Bloated numbers do NOT diminish d20 importance

General Discussion

It just doesn't happen.

I am going to show this mathematically.

SCENARIO 1:
No bonus, roll against DC 11
Success rate = 50%

SCENARIO 2:
+9.999 bonus, roll against DC 10'010
Success rate = 50%

Conclusion: the difference between the bonus and the dc is the only real factor

I am saying this because I keep seeing people getting this wrong in the way they analyze the game maths

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

It just doesn't happen.

I am going to show this mathematically.

SCENARIO 1:
No bonus, roll against DC 10
Success rate = 50%

Isn't d20 vs. DC 10 a 55% of success?

Vic Ferrari wrote:
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

It just doesn't happen.

I am going to show this mathematically.

SCENARIO 1:
No bonus, roll against DC 10
Success rate = 50%

Isn't d20 vs. DC 10 a 55% of success?

Yes it is lol.

Now it's correct

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No it's not a fallacy because you assumed bonus and DC increase in lockstep. Which they do not.

 6 people marked this as a favorite.

So it's not high numbers that decrease the importance of the d20 roll, it's essentially high variance in numbers at a fixed point. PF2e increases the overall bonus you get to things at a particular level, but decreases the distance you can be from the standard bonus. In other words, the d20 roll actually matters *more* in PF2e due to lower variance.

So it's not high numbers that decrease the importance of the d20 roll, it's essentially high variance in numbers at a fixed point. PF2e increases the overall bonus you get to things at a particular level, but decreases the distance you can be from the standard bonus. In other words, the d20 roll actually matters *more* in PF2e due to lower variance.

That's my conclusion, too. It matters MORE.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Bloated" may not necessarily decrease the influence if the d20 roll, but they do decrease its significance compared to character ability.

If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill. Its less about luck, ewpecialy when it comes to many skill checks that dont scale dcs, like trying to jump or perform for a crowd.

I think that matters.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:

If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill.

This is just a perceptual bias.

In reality the only thing that matters is the difference between your bonus and the target DC.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the only thing that has ever mattered is the difference between your modifier and your target DC.

However, as you level up you continue to attempt more difficult things (typically) that you couldn't have before, but they degree of difficulty is maintained (approximately) because the target DC increases as your bonus increases (though not at the same rate, which is why I said approximately).

Some task however have fixed DCs, which allows some people to trivially succeed and others who haven't dedicated any resources to succeed. Eventually anyone can succeed at surviving in the wild (depending on the biome you're in) because they get a bonus to Survival at every level regardless of whether you're trained in it or not. I think this is okay. Because regardless of whether or not you have a +20 in Survival, you can't attempt to track a creature unless you're at least Trained.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

We don't really know how true this is.

Hypothetical adventure 1: All locks increase in DC at a rate of 1 per level. PCs who are better at locks than others will remain better by the same amount. Levelling up may feel like a treadmill, giving only the illusion of progress.

Hypothetical adventure 2: All locks remain the same DC throughout the adventure. As PCs level up, skill bonus points become irrelevant because everyone has enough skill points from their level alone to pick all locks.

Hypothetical adventure 3: Lock DCs vary wildly. Some locks will be pickable by all PCs of the expected level. Some are borderline impossible for all PCs. Some are vaguely level appropriate (eg, 90% for specialist PC, 65% for amateur PC, or 10% for amateur, 30% for expert, or something like that).

 3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think version 3 is what we have.

Eventually a trained PC with no other investment in thievery could pick a simple lock, even with 0 dex modifier and no bonuses.

But that simple lock isn't really relevant to the story line (it's not expected to be a real impediment) and the important stuff is hidden behind a superior lock, and only the person who has invested in thievery can pick.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:

If the average result of 1d20 is 10.5 and my modifier is +4, the roll is mostly luck. If my modifier is +15, more of my result comes from my character's skill.

This is just a perceptual bias.

In reality the only thing that matters is the difference between your bonus and the target DC.

Is... isnt everything in this pretend game dependant on what we percieve the numbers as meaning? We arent just doing math for fun.

Bards have been historically, in various editions of the game, percieved as being weak and passive when, mathematically, they are reaponsible for the most damage in the party (turning near misses into hit, and adding +X damage to every hit including their own).

Perception doesnt just matter, its where the game actually is for most. Otherwise, why describe a sneak attack as being a sneaky? Doesnt just the damage matter?

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

To out it another way: fun is a sensation based purely in perception, so decisions that affect perception matter.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Big Lemon wrote:
To out it another way: fun is a sensation based purely in perception, so decisions that affect perception matter.

people are free to find fun wherever they deem appropriate, however when making statements about game balance and math only true facts count

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

We don't really know how true this is.

