) it could probably be back calculated by taking the averages of monsters AC, to hit, etc.
Maybe the to hit is too high? It is possible that the internal monster creature table is off. That is what playtesting will highlight.
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them (like how in PF1 every monster got a crap ton of natural armor so that they could compete in AC without giving the PC's a ton of loot). Level 0 goblins being as good as the best possible level 1 PC was not part of the deal.A more recent discovery I made by analyzing the math (that other people probably already figured out) Is that besides some edge cases (Goblins), monster AC is too low by the same amount that their attack is too high. This means even if the monster is more lethal, PCs are also more lethal against them, this sort of "balances" out these attack advantages and results in inflated damage/crit rate from both sides. However, it also results in jarring stat blocks that don't add up with PCs. Giving all PCs +1 or +2 prof bonus from trained but keeping AC the same (Base 8 or 9) would equalize this. We'd gain proper homogeneity between monsters and PCs without increasing the miss chance.Which to me looks like a bad idea. Sure it makes combat faster I suppose if the players are able to kill the monsters in fewer hits so you aren't bogged down.
But if the Monsters largely keep their high swings/damages, it can easily turn into just a series of glass cannons. Partially with the new crit rules. Depending on the dungeon, oh no. Monster died. Well I have 3 more in battle and another 12 more if not a larger number, further down into the dungeon.
Player eats a crit? Well that's death or resources down the drain. And if the monsters are able to crit just as often(Or worse, more) than the PCs, how often are we going to see death or parties falling back? Heck isn't there a topic about that over on the Doomsday Dawn section?
The increased lethality seems intentional, though. I don't particularly have a problem with it but I guess it can make fights too swingy. If you want to revert this instead of making AC start at 8-9, you'd need to increase monster AC by the same amount to balance it out.
----
Level 0 goblins have 14AC and 6hps. They do d6 damage with a +6 to hit. All they are better at is the to hit.
Then look at the Goblin Commando who is proper Lv1. Seems equal or better than a Goblin Fighter except for the damage (low STR) and AC (Depends on armor, but I mentioned this recently). His differences in numbers are not THAT off, so it would be easy enough to fix.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just aesthetically I prefer a mechanical system in which no number of level 1 mooks pose any threat whatsoever to a level 20 character, and for level 20 characters to be broadly competent so they don't run into situations like "I have no idea what a vampire is" or "I'm going to drown in calm seas if I fall off the boat" or "tragically, I cannot climb a rope."
Correspondingly, I don't really want for an ancient red dragon to be the sort of thing that can be taken down by even a thousand villagers with pitchforks and crossbows- this is why they ask mighty heroes to do it.
Director of Game Design
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there all,
It is always interesting to me to see folks try to divine design intent based on output. In many ways, there are a number of valid points here that went into the decision to add level to proficiency (besides the obvious that most characters did this in 1st ed to specific parts of their stats, which helps maintain the same game feel).
While I am not going to specifically validate or invalidate any ideas posted here, I will go on to add the following..
It gives us design space on the monster side of the equation.
A ogre is a very serious, if not deadly challenge at 1st level, a common foe at 3rd/4th, and a chump minion at 7th. This is very useful to us from a narrative sense as it gives characters a better understanding of their journey in the world and as a marker of their accomplishments.
Like most of our design calls, there are mechanical reasons and narrative reasons. This one is all across the board and might serve as a good topic for one of our upcoming twitch streams.
Hope that helps shed a bit of light on the issue
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s#+@ to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.Ghoul from PF1:
Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)This happens under PF1, too. :-)
For me, the plus is what happens when the Fighter attacks. Because of the level bonus and degrees of success measuring 10 over as a crit, the Fighter isn't only untouchable, they're also unstoppable by the ghouls. If we place the Fighter at the town gate, the Fighter can hold back an army of ghouls and save the town. That's something I see as suitable for a lv 20 character.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A ogre is a very serious, if not deadly challenge at 1st level, a common foe at 3rd/4th, and a chump minion at 7th. This is very useful to us from a narrative sense as it gives characters a better understanding of their journey in the world and as a marker of their accomplishments.
Which is odd as The Hook Mountain Massacre starts at level 7 and ends at level 10. So you're starting the ogre adventure when ogres are chump minions.
Having half-level to proficiency seems like ogres would still be a deadly challenge at 1st level, a common foe at 3rd/4th, and still a chump minion... just at level 10 or 11 instead.
Instead of monsters becoming obsolete after when they're 4 levels lower than you, it might be 6 or 8.
