| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure this is the proper fix - the range may be too narrow. Alternately, the d20 may just be a bad tool for this job. A bell distribution might work better?
The other part of the new system is gating things behind skill feats and upgrades. The untrained fighter might roll well and the Legendary bard roll badly, but there are things the fighter can't even begin to do.
I think there are much better ways to do this. Higher ranks having an increasing cost is the best one I can think of off the top of my head, perhaps with a cap on how many points can be spent per level, or how many ranks can be achieved overall. Keeping things within an acceptable range that fits within the d20 range of utility, isn't too difficult.
Tone down feats and items that allow for insane bonus progression, and make their advantages fit the expected range. There's not one reason the bonus should have to ever outstrip the 20 on a d20, if you build the system that way from the start, which means a DC higher than 40 would be unnecessary.
That's fair, I am glad you like 1e and want to continue playing it. For me I am looking forward to 2e having underlying math that works for me at all levels (and possibly beyond 20).
And I hope you get it.
My point is not "wah wah they won't cater to me".My first point is that there are good reasons that 2E could end up with a smaller fan base than 1E.
My second point is that there is a serious issue underlying the mechanics which will show up more and more over time and what fan base there is will erode.
Both of these points will take away from what you are looking forward to for yourself.
And, yes, I'd like to see a game exist that is "the new shiny" and also something that includes me in the tent.
But your reply offers no solution. And it seems to completely have its head in the sand. If you are ok with that then so be it.
Try playing the new game at low levels and high levels and see if it feels like your characters have not improved significantly from low level to high level without making specialization the difference between destroying encounters or being destroyed by them.
I've already addressed this. I told you why this doesn't address it and now you are just going in circles.
As to "arbitrary", I've used the word "arbitrary" to describe the level bonus and it is arbitrary. You have reframed that statement to suggest that the purpose behind it is arbitrary. That is a completely different thing and not at all what is in question.
Just because you have a real problem does not mean that every solution is valid. The amount of fan base split emerging over this issue suggests that a very serious consideration to the complaint should be offered.
It is a bummer (though I suppose not at all surprising) that history is repeating itself and the content portion of the split fan base is failing to recognize the risk and failing to be the least bit interested in a conciliatory assessment of how to not alienate a big chunk of former players.
I just compared the Ogre (lvl 3) and the Hill Giant (lvl 7) to each other without the level bonus added. I figure that the two are roughly similar experiences for like level PCs. They both are large, swing big weapons, and are kinda dumb.
However, it seems to me that they aren't at all. The Hill Giant is more challenging across the board. PF2 is certainly taking into account gear, ability boosts, and class abilities to give the Giant more power overall. I suppose that's good because challenges are certainly scaling outside of just level bonus, but it does go to show, that monsters are even more deadly if you try to fight one 3-4 levels higher than you (in this example). A PC would die faster if you scaled with level bonus than without because it adds even more bonus (3 or 4 points) to all stats.
** spoiler omitted **
I thought monsters were now not being built with the same framework as PCs at all? If so, simply adjusting them + or - level will not really get you an accurate picture for comparison.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought monsters were now not being built with the same framework as PCs at all? If so, simply adjusting them + or - level will not really get you an accurate picture for comparison.I just compared the Ogre (lvl 3) and the Hill Giant (lvl 7) to each other without the level bonus added. I figure that the two are roughly similar experiences for like level PCs. They both are large, swing big weapons, and are kinda dumb.
However, it seems to me that they aren't at all. The Hill Giant is more challenging across the board. PF2 is certainly taking into account gear, ability boosts, and class abilities to give the Giant more power overall. I suppose that's good because challenges are certainly scaling outside of just level bonus, but it does go to show, that monsters are even more deadly if you try to fight one 3-4 levels higher than you (in this example). A PC would die faster if you scaled with level bonus than without because it adds even more bonus (3 or 4 points) to all stats.
** spoiler omitted **
Well, the monsters are designed very precisely based on the PC system. They are built specifically to challenge parties of X level, so players have big impact in how monsters end up.
It's also pretty lame that all monsters gain +1 attack and +1 AC as soon as you improve your magic weapon, just in time to negate your advantages. I'm interested in the WBL rules of this edition, since they gotta be a lot stricter for this tight balance to work. Like a level 4 martial MUST have +1 weapon and armor, plus some skill booster.
Part of the design philosophy we heard for thi edition was to minimize the christmas tree effect and reduce gear assumptions. They reduced the amount of "assumed" items, but the few that remain have become more mandatory than ever.
I thought monsters were now not being built with the same framework as PCs at all? If so, simply adjusting them + or - level will not really get you an accurate picture for comparison.I doubt they omitted a level bonus from the monster when building it. My guess is that they wanted a way to increase or decrease the difficulty easily and by raising or lowering the level bonus for a monster can make it easier or harder to deal with across the board. Kinda like templating a monster.