Hypothetical adventure 1: All locks increase in DC at a rate of 1 per level. PCs who are better at locks than others will remain better by the same amount. Levelling up may feel like a treadmill, giving only the illusion of progress.

Hypothetical adventure 2: All locks remain the same DC throughout the adventure. As PCs level up, skill bonus points become irrelevant because everyone has enough skill points from their level alone to pick all locks.

Hypothetical adventure 3: Lock DCs vary wildly. Some locks will be pickable by all PCs of the expected level. Some are borderline impossible for all PCs. Some are vaguely level appropriate (eg, 90% for specialist PC, 65% for amateur PC, or 10% for amateur, 30% for expert, or something like that).

I think this is a really good example. I think a lot of people who don't like level-based bonuses are coming from a point of view of assuming either #1 or #2 will be true, and I think Paizo is aiming for #3.

Whether they hit that mark or not remains to be seen, but those hypotheticals are a good way of demonstrating that it's possible to have a meaningful outcome other than the ones people seem afraid of.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
To out it another way: fun is a sensation based purely in perception, so decisions that affect perception matter.
people are free to find fun wherever they deem appropriate, however when making statements about game balance and math only true facts count

I still dont agree that the statement is false. If I put in \$20 to pay a \$30 dining bill and my friend puts in \$10, it can be said, factually, that my contribution was more sigificant even we still hit the target of \$30.

Likewise, even if it only "matters" that we hit a DC of 30 with a skill check, if the dice adds 10.5 and my character adds +20, it is factual that my character contributed more than the d20.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

We don't really know how true this is.

Hypothetical adventure 1: All locks increase in DC at a rate of 1 per level. PCs who are better at locks than others will remain better by the same amount. Levelling up may feel like a treadmill, giving only the illusion of progress.

Hypothetical adventure 2: All locks remain the same DC throughout the adventure. As PCs level up, skill bonus points become irrelevant because everyone has enough skill points from their level alone to pick all locks.

Hypothetical adventure 3: Lock DCs vary wildly. Some locks will be pickable by all PCs of the expected level. Some are borderline impossible for all PCs. Some are vaguely level appropriate (eg, 90% for specialist PC, 65% for amateur PC, or 10% for amateur, 30% for expert, or something like that).

I would like to hear the OP's perspective on this one, because the "bloated numbers" make a SIGNIFICANT difference in the lattermost case.

We need to be sure we're all on the same page about what we're arguing before we can honestly disagree.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

My "position" is not a position, I am stating verifiable facts.

This is my claim:

For the purposes of any specific d20 roll, all that matters when determining the chance of success is the difference between the DC and the static bonus added to the die roll itself.

This is automatically true however you look at it and is all I cared about when making this thread.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is absolutely clear that he growing numbers DO NOT diminish the D20 because the range between the bonus and the target stay in the same vicinity.

However, the bloated numbers DO diminish the significance of every other modifier in the game.

BryonD wrote:

It is absolutely clear that he growing numbers DO NOT diminish the D20 because the range between the bonus and the target stay in the same vicinity.

However, the bloated numbers DO diminish the significance of every other modifier in the game.

Yeah.

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.

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.

I think that the point is this:
1. Consider only challenges at or around your level, as other challenges, while they exist, aren't likely as interesting.
2. Consider that the overall variance in bonuses is reduced in PF2e.
3. Consider multiple degrees of success.

Let's look at someone who's optimized for skill X in 2e, and their bonus is +4 over the average bonus for the level. In 1e, let's say that'd be a +8.

Now let's look at a task that has a 50/50 shot of success, so for an average bonus, the players would succeed on an 11 or higher:

In 2e:
critical fail: 1
fail: 2-7
success: 8-16
critical success: 17-20

In 1e:
fail: 1-2
success: 3-20

Suddenly there are a lot more of somewhat evenly proportioned ranges that matter for this skill check on the d20. In 1e, not only did you not have critical ranges, you also had a smaller range for failure.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
BryonD wrote:

It is absolutely clear that he growing numbers DO NOT diminish the D20 because the range between the bonus and the target stay in the same vicinity.

However, the bloated numbers DO diminish the significance of every other modifier in the game.

Yeah.

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.

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.

Except the numbers are bigger, and I am not 100% sure, but I think that may be a problem.

Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character. I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.

Moro wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
BryonD wrote:

It is absolutely clear that he growing numbers DO NOT diminish the D20 because the range between the bonus and the target stay in the same vicinity.

However, the bloated numbers DO diminish the significance of every other modifier in the game.

