Please let me design my own character, not play a Class Cardboard cutout


Playing the Game

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m currently trying to create a 7th level Bard that I want to have high Bluff (now called Deception) and Sense Motive (now Perception). Deception is a signature skill for Bards - great. Perception is no longer a skill and is defined by Class (Expert for Bard at first level).

As I level I want my character to be better in their skills compared to their untutored companions and I just can’t.

Rogues, Rangers and Fighters become Masters in Perception at 7th as a class ability, but this is not open to other classes. I could take the Alertness feat but that does not increase my Perception level - it only sets it to Expert. I could raise my Wisdom at 5th level but so would most PCs with 4 boosts across 6 stats, and if I started at 18 that brings it to 19 for no mechanical difference to anything.

I can raise by Deception from Trained to Expert to Master, but as I only get 3 skill points to allocate in total over 7 levels (after my initial allocation of Trained skills) this would be most of my available skill increases.

So compared to my companions my Deception improves by maybe +2 and my Perception will actually get worse if they are Fighter, Ranger or Rogue.

I’d suggest the following changes:
1. Either bring back allocating multiple skill points per level (I never heard anybody complain there were too many skill points per class and now we get less?) or make the proficiency levels actually provide a noticeable difference (like +2/+4/+6). I don’t feel +1/+2/+3 with anything above Expert gated by character level to be significant against a roll of D20.

2. Remove the +1 to everything at every level. This doesn’t allow people to tailor their characters in any way and forces them to be better at things they would never do. (“I would never tell a lie. You can trust me…” says the 10th level Paladin with +14 on Deception purely from level + charisma.) I like the idea of getting some auto-improvement but this could be reflected by +1 per 4 or 5 levels.

3. Allow a stat bump above 18 by spending 2 of the 4 ability points allocated at levels 5, 10, 15 and 20; The bump to odd numbers above 18 means no mechanical change from stats for 10 levels.

4. Change Alertness to give you a +2 to Perception, not set the level to Expert.

5. Remove the auto-allocation of Master and Legendary level Perception to Fighter, Ranger and Rogue. Let players decide if they want to spend a Feat on improving Perception or not; alternatively, give All classes a Perception proficiency bump at 7th and 15th levels.

The way classes are currently built and advanced makes me feel like they all come from the same cardboard cutout. They would all have basically the same underlying stats, with only minor variations allocated by the players that are overwhelmed by the giant D20 roll. This is against the design of Pathfinder 1E and leaves me feeling disenfranchised.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I understand your frustration but I also know how frustrating it is to GM these superhuman social characters.

1: The skill system from 3.5/PF1 was inherently flawed because of its limited points and huge selection.

This made for great customization but it also meant sacrificing key elements of your character that could lead to disaster in the future. The most common was the rogue that couldn't pick the lock on the door, needed to progress through the dungeon. Why? Because he spent all his points in bluff.

You could have the most charismatic character in the game with diplomacy, bluff and sense motive all maxed and boosted with feats only to play him in a 15 level campaign that put the PCs in the middle of a swamp on some remote island inhabited by dinosaurs!

2: This is being discussed elsewhere on the power scale but its a fundamental part of this Playtest and changing it would probably not be possible at this point without some global reworking.

3: Not sure I understand this question as you can already take stats above 18 currently.

Playtest Rule Book wrote:

Ability Boosts

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, your character
boosts four different ability scores. Your character can
use these ability boosts to increase her ability scores
above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if
it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18.
For more about ability boosts and applying them during
character creation, see page 18.

4: Given how critical perception is to combat starting this would simply become the improved initiative of PF2 and likely a "must have" feat making it even less likely for you to be better than others.

5: More choice is good but again you want to make all characters good at perception? How does that make you better than others? The concept of perception is more about how alert you are to the presence of danger. Rogues Rangers and Fighters are supposed to be alert to danger, others take Alertness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:

3: Not sure I understand this question as you can already take stats above 18 currently.

Playtest Rule Book wrote:

Ability Boosts

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, your character
boosts four different ability scores. Your character can
use these ability boosts to increase her ability scores
above 18. Boosting an ability score increases it by 1 if
it’s already 18 or above, or by 2 if it starts out below 18.
For more about ability boosts and applying them during
character creation, see page 18.

