|
It's been a while since I've played Munchkin Quest but I don't recall players at my table or their forums when it was released that majorly objected the notion of 'roll a dice, add your level to the result'.
If Paizo called these new rules "Pathfinder Quest", would we be more receptive to them?
(note, in a game like Munchkin Quest there's not really an issue with a high level wizard arm-wrestling ogres)
helps maintain the same game feelwhile 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 reasonsNow 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 issueTo be honest, I have more questions now than beforeTwo points to make here.
AN ogre is a trivial encounter to a 7th level party. 12 ogres is a Severe encounter to the same party.
The barbarian doesn't have a PhD in anything, because of the skill action gates. An 20th level untrained barbarian with a +22 in Thievery (20 for level -2 for untrained and +4 for Dex) has learned over the course of his adventures how to steal an object. However, he can't even attempt to disable a device or pick a lock. He might be able to recall knowledge how a farmer plants and harvest the fields, but unless he is trained in Lore (farming) he can't actually perform those actions.
4 ogres (without classes) killed 2 of the 6 players in that encounter. not 12 or 20 or 56. Four! Granted, the players didn't take the difficult terrain into account, still...
and how did the Barbarian learn to steal again? Let's say there's no rogue in the group to teach him, where did he get that knowledge? he got it purely because of the level, not because he invested anything in it or roleplayed it or watched other doing it, he just leveled up enough. You can spend a lot of energy to justify that for every...
That doesn't change the fact that 4 ogres in both editions is an encounter of a 7th level party of +0 (CR or party level). So they are the encounter difficulty didn't change. As was stated a single ogre should be trivial for a 7th level party to beat (Trivial is the word they are using for encounters of party level - 4) They might be worse in the new edition they are doing 3d10+7 damage on a critical.
The steal an object action only for non pocketed or closely a and is an opposed roll of the targets Perception DC. So if that Barbarian tries to steal something from a similar leveled creature it will be a challenge, but not for someone of much lower level. Which I think I am ok with. However, we could easily set Steal an Object as a trained only action to change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the term "treadmill" is hyperbole, especially if you don't think PF1 was a "treadmill".
This isn't a video game where you fight progressively harder variations of the same sprite with different color schemes.
This is an open world where you can and will go back to the "easier" challenges, and the new challenges present all sorts of new threats. You might have a 50-50 chance of hitting a level 1 goblin as well as a level 8 ghost, but the ghost is meanwhile flying and throwing weird hoodoo at you. Then, you can go back to town where all the townsfolk are the same level as they always were and make comments about how you're starting to scare them.
A treadmill would be something like Elder Scrolls where the entire world is leveling up with you. Pathfinder just gives you the ability to go out and fight bigger baddies as you level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the term "treadmill" is hyperbole, especially if you don't think PF1 was a "treadmill".
This isn't a video game where you fight progressively harder variations of the same sprite with different color schemes.
This is an open world where you can and will go back to the "easier" challenges, and the new challenges present all sorts of new threats. You might have a 50-50 chance of hitting a level 1 goblin as well as a level 8 ghost, but the ghost is meanwhile flying and throwing weird hoodoo at you. Then, you can go back to town where all the townsfolk are the same level as they always were and make comments about how you're starting to scare them.
A treadmill would be something like Elder Scrolls where the entire world is leveling up with you. Pathfinder just gives you the ability to go out and fight bigger baddies as you level.
In addition, there's an assumption being made that monsters are going to have the same stats as PCs. While they can and some will, monster asymmetry is definitely a thing. A monster type might have AC that scales badly but higher HP to make up for it. Another might have bad AC and HP but really tough Resistance to get through.
So your fighter may indeed hit more often anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do dislike how despite the big numbers, character's aren't really increasing their odds of success, just staying on the coin-flip treadmill. I believe PCs should get really good at their specialization, ideally fast! Don't think it's about narrative at this point, but fun.+Level is good for keeping monster threat ranges controlled, and your 15th-level character able to sit at the bar quietly drinking while dozens of of ghouls attack them, merely distracting them a bit.
With treadmill:
20th-level Fighter (+20) with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +34 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 44.
Without treadmill:
20th-level Fighter with 22 Str (+6), legendary proficiency (+3), and a +5 magic weapon, has +14 to hit. A Pit Fiend has an AC of 24.
Nothing has changed in regards to what you need to roll for a success/crit, etc. It's just that now lower level monsters have a chance to hit you without rolling a natural 20 and so forth. It simply depends on the world/stories you want to tell.
Aside from number inflation, I hope they make high level/Legendary, truly epic, really crazy feats/features.
And at level 1 has +6 versus enemies with 16 AC. If this character only encounters enemies of equivalent level he's just having the same experience for all levels. One would think he'd eventually get more than 55% chance to hit equivalent stuff even if by 10%. It can be frustrating to be so luck based despite being the class with by far the highest attack bonuses. It only gets worse for non-Fighters who get worse instead of keeping up.