Yeah.

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.

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.

Except the numbers are bigger, and I am not 100% sure, but I think that may be a problem.

Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character. I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.

At least it is easy to omit, or make it +1/4 level, or +1/2 level, etc.

It just opens up the monster threat range, flattens things, no longer do lower level monsters need a natural 20 to hit you. Depends on the type of world you want to tell stories in, I generally like taking on 30 ghouls, solo, to be a problem, regardless of level.

Though it sounds like they want to get epic in this edition, and I am all for crazy Legendary features/feats, regardless of number inflation.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character. I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.

Your misstating the problem as the designers perceived it. It wasn't a problem of basic math skills they were afraid of, but the 10 different bonuses types that you might be trying to keep track of and searching for in order to get your numbers as high as possible.

Now they can make magic items more interesting than just adding flat numbers, and because they don't have to worry about bonus types and stacking and can assume a player will have +X bonus to a skill/attack roll/etc they can fine tune the math the way they want.

 4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Moro wrote:

Except the numbers are bigger, and I am not 100% sure, but I think that may be a problem.

Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character. I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.

That's a bit of a false equivalence, isn't it? I mean, which of these problems is easier and faster to do:

4 + 139

4 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 6

I bet you solved the first one at a glance, but had to work out the second one step by step.

EDIT: I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

MaxAstro wrote:

I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

How often does this REALLY happen? Surely your players are adding up stuff like BAB, Enhancement Bonus, Weapon Focus, etc. out of game, leaving situational bonuses as the only things that can slow down the game.

Most of the time, players are going to KNOW that they have a flanking bonus, because they will have actively moved into position to flank and, in my experience, casters tend to remind everyone every turn that they have bonuses from their spells.

This theoretical "4+1+3+2+5+3+2+6" is either hyperbole or players not adding up bonuses they should before combat starts.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It is 100% (okay, 90%) the player not adding up bonuses he should before the combat starts, but that doesn't stop it from happening. That said, situational bonuses he has to add off the top of my head:
+2 from charging
+2 or +4 from flanking depending on who he is flanking with
+2 from his magic weapon if he is using that instead of his claws
+varies from his size and form depending on what he polymorphed into this combat
+2 if his target is a devil
+2 from raging (oh wait it's +3 now) (he INSISTS he can't precalc this because what if he decides not to rage?)
+varies from the party Shaman putting buffs on him
+varies from buffing himself on the rare occasion he decides to use his spells for that

And that's not even getting into his damage calculations, which can vary even more wildly between polymorph, Power Attack, rage, buffs, Vital Strike, and so forth.

He's an unusually complicated character in an unusually complicated party, but this does happen in a lesser form in every group I'm in. The number of times we have to stop game for "did you remember the +2 from [some buff]?" "I think I did, let me recalculate my attack bonus to make sure..."

MaxAstro wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

We don't really know how true this is.

Hypothetical adventure 1: All locks increase in DC at a rate of 1 per level. PCs who are better at locks than others will remain better by the same amount. Levelling up may feel like a treadmill, giving only the illusion of progress.

Hypothetical adventure 2: All locks remain the same DC throughout the adventure. As PCs level up, skill bonus points become irrelevant because everyone has enough skill points from their level alone to pick all locks.

Hypothetical adventure 3: Lock DCs vary wildly. Some locks will be pickable by all PCs of the expected level. Some are borderline impossible for all PCs. Some are vaguely level appropriate (eg, 90% for specialist PC, 65% for amateur PC, or 10% for amateur, 30% for expert, or something like that).

I think this is a really good example. I think a lot of people who don't like level-based bonuses are coming from a point of view of assuming either #1 or #2 will be true, and I think Paizo is aiming for #3.

Whether they hit that mark or not remains to be seen, but those hypotheticals are a good way of demonstrating that it's possible to have a meaningful outcome other than the ones people seem afraid of.

Here's the thing; in practice, #3 is the same as #1. Pathfinder does most of their business through published adventures, whether that's APs or PFS or Modules. The DCs in those adventures for anything that actually matters are going to be set such that they're a challenge to specialized characters of the expected level, just as they always have been in prior content.

thflame wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

How often does this REALLY happen? Surely your players are adding up stuff like BAB, Enhancement Bonus, Weapon Focus, etc. out of game, leaving situational bonuses as the only things that can slow down the game.

Most of the time, players are going to KNOW that they have a flanking bonus, because they will have actively moved into position to flank and, in my experience, casters tend to remind everyone every turn that they have bonuses from their spells.

This theoretical "4+1+3+2+5+3+2+6" is either hyperbole or players not adding up bonuses they should before combat starts.