It's not that you can't take them above 18, but that once you're above 18 you start dealing with literally useless odd numbers (literally useless because a 19 is literally identical to an 18 except for the fact that it becomes a 20 with another boost.) Hence the bit about "no mechanical change from stats for 10 levels." What they want instead (if I'm parsing this right) is to be able to spend 2 of their 4 boosts at that level to basically double-boost it up to another even value instead. Like, say you have 18 strength at level 4. You hit level 5, and by the current rules you could drop one boost into strength making it 19, but that boost has no effect until you hit level 10 and can drop another boost up to 20. By their concept, you'd instead take a second boost at 5, put it into Strength instead of some other stat, and now you have 20 strength at level 5, at the cost of not boosting some other stat.

Personally, I don't really like the idea, since the whole idea of the 4 boosts was specifically to spread them around and bring secondary or tertiary stats up, rather than pumping one or two stats as high as you can go.

Grand Lodge

Ok so whats the overall affect?

A fighter with a 26 str at max level instead of 22? an overall +2 doesn't seem like it would be much of a balance issue personally but then the playtest is only really focused on 1st level characters currently.

But this got me thinking about the ability boosts...

Assuming 4 Free ability boosts and using the stat creation from the rulebook.
Characters will have 14 14 14 12 12 12 average stats.
at 5th that's 16 and 5-14s,
at 10th that's 5-16s and a 14,
at 15 only 3-18s and 3-16s,
at 20 you have 5-18s and one 19.

Overall I don't think many will look at the "min-max 1 for 2" passed level 10 unless you really do bottom out one more than 1 stat that your class usually relies on.

This isn't clear by the rulebook, and you could probably argue both ways, but it would be worth noting now for some clarification.

The ability boost from 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th level states under each class(and they are all exactly the same)

Rulebook wrote:

At 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter, you boost four

different ability scores. You can use these ability boosts to
increase your ability scores above 18. Boosting an ability
score increases it by 1 if it’s already 18 or above, or by 2
if it starts out below 18.

In the levelling up section however, there is this additional comment.

Quote:

Your

character’s class entry also explains how to apply any
ability boosts or skill increases you gain.

There is further reference to secondary ability scores in the Classes Table on page 13.

All of this seems to point to the fact that you can only boost key ability scores from class when levelling.

If I'm correct, the dwarven fighter in the example, upon reaching 5th level would have the following key abilities.
from fighter Strength or Dexterity
from secondary Constitution

This all makes sense until you notice that you would only be allowed to boost 3 abilities for all classes except monk and ranger, unless you also consider ancestry.

Perhaps I'm overthinking this...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shade2077 wrote:
I’m currently trying to create a 7th level Bard that I want to have high Bluff (now called Deception) and Sense Motive (now Perception).

Fantastic. You can absolutely do that.

Any character can increase their skill rank up to expert without needing to do anything special. No feats required, just buy the skill upgrades when they come available.

Having trained rank gives you access to all of the basic actions and activities that use that skill. And expert rank gives you access to most of the skill feats.

shade2077 wrote:


As I level I want my character to be better in their skills compared to their untutored companions

That is where the problem comes in. I agree that it is virtually impossible to get more than about a 4 to 8 point difference between the modifiers between the characters. Skill feats help a bit for that feeling of expertise, but that requires additional character creation cost.

So, why the competition? I am getting this vibe from a lot of the people that I read on this forum. It feels like the game is less about role playing and creating characters and having fun; it is not a cooperative game where you and your friends go adventuring. It becomes a competitive game where each player tries to build a character that can out-do the other characters in some field or other.

So why do you need your bard to be so much better than the other characters at bluff and deception?

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

I was playing a 5th level Bard in a group of 4 characters. We all tried to diplomicize an encounter.

At no point in the rolls did my character (who had the highest modifier but only by a little) roll the highest in the group.

It is very hard to feel like the competent diplomat when, every single time, somebody else does better than you. It isn't about being competitive, it's about your character coming across as incompetent in what should be their specialty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is one of many reasons why I feel that Untrained should only add 1/2 level to your roll; that way the Bard still feels best at social stuff (unless the party Rogue also goes Social).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I think the difficulties are supposed to gate certain checks based on TEML, so even though the DC is low, untrained characters wouldn't be able to make the check at all.


pauljathome wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

I was playing a 5th level Bard in a group of 4 characters. We all tried to diplomicize an encounter.