Even so, comparably, the ogre and the hill giant should probably be equal challenges for a 3rd level party and a 7th level party respectably. I don't think that there would be much of a difference between the two encounters. However, the Giant is a lot tougher than the ogre even if you factor out the PCs level bonus for both encounters. So, in my mind, the monster's difficulty are accounting for the PCs gear, class abilities (like spells), and the ability boosts that they receive at that point.
In other words, the challenge needs to be harder for upgraded PCs and has nothing to do with level bonus.
That explains what I see there with the numbers even after you removed the level.
Not that I like it, but it makes sense, at least.
That's fair, I am glad you like 1e and want to continue playing it. For me I am looking forward to 2e having underlying math that works for me at all levels (and possibly beyond 20).And I hope you get it.
My point is not "wah wah they won't cater to me".
My first point is that there are good reasons that 2E could end up with a smaller fan base than 1E.My second point is that there is a serious issue underlying the mechanics which will show up more and more over time and what fan base there is will erode.
Both of these points will take away from what you are looking forward to for yourself.
And, yes, I'd like to see a game exist that is "the new shiny" and also something that includes me in the tent.
But your reply offers no solution. And it seems to completely have its head in the sand. If you are ok with that then so be it.
Totally get your point, the math to me is just one of the good things in the system. And I have run it up to 40th level now (I was an Epic Level fan, but acknowledge the 3rd/3.5 Epic rules were broken badly, and agreed that wouldn't work for Pathfinder) The d20 always stays relevant everything works there. I have my other issues to look at (signature skills, resonance, etc). Skill gating is interesting and still working on testing that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try playing the new game at low levels and high levels and see if it feels like your characters have not improved significantly from low level to high level without making specialization the difference between destroying encounters or being destroyed by them.I've already addressed this. I told you why this doesn't address it and now you are just going in circles.
As to "arbitrary", I've used the word "arbitrary" to describe the level bonus and it is arbitrary. You have reframed that statement to suggest that the purpose behind it is arbitrary. That is a completely different thing and not at all what is in question.
Just because you have a real problem does not mean that every solution is valid. The amount of fan base split emerging over this issue suggests that a very serious consideration to the complaint should be offered.
It is a bummer (though I suppose not at all surprising) that history is repeating itself and the content portion of the split fan base is failing to recognize the risk and failing to be the least bit interested in a conciliatory assessment of how to not alienate a big chunk of former players.
Notice the developers are remaining pretty quiet about all of this. They are observing and seeing how we react. I recognize that you feel disenchanted with the new system. That is understandable. But many of your arguments and the arguments of others are based in a refusal to actually try the system as is and say whether or not the play is smoother or not.
For example, a whole lot of people keep making the same suggestion that + level bonus be removed and that difference between proficiencies be expanded. Both of those ideas together, with no other changes to the PF2 system, would be a train wreck.
What I think a lot of people are really asking for is to super impose PF1 skills back over the general framework of PF2 as far as action economy, more balanced spells and the 4 degrees of success.
Such a game may be possible, but it is a wildly different game than what was released as this play test and changing that much in the middle of a play test is a terrible idea. It will confuse everyone and destroy all data.
There is a reason the developers have spent three years putting this system together before putting it out for play test. They wanted something fairly coherent for people to look at so they could find out how things operate in play. If it really doesn't work at all, and the responses are overwhelmingly negative, then they probably will go back to the drawing board.
Put you need to play test it the way they made it to provide the most useful kind of feed back. You need to be able to show them your level 1 character sheet and your level 15+ character sheet with the items they are suggesting you have accumulated over that time and show how you tried to specialize in X and felt completely underwhelmed and incompetent in comparison to a character that didn't invest those resources.
History is only repeating itself in your mind. Did you ever get asked to play test 4e? Did you provide feed back that went ignored before the system launched?
Trying new things is not ignoring your fan base.
When all of them advance using the same rules, they can be cross-used. So we can now have Intimidate opposed by Will, instead of having a separate rule to calculate a character's Intimidate resistance. We can use Athletics to grapple, and we don't need a completely new defense for the combat maneuvers regardless of what is used to roll them. We can use skills for Initiative, or we could even have an attack roll for one. We could technically try to save against a spell with a skill, though the closest we have is Countersong from the bard.The problem is that they want to have universal progression,That sounds like they're breaking the skill system because of a design goal that isn't necessary. Why do skills, attacks, Saves, and AC all have to advance at the same rate? Hell, why does AC have to auto-advance at all?