Nah, this kind of rubbish player activity happens a lot. A LOT.

Also, at times there were a lot of things to add up. Here is what I kept track of on my level 14 Paladin for +hit.

BAB 14
Str 9-11
Weapon 1-3
P.Attack -4 (-1)
S.Evil 5
Haste 1
Bard 3
Morale 0-2-4
Size 0
Sacred 0
Luck 0-3-5
Holy S 4
Total 20-47

This is not including flanking or other circumstance bonuses/penalties.

Wow, look at that 27 point swing.

I have to admit, if it weren't for Roll20, I'd probably be more annoyed about the adding of little things during play. As is, I just have a few macros for common states. Attack, rage attack, rage enlarge attack and so on. I've been considering a second macro for weapon selection that includes weapon damage and weapon specific mods so that I don't need as many macros.

It's preferable to the other game we play where I have one combat macro that never needs to change regardless of the situation. I hardly feel like I'm playing in the combats.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

EDIT: I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

I agree with Paizo this is a problem and I fully support any efforts to address it. XD

All this math is one of the things I don't like about PF1, but I do not really see any difference in PF2. You clearly do. Can you please convince me of that?

I still read in the rulebook: "Result of a roll = number on the die + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance bonus + conditional bonus + item bonus + circumstance penalty + conditional penalty + item penalty + untyped penalties" How is that different?

Frequency is the big difference. The values are low, making the math easy. And the modifiers don't stack so you don't need to know all the numbers, just the largest number.

Circumstance modifiers aren't that common. It's shields, cover/screening, flatfooted, assist/aid, and DM modifiers. It's something you need to worry about, but it's something you'll know intuitively to add.

Conditional modifiers are fairly common and come from spells and abilities. You need to know the conditions in the book pretty well to know what exactly is happening but it's usually a 1 or 2 point modifier. My only real problem with conditions is that some modifiers are based on conditions and some are just loose +X modifiers.

The only parts of that equation that won't be known before you make your roll are the circumstance, conditional, and untyped modifiers. Everything else should be fairly static. And circumstance isn't likely to change much either honestly, not unless your party uses the unforgiving assist action.

Frozen Yakman wrote:
No it doesn't because DCs are not level dependent values. Eventually everybody reaches 95% success at picking normal locks. The variance between specializing in picking locks and not caring whatsoever gets washed away by level.

How often do your 15th level characters get thrown against DC 10 locks?

Moro wrote:
Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character.

Link please. (I don't doubt you, I just want to understand the context. This sounds like a statement about D&D 5e and not PF2e).

Moro wrote:
I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.

There aren't meaningfully bigger numbers.

PF1e level 15 attack rolls version 1: +27/+22/+17 = 15 (BAB) + 5 (STR) - 4 (Power Attack) + 4 (magic weapon) + 1 (weapon focus) + 1 (greater weapon focus) + 2 (flank) + 3 (str belt)

PF1e level 15 attack rolls version 2: +20/+15/+10 = 11 (BAB) + 5 (STR) - 3 (power attack) + 4 (magic weapon) + 1 (weapon focus) + 2 (flank)

PF2e level 15 attack rolls: +25/+20/+15 = 15 (level) + 5 (STR) + 3 (magic weapon) + 2 (weapon proficiency)
--------------
PF1e skill check version 1: +18 = 3 (class skill) + 15 (skill ranks) + 3 (ability score)

PF1e skill check version 2: +26 = 3 (class skill) + 15 (skill ranks) + 5 (ability score) + 3 (belt)

PF2e trained skill check: +19 = 15 (level) + 4 (ability score)

PF2e legendary skill check: +26 = 15 (level) + 5 (ability score) + 3 (proficiency) + 3 (item)

NOTE: Once my enchanter wizard's spells were taken into account along with all of my feats my bluff and diplomacy were absolutely ridiculous in PF1e. But he was hyper optimised to get the highest diplomacy bonus that he could.

MaxAstro wrote:
EDIT: I will also say, as someone who has a player that every time he rolls his attack has to go through "Oh, I have a +2 bonus from this... oh wait, I forgot my +1 bonus from this feat... Oh, also I cast this spell for a +3 bonus... oh and I also have a +2 bonus from my Teamwork feat..." *rolls* "Wait I forgot +2 from flanking! No wait, +4 from flanking, I have that feat!"

Your player is also being ridiculous. You write out your bonuses ahead of time and if you routinely have daily buffs going you write out separate lines with the different combinations so it's a matter of simply reading off the one line.