Why would all of the characters be rolling diplomacy individually? Usually when the group is trying to work together on a task that needs a check, One primary character makes the check and the rest are using 'aid'.

So if I was the GM for that scenario, I would have your bard make the diplomacy check (since he has the highest modifier) and the rest of the party would also be making diplomacy rolls to aid the effort.

Would that feel better from a 'my character is an awesome diplomat' and 'we are all working cooperatively as a group' point of view? Even if you didn't ever roll the highest check of the party?

pauljathome wrote:

At no point in the rolls did my character (who had the highest modifier but only by a little) roll the highest in the group.

It is very hard to feel like the competent diplomat when, every single time, somebody else does better than you. It isn't about being competitive, it's about your character coming across as incompetent in what should be their specialty.

Yeah, that always feels bad. Like when the party is trying to sneak past something and it is the rogue or ranger that bombs their stealth skill check and causes the entire attempt to fail - when the fighter in chain mail succeeds just fine.

But that has been around for a while now. It is mostly due to the d20 being used for checks. In PF1 this would happen in early and sometimes in mid levels. Didn't happen so much in higher levels because of the difference in bonus for people who put ranks in a skill vs. people who didn't. But that caused a different set of problems too.


You will play what character DOOM allows you to play and you will enjoy it!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


That is where the problem comes in. I agree that it is virtually impossible to get more than about a 4 to 8 point difference between the modifiers between the characters. Skill feats help a bit for that feeling of expertise, but that requires additional character creation cost.

So, why the competition? I am getting this vibe from a lot of the people that I read on this forum. It feels like the game is less about role playing and creating characters and having fun; it is not a cooperative game where you and your friends go adventuring. It becomes a competitive game where each player tries to build a character that can out-do the other characters in some field or other.

So why do you need your bard to be so much better than the other characters at bluff and deception?

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

People here are used to Pathfinder, where one can have the mechanics of their character match their roleplaying intent.

We could, of course, all just flip coins for success or failure on everything and just roleplay it out. With a good GM, that would work out fine and be a fun night.

But if you like complex systems for describing what makes your character special in the world of the game, its nice to start with what makes them special compared to their fellow party-mates. It also allows the GM to really tailor certain encounters and role playing opportunities to specific players... giving each a time to shine.

In the current Pathfinder, player choices in the expenditure of character building resources have far more weight in determining how good a character is at something than in Pathfinder 2. And since this is ostensibly a forum of Pathfinder players, its not surprising to see a lot of negativity around this issue.

Even great heroes have flaws and weaknesses. It makes them more interesting.

Its also worth noting that being really good at something like Diplomacy is worth far more when no one else is. It makes your character essential in some way. It proves that the group of heroes need each other, because no one can be great at everything.

Doing it the other way, where everyone can do everything, is fine mechanically. It is a roleplaying game after all, and you make your own fun... but I do not like these mechanics, and I can take my roleplaying to any other system out there. Preferably one where I like both.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:


Why would all of the characters be rolling diplomacy individually?

Partly because, mathematically, individuals rolling their own check gives the highest chance of somebody succeeding.

The combination of the Aid another roll needing to be a 15 and the quite small difference in diplomacy numbers.

Not sure that players should be punished for understanding the math of the game :-).

Also, IIRC (it was a couple of weeks back) it didn't make a lot of roleplaying sense to aid. Basically, the bard tried and failed. Seeing a failure, others then tried slightly different methods.

A mechanic similar to one currently used in lots of the recent PFS scenarios would help. In these, everybody rolls and then, after all the rolls hit the table, the lower rolls try and aid the highest roll. No deciding ahead of time required.

So, I'd see something like the various players talking in character (in my experience, the players of diplomancer characters LIKE to talk) followed by dice rolls to measure the groups success. The bard would just about always at least be contributing to the success (mechanically) and from a role playing point of view they got to talk which is what they probably REALLY cared about anyway (in case it isn't clear, I AM one of those players who play diplomatic characters largely because I DO want to talk :-))


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh boy, this is a sore spot for me. Trying out PF2 feels like wearing a straitjacket, especially when as one of my group's two GMs I look through the monster manual and notice that most given monster's stats perfectly represent their fluff, but it's impossible to do the same thing as a player if your square peg doesn't fit the class's round hole.

