| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With +level to everything, I was worried that skills would scale too high. I made a Str 8 gnome wizard to see how high his athletics bonus would get. Here are the results:
Level 1 Untrained bonus -3 (need a 15 for a low DC, 17 for a high DC, 18 for a severe DC, cannot get an extreme DC)
Level 8 Untrained bonus +5 (need a 16 for a low DC, 19 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 11 untrained bonus: +8 (need a 17 for a low DC, 20 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 15 untrained bonus: +12 (need a 20 for a low DC, cannot get a high DC)
So you do undeniably improve. However when faced with level appropriate challenges you also clearly lag behind the group. With these results I'm satisfied with how skills work. It does make sense you'd pick up some knowledge across levels and the bonus you do get is quite minimal.
So I was wrong in what I said before the rules came out.
Props for keeping an open mind! I was unsure myself at first but Ive grown to like it.
Shouldn't level 1 be 1 higher? (-2 untrained, -1 str, +1 level)?
Point holds though, yes.
I am actually more concerned about weapons. I had thought that this system would be great for allowing the wizard to occasionally be useful swinging his staff, since he's trained in that and gets 'full BAB'. It'd be fun to have that option not be utterly garbage, it's not uncommon in media that they fend off someone for a moment with a basic weapon, and ye olde wizard stories frequently had them being great with a sword.
But if you actually look at the 2E math. High-ish level, 15 or so. Your 'normal sword dude' is legendary with his weapon for +3, has 24 str after his items for +7, and his weapon is legendary too for another +3. Before level and any class abilities, he's got +13. Our Wizard trying to not be useless with his staff is trained for +0, has 14 str (because he really is trying), and has an expert weapon, probably magic. That gives him a total of +3.
So anything the weapon-man has a 50% chance to hit, our wizard has a 0% chance to hit, just getting as normal success on a nat 20.
That's before we consider the actual damage dealt, and that the weapon person probably gets bonus strides and strikes and fancy things from class features when they're weapon-ing.
So, like 1E, the wizard's weapon is completely useless again. I had really hoped that the flat +level would fix this and open up combat options to use your 'less invested, but still invested' abilities and actions, but with so many class-feats that make their attacks better for weapon classes, it only makes the gap wider than ever.
Yup. You're right about level 1. That's going to get me for a while. How do you have 24 in a stat on a level 15 character?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The level 20 gnome with 8 in Strengh can still grapple and pin down an hydra though, no ? (Unless there is a size limitation that I forgot ? But it's still valid for Medium Size but strong low level monsters)
That's ... well ... I find it quite hilarous to be honest but I would not really like it either.
I feel this falls under the category of "do not set up situations to occur if you find their outcomes displeasing." Like a huge number of PF1 classes of a sufficient level can grapple a hippopotamus to the ground with absolutely no grappling acumen (just got to beat CMD of 20 with StrMod and BAB), but I will note that this does not come up a lot.
Since we don't usually set up hippos as obstacles of note for level 10+ groups. Similarly a level 20 gnome wizard likely has more important things to do than grapple hydras.
I am actually more concerned about weapons. I had thought that this system would be great for allowing the wizard to occasionally be useful swinging his staff, since he's trained in that and gets 'full BAB'. It'd be fun to have that option not be utterly garbage, it's not uncommon in media that they fend off someone for a moment with a basic weapon, and ye olde wizard stories frequently had them being great with a sword.But if you actually look at the 2E math. High-ish level, 15 or so. Your 'normal sword dude' is legendary with his weapon for +3, has 24 str after his items for +7, and his weapon is legendary too for another +3. Before level and any class abilities, he's got +13. Our Wizard trying to not be useless with his staff is trained for +0, has 14 str (because he really is trying), and has an expert weapon, probably magic. That gives him a total of +3.
So anything the weapon-man has a 50% chance to hit, our wizard has a 0% chance to hit, just getting as normal success on a nat 20.
That's before we consider the actual damage dealt, and that the weapon person probably gets bonus strides and strikes and fancy things from class features when they're weapon-ing.