Just aesthetically I prefer a mechanical system in which no number of level 1 mooks pose any threat whatsoever to a level 20 character
Even if it is theoretically possible for 20 or 30 or 100 level 1 mooks to challenge a level 20 character... when is that likely to happen?
What GM is going to voluntarily run 20-50 individual mooks? It's not going to happen. It's a theoretical problem.
Correspondingly, I don't really want for an ancient red dragon to be the sort of thing that can be taken down by even a thousand villagers with pitchforks and crossbows- this is why they ask mighty heroes to do it.
Then why doesn't every ancient dragon just steamroll over every single village with impunity knowing no one there can even slow it down?
They're geniuses. Just use a minion to send word that great heroes are needed Absalom and then just crush Magnimar. By the time the heroes get word, everyone is dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the plus is what happens when the Fighter attacks. Because of the level bonus and degrees of success measuring 10 over as a crit, the Fighter isn't only untouchable, they're also unstoppable by the ghouls. If we place the Fighter at the town gate, the Fighter can hold back an army of ghouls and save the town. That's something I see as suitable for a lv 20 character.
Suitable, probably. But all the time? It probably depends on your characters and probably your players far more.
Some players would love to carve up an army of ghouls that can't do anything. Others would frown on the idea of being basically immune to the point of just not needing to play.
To change your example a bit, say it's ghouls attacking a dwarven village and the only way is through a door. Level 20 dwarf fighter can just sit there in the door and pass turns till the end of time.
There's no desperate last stand, no "Go I'll hold them off", not even a "I'll buy some time and fall back". The fighter doesn't need to do anything but just stand in the way.
Now in the example, we can discuss that the threat/danger/pathos of the scene/event is that the ghouls will go around the fighter a different way to get the villagers. But the fighter has no personal danger to worry about until something that is X level shows up.
That's not to say PF1 didn't have this issue either after a certain point but you could still eat a crit I believe. I suppose you can still maybe eat crits in PF2 if they are 20.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the plus is what happens when the Fighter attacks. Because of the level bonus and degrees of success measuring 10 over as a crit, the Fighter isn't only untouchable, they're also unstoppable by the ghouls. If we place the Fighter at the town gate, the Fighter can hold back an army of ghouls and save the town. That's something I see as suitable for a lv 20 character....
To change your example a bit, say it's ghouls attacking a dwarven village and the only way is through a door. Level 20 dwarf fighter can just sit there in the door and pass turns till the end of time.There's no desperate last stand, no "Go I'll hold them off", not even a "I'll buy some time and fall back". The fighter doesn't need to do anything but just stand in the way.
Now in the example, we can discuss that the threat/danger/pathos of the scene/event is that the ghouls will go around the fighter a different way to get the villagers. But the fighter has no personal danger to worry about until something that is X level shows up.
...
So for me, a level 20 character is legendary, epic, and disobeys the laws of physics. I have no issue with this situation. However, let's scale it back a bit. What about a level 10 character against an army of ghouls? With +10 to everything and already having two stat boosts and presumably a magic weapon/armor, you'll essentially have the same situation... That's where the problem lies for me. The scaling just happens *too* quickly.
EDIT: If you want him completely naked... well, just add 2 levels... Because that's the same as +2 armor/weapons in the game essentially.
Disobeying the laws of Physics is a fun thing to do. I mean look at all the cartoons.
But I feel when you do that either through levels, gear, etc, you also lose out on some of the threat/danger to your character as well.
This is a player/table issue more than the system I suppose, but how would you fix this other than giving those Ghouls extra levels? Which was the solution with PF1's Templates to a degree.
I'm going to have to wait and see how the monster building rules actually are.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
helps maintain the same game feel
while I agree that PF1 was similar when it came to saves and BAB, +1/lvl to skills is so noticable different that I have to confess, that I have no idea how one could come to this conclusion. If anything, +1/lvl to skills does the exact opposite
A ogre is [...] a chump minion at 7th
*looks at Hook Mountain Massacre*
This chump minions killed a third of my RotR party in a single encounternarrative reasons
Now you have my interest. what is the narrative reason for the Barbarian to gain a PhD in every field possible during a long dungeon crawl?
Hope that helps shed a bit of light on the issue
To be honest, I have more questions now than before
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new monster creation was advertised as a means of allowing them to make numbers that made sense without faking it by padding them
The problem with this is that it just means that all of the monsters are padded and fake, but there's no real way to compare them directly so actually see the adjustments.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you have my interest. what is the narrative reason for the Barbarian to gain a PhD in every field possible during a long dungeon crawl?
Let’s see...
Wizard has 18 Int and might be is proficient in Intelligence skills. +5 at level one.A barbarism with 8 Intelligence, at level 8 would have a similar check.