Okay, that's actually a good answer to what universal progression gets us. I still don't like the effect it has on skills, but at least I get why they wanted to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 168, where they talk about what the legendary medic skill feat does:They also happen to talk about what the "Legendary Medic" skill feat means, namely:
You’ve invented new medical procedures or
discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous
results.So, no. That skill feat is most definitely not simply a descriptor for a skilled surgeon. It also would make very little sense to restrict the ability to perform surgery to 15th-level characters and above, which would practically guarantee that in most campaigns, there would be no such ability.
But let's just stick with the rules we are given, shall we: Someone claimed that First Aid was just basic things like CPR and stopping bleeding. They also claimed that they could do it (even though I am willing to bet that this is because they received a modicum of training.)
So, first aid. If a loved one was in mortal danger due to a stab wound, who would you rather have perform first aid on them:
a.) A relatively novice, but trained EMT.
b.) Some guy who saw a training video on first aid once, but happens to be a crack computer programmer or successful athlete.I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.
You can't really both have items that significantly increase character power and not have them figured into the system. Not if you're going to have any kind of "this is the kind of challenge you should be facing" assumptions.Part of the design philosophy we heard for thi edition was to minimize the christmas tree effect and reduce gear assumptions. They reduced the amount of "assumed" items, but the few that remain have become more mandatory than ever.I'm glad you said this. I was wondering how I could put this exact thing into words, and you said it perfectly. We still have a Christmas Tree effect (which I don't believe can really go away). It's just a smaller amount that can be added. Pretty much item bonuses and ability bonuses and proficiency bonuses. So for every 5 levels, the monsters get harder, and at 7th level (when master proficiency is unlocked for certain classes) they get harder, and when you get 4th level items (a magical sword or armor) they get harder.
It makes sense that they get harder, I don't think they shouldn't. The math is tighter in this regard where we don't have massive swings in who is effective and who isn't.
It'd be nice if maybe the Fighter could get a level where he really feels the awesomeness of the weapon rather than it being a race to get it before monsters start kicking his ass. Then there's also the characters who aren't the primary martial, like Clerics and Rogues, who may get the thing a bit later but are gonna regret it if they try.
So not saying the monster shouldn't scale, just that there's too little wiggle room as far as timing for magic gear is concerned. Seems every character will be getting them at roughly the same time. Maybe there should be some slightly weaker monsters at these key levels to fine-tune the difficulty a bit more depending on gear. This is specially useful when you want characters to face a Level 6 enemy as a boss when they are 4-5, but there's a BIG jump around this time in monster power across the board so it can be tough compared to doing the same at other levels.
Page 168, where they talk about what the legendary medic skill feat does:They also happen to talk about what the "Legendary Medic" skill feat means, namely:
You’ve invented new medical procedures or
discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous
results.So, no. That skill feat is most definitely not simply a descriptor for a skilled surgeon. It also would make very little sense to restrict the ability to perform surgery to 15th-level characters and above, which would practically guarantee that in most campaigns, there would be no such ability.
But let's just stick with the rules we are given, shall we: Someone claimed that First Aid was just basic things like CPR and stopping bleeding. They also claimed that they could do it (even though I am willing to bet that this is because they received a modicum of training.)
So, first aid. If a loved one was in mortal danger due to a stab wound, who would you rather have perform first aid on them:
a.) A relatively novice, but trained EMT.
b.) Some guy who saw a training video on first aid once, but happens to be a crack computer programmer or successful athlete.I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.
Let's imagine that we actually model this out with the system.
The EMT would have at the very least 14-16 Wis, for a score of +3 or +4.
The other person, if they are the Einstein of programmers, would be level 5 and have a Wis of around 10. They'd still have a score of +3, due to being untrained.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.
Computer Engineers don't go pick fights with monsters where they see themselves and their friends have their bodies torn apart and stitched back together on a regular basis. Nor do real world people get have a pool of magical Resonance inside them that grows as this happens.
I mean, if you start comparing things to the real world, than a 20th level computer programmer can fall 200 feet and walk it off. So clearly 20th level characters aren't a thing in real life. The conventional wisdom is that you've left humanity behind at what, 5th level? But it isn't like a computer programmer gets more durable as they get better at programming in the real world.
Keep in mind, in PF2, you don't level up just by working a day job. Even a physically strenuous one. Gladiator, Hunter, and Warrior (soldiers) are BACKGROUNDS in PF1 that you did before you got your first class level. If you made a real world person in PF, they would look like:
Ancestry (+2 to two stats, some racial hit points, a feat, a language)
Background (+2 to two stats, a lore, a feat)
... And that's it. Check out the level 0 humanoids in the bestiary. They don't seem to exceed that point buy.
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but we have zero non-combatant NPC stat blocks right now. I would suspect that when we get such rules, NPCs will be less stuck to PC balance progression and you can better emulate real world people with them.