So, like 1E, the wizard's weapon is completely useless again. I had really hoped that the flat +level would fix this and open up combat options to use your 'less invested, but still invested' abilities and actions, but with so many class-feats that make their attacks better for weapon classes, it only makes the gap wider than ever.
As noted above, your Fighter can only have 23 (+6) Strength at 15th level, not 24. So reduce the gap by 1.
If a 15th level Wizard plans to hit things with his staff rather than cast cantrips he needs a +3 Magic (or legendary mundane) weapon at that point and should be investing in strength up to 18. That gets him a +7, 25% worse than the Fighter. But he can also boost via an 8th level Heroism to get a +10, 10% worse. Add in Magical Striker for another +1 and a damage die increase.
Or he can cast ranged cantrips with an 18 Dex, a +2 (+3 at 16th) item bonus from a Spell Duelist's Wand, and +1 (+2 at 16th) proficiency bonus, for the same +7 bonus as above but against TAC that is 2-3 points lower. He could also invest in a 20 Dex.
At 16th level you can have a +10 against TAC to compare to the Fighter's +13 (he got a +4 weapon at that level) against AC. He's only 0-1 points behind on actual hit percentage, attacks at range, has the ability to exploit weaknesses with proper cantrip selection, but takes two actions and has less damage, especially against a two hand build.
Do wizards get heroism? It's a 3rd level occult spell and I couldn't see it on the wizard list which is significantly impacting my gish build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IT's also possible for a 7 str 7 dex gnome wizard at 20th level, by virtue of his vast intellect to have 20 ranks in climb, swim, and acrobatics being able to out performer your average skilled fighter of 5th level, by having really studied up on proper technique. The only difference here is you could have chosen not to put ranks in those skills.
That 20th level gnome with 20 ranks in each of those skills has made a choice and expended valuable resources (skill points) to become a ridiculously skilled athlete despite his physical shortcomings. By spending those skill points on those skills, he's also not spent them on something else - so maybe he's missing some knowledges, or has only minimal training in them so that he's no more knowledgeable than a first level wizard, or he can't identify spells and magic items worth a damn and his spellbook is nearly empty because he can't decipher high level spells.
From what I can see of the PF2 skill system, every 10th level weakling gnome sorcerer is going to be better at every single skill in the game than a first level character who's should be good at that skill. The higher the level, the less that stats of skill choices matter, because those differences will be overwhelmed by the level bonus.
If the skill system is going to completely marginalize the differences between characters, why even bother having one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I can see of the PF2 skill system, every 10th level weakling gnome sorcerer is going to be better at every single skill in the game than a first level character who's should be good at that skill
By +2. STR 18 fighter has +5, gnome sorcerer has +7. At 3rd level the difference is only +1. In PF1e your weakling gnome sorcerer of 15th level will be a better fighter then your level 1 fighter. If that is ok why isn't it ok for him to have a minimal bonus to climbing?
I also think your complaint of marginalization between characters to be quite dishonest. Before items a 10th level sorcerer will have +17 to intimidate vs an untrained dwarves fighter which has +7. That's a 10 point difference. That's the difference between can't critically succeed and can't critically fail.
With +level to everything, I was worried that skills would scale too high. I made a Str 8 gnome wizard to see how high his athletics bonus would get. Here are the results:
Level 1 Untrained bonus -3 (need a 15 for a low DC, 17 for a high DC, 18 for a severe DC, cannot get an extreme DC)Level 8 Untrained bonus +5 (need a 16 for a low DC, 19 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 11 untrained bonus: +8 (need a 17 for a low DC, 20 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 15 untrained bonus: +12 (need a 20 for a low DC, cannot get a high DC)
So you do undeniably improve. However when faced with level appropriate challenges you also clearly lag behind the group. With these results I'm satisfied with how skills work. It does make sense you'd pick up some knowledge across levels and the bonus you do get is quite minimal.