One character I play regularly is a Magus, mechanically. For all in-world purposes though, he's a Bard, complete with corresponding skills. Such a thing is literally impossible if I were to try to make the same character in PF2. In the same party is also a Bard, who for all in-world purposes is a preacher, a "Cleric" if you wanted to throw him in a stereotype bin. This character is also impossible to play in PF2. Many other characters simply don't fit any single stereotype at all.

Signature skills shouldn't exist. If they must exist, they should only exist as a number representing how many unique skills you can raise above Master, rather than telling you which skills are your signature skills beforehand.

Don't even get me started on the mess that's class-specific combat and metamagic feats. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, and an equally unpleasant one at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Skill feats can help out with your concepts. Charming Liar and Confabulator both seem good. Lie to Me and Cultural Familiarity represents some aspects of Sense Motive.

You might also be better off being a Cleric: they're mechanically rewarded with high WIS and CHA. Or if you need a lot of Skill Feats, go with Rogues: they get one EVERY LEVEL.

Grand Lodge

pauljathome wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

It is a different point of view of the game than I have and I am trying to understand it. So please take my questions literally.

I was playing a 5th level Bard in a group of 4 characters. We all tried to diplomicize an encounter.

At no point in the rolls did my character (who had the highest modifier but only by a little) roll the highest in the group.

It is very hard to feel like the competent diplomat when, every single time, somebody else does better than you. It isn't about being competitive, it's about your character coming across as incompetent in what should be their specialty.

I think what your trying to achieve is only present in the proficiency class rather than through the dice modifier. By 15th level you would be a legendary diplomat, by 17th you could have legendary in society, You (or a social focused rogue) would be the only one who could negotiate peace between two waring countries. The other characters wouldn't stand a chance and wouldn't even be able to make a roll.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:


Assuming 4 Free ability boosts and using the stat creation from the rulebook.
Characters will have 14 14 14 12 12 12 average stats.
at 5th that's 16 and 5-14s,
at 10th that's 5-16s and a 14,
at 15 only 3-18s and 3-16s,
at 20 you have 5-18s and one 19.

In PF1 this sort of balanced approach would be fine, but in PF2 all the skill DCs and monster stats are calculated to give the player even odds of success if they've maxed out the relevant stat, so this sort of jack-of-all-stats approach would result in failing more checks than you succeeded.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

But if you like complex systems for describing what makes your character special in the world of the game, its nice to start with what makes them special compared to their fellow party-mates. It also allows the GM to really tailor certain encounters and role playing opportunities to specific players... giving each a time to shine.

In the current Pathfinder, player choices in the expenditure of character building resources have far more weight in determining how good a character is at something than in Pathfinder 2. And since this is ostensibly a forum of Pathfinder players, its not surprising to see a lot of negativity around this issue.

Even great heroes have flaws and weaknesses. It makes them more interesting.

That's exactly my point. I look at the current rules and the lack of being able to increase skills more than at most +5 better (by 17th level) than anyone else in my party makes me feel like we are all from the same cardboard cut-out, with a just little bit of coloring in to distinguish us from each other.

In PF2 all high level characters are experts at everything just because of level, and with the almost complete removal of skill points as you level there is little to distinguish one's skills from another. This is not the game I have enjoyed playing for 20 years (3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder) and not the game I want to play.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quijenoth wrote:

I understand your frustration but I also know how frustrating it is to GM these superhuman social characters.

The original post seems not to be asking for "I want to make my character break the traditional bounds for a skill" but rather "I want to make a bard who's good at Perception". The poster is right, classes confine character concepts *way* too much in 2e, and that really hurts character diversity.

Yes, some things should be tied to class, and some classes should be naturally better at some things (Perception) than others, but it should be possible to make a character, for example, a master of perception, or an expert in a class of weapons, without requiring them to take levels of a particular class.

Grand Lodge

tivadar27 wrote:
Yes, some things should be tied to class, and some classes should be naturally better at some things (Perception) than others, but it should be possible to make a character, for example, a master of perception, or an expert in a class of weapons, without requiring them to take levels of a particular class.

Agreed, there needs to be more "customization" but not at the expense of what your supposed to be doing. Having a fighter take training to cast spells is not going to be good for you or your party. Archetypes give you a bit of customization and I hope they introduce more but the fact remains if you choose fighter, be a fighter.

