Level bonus, explain why we need it


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

17 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level. Wise players please help me. Is there a way to play this cool game without having Useless bloated numbers. Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, they have gone specifically with big numbers and high level characters not being threatened by lower level monsters, a lot of needing natural 20s to hit you, which if fine, and I am hoping they make Legendary truly epic/mythic.

If you want to open up the threat range of monsters, flatten the math, BA, it's dead simple to omit the +Level, or use +1/2 level, or +1/4 level, I am playing with (playtest) and without (home-game) the treadmill, currently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They did it because it's consistent across attacks, AC, saves, and skills.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It also makes it easier to accomplish simpler tasks the higher level you get. so instead of needing to roll a 15 to succeed at a low level challenge at high level you can do it with a 10 or 5 etc rolled. Its to show that your character has progressed in power.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
They did it because it's consistent across attacks, AC, saves, and skills.

Just to expand upon what Claxon said. This is good as it allows all parts of the character to be used fairly interchangeably without the need of formulas for conversion. Thus they can use Save scores for static defences, Skills for in attacks and other combat actions (my god is Demoralize so much more straightforward) etc.

And if you think PF2 numbers are silly, you should look at PF1. You can beat PF2 maximum numbers for things like Skills by level 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.

That's what you're getting, isn't it?

The way you "do amazing things" in d20 games is by rolling very high numbers (and thus hitting super high DCs).


18 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, in PF1e saves increased by a fraction of your level, BAB increased by your level or a fraction, skills you cared about increased by your level, and your AC increased by an arbitrary assumed value of personal magical gear that could be plotted out by level.

I don't really have a problem with cutting through the BS and unifying the advancement mechanic.

My problem would be if DCs scaled up arbitrarily and proficiency level unlocks aren't utilized properly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.

That's what you're getting, isn't it?

The way you "do amazing things" in d20 games is by rolling very high numbers (and thus hitting super high DCs).

I maen epic feats, actions, ripping balor's heads off, swimming for days, Beowulf/Herculean action, that would be a cool area to expand on, as 5th Ed doesn't really cover.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
And if you think PF2 numbers are silly, you should look at PF1. You can beat PF2 maximum numbers for things like Skills by level 10.

I totally agree, something I avoid in those systems (we know one can break 3rd Ed beyond recognition), the d20 loses something when you're rolling d20 +87.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.

That's what you're getting, isn't it?

The way you "do amazing things" in d20 games is by rolling very high numbers (and thus hitting super high DCs).

I maen epic feats, actions, ripping balor's heads off, swimming for days, Beowulf/Herculean action, that would be a cool area to expand on, as 5th Ed doesn't really cover.

Hey, Ma! I leveled up! Is Zeus my dad now?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.

That's what you're getting, isn't it?

The way you "do amazing things" in d20 games is by rolling very high numbers (and thus hitting super high DCs).

I maen epic feats, actions, ripping balor's heads off, swimming for days, Beowulf/Herculean action, that would be a cool area to expand on, as 5th Ed doesn't really cover.
Hey, Ma! I leveled up! Is Zeus my dad now?

Son, there's been someone I want you to meet, and he wants to meet you, in saunters Zeusy, and says: "I am your father..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:

I mean, in PF1e saves increased by a fraction of your level, BAB increased by your level or a fraction, skills you cared about increased by your level, and your AC increased by an arbitrary assumed value of personal magical gear that could be plotted out by level.

I don't really have a problem with cutting through the BS and unifying the advancement mechanic.

My problem would be if DCs scaled up arbitrarily and proficiency level unlocks aren't utilized properly.

You put it perfectly! Even monsters used this scaling. They just arbitrarily gained more and more natural armour so that they can keep up with the attack bonus of PCs.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:
Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.

How so?

I don't see that a +90 is any more sillier than a +17.

A Strength of 28 would be ridiculous in a D&D 2e game, and a normal stat for a high-level Barbarian in PF1.