Basically, until 10,000 hours of computer programming helps me walk off bullet wounds, I'm not gonna sweat how the real world compares to this heroic fantasy game. Or unilaterally better at landing hits with forms of weaponry or unarmed attacks. Or improves my reflexes. Or my resistance to poison. Or mind control.
What I'm saying is maybe heroic fantasy games were never a good way to emulate the real world and level to skills doesn't change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What motivation do I have to play a skill monkey character if the martial and the arcane characters are going to be 90% as good at the same skills without any investment?
Good news. They won't be.
Fighter: 3 trained skills. Let's assume they take athletics, acrobatics and intimidate. The 15th level fighter will have +14 to deception while a rogue will +19 (the fighter has 75% the bonus that the rogue has). A wizard who has pumped dex for AC and reflex saves will have +17 acrobatics vs a rogue's +22 (the wizard has 77% the bonus the rogue has).
Hyperbole isn't going to help you convince the developers that you're right.
I'm playing in War of the Crown. The entire party has devoted resources into diplomacy. It's great. Because it means we can all meaningfully contribute in social situations (which are endless in this campaign) and we don't have to shoehorn the face (ostensibly me) into every social situation when it wouldn't make sense.
This is an example of how the PF2e skill rules can be great for a campaign. It can also be a counterexample because we have achieved that with PF1e rules which brings into question how necessary the PF2e skill system is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if you start comparing things to the real world, than a 20th level computer programmer can fall 200 feet and walk it off.
Look...
a.) I wasn't the one to start with the real world comparisons. I just took them to their logical conclusion.
In my own post on the subject, I used the more obvious example of Athletics, with the Level 8, Strength 10 untrained Wizard being better at grappling, breaking down doors, climbing etc. than the level 1, Strength 18, trained Barbarian.
Do you see a level 8 character as a "Superman"? Why do you think this makes sense and what do you think the effects on the perception of the game world will be?
b.) If your entire argument is "Well, PF is not realistic", then I do not see the point.
Why is being unrealistic, per se, a good thing?
c.) Yes, it was always unrealistic even by the standards of "movie reality" how HP progression and some other things were tied to overall experience.
Why is this an argument for applying the same unrealistic approach to *everything*?
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but we have zero non-combatant NPC stat blocks right now. I would suspect that when we get such rules, NPCs will be less stuck to PC balance progression and you can better emulate real world people with them.
Do you think that...
a.) NPCs will be designed using vastly different rules than PCs?
b.) NPCs will have access to advantages that will be denied to PCs?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's imagine that we actually model this out with the system.
The fact that you can only make your example work by arbitrarily assigning the untrained, higher-level character (but by no means high-level) a low Wisdom score and still only end up with them being equal instead of the trained character clearly being better, speaks volumes.
If we take this back into fantasy-land, let's just spell out what this means: In PF2, at around level 5-7, a character will be as good or better at *any* skill than any level 1 character will be at their *best* skill.
Why do you think this is a good thing?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter: 3 trained skills. Let's assume they take athletics, acrobatics and intimidate. The 15th level fighter will have +14 to deception while a rogue will +19 (the fighter has 75% the bonus that the rogue has). A wizard who has pumped dex for AC and reflex saves will have +17 acrobatics vs a rogue's +22 (the wizard has 77% the bonus the rogue has).
[...]
I'm playing in War of the Crown. The entire party has devoted resources into diplomacy. It's great. Because it means we can all meaningfully contribute in social situations (which are endless in this campaign) and we don't have to shoehorn the face (ostensibly me) into every social situation when it wouldn't make sense.
You do realize these two arguments flat-out contradict each other?
Among characters of the same level, the level bonus quite obviously has no effect. In fact, among characters of the same level, discrepancies in ability will increase with higher levels, since specialization in the form of proficiency ranks and stat bonuses will be more pronounced.
But at any level, it will always make more sense to let the specialized character perform a task than to just let any character try their luck. Indeed, a skill-based task that will be a challenge with a 50% success rate to a specialized character will be harder for an unspecialized character at level 15 as compared to level 1.
P.S.: I could basically copy-past all the points made when 4e came out. We've been here before, folks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wulfhem: Please do. Better yet, do some playtestkng where the discussion points are proven and then repost them.
As for your point that only the optimised character should attempt things: that hasn't been my experience in PF1e or 4e. Although in PF1e anyone without near max ranks shouldn't bother trying.
Page 168, where they talk about what the legendary medic skill feat does:They also happen to talk about what the "Legendary Medic" skill feat means, namely:
You’ve invented new medical procedures or
discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous
results.So, no. That skill feat is most definitely not simply a descriptor for a skilled surgeon. It also would make very little sense to restrict the ability to perform surgery to 15th-level characters and above, which would practically guarantee that in most campaigns, there would be no such ability.