The barbarian doesn't have a PhD in anything, because of the skill action gates. An 20th level untrained barbarian with a +22 in Thievery (20 for level -2 for untrained and +4 for Dex) has learned over the course of his adventures how to steal an object. However, he can't even attempt to disable a device or pick a lock. He might be able to recall knowledge how a farmer plants and harvest the fields, but unless he is trained in Lore (farming) he can't actually perform those actions.Recalling Lore isn’t gated.
The eighth level Int 8 barbarian knows *more* than the first level wizard who is an expert in Lore.Conversely, the Str 8 eighth level wizard is better at climbing, breaking objects, swimming, and grappling than the first level barbarian.
I’ve seen that in play during my 4e and Star Wars Saga days. Unless it’s a trained skill, everyone rolls. The entire table. Because why not?
And when the variance between master and amateur is around +/-5, which is well within a single dice roll, half the time the person who succeeds at the task isn’t the person who should be the best.
Oh sure to me this is the difference between an academia person that knows a lot in their field, but can't put anything into practice or a bodybuilder that tries to climb a cliff. He may do really well on the straight climb but a technical section may be really problematic.
Yep, this seems to be true across the board. "Did you roll above a 10/15? Yes? You succeed." Build doesn't matter at all because everyone has about the same bonus to everything, which comes out to about a 50% chance of success. That's boring. A fighter should be...Level bonus is a great way to add a sense of progression and it's not new: in PF1 skills should be greater than your level if you want to succeed frequently. Saves and attacks, too.
Going back to dragons for a sec:
PF1 DIDN'T apply level to save DCs and AC, so some peculiarities arose. Ever notice that against an Adult Red Dragon (lvl 14), its attacks pretty much auto hit unless you pull crazy shenanigans with your AC? And that it pretty much auto-succeeds its saves except against the latest and greatest 7th level spells?Pulling the level bonus across the board is Paizo's way of keeping the progression while making defense consistent above level 12.
Feedback time: I think PF2 has made some good steps, but they way things are at, I think we're a little overbalanced into the level add side.
My wizard's touch attack at lvl 5 is +7, which is roughly coinflip compared to the TAC I can expect of ~18. Looking at the ways I can improve those odds, I can:
- Level up and get a cool +1 each level
- Level up, get expert proficiency at 12
- Level up, give my dex another boost at 10(notice how they are all acquired the same way?)
So at 12, those adds bring me up to a total of +16! Sweet! So what's TAC at that level? ~27-28. That's still coinflip, even though I've specialized in bad touch as much as I'm allowed to.
The epicness of the battle can come from the level bonuses, but the battle should still be won on incidental bonuses due to player choices, specialization, and preparation. There are too few of those at this stage, and they give too little to make a significant difference. The difficulty of every "High DC" encounter I've played so far has come down to how often we rolled above 10.
By level 3 a fighter probably has at least +7 over a character who invested nothing into their accuracy. Which means they not only hit 35% more, but crit 35% more. Those numbers can continue to grow apart with level.
What kind build differences were you hoping for?
|
|
Actually I was told the scaling was *intended* to be the same in this edition...
I believe the context of 'scaling' here was probably.
You can use the 'elite' template to make a monster more challenging (scale it) by adding +2 to their AC, saves, attacks, damage.
Which is like PF1e/3.5 scaling of adding the 'advanced' template to a create.
So scaling encounters from their base printed form is pretty much the same, you add a flat bonus to a bunch of stats.
(rather than suggesting overall scaling of characters from 1 to 20 is the same, as we see things the inability to create a level 1 half-orc with darkvision likely changes the difficulty of lower level adventures for that character if there were darkness mechanics to overcome). That's probably not 'scaling' in the game designers' minds, but rather the 'power curve' of the overall game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...helps maintain the same game feelwhile 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 reasonsNow 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 issueTo be honest, I have more questions now than beforeTwo points to make here.
AN ogre is a trivial encounter to a 7th level party. 12 ogres is a Severe encounter to the same party.
The barbarian doesn't have a PhD in anything, because of the skill action gates. An 20th level untrained barbarian with a +22 in Thievery (20 for level -2 for untrained and +4 for Dex) has learned over the course of his adventures how to steal an object. However, he can't even attempt to disable a device or pick a lock. He might be able to recall knowledge how a farmer plants and harvest the fields, but unless he is trained in Lore (farming) he can't actually perform those actions.
4 ogres (without classes) killed 2 of the 6 players in that encounter. not 12 or 20 or 56. Four! Granted, the players didn't take the difficult terrain into account, still...
and how did the Barbarian learn to steal again? Let's say there's no rogue in the group to teach him, where did he get that knowledge? he got it purely because of the level, not because he invested anything in it or roleplayed it or watched other doing it, he just leveled up enough. You can spend a lot of
And this is where I want more gates, Untrained you can swim in calm water. Trained you can swim in choppy water, up to Legendary you can swim in a hurricane. As an example.