They're just numbers. They have no objective meaning outside of the context of the game they're part of.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see the need for level scaling. It creates some huge number bloat and over-amplifies the effect of players/monsters having different levels. At least when I've played, a character coming to the table at 7th level and playing with the 9's wasn't a huge issue in 1e. It's not a big deal in 5e. It seems like a pretty massive deal in 2e...

I understand the need for some scaling, but one would hope that could be easily handled by:
1. A natural scaling of proficiency throughout the game. The system in place now is shallower than 5e's approach, (+/-5 vs +/-6) which lots of people complain about anyway.
2. HP scaling with level, and that solving physical attacks.
3. Proficiency in saves and spellcasting scaling with level, and that solving magical attacks.
4. Strength of feats scaling with level.

Instead, we're essentially being told that what makes a 9th level character better than a 7th level character is a +2 bonus, and that sorta sucks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So unified scaling works on several levels in the new game. First an foremost it makes level mean something less arbitrary (you add your level to your proficiency in everything). Two, if you remove that the difference between a 2nd and 4th level character start to lessen (for some this might be a good thing). Basically it would be just more HP and 1 skill increase (and some additional feats). Three, and this is not dependent on adding level, It makes skill checks against saving throws an option or caster checks vs skills work on the same underlying math. Fourth, and probably most important it makes it easier. You just add your level to every check, done. No rounding questions, no math to figure it out. (we need a level line and a proficiency modifier line on the character sheet for this though.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Justin Franklin wrote:
Fourth, and probably most important it makes it easier. You just add your level to every check, done. No rounding questions, no math to figure it out. (we need a level line and a proficiency modifier line on the character sheet for this though.)

But this isn't true, you add your level plus some arbitrary proficiency bonus (-2, 0, +1, +2, +3). If you drop "level" from that equation, things get even easier...

As for making "level" mean something less arbitrary, in my opinion at least, +1 to everything is pretty arbitrary.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

the main reason is for Gm's and writing adventures.

by keeping the level system, you keep certain basic things skills, attack, ac for all characters within a certain range.

So if you have a group like one of mines which includes, the power gamer, an optimizer, and two people who make the most inefficient characters possible the game doesn't fall apart.

it also makes high level play work. All in all it's a good thing and one of the better features in the game.

the game should be level 1-20 and not just really level 1-12, and the power gamer and the flight of fantasy gamer should be able to co-exist without shorting the life of their GM or causing premature baldness.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
At least when I've played, a character coming to the table at 7th level and playing with the 9's wasn't a huge issue in 1e. It's not a big deal in 5e. It seems like a pretty massive deal in 2e...

I understand that this has been your experience, but it has decidedly not been mine. Even a single level difference is felt pretty severely by those behind the curve in my games.

That being said, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two systems outside of all skills improving. BAB improvement is the same, AC improvement is the same (remember the ideal PF1e AC is Level+20, iirc), important skills are the same (1 rank per level versus +level), the saves go up but so do the DCs for those saves.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, it makes level far too important and limits the number of challenges that can be used to a narrow level-appropriate band. It makes things like armor differences become mostly insignificant. It also bloats the numbers at high level and diminishes the importance of the d20 roll. I am hoping they will dial it back to something like level/2 to widen the band of appropriate challenges, monsters, etc. and reduce the modifier bloat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Put most simply, the level bit int he math keeps the level 5 character from killing the level 15 character.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

in a playtest, nothing is NEEDED, but this is the initial vision from the designers. I imagine it would require a lot of negative feedback to change it.

There are many threads debating the whys, positives, and negatives of this feature so I am sure it is at least on the designers radar.

I for one, am against it, but it isn't a back breaker for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.

That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
skills you cared about increased by your level

that's it, though. now EVERY skill increases by level, if I care about it or not. If my char uses that skill or not, even if it doesn't make any sense for the char to even HAVE that skill


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd much rather see level bonus go away, and tie higher level abilities into class abilities and proficiency gated feats.