Yes this is an extreme example, but we shouldn't be sacrificing limited and valuable resources designed to make you good at what you are to customize.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I definitely don't think that Untrained skills should only get 1/2 level bonus to rolls. That would hurt players at the start of the game less than it would later in the game and it would be a really strange curve in terms of skill checks.

If anything I would support bringing the Untrained penalty down further from -2 to maybe a -4. That would mean that someone who is simply trained in a skill would have an advantage of 20% better chance than the person who is untrained.

Doing that would accomplish several things.

First, it would discourage Wizards from simply donning armor without proficiency just to gain some AC.

Second, it would address the specific concerns that you have.

Comparing the rolls between a 7th level Fighter that is not very charismatic, let's say 12 Charisma with an Untrained Deception.. To a 7th level Bard that has an 18 in Charisma with Expert in their Deception.. You would have an advantage of 6 points higher Deception than the fighter.

Given a level 7 challenge with a "Low" difficulty you would be looking at a DC of 20. In this scenario the Bard would add 12 to the roll, just going by base values. You would succeed by rolling an 8 or higher. That's a 65% chance to Succeed and 15% chance to critically succeed. The fighter on the other hand would be adding 4 to the roll, needing to roll a 16 or higher to succeed. That gives them a 25% chance to succeed and no chance to critically succeed.

The numbers really do add up, and honestly a difference of 3 points between Untrained and Expert right now is pretty big. The fact that you'd have the option for additional skill feats that enhance Deception is even better.

All in all, I think you're overreacting just a bit with your Bard example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem with the OP's specific example (Perception) is that it's not a skill, and that it's been mixed in with Sense Motive. So PF2 takes two of the best skills from PF1 and combines them into one while actively limiting the customisation available.

If Sense Motive were split out again as its own skill, with rogues and bards being good at it, that would help rather a lot. Not enough, but a lot.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Perception wasn't customizable. Perception was something you maxed out regardless of the class, and if you didn't, that meant you were either:

a) a new player who doesn't understand the value of that skill,
b) a person who is actively attempting to subvert humanity, likely an alien infiltrator whose master plan for Earth starts with running handicapped Pathfinder PCs.

Silver Crusade

Quijenoth wrote:


I think what your trying to achieve is only present in the proficiency class rather than through the dice modifier. By 15th level you would be a legendary diplomat, by 17th you could have legendary in society, You (or a social focused rogue) would be the only one who could negotiate peace between two waring countries. The other characters wouldn't stand a chance and wouldn't even be able to make a roll.

Maybe. It is currently extremely unclear how often things will be gated by proficiency class. I am certainly finding the current skill feats EXTREMELY underwhelming (legendary diplomat, for example, is pretty much what I'd EXPECT to get for free for just being a, uh, legendary diplomat).

But it doesn't really matter. Even if (and its a big if) Paizo succeeds in making high level play sufficiently attractive that campaigns actually GET there on a regular basis I really want to feel competent at level 5 and not have to wait until level 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In D&D 3.5 (what I am most familiar with previously), skills to be proficient in were locked in based on the class you were. You had a list of class skills for which you could buy a +1/level in. If you put skill ranks in any non-class skills, you would get +0.5/level instead. Which means that once you reach early mid-levels your character was unusably bad at those skills and you had effectively wasted your skill points.

So if I wanted to be a stealth fighter - too bad. No hope.

I could instead play a rogue for the stealth. But a rogue has lower base attack bonus and lower health.

I could play a ranger. It has both stealth skills and high attack bonus. But now I am also a spellcaster too. And I have an animal companion that has been nerfed into the ground (seriously, the handbook itself says that you shouldn't use a ranger's animal companion in combat).

So monk? Has the stealth. Still doesn't have the good attack bonus.

Paladin, Barbarian - still no stealth as a class skill. No better than the fighter.

What is left? There is no way to make a fighter that is even moderately competent at stealth.

How about Pathfinder 1?

If I recall correctly, I can now buy the +1/level even in non-class skills. I have to take a -3 penalty permanently. But that is at least reasonable. I could be a fighter and buy skill in stealth. Fantastic.

How about Pathfinder 2?