So I was wrong in what I said before the rules came out.
sorry, if I don't find crippling a character's Ability score just to get nearly acceptable Skill differences a good design choice.
You also picked the only one ability that influences only one skill. Let's say you don't want a high Thievery skill but high Acrobatics, you'd have to dump DEX to get to the low Thievery but you need the DEX for Acrobatics. So that character concept is nearly impossible, even taking Feats into account
With +level to everything, I was worried that skills would scale too high. I made a Str 8 gnome wizard to see how high his athletics bonus would get. Here are the results:
Level 1 Untrained bonus -3 (need a 15 for a low DC, 17 for a high DC, 18 for a severe DC, cannot get an extreme DC)Level 8 Untrained bonus +5 (need a 16 for a low DC, 19 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 11 untrained bonus: +8 (need a 17 for a low DC, 20 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 15 untrained bonus: +12 (need a 20 for a low DC, cannot get a high DC)
So you do undeniably improve. However when faced with level appropriate challenges you also clearly lag behind the group. With these results I'm satisfied with how skills work. It does make sense you'd pick up some knowledge across levels and the bonus you do get is quite minimal.
So I was wrong in what I said before the rules came out.
sorry, if I don't find crippling a character's Ability score just to get nearly acceptable Skill differences a good design choice.
You also picked the only one ability that influences only one skill. Let's say you don't want a high Thievery skill but high Acrobatics, you'd have to dump DEX to get to the low Thievery but you need the DEX for Acrobatics. So that character concept is nearly impossible, even taking Feats into account
Okay, so let's look at level 15 acrobatics and thievery. Your level and Dex are of course identical since it's only pulling from one source. You don't care about Thievery, so it's Untrained, while you do care greatly about Acrobatics so you've pumped it up to Legendary (I'm assuming for these purposes it's a Signature Skill.) So that's a 5 point difference. Of course, you're also level 15, Potent items just became available last level, and conveniently the Dex item is also an Acrobatics item, hooray. So you pick up your Anklets of Alacrity, and that brings the difference up to 9. Almost any DC that you could succeed at with Thievery, you can crit that same DC with Acrobatics, and if you have a 50/50 chance of an Acrobatics DC, that same DC of Thievery you only succeed on a nat 20.
But here's the big thing, those numbers really are only half the equation. Let's look at what you can actually do with those skills. Thievery is untrained, so the only thing you could do with it is some sleight of hand, either concealing an item or lifting a lighter-than-Light (negligible bulk) item that is easily stolen from the imperceptive. You might get away with a loose coin purse, but that's about it.
In contrast, let's look at what you might be able to do with Acrobatics. The trained uses aren't that useful unless you can fly (which admittedly probably isn't that difficult by now, if not through your own power or an ally spellcaster, probably through items) but if you're actually gung ho about this skill, you've probably invested skill feats. And let's not forget that you're Legendary now, so while you haven't had the chance to get a skill feat at Legendary yet any skill feats that can scale up have. So, depending on your skill feats you can:
- Fall from orbit and land unscathed on your feet. (Cat Fall, Legendary)
- Stand from prone as a free action while flipping a finger to the 8 fighters arranged around you with their AoOs. (Kip Up)
- Or just not really care about being prone, since you can move at full speed and aren't flat footed (Nimble Crawl, Legendary)
- Casually run up and down a tightrope without a care in the world, since you get full speed on normal successes and won't fall unless you crit fail (which should be difficult with your Legendary, item boosted modifier.) (Steady Balance)
- Squeeze through tight spaces approximately 5-10x faster than those less acrobatic than you. (Quick Squeeze, though honestly, you might want to retrain this next level because...)
If we add just one more level for that Legendary Skill Feat, Legendary Contortionist, now you can squeeze through spaces at full speed. For the average human, that's 75 feet per round. An expert with Quick Squeeze is managing 5 feet per round, and anyone else might manage 5 feet per minute (maybe 10 feet per minute if they can crit succeed the check.) So you'd be going 15 times faster than others just slightly worse at the skill than you, and 75-150 times faster than the losers who aren't Acrobatic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and yet, the character is just as good at stealing things as the level 10 rogue who is specialized in stealing things.