Make proficiency tiers be gated by character level.

Make feats and abilities be gated by proficiency tier.

Make the in-game effects be gated by feats and abilities.

Plus, getting rid of the requirement to explain why the 20th level character is a better farmer than the 1st level farmer, despite never having farmed, is certainly a bonus. (Yes, I know about trained/untrained uses of skills and skill feats. But isn't it better to just have a system where a 20th level character doesn't have a +20 bonus to untrained skills?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Fourth, and probably most important it makes it easier. You just add your level to every check, done. No rounding questions, no math to figure it out. (we need a level line and a proficiency modifier line on the character sheet for this though.)

But this isn't true, you add your level plus some arbitrary proficiency bonus (-2, 0, +1, +2, +3). If you drop "level" from that equation, things get even easier...

As for making "level" mean something less arbitrary, in my opinion at least, +1 to everything is pretty arbitrary.

That is why I want it broken out so that Level is a line on each skill and Prof is as well. That will be easier to teach (and level).

If we don't advance that in some way you get a 20th level fighter that has gotten a +5 or 25% better at hitting the first level orc (disregarding magic) over those 20 levels.

Also the other thing that removes is the idea that the fighter should be so much better at fighting that he crits more frequently. a 20th level fighter rolling 1d20+20+3+3+6 (no magic in this case for simplicity), is going to crit on that Orc warrior AC 15 with every swing. 1d20+3+3+6 crits on a 13 or higher.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
skills you cared about increased by your level
that's it, though. now EVERY skill increases by level, if I care about it or not. If my char uses that skill or not, even if it doesn't make any sense for the char to even HAVE that skill

So, the whole entire reason they did it for all skills is that it gives high level characters the option to at least attempt to participate in a variety of activities. Stealth being the chief reason.

If progression of untrained skills is that big of a sticking point, what if Untrained just did not get a +level bonus? Then a character can act as though they were trained for X hours if they receive instruction from someone expert or above?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

Ahh, but the PF2 fighter could do it naked!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
WatersLethe wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
skills you cared about increased by your level
that's it, though. now EVERY skill increases by level, if I care about it or not. If my char uses that skill or not, even if it doesn't make any sense for the char to even HAVE that skill

So, the whole entire reason they did it for all skills is that it gives high level characters the option to at least attempt to participate in a variety of activities. Stealth being the chief reason.

If progression of untrained skills is that big of a sticking point, what if Untrained just did not get a +level bonus? Then a character can act as though they were trained for X hours if they receive instruction from someone expert or above?

Then perhaps, like Perception, certain skills should be grouped under adventuring skills and follow the level progression, while others require investment. Similar in concept to PF Unchained!'s background skills. I still don't like the assumed auto-progression but it's closer to a middle-ground than what we currently have.

Honestly, though, the simpler fix would seem to be more generous distribution of skill points ala Starfinder.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Yes, they have gone specifically with big numbers and high level characters not being threatened by lower level monsters,

This. They need numbers for the game to scale. A constant treadmill.

I love Bound Accuracy from 5e for this exact opposite reason . Keeps everything clean and tight, more flexibility in encounter/ adventure design.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.

I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s%#! to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Isn't it just so that 20th level things are way, way better than 1st level things at pretty much everything?

I just figured it was a quick and easy way to make level inherently meaningful.

Pretty much, I just want higher level characters to do amazing things, not just bigger numbers, make Legendary truly worthy of the name.

That's what you're getting, isn't it?

The way you "do amazing things" in d20 games is by rolling very high numbers (and thus hitting super high DCs).

I maen epic feats, actions, ripping balor's heads off, swimming for days, Beowulf/Herculean action, that would be a cool area to expand on, as 5th Ed doesn't really cover.
Hey, Ma! I leveled up! Is Zeus my dad now?