And when the variance between master and amateur is around +/-5, which is well within a single dice roll, half the time the person who succeeds at the task isn’t the person who should be the best.
That's why you have the assurance feat. Which at legendary proficiency in a skill gives you a +30 as your roll. Yes, 10 more than you could ever possibly roll. The whole reason the assurance feat exists is to avoid the problem you're referring to. If you really want to be "the best" at something, you should invest in the assurance feat for it. Failing to do so, I see it is as haven't really invested.
Though perhaps the assurance ability should be tied to picking up expert proficiency in the skill, instead of picking it up as a separate feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is where I want more gates, Untrained you can swim in calm water. Trained you can swim in choppy water, up to Legendary you can swim in a hurricane. As an example.Bingo. I want Legendary to open truly Herculean stuff, like swimming for days, to the bottom of a sea, etc.
Do high level abilities feel like they're working at the same scale as what the +level bonuses are? Does a level 15 fighter outclass a goblin because he's particularly Herculean, or is it just because his natural AC and Attack are so high that the goblin can't touch him?
If not, this seems like it's falling into the same trap that fighters in P1E had. Their numbers were high, but their options and abilities didn't really change all that much from what they were doing at level 5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that adventurers should encounter some of their old foes at higher levels. The CR system in Pathfinder 1st Edition gave us a way to do this: two creatures at CR X each count as CR X+2, three count as CR X+3, four count as CR X+4, five count as CR X+4.5, six count as CR X+5, seven count as CR X+5.5, eight count as CR X+6, and so on following the curve new CR = old CR + 2*log_2(number). I have not yet read up on the system used in the playtest.
This is in the bestiary under building encounters. So monsters that are Party level - 4 are 10XP each for the encounter so to get to 40 XP (Party level -0 ) you would need 4.
Thank you for the reference.
The experience-point reward against creatures increases by the level of the creature as follows: 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80, 120, 160. That is the same powers of the square root of 2, 1.414, as Pathfinder 1st Edition. (Technically, the curve should be 10, 14, 20, 28, 40, 57, 80, 113, 160, but Paizo prefers rounder numbers.)
Thus, we expect a 41.4% increase in combat effectiveness at every level.
What’s the benefit?
They’ve had that encounter before. They’ve seen those enemies and their abilities. There’s no surprises. They know the outcome, which is a foregone conclusion. It’s a repeat. Why waste 10-30 minutes on that, when you can just reduce it to a narrative description.
Especially if it was a a single level prior, and possibly only 3-4 encounters ago.Life’s too short and there’s no enough time for gaming already. Why waste time with encounters that don’t matter, and serve no story purpose?
Yeah, after four levels it’s fun to face a hard monster that is now a mook alongside tougher foes. Or a mob of once threatening foes. But that’s weeks of play.
(And, again, that works just as well without the numbers continually going up.)
Two benefits.
1) I like to practice the new abilities of my characters when they level up, before facing the tougher creaatures at that level. Suppose my wizard levels up from 1st to 2nd level and he learns Burning Hands. He has more hit points now, so he figures that he can risk getting within 15 feet of some goblins to try out some new spells. Besides, since we leveled up, the GM might increase the number of goblins, so area of effect spells will be valuable. But the GM immediately swaps in tougher foes, who hit a lot harder than goblins and negate the wizard's extra hit points, without increasing the number of foes. Burning Hands is now a poor choice, so my wizard stops preparing it and does not practice it. I won't have the fun of casting area-of-effect spells at 2nd level.
2) As a GM I run campaigns rather than dungeon delves. The old foes are still in the setting and unless the party leveled up exactly at the end of a story arc, they still have to finish with those old foes. For example, in Burnt Offerings, the 1st module of Rise of the Runelords, the PCs start by fighting off goblin raids on the town. They branch out to other foes at 2nd level, but at 3rd level, they want to stop the goblin tribes from uniting into a frightful, devastating army by killing the goblins' leaders. But to reach those leaders, they have to fight their way through the same kind of goblins that they encountered at 1st level. Removing the goblin raiders and replacing them with another creature, or more capable goblins, would not fit the setting. The module wants to give the impression that without their leaders, the goblins are not a serious threat.
And if 4 goblins are a reasonable challenge at 1st level, then 8 goblins are an equally difficult challenge at 3rd level. Yet it offers variety, because fighting 8 lays out a different formation than fighting 4. Swapping in 4 goblins with 2 class levels instead would be more like the old battles at 1st level. ("Five goblins engage your front line, but three go wide and surround the wizard. The mass of goblins stop the fighter, cleric, and rogue from reaching the wizard. Wizard, it's your turn." "I take a 5-foot step back in the one direction the goblins can't reach and cast Buring Hands. I have been waiting for a chance to try this spell.")