Some players want to play characters who are amazing at skill X. The problem is this system presented means that even if you are amazing at skill X you can still be outshined by someone who is untrained in the skill just because they happen to be higher level then you or worse because they happened to roll better.
IMO the different training levels should "lock" how much of your total level counts towards your proficiency bonus, similar to the max dex limitation for armor in P1. Untrained = 5, trained = 10, expert =15, master =20 and legendary = no cap.
In this way, if you are untrained in a skill your level never provides more than a +5 to your skill. This lets players who want to shine, still shine and players who want to be "at least decent" still do so by training in the skill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so let's look at level 15 acrobatics and thievery. Your level and Dex are of course identical since it's only pulling from one source. You don't care about Thievery, so it's Untrained, while you do care greatly about Acrobatics so you've pumped it up to Legendary (I'm assuming for these purposes it's a Signature Skill.) So that's a 5 point difference. Of course, you're also level 15, Potent items just became available last level, and conveniently the Dex item is also an Acrobatics item, hooray. So you pick up your Anklets of Alacrity, and that brings the difference up to 9. Almost any DC that you could succeed at...With +level to everything, I was worried that skills would scale too high. I made a Str 8 gnome wizard to see how high his athletics bonus would get. Here are the results:
Level 1 Untrained bonus -3 (need a 15 for a low DC, 17 for a high DC, 18 for a severe DC, cannot get an extreme DC)Level 8 Untrained bonus +5 (need a 16 for a low DC, 19 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 11 untrained bonus: +8 (need a 17 for a low DC, 20 for a high DC, cannot get a severe DC)
Level 15 untrained bonus: +12 (need a 20 for a low DC, cannot get a high DC)
So you do undeniably improve. However when faced with level appropriate challenges you also clearly lag behind the group. With these results I'm satisfied with how skills work. It does make sense you'd pick up some knowledge across levels and the bonus you do get is quite minimal.
So I was wrong in what I said before the rules came out.
sorry, if I don't find crippling a character's Ability score just to get nearly acceptable Skill differences a good design choice.
You also picked the only one ability that influences only one skill. Let's say you don't want a high Thievery skill but high Acrobatics, you'd have to dump DEX to get to the low Thievery but you need the DEX for Acrobatics. So that character concept is nearly impossible, even taking Feats into account
I feel you're missing the point. That character will still be better at Thievery at a certain level than a lower level character that specialized in that skill. He may not be as versatile, but boy that character's sleight of hand already outshines that of a rogue a couple of levels lower.
It's not rocket surgery to see that there is a flaw on a fundamental level in that mechanic that limits the range of characters one can build. coupled with the way Abilty scores are bought, this will lead to a problem, when 85% of characters will feel very samey very soon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
coupled with the way Abilty scores are bought, this will lead to a problem, when 85% of characters will feel very samey very soon
Then playtest it, prove it and give Paizo that feedback. Because they're not going to change anything without a lot of people arguing for this point.
I don't follow.
Pick pocketing is an untrained use of the skill and the DC is set by the target's perception. So, there are creatures the 15th level acrobat can steal things from un-noticed that the 10th level cutpurse can't.
I don't follow.
Pick pocketing is an untrained use of the skill and the DC is set by the target's perception. So, there are creatures the 15th level acrobat can steal things from un-noticed that the 10th level cutpurse can't.
Until level 20, the acrobat can't have a higher dex mod than a master thief, but can match it and probably will. So, ignoring dex.
Acrobat untrained in thievery: 13 from level + untrainedCutpurse, let's say they're maxing this: 12 from level + master
It's one point of difference (assuming the same starting stats)
And that's BEFORE the thievery skill feats like Pickpocket the Acrobat won't have (if the Acrobat has such skills/feats, then they're not JUST an acrobat but ALSO a EDIT: Cutpurse. STILL EDIT: Also I'm assuming that comparing Cutpurse to Acrobat means the Acrobat doesn't have any Cutpurse investment, or else it'd be an elite who trained some in many things vs a newer specialist, which is a less fair comparison in this context.)