But let's just stick with the rules we are given, shall we: Someone claimed that First Aid was just basic things like CPR and stopping bleeding. They also claimed that they could do it (even though I am willing to bet that this is because they received a modicum of training.)
So, first aid. If a loved one was in mortal danger due to a stab wound, who would you rather have perform first aid on them:
a.) A relatively novice, but trained EMT.
b.) Some guy who saw a training video on first aid once, but happens to be a crack computer programmer or successful athlete.I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.
In a world where 99% of healing is magic, non-magical surgery is definitely a new or very ancient niche procedure used to cure long term conditions. Or alternatively, you can just say that surgery doesn't exist at all in Golarion if that is easier, the point is, that something that takes an hour to perform and requires years of specialized training (like surgery) is gated behind legendary proficiency. That is the system working to prevent your fear that untrained people can succeed at doing things that they should not be able to do.
Your Athletics example is another example of how games are never going to succeed at modeling reality. A wizard that halls a back pack through 8 levels of adventures, fighting monsters and dodging attacks is not going to have an 8 strength for very long. Adventurer's physical attributes would probably all hit 12-14 relatively quickly while living an active life style, while a 24 STR barbarian that takes a year of downtime to study sorcery would probably loose strength relatively quickly.
Nobody really wants to model reality effectively in a game. They want to generally be able to have a character concept and have that concept be fun to play in the game.
+level to proficiency allows for concepts to scale up by level in a way that doesn't quickly become unplayable in a collective environment. The "real" Str 8 wizard probably never really becomes an adventurer in the first place. Making it so that STR 8 wizards gets critically hit by every tentacle monster that grabs for 20 levels of gaming (even ones vastly inferior in power) is boring. If the game is going to play that way, it has to give players so many skill points that they could be investing one in each essential skill any way and at that point you have a lot of needless book keeping.
This system for PF2 lets your skill increase investments be more meaningful because you are only increasing one every other level, without making your character awful at every other aspect of the game.
Do you think that...
a.) NPCs will be designed using vastly different rules than PCs?
b.) NPCs will have access to advantages that will be denied to PCs?
The developers have made it clear that you can build NPCs like PCs but you don't have to. PF2 is a game built up around letting the GM and players tell the story they want to tell without having to fill in every single gap or statistic. Play the game how you want. I will do the same, and I appreciate that the developers made it a lot more easy to be a GM and build and run encounters without needing endless stat blocks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where 99% of healing is magic, non-magical surgery is definitely a new or very ancient niche procedure used to cure long term conditions.
To me, you're not making a particularly compelling argument by clinging to increasingly outlandish interpretations of one specific analogy...
Your Athletics example is another example of how games are never going to succeed at modeling reality.
... nor by this textbook example of a perfect solution fallacy.
Realism, verisimilitude or whatever you care to call it, is not a dichotomy. There are degrees of it. As I asked before: What is the point of making things more unrealistic?
Making it so that STR 8 wizards gets critically hit by every tentacle monster that grabs for 20 levels of gaming (even ones vastly inferior in power) is boring.
Yeah? Why?
I mean, not that we ever had this problem with this one specific task, because this was already tackled - to a degree - by previous editions of the game family. However, almost all other uses of Athletics are available to untrained characters as well, and thus fall into the same category of level trumping ostensible proficiency.
But why is it 'boring' if a STR 10 character of 7th level is not, by all measurable means, objectively stronger than a STR 16 character of 1st level?
I mean, if you start comparing things to the real world, than a 20th level computer programmer can fall 200 feet and walk it off.Look...
a.) I wasn't the one to start with the real world comparisons. I just took them to their logical conclusion.
In my own post on the subject, I used the more obvious example of Athletics, with the Level 8, Strength 10 untrained Wizard being better at grappling, breaking down doors, climbing etc. than the level 1, Strength 18, trained Barbarian.
Do you see a level 8 character as a "Superman"? Why do you think this makes sense and what do you think the effects on the perception of the game world will be?b.) If your entire argument is "Well, PF is not realistic", then I do not see the point.
Why is being unrealistic, per se, a good thing?c.) Yes, it was always unrealistic even by the standards of "movie reality" how HP progression and some other things were tied to overall experience.