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when the variance between master and amateur is around +/-5, which is well within a single dice roll, half the time the person who succeeds at the task isn’t the person who should be the best.That's why you have the assurance feat. Which at legendary proficiency in a skill gives you a +30 as your roll. Yes, 10 more than you could ever possibly roll. The whole reason the assurance feat exists is to avoid the problem you're referring to. If you really want to be "the best" at something, you should invest in the assurance feat for it. Failing to do so, I see it is as haven't really invested.
Though perhaps the assurance ability should be tied to picking up expert proficiency in the skill, instead of picking it up as a separate feat.
Maybe I am misinterpretting what you're saying, Assurance doesn't give you a +30 to your roll. It sets your roll to 30. This is the same result as a character rolling a 20 and adding +10 to it (for example, a trained character at level 6 with a +4 skill mod).
And this is where I want more gates, Untrained you can swim in calm water. Trained you can swim in choppy water, up to Legendary you can swim in a hurricane. As an example.Bingo. I want Legendary to open truly Herculean stuff, like swimming for days, to the bottom of a sea, etc.Do high level abilities feel like they're working at the same scale as what the +level bonuses are? Does a level 15 fighter outclass a goblin because he's particularly Herculean, or is it just because his natural AC and Attack are so high that the goblin can't touch him?
If not, this seems like it's falling into the same trap that fighters in P1E had. Their numbers were high, but their options and abilities didn't really change all that much from what they were doing at level 5.
I will agree that higher level of proficiency in skills and possibly even armor and weapons should come with some benefits to them and that it's not done extremely well...yet.
But I think that's good criticism to provide for playtest playback.
That said my group and I haven't gotten to high levels for the playtest yet.
Maybe I am misinterpretting what you're saying, Assurance doesn't give you a +30 to your roll. It sets your roll to 30. This is the same result as a character rolling a 20 and adding +10 to it (for example, a trained character at level 6 with a +4 skill mod).
Yes, that's what I said. It gives you a +30 as your roll. Which is 10 more than what you could ever possibly roll. So at level 20, with assurance and legendry proficiency, you're looking at a +53 at minimum as your roll (and you still add your ability modifier and any other relevant bonuses).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's what I said. It gives you a +30 as your roll. Which is 10 more than what you could ever possibly roll. So at level 20, with assurance and legendry proficiency, you're looking at a +53 at minimum as your roll (and you still add your ability modifier and any other relevant bonuses).
Um
Assurance - You can forgo rolling a skill check in your chosen skill to instead receive a result of 10(do not apply any of your bonuses, penalties, or modifiers)
And I don't see anything else in the Feat about "You may now gain bonuses". Just increase to 15, 20 and 30. It is "Take 20" as a feat. Now I am working with the release version of the playtest. Have they updated it with new wording?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I am misinterpretting what you're saying, Assurance doesn't give you a +30 to your roll. It sets your roll to 30. This is the same result as a character rolling a 20 and adding +10 to it (for example, a trained character at level 6 with a +4 skill mod).Yes, that's what I said. It gives you a +30 as your roll. Which is 10 more than what you could ever possibly roll. So at level 20, with assurance and legendry proficiency, you're looking at a +53 at minimum as your roll (and you still add your ability modifier and any other relevant bonuses).
I believe you cannot add your proficiency bonus to your Assurance result. Assurance as a feat is terrible
ASSURANCE FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in at least one skill
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks with your skill. Choose a skill you’re trained in when you first select this feat. You can forgo rolling a skill check for your chosen skill to instead receive a result of 10 (do not apply any of your bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).
If you’re an expert in your chosen skill, you receive a result of 15; if you’re a master, you receive a result of 20; and if you’re legendary, you receive a result of 30.
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you
do, you choose a different skill, and gain the benefits for the
chosen skill.
By level 3 a fighter probably has at least +7 over a character who invested nothing into their accuracy. Which means they not only hit 35% more, but crit 35% more. Those numbers can continue to grow apart with level.
What kind build differences were you hoping for?
This isn't really true. The fighter only stays at a 10% since for most enemies he needs a 19 or 20 to crit, and the guy at -7 also needs a 20 to crit, so no, being at a -7 or -1 to the fighter does not change the crit ratio.
The fighter is only like +1 or +2 over any other build designed to hit things. So since figher's have like a 50% the others have like a 40% and that ratio never changes. The fighter doesn't get better at fighting faster than the battle cleric gets better at fighting.
It is very probably I have incorrectly remembered the wording of Assurance.
I thought it was replacing only the die roll, essentially providing like a 10 mechanic which improved as your proficiency improved.
If you don't actually add your normal bonuses it's a pretty terrible feat that serves only to make sure you don't screw up trivial things, but doesn't make you a master of your chosen skill. Which is what I thought it would do.
I mean if expertise just gives you a result of 15, but requires level 7 to become an expert then... That's +8 from being expert and level 7. Which means it's giving you an effective roll of 7. If you have a decent ability score to back it up, you can probably have a +12. Meaning it's only giving you a 3. Which is absolutely terrible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is very probably I have incorrectly remembered the wording of Assurance.