I dunno, do you get an ancestry feat this level?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
O. N. wrote:
I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s#@@ to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

So it goes from a 15th level fighter being able to ignore a bunch of ghouls (because no one in PF1e ever takes their armor off unless the GM points a gun at the player) to a 15th level fighter being able to ignore a bunch of ghouls because he's Just That Good while in the comfort of his tunic and slacks?

I don't know, the ability to not die when divested of armor is a big selling point for me in this whole discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:


I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s~$! to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

And there is nothing wrong with thinking that way. Its the great divide, bound vs unbound (accuracy). I prefer it the other way, but I understand people wanting it this way.

Must resist urge to argue.....


6 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
O. N. wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
It can lead to some interesting scenarios, like your 15th-level character, having a drink at the bar, and a bunch of ghouls burst in and attack everyone, and they just sit there, drinking, while the occasional ghoul hits them, to their annoyance.
That got a irl laugh. Love that image, thanks.

Ghoul from PF1:

Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)
AC of a 15th level Fighter in PF1: 28 (+4 Full Plate, 12 dex, and +4 Ring)

This happens under PF1, too. :-)

The difference is the PF2 character can be stark naked (or just unarmored) in the bar and be AC 25, still completely untouchable by the ghouls. Meanwhile your PF1 15th level fighter, if stark naked (or just unarmored), only has an AC of 11. And he'd most likely get demolished.
I'll be honest, I like that there's some way to show a character is powerful and skilled beyond just how much magic armor they have. They're just straight better at it (you could argue this should apply to weapon dice too, but that's another thread). The lvl 14 character I made had, naked, a minimum skill bonus +12 and maximum +21. I find that to be perfectly acceptable. He sneaks amazing, and while arcana is not his field, he's seen enough s*~@ to recognize magic when he sees it. A ghoul tries to bit them and they just dodge without thinking about it, because ghouls are chumps. Seems fine to me.

That's fine. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, just pointing out that there's a glaring difference between systems. Adding level to everything has several implications that have to be taken into account, not all of them good.

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine treadmill where you face stuff of your level, and maybe one or two below/above. Trying to do a PF1 "APL+4" encounter will just end in a TPK most of the time. And I don't mean big stuff, either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine that you as a GM want your campaign to eventually involve climbing a mountain. At level 1, maybe one PC could do it, but the rest just couldn't do it, and their classes don't get many opportunities to improve on this. Because Athletics improve as you gain experience, eventually the party could have a decent enough bonus that the DCs you presented at level 1 are now attainable.

In a system where you have to deliberately choose every improvement, some choices get prioritized over others, and it can lead to a high-level PC encountering something that he could have beaten easily if he built himself to do it, but gets humiliated by something much more low-level than him because he didn't.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
EberronHoward wrote:
a high-level PC encountering something that he could have beaten easily if he built himself to do it, but gets humiliated by something much more low-level than him because he didn't.

Conceptually, I'm okay with a single adventurer not being able to do something basic he never learned to do.

I'm not okay with a group with a mountain climber straight out of Myth and Legend being unable to take the "Climb Mountain" path because one guy never saw a rope before. It takes agency out of the hands of the specialized player because the other one wanted to use his points on something else.

I'm starting to like my previous suggestion of an Expert or above in a skill being able to give someone pointers and treat them as trained for the task. A Legendary climber should be able to give some great tips, right?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Luceon wrote:
I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level. Wise players please help me. Is there a way to play this cool game without having Useless bloated numbers. Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.

If an orc I fight at level 2 is just as deadly as when I'm level 20, monsters and encounters become very limited and same-y. At level 2, I fight 5 orcs. At level 20, I still fight the same 5 orcs, their difficulty remaining unchanged.

What's the point of levels if it doesn't really change the power or scale of what I fight or accomplish within the game?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Luceon wrote:
I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t find any compelling, or logical reason why to play a TTRPG that adds +1 to everything / level. Wise players please help me. Is there a way to play this cool game without having Useless bloated numbers. Go look at at a level 20 character, it looks stupid. Seriously make a level 20 character. It looks utterly silly.