A 9th level barbarian is a professor!
Ladies and gentleman... Ostog the Untenured.
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.Ghoul from PF1:
Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)This happens under PF1, too. :-)
What of the PF1 and PF2 fighters are both just wearing street clothes and not using magic?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now you have my interest. what is the narrative reason for the Barbarian to gain a PhD in every field possible during a long dungeon crawl?
This perspective is a very common but very serious misrepresentation of how proficiency with skills works. Clearly that is an issue that the developers need to address, how to make it clear that having a +20 to an untrained check is not having a PHD. But the text is present in the play test document to understand that the way skills work, especially nuanced skills like knowledge and social skills, are not simply "beat this number and get your desired outcome." Because they are so nuanced, it does require GM arbitration to make it clear to the player why they might be able to roll a higher number than another character but have a more limited effect, but that is the entire point of having proficiency levels for skills, and why different actions are gated.
Lets not try to confuse the issue by making misrepresentative hyperbolic statements, unless you are honestly confused about how the proficiency system is supposed to work, but there are numerous threads here that can help you if you think that, in PF2, bonus = skill ability.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is very useful to us from a narrative sense as it gives characters a better understanding of their journey in the world and as a marker of their accomplishments.
It seems very odd to use the word "narrative" here when the issue at hand is fully mechanical in nature and is quite specifically not tied to any narrative aspect of anything.
In PF1 an ogre is a chump to L7 characters because the fighter has gained prowess (BAB) which differentiates him from other characters. He also has magic armor and weapons and other gear which all provide mechanical improvements purely because their narrative presence within the game world call upon the mechanics to move in order to accurately reflect them. The same assessment could be made for any other class.
In PF2 these narrative elements are pushed to the side. The fighter gets zero mechanical bonus to hit. He gets his prof bonus, but so does any and every other character. Maybe he gets +1 or +2 for being expert or master. The armor helps. Everything helps. But, in the overall mechanical view, the largest factor for all mechanics the narratively nonexistent fact that the character is 7th level.
The narrative is subject to the mandates of the mechanics rather than the mechanics are subject to the mandates of the narrative.
In PF1 the things the character could sense, know and interact with all inform the math. In PF2 you start with the abstraction of "level" and build out the mechanics which control the narrative from there.
Clearly, you can get to the same isolated point in the game; the ogres are chumps compared to L7 characters. But RPGs are not about isolated points, they are about the flow of story, evolution of characters, and changing mechanical models. If the abstractions and mechanics control the change in ways that ignore or marginalize the narrative which led to this point, then the system fails to deliver the satisfaction desired by players who want this narrative dominance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want a level to matter. A threat at 3rd level shouldn't be a threat at 10th level.
I like my magic items, but that shouldn't be the be all and end all of character ability.
And characters don't pick up Phd's while they adventure they pick up trivia - lots of it. Rank matters.
And as an aside, those chump ogres in runelords...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
so the characters participate in pub quizzes while stealthily sneaking through the dungeon?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest. I realize this is probably a bit offensive to the designers, but I really do feel like "level to everything" is a crutch that essentially hides the fact that, in some ways, levelling up *doesn't* give you anything cool to do relative to proficiency, which is supposed to be a cornerstone of PF2e. If lproficiency was done correctly and increased gradually giving access to more as it went up, then you shouldn't *need* a flat level bonus across the board to make a character better.
The fact is that proficiency does offer some okay choices for skills, but it gives *nothing* for weapons, armor, or spellcasting outside of the "+1 bonus". In addition, those bonuses fall flat relative to other character choices (which, by the way, *some* of those choices *are* really cool!).
This is a pretty huge problem with the system, in my mind. Perhaps it is something that gets fixed in the final edition, but it's not a small change, and probably warrants playtesting in and of itself. And let's face it, I doubt there's time for that if Paizo sticks to the schedule they imposed on themselves.
tivadar27 has put his or her finger on the problem, but I think the causality is backwards. Level to everything is a big boost to a character's power. To add cool abilities on top of that would be too much power.
A character doubles in effectiveness every two levels. That is a 41% increase in effectiveness per level. +1 to attack rolls is about a 10% increase and +1 to AC and saving throws is about another 10% increase, and increasing hit points could be another 20% (its value shrinks at every level) and we are already at 40% without adding any feats or ability score increases.
Thus, if we slowed down the increase in attack rolls, armor class, and saving throws, we could throw in awesome feats such as Evasion or a functional Power Attack without overpowering the character.