Well, now I am getting +1/level for free. Just by virtue of being a player character. Without putting any training into stealth I am taking a -2 penalty. If I do put some training into it, I can be completely on-par with the rogue until mid level at least. The rogue can rank up into Master and Legendary skill in stealth. I don't think my stealth fighter can. But for basic sneaking around, the couple of points lower that my check is isn't going to hurt much. I can even get all but the highest levels of skill feats.

I have no problems making a character that breaks out of the mold of the class I am in. From the title of this thread, this seems to be what is wanted. To build the character that I want instead of having to stay in the cutout that my class prescribes.

But that isn't what the original poster is wanting...

And this is why I am confused about this thread.

Conclusion:

If people are liking the Pathfinder 1 (and Starfinder) skill buying process, then the rankling feeling that Pathfinder 2 is giving isn't because of the opportunity of players to buy in to skills that they want to have that doesn't come naturally to their class and the ability to create whatever character that they want.

What it feels like people are saying is, "let's make untrained suck again."

But what comes with that is that people can easily and accidentally create a character that is ineffective at everything - just by trying to create a character that strays too far from the proscribed optimal skill and feat choices available.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In PF1 your Fighter was still crippling bad at Stealth, while the Slayer/Rogue next to him was at double digits bonus to the skill. So, no change from 3.5. You couldn't make a competent stealthy Fighter without some weird dumpster-dived combos of archetypes, feats, items and skills.

Which brings us the main issue of 3.5/PF skill system - it punished people for the lack of system mastery. A new player would come in, see that she can put points in Stealth as a Fighter, and few months later should would realize how pointless that was.

I get it. You all are experts at PF. You all know what Lore Warden and goz mask are and you all know that dipping Gunslinger 1 is a better option for a pistol-wielding Vigilante than that firearm archetype is. Cool beans. You know your way around the skill system because you've been spending most of your free time since 2000 on playing 3.5/PF.

But exactly this makes the game hostile to new players. No, don't give me the "there will be an experienced player to teach them" crap. The game can't assume there will be one. Don't give me the "well they'll screw up and learn with time" either. In the day of 5e and dungeon-crawler fantasy board games, learning curves like that mean people will just wander off.

I see that PF2 robs you of the cherished opportunity to purposefully play a weak character, but losing that is a small price for making the game less punishing for new players.

Grand Lodge

pauljathome wrote:
I really want to feel competent at level 5 and not have to wait until level 15.

I guess this is the big personal question people have to ask themselves.

The OGL rules are based on levels; levels provide visible improvements, achievements, and gates for more powerful abilties. The reason these games are so popular is the mentality of self improvement. It affects every day of our lives; year 6 children see themselves as superior to year 5, gaining that promotion makes you better than your peers, passing that degree gives you more job opportunities, etc...

If you really want your level 5 to feel as competent as a level 15 your probably going to be disappointed with any OGL games. But PF2 has certainly made some sweeping changes to blurr the lines of improvement vs gated abilities that would probably suit you more than others have in the past.
The +1 per level and the heighted spell instead of spell chains and unique spells all focus on improving your existing abilities as you level instead of presenting you with new ones.

In doing so, however, they have taken the customization down a few notches and that isnt sitting well with some.

I could suggest you play a game that doesnt use levels but thats not productive to the conversation or the playtest. Your here because you enjoy the OGL format and want to make a difference in its implementation in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

In PF1 your Fighter was still crippling bad at Stealth, while the Slayer/Rogue next to him was at double digits bonus to the skill. So, no change from 3.5. You couldn't make a competent stealthy Fighter without some weird dumpster-dived combos of archetypes, feats, items and skills.

Which brings us the main issue of 3.5/PF skill system - it punished people for the lack of system mastery. A new player would come in, see that she can put points in Stealth as a Fighter, and few months later should would realize how pointless that was.

Er, what?

I mean, maybe if they're dumping dex and wearing heavy armor. But in my current game, my Arcanist is doing great at stealth. She's just a human with decent dex, no acp, ranks in it, and a +2 from some item.

Sure, a goblin with max dex, all the magic items, and skill focus, could be something like 15 points higher, but the average enemy perception in PF1 isn't based around this hyper-goblin, and a solid middling stealth is enough for her to feel useful.

I feel like at the same levels of investment in PF2, the goblin would feel average, and the arcanist might as well not try.