I thought it was replacing only the die roll, essentially providing like a 10 mechanic which improved as your proficiency improved.
If you don't actually add your normal bonuses it's a pretty terrible feat that serves only to make sure you don't screw up trivial things, but doesn't make you a master of your chosen skill. Which is what I thought it would do.
I mean if expertise just gives you a result of 15, but requires level 7 to become an expert then... That's +8 from being expert and level 7. Which means it's giving you an effective roll of 7. If you have a decent ability score to back it up, you can probably have a +12. Meaning it's only giving you a 3. Which is absolutely terrible.
You're thinking master, by the way. Master is level 7 gated. Expert is possible at level 2.
So judging by the earliest - expert Assurance gives you a roll of 12 if you have a stat of 10, and master Assurance gives you a roll of 11. Assurance is really mainly good for skills that you plan to level, but are in a bad stat or have penalties. (I think the numbers still need to be increased, though.)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level.
Advantages of this system:
(1) It stops character differences expanding over time until the game balance falls apart.Look at this level 20 from PF1.
His Will save is +11. At level 1, he was a few points behind his Druid friend on Will saves, but as the levels went by the difference grew larger and larger and now any effect powerful enough to threaten the Druid is pretty much guaranteed to take down the Fighter-Duellist.
This happens in just about every part of PF1. The not-full-BAB character who played a secondary melee/archery role falls further and further behind the full-BAB PC until he can't hit anyone. The character who didn't focus on AC is guaranteed to get hit, while the character who did is almost impossible to hit. The characters who didn't put a skill rank in Diplomacy every level fall so far behind the party face that they should never ever speak.
This kind of thing creates trap builds for unwary players.
(2) It makes characters less gear dependent. If a PF1 GM decides to run a low-magic campaign, at high level everyone has terrible AC, because gear is how you get your AC in PF1. With +level to AC, you get better at defending yourself through experience.
(3) It eliminates 'dead levels' to a certain extent. Even if you don't get anything more exciting on level up you still get noticeably more powerful, unlike, say, a 5th level Rogue in PF1 who gained nothing to BAB or saves compared to level 4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think of a lot of cool things that have happened in my PF1 games, and I know these cool things won't be possible in PF2, the system simply doesn't allow you to express such differences between characters. That's the upshot of the rocket tag, which I don't find such a problem because it's a consequence, and if you get rid of the rocket tag you get rid of that too.
Yes, this.
I can think of many times in which the players celebrated success over a difficult challenge. And that challenge was difficult because the mechanics reflected the characters by archetype, including their strengths AND weaknesses. Taking away the weaknesses takes away the challenge, which takes away the success.And, to be complete, the players sometimes fail and THOSE event sometimes make even better stories.
It is truly going from win/win in PF1 to can't lose/can't win in PF2.
I have read through the rules but not played this yet. My group is busy with other campaigns at the moment but is looking into this for our October game nights.
That said, I have to say I'm unhappy with the way they seem to be blurring everything so that everyone is good at everything. I think that really takes away from characters who look to excel in certain areas.
Why is a Legend in an ability only +5 better than the guy who isn't even proficient in that ability?
Paizo could have blunted this some by changing the Untrained bonus to 1/2 level instead of only -2 and making the Expert/Master/Legendary bonuses stack with each other in order to get a +1/+3/+6 progression. But that's IMHO.
My group will dedicate to playtesting this by the book. But if we go forward with this system afterwards, it's going to get heavily house ruled; proficiency progression being one area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level.Advantages of this system:
(1) It stops character differences expanding over time until the game balance falls apart.
Look at this level 20 from PF1.
His Will save is +11. At level 1, he was a few points behind his Druid friend on Will saves, but as the levels went by the difference grew larger and larger and now any effect powerful enough to threaten the Druid is pretty much guaranteed to take down the Fighter-Duellist.This happens in just about every part of PF1. The not-full-BAB character who played a secondary melee/archery role falls further and further behind the full-BAB PC until he can't hit anyone. The character who didn't focus on AC is guaranteed to get hit, while the character who did is almost impossible to hit. The characters who didn't put a skill rank in Diplomacy every level fall so far behind the party face that they should never ever speak.
This kind of thing creates trap builds for unwary players.
(2) It makes characters less gear dependent. If a PF1 GM decides to run a low-magic campaign, at high level everyone has terrible AC, because gear is how you get your AC in PF1. With +level to AC, you get better at defending yourself through experience.
(3) It eliminates 'dead levels' to a certain extent. Even if you don't get anything more exciting on level up you still get noticeably more powerful, unlike, say, a 5th level Rogue in PF1 who gained nothing to BAB or saves compared to level 4.
1) How do you get the feeling of "Yay I built to do X really well" feeling anymore if everyone is in the same ballpark? Another point, why did EVERYONE and EVERYTHING seem to need to Hyper specialize in PF1 all the time? Either you were 0 or your were 941853475109847209357 and no inbetween because "Pfff, it's not worth it". It's weird that I can build subpar with dead feats and still not be dead in combat. So something somewhere is happening differently.