If your player struggled with this basic aspect of playing a fighter, they're going to struggle just as much in PF2e. "Oh wait. I can't use this ability. It's an open ability. Ooh. But I can use this ability. It's a press. Wait. I want to use this different press ability. This is my second attack so my attack bonus is this. Wait a minute, my first ability counted as two attacks so I have -5 to this attack. I'm flanking this enemy and he's flat footed. Oh wait. That's the same thing. Did you subtract the flat-footed penalty from his AC? Or do I add it to my attack roll?"

If this is such a big problem that you're advocating such a drastic change in edition, assuming I'm right in the play experience you're going to get with the new edition it might be worthwhile switching over to 5e. I think that game is simple enough that your player won't struggle so much.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Moro wrote:
Supposedly the need for this new edition was brought on in part by the intimidating thought of adding up all of those +1s and +3s when making and playing a character.
Link please. (I don't doubt you, I just want to understand the context. This sounds like a statement about D&D 5e and not PF2e).

I don't have a link, which is why I used the word supposedly. All over the forums there have been posts about how the new edition is so needed because of the intimidation factor that keeps new players away from "Mathfinder".

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Moro wrote:
I can't imagine that having to add even bigger numbers to everything is going to make it more accessible to those who were scared off of Pathfinder because maths.
There aren't meaningfully bigger numbers.

I wasn't saying they were meaningfully bigger, just that were almost as many, and some ARE bigger, which means this primary design goal of "simplicity" (according to some people) just isn't there, even after all of the hand-wringing over how complex things were in the previous edition.

Number on the die + level + ability modifier + proficiency modifier + circumstance bonus + conditional bonus + item bonus + circumstance penalty + conditional penalty + item penalty + untyped penalty is not so much less complex as to be a big departure from the old rules.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

You'll note that I didn't say I think PF2e successfully addresses this problem, just that I fully support efforts to address it.

And PF2e does make some improvements; in a typical situation, the number of things you add to a roll on the spot seems like it is going to be less. The line that shows every possible thing that can modify a roll only has nine things (Moro's list above has ten but incorrectly mentions level and proficiency modifier separately) and of those nine things only five of them should vary on the fly. Compared to PF1e having the same basic list but adding morale bonus, sacred bonus, luck bonus, untyped bonus, size bonus, profane bonus, and penalty versions of most of those to it, the system HAS been simplified.

EDIT: Also, John Lynch above inadvertently mentioned a major way that combat math has been simplified: Flat footed is now a set penalty, and flanking provides flat footed. That could be confusing like he makes it sound when you are first coming to PF2e from 1e, but once you have it down it's a LOT faster in play, and when attacking monsters it's something the GM takes care of - it's not a modifier that players have to remember.

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

You'll note that I didn't say I think PF2e successfully addresses this problem, just that I fully support efforts to address it.

And PF2e does make some improvements; in a typical situation, the number of things you add to a roll on the spot seems like it is going to be less. The line that shows every possible thing that can modify a roll only has nine things (Moro's list above has ten but incorrectly mentions level and proficiency modifier separately) and of those nine things only five of them should vary on the fly. Compared to PF1e having the same basic list but adding morale bonus, sacred bonus, luck bonus, untyped bonus, size bonus, profane bonus, and penalty versions of most of those to it, the system HAS been simplified.

And your ability score bonuses can increase or decrease during the combat. :D

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Justin Franklin wrote:
And your ability score bonuses can increase or decrease during the combat. :D

True, but that was true in 1e also, and I would argue more likely to happen more often in 1e.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, you were meaning 1e, weren't you?

Actually that might be the single biggest simplification - it seems like in 2e the typical design goal is to give bonuses or penalties to the things that ability scores affect, instead of the scores themselves.

"You get +2 to melee attack and damage" is a lot simpler to calculate than "You get +4 Strength". The player doesn't have to worry about if their weapon is two handed, they don't have to worry about anything else Strength affects, they don't have to worry about any other abilities that might key off Strength changing....

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
And your ability score bonuses can increase or decrease during the combat. :D

True, but that was true in 1e also, and I would argue more likely to happen more often in 1e.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, you were meaning 1e, weren't you?

Actually that might be the single biggest simplification - it seems like in 2e the typical design goal is to give bonuses or penalties to the things that ability scores affect, instead of the scores themselves.

"You get +2 to melee attack and damage" is a lot simpler to calculate than "You get +4 Strength". The player doesn't have to worry about if their weapon is two handed, they don't have to worry about anything else Strength affects, they don't have to worry about any other abilities that might key off Strength changing....

Yep that was what I was going for. If you want to grind a game to a halt do some ability score damage or even worse, enervation in 1e.