Skills does not affect combat much, except for the new use of Athletics, so it could increase at a different rate than 41%.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want a level to matter. A threat at 3rd level shouldn't be a threat at 10th level.
What 3rd level threats were still threats at 10th level until this system fixed it?
I don't think it is fair to suggest that this system is the only way for level to mean things. I think if we rolled back the calendar 24 months and you suggested that levels didn't mean things in PF, people would give you funny looks.
But in 1E a level meant you had become better at some concept and brought advancement that was primarily reflective of that concept. It had flexibility which allowed customization, but the narrative which informed "you gained a level" carried a lot of weight.
Obviously, wizards still gain spells and fighters get new slashy feat, I'm not claiming it is remotely all or nothing either way. But the "+ level to everything" is a very big deal and it is a rejection of certain kinds of narrative first gaming.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran one 5e campaign. I started it with a gnoll attack. Gnolls were a serious threat at 1st level. Deadly.
At 5th level, I had the party fight like twenty gnolls. I basically just took every gnoll mini I had and dumped it onto the battlemap.
By 10th level, gnolls wouldn't even be a speedbump. Despite the fact gnolls could still theoretically hit and the PCs could miss.
It wasn't accuracy and increasing AC/hit numbers that made the gnolls nonthreatening.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now you have my interest. what is the narrative reason for the Barbarian to gain a PhD in every field possible during a long dungeon crawl?
Because they have experienced a wide variety of the multiverse's lifeforms and phenomena, often aimed at them for violent purposes. While they can't fit what they've experienced into a coherent theorem like a scholar, they memorize specific things they fight or are exposed to.
Take Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy. He is a dumb brute. At the start, he can't even get metaphors. But the adventures he goes on exposes him to knowledge 99% of scholars don't know.
- He learns of the Infinity Stones and of the Celestials, actively asking Ego questions about his... state.
- He practises his ability to hide in plain sight (which isn't as good as he thinks it is, but still good).
- He's exposed to what a Living Planet can do, and that a monster's skin isn't weaker from the inside.
- He never shies away from practising his physical skills, liking tethering himself to his ship and hanging out its back while flying in space.
- He learns some of the finer points of the Law by asking the Nova Corps.
- Drax even picks up random facts about Earth from Starlord.
- And he even learns the wisdom of being a good teammate from his failure with Ronan and dealing with Mantis.
No, Drax doesn't go to Space University, but he has a lot of personal field experience and asks questions about what he's experiencing. He may not be smarter from Tony Stark, but he knows more things.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran one 5e campaign. I started it with a gnoll attack. Gnolls were a serious threat at 1st level. Deadly.
At 5th level, I had the party fight like twenty gnolls. I basically just took every gnoll mini I had and dumped it onto the battlemap.
By 10th level, gnolls wouldn't even be a speedbump. Despite the fact gnolls could still theoretically hit and the PCs could miss.
It wasn't accuracy and increasing AC/hit numbers that made the gnolls nonthreatening.
5E system is tehcnically not as different as this. Characters do get a + to everything trained. It's not level, but it's something like +1 every 4 levels. Though you do make a good point that +1/level is a bit excessive when 1/4 of that is already reasonable.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
5E system is tehcnically not as different as this. Characters do get a + to everything trained. It's not level, but it's something like +1 every 4 levels. Though you do make a good point that +1/level is a bit excessive when 1/4 of that is already reasonable.I ran one 5e campaign. I started it with a gnoll attack. Gnolls were a serious threat at 1st level. Deadly.
At 5th level, I had the party fight like twenty gnolls. I basically just took every gnoll mini I had and dumped it onto the battlemap.
By 10th level, gnolls wouldn't even be a speedbump. Despite the fact gnolls could still theoretically hit and the PCs could miss.
It wasn't accuracy and increasing AC/hit numbers that made the gnolls nonthreatening.
Agreed.
I'd actually be happy with just 1/2...
Bonuses every even level to proficiency would be enough.
It's a big difference and when you need an 11+ to hit, adding 10 to AC means a level 1 monster can't touch a level 20 character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd hate +1/2 level for all the same dissonance reasons I hate +level.
But, the thing I'd hate would be 1/2 as significant to the game play. And if you made up for those bonuses by putting them back in in other things, then the abstract portion would shrink even more.
So we could get to something. maybe
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is odd as The Hook Mountain Massacre starts at level 7 and ends at level 10. So you're starting the ogre adventure when ogres are chump minions.Having half-level to proficiency seems like ogres would still be a deadly challenge at 1st level, a common foe at 3rd/4th, and still a chump minion... just at level 10 or 11 instead.
Instead of monsters becoming obsolete after when they're 4 levels lower than you, it might be 6 or 8.