If an orc I fight at level 2 is just as deadly as when I'm level 20, monsters and encounters become very limited and same-y. At level 2, I fight 5 orcs. At level 20, I still fight the same 5 orcs, their difficulty remaining unchanged.

What's the point of levels if it doesn't really change the power or scale of what I fight or accomplish within the game?

Thats not the argument. At L20, the fighter will slaughter 5 orcs as they are not just as dangerous (no matter what system, assuming they are the same orcs from L2). In the bounded accuracy argument (i.e. 5th edition) The orcs may hit the fighter once or twice. In the PF2 case, they will only ever hit on 20's. It's just that in the 5e case, the fighter could fight an army of orcs, while the PF2 one could.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerobelis wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with thinking that way. Its the great divide, bound vs unbound (accuracy). I prefer it the other way, but I understand people wanting it this way.

Must resist urge to argue.....

And I appreciate it! I don't dislike the feel of being, in the end, human after all when divested of all the magic extras. I just like the other option a bit more, at least in magic heavy fantasy.

It's indeed down to preference. I just like the feeling of inherent competence, even if you never get to exercise it ingame. I get to imagine my PC in shorts and suglasses having a good time in a dangerous enviroment.

TheFinish wrote:

That's fine. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other, just pointing out that there's a glaring difference between systems. Adding level to everything has several implications that have to be taken into account, not all of them good.

I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...

I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm okay with the 20th level fighter fighting off an army of low levels Orcs and truly being a master of combat in comparison to them that is only hampered by the luckiest of blows from his enemy. Until the high level leader (if one exists) of the army finally comes and faces the fighter.

To me, that's exactly how it should work.

I've never wanted low level threats to maintain relevance against high level characters. I'm not sure if somewhere along the line it was touted that this would be the case, setting up such an expectation...but I'm not understanding why people thought this would be the case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:


I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

Problem with this is that Fighter scales the best out of all clases, gaining superior weapon/armor proficiencies and having the greatest interest in getting magic weapons and armor ASAP. The monsters being built as optimized fighters take this into account and manage to keep up with the fighter, but other classes can quickly fall at behind as the gap widens. You eventually end in PF1-like scenarios where monster shave such high natural armor that only full BAB classes can reliably hit them! Except in this edition, for example, the Barbarian has notably lower to-hit and AC than the fighter and will be getting destroyed easily.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

I am totally finding that the monsters are more powerful then they should be currently. If there were monster creation rules, I would completely be critiquing that!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
O. N. wrote:
TheFinish wrote:
I mean even discounting the absolutely headscratching attack bonuses on enemies in the PF2 bestiary (seriously, look them up. All of them are super optimised fighters, it seems), adding level to everything means you're always on a very fine...
I feel obligated to mention that, they are indeed dangerous, deadly monsters that eat people or each other. It doesn't exactly break my SOB that they are optimized fitghers.

A level 0 Goblin with +0 Strength has the same To-Hit with it's weapons as a level 1 Str 18 Character that's an Expert in his chosen weapon. Heck, they have a higher To-hit bonus with their Dogslicers (which aren't Finesse) than a 1st level Goblin Fighter could ever get (they're capped at +5 due to 16 Str).

There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's that. And the pattern repeats for basically everyone. Monsters are either as good as optimised, magically armed fighters of their level, or they're straight up better. In this world, we had people that were able to hunt tigers. In PF2, a Tiger would TPK a party of 1st level anything without breaking a sweat.

You forgot about the shortbows that are somehow at +1 over the Dogslicer.

Oh I was just looking at the Stock Goblin Warrior in the Bestiary, where both are at +6. Not that it makes sense for the shortbow either, at +3 Dex and Level 0 the modifier should be...+3.

None of the statted goblins make sense though, so there's that...

1 to 50 of 433 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Level bonus, explain why we need it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.