Why is this an argument for applying the same unrealistic approach to *everything*?Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but we have zero non-combatant NPC stat blocks right now. I would suspect that when we get such rules, NPCs will be less stuck to PC balance progression and you can better emulate real world people with them.Do you think that...
a.) NPCs will be designed using vastly different rules than PCs?
b.) NPCs will have access to advantages that will be denied to PCs?
a) Fair enough, I probably should have read further back or something. As for your example, yeah, a level 8 character has become pretty blatantly super human in my opinion. Why I think this makes sense is because the level based system has always had character grow increasingly more super human with level. My perception of the game world is that higher level folks become infused with more and more power as they toughen themselves up and get exposed to wackier and wackier magic. Not everyone likes that perception, but I do.
b) Being unrealistic isn't a good thing per se. But neither is "being realistic" a particularly good thing. I won't say realism has no value, but I really think it only has value in so far as it keeps me immersed. I care a lot more about the game (and the stories I can tel with it) being fun, and that often necessitates balance.
c) The reason I think it is a good thing to apply this unrealistic approach to everything is because now it is actually more internally consistent. Yes, the world doesn't operate under realistic rules, but it does operate under rules. It makes sense to me that your AC scales with level now instead of just your BAB and saves. It makes sense to me that as you level up and gain HP (and potentially gaining more spell slots) your body's ability to resonate with magic items also increases. And it makes sense to me that as all these other things increase, so does your general competency at accomplishing any given task. Especially when this process involves having as diverse array of experiences as adventuring contains.
To go back to some earlier examples, the trained in medicine level 1 character may have taken a course on how to patch wounds, but by your own reckoning has very little actual experience with it. There is a very strong possibility that they will panic when put on the spot and facing someone who is bleeding out. The untrained mid level barbarian, on the other hand, has seen this happen dozens of times before. She's seen her both her friends and herself patched up, watched her wounds magically seal themselves in real time, and has dealt with the life and death pressures of combat. If the task requires acting quickly and calmly over massive technical skills, I am cool with the more generally experienced character having better odds.
The wizard example is a little perplexing, but only because of how ability scores work IMO. I can totally buy that the wizard's body has become stronger and more adept at doing athletic tasks. As their hit points increase, I don't see why their musculature can't as well. The issue is that the strength score remains static and impacts at least one thing that doesn't increase with level-- bulk. And I suppose static damage modifiers, too.
One could make a case that break DCs should be Strength Check like PF1 instead of an athletics check, but I really WANT my barbarian to get better at breaking stuff with level so that feels unsatisfying. You could also make the case that ability scores are kind of just vestigial at this point and we should get rid of them, but that probably won't happen. Personally, I think Paizo should probably lean further into the "high level characters are super heroes" thing, and buff jumping as mentioned up thread for example. If that also means buffing bulk I'm pretty cool with that?
Now as for your NPC points,
a) "Vastly" make be overstating it, but we already know NPCs and monsters won't be built with PC rules; lots of people have in fact been complaining about this.
b) Yes. That in fact seems to be the case already. See this thread for some evidence of that. Now, it sounds like some of these values are going to be adjusted down a little, but in general NPCs in the bestiary (not just monsters) seem to have skills higher than an equal level PC could achieve.
Although, while reading through Doomsday Dawn last night, I did come across some amusing pieces of data for this topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the same time, it makes player math *a lot* harder...
ahahahaha this is exaggerated
You just have to add your level
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing, going back to the original post and it's title:
"Level Bonus: Explain why we need it".The fact, indisputable really, is that you *don't* need it. It was a choice to have it by PF2e. Proof this is true? 5e works just fine without having a level bonus to everything. The biggest bonus you get is +6 for proficiency (similar to the -2 to +3 in 2e), and that's definitely something you don't get easily.
The question becomes: "Why is it desirable to have it?" I think Jason Buhlman argued it makes enemy creation easier, which may be true. At the same time, it makes player math *a lot* harder... so there's a definite trade-off there. I fall on the side of "I'm okay making enemy generation harder if it makes players computing their saves/to-hit bonus easier", but maybe not everyone is.
Having game play that is significantly different from 5th edition is a good reason not to try to replicate their math.
But there is an even more direct answer, that not everyone likes: the + level bonus separates high level PF2 play from low level PF2 play and gives room for stories that span levels of power growth that stretch into extreme realms of high fantasy. PF1 tried to do this, but failed to deliver much viable high level play, because the math fluctuated too greatly with player system mastery, and it was bound by basic system mechanics that were not developed for the game it was trying to create.
PF2 still needs some help getting there and seems bound to realism in things like jumping that are not necessary, but those things seem correctable with skill feats.
Yeah I'm not sure I buy the math being significantly harder on the players. Theoretically, I guess you could argue that adding bigger numbers together is harder, but by how much?
Conversely, I think the character creation process is probably easier with a 1 to 1 ration for level. In 5e you need to consult a table to see when your proficiency bonus goes up, and then make sure you adjusted certain trained values by that bonus. In Pathfinder 1e, you needed a table for BAB and saves.
In PF2, you don't need a table. You just need to understand the bubbles and add your level. I dunno, I'd be curious how the data pans out.