Hook Mountain Massacre treats basic ogres as chumps, mechanically and narratively. The second dungeon alone has dozens of them the party is expected to kill in various sized groups. The ogres that are a threat are threats because they have 5-7 levels of fighter, sorcerer, or barbarian. In fiction, the ogres are chump cannon fodder for the more powerful enemies to take over and bend to their will.
Adjusting levels upwards looks even easier in PF2, so if you want an enemy to be relevant at higher levels, you can just make it more badass than the average member of its species, or come from a whole clan of badasses or whatever. No stories are limited in this approach.
However, if you clamp down on the level growth, you are making it harder to tell stories where more powerful creatures reign supreme, like they do in the Hook Mountain Massacre. The ogres are less likely to follow the orders of the creature pulling the strings if it seems like the ogres would have a reasonable chance to take them down.
Even if it is theoretically possible for 20 or 30 or 100 level 1 mooks to challenge a level 20 character... when is that likely to happen?
What GM is going to voluntarily run 20-50 individual mooks? It's not going to happen. It's a theoretical problem.
I've had that happen more than once on both sides of the DMs screen. There's lots of tricks that make it easier to manage, including the troop template, having monsters act in initiative blocks rather than each getting an individual roll, and just throwing fist fulls of dice and seeing if any land on 20.
There are fun stories you can tell with this including the obvious PCs tearing through entire armies, but also trying to quell an angry mob without killing people as an example.
Then why doesn't every ancient dragon just steamroll over every single village with impunity knowing no one there can even slow it down?
They're geniuses. Just use a minion to send word that great heroes are needed Absalom and then just crush Magnimar. By the time the heroes get word, everyone is dead.
Lots of reasons. The first that springs to mind is "why is this ancient dragon so invested in destroying villages?" Is the village sitting on some massive treasure hoard it wants? I guess chromatic dragons have been known to revel in pure carnage, but they seem to tend more towards staking out a particular territory and gleefully eating anyone who dares enter it than fly around the planet looking to commit genocide for the sake of genocide.
Also, lots of monsters are explicitly genre savvy enough to know that if they cause too much ruckus adventurers WILL come after them. So great, the dragon slaughtered a bunch of villages by cleverly distracting the heroes. Did it also to line its cave with lead and ward it against teleportation? No? The heroes are going to find it, and the poor lizard gets scry and fried. And if the dragon beats those heroes, is it going to beat the next ones?
And then of course there are just other monsters to consider. How many dragon territories did this dragon have to cross for this murder spree? How did the various other colors of ancient dragons feel about you crossing their territory and killing what is their rightful prey? How about the other sorts of creatures? Maybe there's a 20th level vampire bard that was feeding on that village. You really want to test your level against Fatal Aria?
And ancient dragon is smart enough to know that this is a really crappy risk/reward ratio. Why go through the hassle?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Captain Morgan
So by part of your post, do you believe that Scry and Fry is still going to be a thing in PF2?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are fun stories you can tell with this including the obvious PCs tearing through entire armies, but also trying to quell an angry mob without killing people as an example.
There's also fun stories that can be told about the low level heroes trying to rally the defence of a town against a dragon.
Getting to siege weapons. Catching it in a net. Jumping on it from above and trying to bring it down.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are fun stories you can tell with this including the obvious PCs tearing through entire armies, but also trying to quell an angry mob without killing people as an example.There's also fun stories that can be told about the low level heroes trying to rally the defence of a town against a dragon.
Getting to siege weapons. Catching it in a net. Jumping on it from above and trying to bring it down.
You absolutely can tell those stories is the thing. The various things you mentioned may dramatically shift the mechanics of the battle. I mean, I don't think we have rules for siege weapons yet, but they will probably use different rules than longbow proficiency. I reckon a big net will probably at least render it flat-footed.
Even setting that stuff ou just don't use an ancient dragon. There are dragons with levels as low as 6. Do your low level PCs really need to be slaying the most powerful dragons to ever walk the land? A young white dragon is still a large sized flying potential town killer, but it's TAC is only 17 and it has a fire weakness. Get enough people throwing alchemist fires and they have a real shot at it.
I also feel like Pathfinder Dragons are one of the rougher examples to use for this story, even setting aside the level issue. You can rally defenses all you want, but a dragon's frightful presence is going to scatter the majority of the low level NPCs anyway, and the breath weapon is almost certainly going to slaughter them in droves. You could probably use something like a T-Rex as a better example, which is at least a little more straight forward. The high end PF monsters have a lot of stuff going for them and their raw high numbers are only part of that equation.