2) Less Gear dependent. Save for damage. And Defense. Oh and healing(Still). Oh and transportation/travel. Oh and... wait why are we less dependent on gear?
3) Yeah because getting to add +1 to everything is exciting gameplay changes for those levels. I don't see how that's any more 'alive' level compared to that level 5 Rogue(Cough, Hello Sneak Attack and Skills lemme just move the numbers up 1. Exciting in PF1, exciting in PF2 right?)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Advantages of this system:
(1) It stops character differences expanding over time until the game balance falls apart.
Look at this level 20 from PF1.
His Will save is +11. At level 1, he was a few points behind his Druid friend on Will saves, but as the levels went by the difference grew larger and larger and now any effect powerful enough to threaten the Druid is pretty much guaranteed to take down the Fighter-Duellist.This happens in just about every part of PF1. The not-full-BAB character who played a secondary melee/archery role falls further and further behind the full-BAB PC until he can't hit anyone. The character who didn't focus on AC is guaranteed to get hit, while the character who did is almost impossible to hit. The characters who didn't put a skill rank in Diplomacy every level fall so far behind the party face that they should never ever speak.
This kind of thing creates trap builds for unwary players.
(2) It makes characters less gear dependent. If a PF1 GM decides to run a low-magic campaign, at high level everyone has terrible AC, because gear is how you get your AC in PF1. With +level to AC, you get better at defending yourself through experience.
(3) It eliminates 'dead levels' to a certain extent. Even if you don't get anything more exciting on level up you still get noticeably more powerful, unlike, say, a 5th level Rogue in PF1 who gained nothing to BAB or saves compared to level 4.
Agreed. I was initially hating the idea of +1/level, but now I'm warming up to it.
There's a fallacy in this thread from some who look at PF2 through a PF1 lens. For skills, numbers aren't everything. In PF2, having +20 in a skill does not give you a PhD in dragonology, or make you into a legendary farmer. The main gatekeeper to success for amazing skill achievements is now the GM, who now exercises GM fiat to decide what requires Expert proficiency in something versus Master and Legendary proficiency.
This has several practical effects which I find desirable.
Using a d20 to determine success for skills is admittedly wonky. If the determinant of success is simply a number, then a trained climber with a +8 bonus can be outperformed by a klutz with a -5 penalty, which can be ridiculous. (THIS is more likely to occur in PF1 than in PF2, where the skill feats system can make certain accomplishments near-certain or automatic to you. And this problem is admittedly more likely to come up in actual play than the opposing example of a low-Intelligence Level 20 barbarian having more knowledge than a high-Intelligence Level 1 wizard.) PF2's approach gives the GM more control over the narrative. Much in the same spirit of how PF2 makes some spells and magic items uncommon and rare, it allows the GM to wall-off (and, alternatively, to grant) certain accomplishments to the players. Previously, in PF1, by having success determined solely by the single metric of d20+modifier, this meant that eventually ALL tasks under a skill became trivial to any character who specialized in it. As the party levels up, the cleric and fighter eventually are never be able to sneak up on dragons and demons with +30 Perception modifiers. And so the party casts a silence spell, thus negating the importance of Stealth to all characters. And the party also comes to never fear traps any more, when the Rogue now has a +30 Perception modifier to check for traps. In higher levels, because skill proficiency is measured by a single metric (+X), investment in skills becomes less important, because success and failure are increasingly a foregone conclusion.
In PF2, the Rogue (or any other character who invests in skills) can feel more special because she is the only one who is Expert, Master or Legendary in large number of skills, whereas other classes in PF1 could intrude upon her specialty simply by putting max ranks in something and staying only -3 behind the Rogue if it was NOT their class skill. The Trained-Expert-Master-Legendary divide gives the GM more control to mark off proficiency, and for skill-focused characters to be exceptional in proficiency.
By pairing +1/level with the proficiency system, PF2 actually makes numbers less significant in skills than before, and allows the GM to define tiers of "amazingness" within a given skill.
As for combat bonuses (attacks, ACs, saves), the +1/level rule is an effort to attack the Big Six. In PF1, monsters and encounters were all designed with the assumption that the party by X level had rings of protection +A, amulets of natural armor +A, cloaks of resistance +B, +C weapons, +D armor, and +D shields. +1/level is a more uniform way to this sheer increase in ability.
The advantage of this is twofold. It is arguably more interesting for high-level characters to not be so dependent on their gear. The unarmored fighter in the above example is using amazing combat techniques acquired from experience to take on a room of ghouls. This also means that characters do not have to run the treadmill of improving the Big Six magic items and are now freed up to get more flavorful items that don't just confer a flat bonus and can now give new actions, have interesting effects, etc.