Or Subtle Theft which means sure the Cutpurse has 1 less to their check (ONLY 1 with a full 5 levels of penalty!) BUT they're up against a DC 2 less than normal, which means they actually have +1.
And then there's training-locked applications of skills.
Then playtest it
WTF do you think I'm doing?
I don't follow.
Pick pocketing is an untrained use of the skill and the DC is set by the target's perception. So, there are creatures the 15th level acrobat can steal things from un-noticed that the 10th level cutpurse can't.
By default, the untrained thief can only steal loosely worn or unattended objects. If you want to actually root around in people's pockets, not only will you need training in thievery but you will need the "pickpocket" skill feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WTF do you think I'm doing?
Wow. Way to take what I said out of context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He will be better at stealing some unatended object. Because his experience allow him to think quicker and act faster while have more guts.
But if he is untrained, he won't be able to actually pickpocket so even if he has +15 in Thievery he would still be way less reliable than a character that has only +10 but is expert.
For me the issue is more on the fact that there are very few skills now.
My issue is simply not wanting every high level character to be good at every skill just because they have experience. Being a better wizard shouldn't make a character better at juggling, being a better fighter shouldn't make a character better at recalling the finer points of the history of some country he's never been to. The world's full of people who are very experienced in their field, but they're no better at things they know nothing about than they were when they were rookies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue is simply not wanting every high level character to be good at every skill just because they have experience. Being a better wizard shouldn't make a character better at juggling
But you're okay with PF1e wizards being a better swordsman simply because they're higher level?
Until level 20, the acrobat can't have a higher dex mod than a master thief, but can match it and probably will. So, ignoring dex.
Acrobat untrained in thievery: 13 from level + untrained
Cutpurse, let's say they're maxing this: 12 from level + master
It's one point of difference (assuming the same starting stats)And that's BEFORE the thievery skill feats like Pickpocket the Acrobat won't have (if the Acrobat has such skills/feats, then they're not JUST an acrobat but ALSO a EDIT: Cutpurse. STILL EDIT: Also I'm assuming that comparing Cutpurse to Acrobat means the Acrobat doesn't have any Cutpurse investment, or else it'd be an elite who trained some in many things vs a newer specialist, which is a less fair comparison in this context.)
Or Subtle Theft which means sure the Cutpurse has 1 less to their check (ONLY 1 with a full 5 levels of penalty!) BUT they're up against a DC 2 less than normal, which means they actually have +1.
And then there's training-locked applications of skills.
Subtle Theft doesn't apply to the person you're stealing from and pickpocket merely adds additional options to the thievery skill. In order to do a fair comparison we have to look at untrained uses only. Some of which subtle theft may apply and others where it won't.
Also, you seem to have removed the acrobat's anklets of alacrity (mentioned in the post I was responding to) which would increase the acrobat's dex above the cutpurse.
Against targets where subtly doesn't apply that acrobat has a bonus that is 2 points higher. In cases where it does apply they are the same.
IOW, a character who has specialized in a skill and dumped lots of resources into it (skill increases, feats, etc.) is in certain ideal situations, the same as a character who has spent zero resources on the skill but merely gained some levels via adventuring. Even worse the specialist is actually worse at the skill in all other comparable situations.
Fine, a guy who is *magically enhanced* and *in a field that similarly requires dexterity* and had *lots more experience in general* is *15% better (only 5% to not be noticed by OTHER people)* in a *small array* of *general tasks* than the specialist (and flat-out cannot do many other tasks involved in it - such as swiping closely attended objects). Namely, stealing a mostly unguarded object. Which makes sense for five levels and ALSO a Dex-investor given that this one task doesn't need training to do.