Wulfhem: Please do. Better yet, do some playtestkng where the discussion points are proven and then repost them.
As for your point that only the optimised character should attempt things: that hasn't been my experience in PF1e or 4e. Although in PF1e anyone without near max ranks shouldn't bother trying.
Because GM's don't reward good ideas, rp, and or make adjustments for the players do they?
Nope, sorry, only the highest guy should roll. Why is that any different in PF2? Because the numbers are smaller and everyone can do it?
In my playtesting, my group all rolls for stuff. Because they almost always roll for stuff if they have points into it. In groups that don't bother with rolls unless they are maxed, Do they roll? Or do they just sit there and let the skill monkey do it?
I'm interested in hearing your experience.
But there is an even more direct answer, that not everyone likes: the + level bonus separates high level PF2 play from low level PF2 play and gives room for stories that span levels of power growth that stretch into extreme realms of high fantasy. PF1 tried to do this, but failed to deliver much viable high level play, because the math fluctuated too greatly with player system mastery, and it was bound by basic system mechanics that were not developed for the game it was trying to create.
This post would be much better if it attempted to demonstrate why its claims are true.
I don't think anybody disputes that high level play in 1E was problematic. But the overall game remains easily one of the most successful RPGs of all time. To flatly talk about how it "failed" with no justification simply smacks of tribal rhetoric rather than thoughtful exchange of ideas.
On the other hand, the claim that PF2 will exceed PF1 in "room for stories that span levels of power growth" requires much more evidence than a simple proclamation. First and foremost, the game must be widely embraced overall before it even qualifies to compare itself to 1E. Numerous fans have expressed significant concerns and failure to bring a reasonable portion of those fans back into the fold will moot debate over whether 2E did better at anything because the debate will be "why didn't 2E take off the way 1E did"
But beyond that, there is at least as much reason to argue that +level undermines spanning the levels more than it improves it. Yes, the math works (ah, *that* phrase) because the math is FORCED to work, but only so long as you stay near your level in everything. If you want a game where a L10 party can face a L15 challenge (with much fear) or face numerous L5 challenges and, while still being dominant, enjoy the experience, then in my assessment 2E as written fails to approach 1E. The game will, by mandate, work mathematically at appropriate level, but the drop-off in play value as the level difference extends is much more steep.
Everything you are saying is highly subjective and open to very honest dispute and conversation. It is fair for people to have differing tastes and conclusions. But if your point exists purely on the basis of proclamation, then it should be questioned harshly.
Because GM's don't reward good ideas, rp, and or make adjustments for the players do they?Wulfhem: Please do. Better yet, do some playtestkng where the discussion points are proven and then repost them.
As for your point that only the optimised character should attempt things: that hasn't been my experience in PF1e or 4e. Although in PF1e anyone without near max ranks shouldn't bother trying.
Speaking strictly for my group: Good Ideas, sometimes, depends on the idea and the GM's whim at the moment. Good RP? Only if you're *REALLY* good (the kind of Really Good that I, and most of the group for that matter, am not). And making adjustments for the players? Heck no. In 99.999% of cases, it's by the book or not at all.
Nope, sorry, only the highest guy should roll. Why is that any different in PF2? Because the numbers are smaller and everyone can do it?
Not so much "smaller" but "closer" pretty much. Barring cases where the entire group is built around a concept (like the aforementioned case in this thread of everyone winds up being Charismatic, or one game we had where the entire party wound up being Stealthy) any kind of check gets relegated to the most effective character and anything that requires the entire party pass a check is generally thrown out unless the check is ridiculously easy (like the DC 0 "Climb a Knotted Rope with a wall to brace against).
In my playtesting, my group all rolls for stuff. Because they almost always roll for stuff if they have points into it. In groups that don't bother with rolls unless they are maxed, Do they roll? Or do they just sit there and let the skill monkey do it?
I'm interested in hearing your experience.
Continuing off the stuff relayed in the last response, so far in PF2e playtesting... we're not exactly far yet per say (we've only just finished our second fight of Doomsday Dawn, against 4 goblins), but in the pre-dungeon briefing we had, we all felt a lot more open rolling for things. Knowledge mostly so far, but I suspect the concept will probably continue into higher levels, because we actually have a chance of reasonably succeeding without devoting a large (potentially massive, our party has a Monk and a Barbarian, in PF1e we wouldn't have many skills to go around) amount of resources to whatever is coming up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This post would be much better if it attempted to demonstrate why its claims are true.
I don't think anybody disputes that high level play in 1E was problematic. But the overall game remains easily one of the most successful RPGs of all time. To flatly talk about how it "failed" with no justification simply smacks of tribal rhetoric rather than thoughtful exchange of ideas.