There always was a treadmill in PF1; the only differences are now that (1) it is explicit and (2) the gaps of ability among different characters of equal level are kept within manageable limits. Now that advancement an automatic part of character progression, players (and the game designers) are now free to travel laterally, such as new actions that don't necessarily increase raw power but give more choices, increase adaptability, etc.
And the only thing that +1/level regulates, strictly speaking, is Chances of Success: what occurs as a result of success or failure is still determined by the abilities that players have chosen and the challenges and monsters that the game designers and GM present to the players. PF2's system still allows for other differences in capability besides raw numbers. Yes, a Level 20 wizard can hit a goblin mook just comparably as well as a Level 20 fighter. But upon hitting the goblin he will not have the magic sword that does quadruple damage or the class feats to inflict nearly as much damage as that fighter. And he is still at a marked disadvantage going into melee against a balrog, which we must all admit he is more likely to encounter than a goblin in a Level 20 adventure.
A secondary benefit of +1/level is that it is easier to scale creatures up or down by adding or subtracting from their numbers. I would imagine that a Level 5 creature can become a Level 1 creature by dividing its HP by some amount, and lowering its stats by 4 as well. There would be some eyeballing to see whether higher-level abilities would shut down the current party given their specific abilities, but that would be it. It is SO much harder to adjust encounters up and down in PF1.
My only question was raised earlier in this thread: is it truly desirable for the rate of increase to be +1/level? Perhaps it could be +1/2 per level? That would be a matter of an individual's preference, I suppose. I, for one, think I would prefer a slower progression so as to accommodate a sandbox campaign, where the party can run into a dragon and escape alive and return later when they are more powerful. The advantage of the Playtest's system is that the advancement rate is transparent and uniform across all stats, so it is easy for me to adjust the numbers to create a different advancement rate.
I am happy that the PF2 designers are making some bold choices in this playtest to see what gains traction. And I'm glad that they are aiming to make encounter and adventure design easier for GMs like myself. And I do think that getting GMs to prefer the eventual final PF2 system is the main factor in its long-term success.
My group will dedicate to playtesting this by the book. But if we go forward with this system afterwards, it's going to get heavily house ruled; proficiency progression being one area.
I would be very interested in see other takes on house rules.
I think skills are easy, you just cap the bonus based on Tier. But for AC and attacks it is very much baked into how the monsters are built, HP, crits. My take away so far has been to throw up my hands and go back to a game I know I already love.But I still want to add a new game I love. So I'd be eager to see a viable fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level.Can you find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to your level itself? A TTRPG that lets you go from level 1 to level 20(and/or any and all of the inbetween levels)?
If yes, than I'm perfectly sure that you can, indeed, find a compelling or logical reason to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything/level.
This is called a non sequitur
RantThe DCs for most things are really tough in this edition, I'll take every +1 I can get over all that other nonsense skills supposedly give by upgraing. After Trained, it really is just the bonus that matters unless you're detecting traps, except you can't actually play with Perception proficiency anyways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read through the rules but not played this yet. My group is busy with other campaigns at the moment but is looking into this for our October game nights.
That said, I have to say I'm unhappy with the way they seem to be blurring everything so that everyone is good at everything. I think that really takes away from characters who look to excel in certain areas.
Why is a Legend in an ability only +5 better than the guy who isn't even proficient in that ability?
Paizo could have blunted this some by changing the Untrained bonus to 1/2 level instead of only -2 and making the Expert/Master/Legendary bonuses stack with each other in order to get a +1/+3/+6 progression. But that's IMHO.
My group will dedicate to playtesting this by the book. But if we go forward with this system afterwards, it's going to get heavily house ruled; proficiency progression being one area.
I have to agree with you completely. Everyone is good at everything is problematic to me as well. And that has nothing to do with the level bonus (except for static DCs). Untrained should really be... untrained. Just unable to make rolls or be vastly worse than someone trained. Someone made a post in a different thread (I can't remember where) that said, bring back "take 10" but make it only available for people that are at least trained in a skill. Then, increase the proficiencies to be greater than +1 each rank, maybe even +1/+3/+6 as you propose to indicate that a character is very good at what he does or not very good at what he does if he is only trained.
For instance, using diplomacy to convince the king to mobilize his army against the Duke who is accused of slavery. A Legendary character should be able to have a fantastic chance to convince the King, while the Trained character should have an outside chance, and the Untrained character should have NO chance, not without help.
That seems like a rather odd example for the point you are trying to make. The King should absolutely hear out the Legendary character regardless of their proficiency tier. Why? Because they are a Legend. A Legend who could most likely casually slaughter the king, the king's guards, and anyone else who tried to get in their way as they escaped. When that kind of badass talks, you are gonna at least listen. Even if you aren't familiar with their reputation, they are going to have a level of sheer presence that is rather staggering. You ever read a book where someone walks into a tavern and everyone just shuts up because the traveler just has a gravitas that demands their attention? That's what I am talking about here.