EDIT: and while you're quick to point out that Subtle Theft doesn't reduce the DC of the target... "Additionally, if you first Create a Diversion using Deception, taking a single Palm an Object or Steal an Object action doesn’t end your unseen condition."
And would a thief-type such as a cutpurse not invest in Deception? I'm fairly sure they would (and in Cha) but the Acrobat has little reason to (and still be just an Acrobat). Which means the Cutpurse has a far better option already.
EDIT 2: I might have gotten the percent slightly off. I think 10% is more accurate? And unless you're stealing from the most attentive in the area, Subtle Theft is still a bonus the Acrobat doesn't have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest reason I like +level to everything is that I very much do not want experienced heroes to come across as incompetent because they fail regularly at basic tasks which lie outside their expertise.
I'm not sure that pickpocketing is the best example since it's got a fairly dramatic failure mode and is seldom necessary for everyone to be able to do, that only the person who is best at is likely to bother rolling it. It's not like "sneak to the secret entrance" or "walk across the narrow ledge" or "swim to shore because your boat sank" or "do not embarrass yourself at the garden party."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think pickpocketing is a bad example, let's talk about Craft and Lore Nobility instead. If I push my INT stat really high to get high Lore Nobility for a palace intrigue campaign, when, during 5 or 6 levels of playing the game of thrones did I pick up all the awesome experience in repairing clockwork machines? or mend damaged battleaxes? why did I suddenly get better at it than the first level blacksmith? and how FFS does that make any sense?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the sort of thing that we should let the player explain? Like perhaps you spent a lot of time chatting up an Earl who had a hobby of restoring historic battleaxes, or Comtessa whose love is elaborate clocks and managed learn something in the process.
Like 1st to 6th level is an enormous jump in acumen (it's the difference between magic missile and fireball), so I would be disappointed if a 6th level character wasn't better than a 1st level character at basically everything.
Like the level 6 specialist (6+4+1 from expert proficiency) is already more than twice as good as the level 1 specialist (1+4) at their relative area of expertise- they are 30% more likely to critically succeed at any task and 30% less likely to fail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the sort of thing that we should let the player explain? Like perhaps you spent a lot of time chatting up an Earl who had a hobby of restoring historic battleaxes, or Comtessa whose love is elaborate clocks and managed learn something in the process.
Let's say the character did that and spend enough time during their time at the royal court to learn from the Comtessa or Earl who are probably hobbyists more about those subjects than a 1st level character who does that for a living. during the same time, that character also gains enormous knowledge about Arcana and Occultism, gets better at playing the flute, knows his way around the woods better than the local ranger and dogs and horses accept their commands more than those of the stable boy. The can also predict the weather of that area better than the local peasants even though they are from a different country.
.)I love giving characters roleplaying possibilities but this is seriously pushing it, especially if there are more than one player at the table.
.)the characters have to sleep too and without eidetic memory and an astral body to learn even though the physical body sleeps, this might also push any reasonable time table for the level ups. they can't always be months and months apart.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the sort of thing that we should let the player explain? Like perhaps you spent a lot of time chatting up an Earl who had a hobby of restoring historic battleaxes, or Comtessa whose love is elaborate clocks and managed learn something in the process.
Like 1st to 6th level is an enormous jump in acumen (it's the difference between magic missile and fireball), so I would be disappointed if a 6th level character wasn't better than a 1st level character at basically everything.
As a player, I don't want to ever have to explain why my character has become good at something she's never tried to get good at and didn't used to be good at.
And I have exactly the opposite feeling from your second paragraph. I don't want my sixth level character to be better at everything than a first level character. I want him to be better at the things he's good at, and the things that he's been working to improve. If I'm going to get better at everything regardless of my character building decisions, then it just robs those decisions of weight.
I don't want my sixth level character to be better at everything than a first level character. I want him to be better at the things he's good at, and the things that he's been working to improve. If I'm going to get better at everything regardless of my character building decisions, then it just robs those decisions of weight.
^ THIS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
keep the gating then, just drop the friggin automatic +1/level on EVERY skill