On the other hand, the claim that PF2 will exceed PF1 in "room for stories that span levels of power growth" requires much more evidence than a simple proclamation. First and foremost, the game must be widely embraced overall before it even qualifies to compare itself to 1E. Numerous fans have expressed significant concerns and failure to bring a reasonable portion of those fans back into the fold will moot debate over whether 2E did better at anything because the debate will be "why didn't 2E take off the way 1E did"
But beyond that, there is at least as much reason to argue that +level undermines spanning the levels more than it improves it. Yes, the math works (ah, *that* phrase) because the math is FORCED to work, but only so long as you stay near your level in everything. If you want a game where a L10 party can face a L15 challenge (with much fear) or face numerous L5 challenges and, while still being dominant, enjoy the experience, then in my assessment 2E as written fails to approach 1E. The game will, by mandate, work mathematically at appropriate level, but the drop-off in play value as the level...
I am really happy that you enjoy PF1 and hopefully you will be able to keep playing your PF1 games for a life time. My guess is that the third party market for support of PF1 is going to continue for a very long time.
Personally, I am done with PF1. GMing Wrath of the Righteous exposed enough gaping wholes in the underlying game structure for me (made exponentially worse with mythic rules), combined with finishing another AP as a Wizard and having combats that took an hour + a round because of summoning (players and enemies), trying to keep track of bonuses, and then tracking actions and the action economy. We had a rogue who got to make 1 skill check in the entire last book because spells made her entire character irrelevant, and then when we faced off against a monster near the end, a remade litch sorcerer (absolutely not a spoiler for any AP since the character was not a part of the original story but was a "level appropriate challenge" (only Party level +1)added by the GM with a Save DC of 31 when casting necromantic effects, my character got her heart ripped out on the first round of that combat. I had a lot of fun playing through the first 5 to 10 levels and wanted to find out where stories went past that for other modules and APs, but I just don't find the game worth playing when you know a single well-crafted wizard was worth an entire party (or atleast 3/4ths of one) and the finickiness of skill bonuses stretching over 20 points for equal level characters never really mattered anyway because skills were usually a joke any way.
I haven't got to the higher level play yet in PF2, so I can't say if the system as designed addresses those issues well for me or not, but I know that those issues are what it was designed to address, so I am willing to play test it and give it a shot. Begging them to hold on to a system that fails to make high level play fun is the opposite of what I want.
Insisting that a fundamental part of how this new system attempts to tackle the issue of making high level play fun, epic, dynamic, and relatively straight forward and quicker to play, is going to ruin the game, without actually playing it, is upsetting to me because it is attempting to build up a "never this" camp without understanding what "this" is or how it actually works. I don't want to play a 17th level wizard that cannot figure out how to face an army of undead monsters and a high level litch sorcerer (+other unnamed creatures from that AP) deep in enemy territory, with no ability to teleport to safety. I want my high level character to have lesser enemies tremble before her, while having equal level enemies be a comparable fight that doesn't end with the initiative roll, because both sides are specialized into being glass cannons because no other build can stand up to the heat they can throw anyway (ie. the defenses don't keep up with specialized attacks).
If you really don't understand the value of a simple scaling level system, and you aren't willing to watch any of the twitch streams or read any of the interviews where the developers explain their thought process, you are not going to listen to me any way. My guess is that anyone that came to this thread honestly curious and looking for a reasonable discussion of why the developers may have implemented this system, or looking for playtested feed back for how it is working, have stopped reading a while ago.
The answer to why + level to proficiency has been included is relatively easy to find at this point for the people who are looking for it. The new system looks flexible enough for people who want to house rule around to be able to do so, although I think that is still going to require more work than just stripping it out, since there are other aspects of what leveling means that are tied directly to the idea that there will be a larger range of lower level monsters who you can easily dominate now. (like spell save DCs and critical hit effects). But it seems doable. That is decent flexibility.
I would rather spend my time now playtesting what this system is and looking for those places where more fun, high level gonzo style fantasy play can be worked in with Master and Legendary feats.
Because GM's don't reward good ideas, rp, and or make adjustments for the players do they?
Nope, sorry, only the highest guy should roll.
Merlin, I'm not going to respond to anything else from your post until you explain to me how this is in response to what I posted and not just you using my post as a pretext to continue your perpetual ranting.
I explicitly say that in my experience the non-optimal PC tries stuff all the time.
@ BryonD: Your point about PF1's higher/lower level encounters would have merit if same-level encounters in PF1 worked properly. It doesn't. One could get a "fear it!" or "waltz through it" effect with any kind of monster the party isn't able to counteract, at any level.
The benefit of systems like 4ed (and hopefully PF2) is that they give a range of guaranteed feasible threats, with the ability to make it more and less difficult on purpose.