Also, let's not forget that the someone who took Diplomacy to Legendary might quite likely be a Charisma based character with a circlet of persuasion, which translates to up to 23 CHA and +3 item bonus. Compared to a dwarf who never boosted CHA, that's another +10 difference for a total of +15. Who do you want attempting that check?
Plus, in a PF2 game, the king is almost certainly going to lend you the most aid against the duke on a critical success, and whatever the difference winds up being between the Legendary and Untrained Diplomat will also make the Legendary Diplomat that much more likely to critically succeed. (And, for that matter, avoid critically failing.)
In practice, I think characters are going to have very different numbers than their party members as they level up. The big difference from PF1 is that because the swing between party members isn't more than 20, you aren't completely screwed if no one is trained in Diplomacy.
Edit: Setting all that aside, it also isn't like someone who is normally not very diplomatic can't surprise you by making a good point every once in a while, so I'm not sure why the untrained character shouldn't even be able to attempt it. Diplomacy is just such a poor example to choose-- at least knowledge checks are harder to justify. (Harder, but not that hard, mind you.)
I have read through the rules but not played this yet. My group is busy with other campaigns at the moment but is looking into this for our October game nights.
That said, I have to say I'm unhappy with the way they seem to be blurring everything so that everyone is good at everything. I think that really takes away from characters who look to excel in certain areas.
Why is a Legend in an ability only +5 better than the guy who isn't even proficient in that ability?
Paizo could have blunted this some by changing the Untrained bonus to 1/2 level instead of only -2 and making the Expert/Master/Legendary bonuses stack with each other in order to get a +1/+3/+6 progression. But that's IMHO.
My group will dedicate to playtesting this by the book. But if we go forward with this system afterwards, it's going to get heavily house ruled; proficiency progression being one area.
So this would continue the math issue of 3/3.5/PF, which is you either need to set a DC that those with trained, can’t fail or those that aren’t can’t make it. So PF2 a 20th level character that is untrained with a 14 in the relative attribute has a +20 to the roll. The 20th level character with a maxed out has a +35 or so. Now I can set a DC 35 for a 20th level adventure. That means the untrained character crit fails on a 1-5, fails on a 6-15, suceeds on 16-19, and crit succeeds on a 20. The trained character crit fails on a 1 ( probably only a regular fail with the right skill feats) succeeds on a 2-9, and critical succeeds on a 10-20. That is before any proficiency requirements that come into play.
| 1 person 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
I don't really understand what you are saying but this is my take on it.
1) +1 to all profencys is 3 things. Number blote and a reduced playability of the monster manual as characters level.
A) Numbers blote: it does nothing that I can see to change or modifies the chance of successes. +1 to hit and +1 to AC just cancel each othe. +1 to saves is cancelled by +1 to the save DC. +1 to skills is cancelled out by opposing skill or an increase in the DC. So the only thing that has any merit is the stat bonus and profency bonus (I really like this btw).
B) so as is now as characters lvl and that oger that was a threat 4 lvls ago now is of no longer available as a tool to the dm. Without tweaking and boosting. So as characters lvl less and less of the monster manual is available.
C) the character will feel like the are truly God's at lvl 20.2) what really happens if we remove the +1/lvl.
A) no bloated...
So you are totally right, except you are forgetting the 4 levels of success. With that the single kobold stays a challenge for many levels as they continue to crit at the same rate. Also it means that the design space for monsters is very small, making it really hard to differentiate. And last it makes your character really static.
As a side note +1 to everything also means you can actually do Epic Levels that are actually playable. And I am looking forward to that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is always interesting to me to see folks try to divine design intent based on output.
Well, as long as you don't release an official comprehensive list of design goals, trying to guess is all we can do
Also it means that the design space for monsters is very small, making it really hard to differentiate. And last it makes your character really static.
As a side note +1 to everything also means you can actually do Epic Levels that are actually playable. And I am looking forward to that.
Not at all, there is way more to differentiate monsters than number inflation to basic stats, I mean, that's cool, and easy to grasp, but an extra +10 to hit and to AC does not make a monster that much different, or really open up the design space. There is a lot more to monsters, like, hit points, and the stuff they can actually do (actions, etc).
Also, having bigger numbers does not let you inherently do amazing things, they actually need to make Legendary play worthy of the name, I want them to bring some crazy epic features and feats, to differentiate from a lower lever fighter or what-have-you, not just "ooh, I have +10 more to my AC, Saves, Skills, and Attacks.
There's only so many ways you can cheat action economy by making increasingly better actions before the game breaks under your foot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing way in which level operates very differently in PF2 is spells. There is only two ways spells scale in the new system. Higher DCs and casting at a heightened level. Removing + level to proficiencies effectively takes a way one of the ways spells level.
The counter argument that numbers don't matter because you will only be facing enemies at your own level is false, and the reality is that level bonus or no level bonus, most of the time your encounters will fall in a range of level +/- 4. That is +/-8 points between saves and DCs which will let low level spells be effective against your lower level encounters (even when just a level or two different) that won't happen without the +level bonus.
This system design is very interconnected.