Silver Crusade

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

In PF1 your Fighter was still crippling bad at Stealth, while the Slayer/Rogue next to him was at double digits bonus to the skill. So, no change from 3.5. You couldn't make a competent stealthy Fighter without some weird dumpster-dived combos of archetypes, feats, items and skills.

Which brings us the main issue of 3.5/PF skill system - it punished people for the lack of system mastery. A new player would come in, see that she can put points in Stealth as a Fighter, and few months later should would realize how pointless that was.

Er, what?

I mean, maybe if they're dumping dex and wearing heavy armor. But in my current game, my Arcanist is doing great at stealth. She's just a human with decent dex, no acp, ranks in it, and a +2 from some item.

Sure, a goblin with max dex, all the magic items, and skill focus, could be something like 15 points higher, but the average enemy perception in PF1 isn't based around this hyper-goblin, and a solid middling stealth is enough for her to feel useful.

I feel like at the same levels of investment in PF2, the goblin would feel average, and the arcanist might as well not try.

You're comparing a class who doesn't wear armor and has Dex as the second-most important stat to a Fighter. Fine.

At the same level of investment in PF2, both the Fighter and the Arcanist would have a decent chance.

Let's say that your investment in PF1 equals to Expert in Stealth in PF2. Level 10, your Arcanist has 10 (level) + 3 (Dex) + 2 (Item) + 1 (Expert). That's +16 Stealth.

Perception of CR 10 monsters in PF2:

Fire Giant +18
Clay Golem +18
Ghost Mage +17
Rakshasha +17

You can perfectly try, in fact your chances are pretty much the same as with PF1 CR10 monsters. The difference now is that your Fighter buddy can sneak alongside of you with a chance, unlike it was the case in PF1.

And the Goblin Rogue is just better at that than either of you are, but "better", not "so far ahead that you don't compare".


Gorbacz wrote:
Lyee wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

In PF1 your Fighter was still crippling bad at Stealth, while the Slayer/Rogue next to him was at double digits bonus to the skill. So, no change from 3.5. You couldn't make a competent stealthy Fighter without some weird dumpster-dived combos of archetypes, feats, items and skills.

Which brings us the main issue of 3.5/PF skill system - it punished people for the lack of system mastery. A new player would come in, see that she can put points in Stealth as a Fighter, and few months later should would realize how pointless that was.

Er, what?

I mean, maybe if they're dumping dex and wearing heavy armor. But in my current game, my Arcanist is doing great at stealth. She's just a human with decent dex, no acp, ranks in it, and a +2 from some item.

Sure, a goblin with max dex, all the magic items, and skill focus, could be something like 15 points higher, but the average enemy perception in PF1 isn't based around this hyper-goblin, and a solid middling stealth is enough for her to feel useful.

I feel like at the same levels of investment in PF2, the goblin would feel average, and the arcanist might as well not try.

You're comparing a class who doesn't wear armor and has Dex as the second-most important stat to a Fighter. Fine.

At the same level of investment in PF2, both the Fighter and the Arcanist would have a decent chance.

Let's say that your investment in PF1 equals to Expert in Stealth in PF2. Level 10, your Arcanist has 10 (level) + 3 (Dex) + 2 (Item) + 1 (Expert). That's +16 Stealth.

Perception of CR 10 monsters in PF2:

Fire Giant +18
Clay Golem +18
Ghost Mage +17
Rakshasha +17

You can perfectly try, in fact your chances are pretty much the same as with PF1 CR10 monsters. The difference now is that your Fighter buddy can sneak alongside of you with a chance, unlike it was the case in PF1.

And the Goblin Rogue is just better at that than either of you are, but "better", not "so far ahead that you don't compare".

Yeah, no, you're making a lot of assumptions about "Fighter" in PF1. I've played plenty of Duelist or Archer fighters, and for one or two, I did decide to invest in stealth. A single trait (one making stealth a class skill) makes you as good as a rogue, minus the moving at full speed part.

Also, no, your chances aren't the same. Enemies perceptions are ludicrously high (something they've already said is actually an error). So... where are you getting this info from? EDIT: For example, a Fire Giant is +14 stealth, Clay Golem +0 in PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, if you're willing to keep Armour Training as the default, you can get quite good at running and sneaking in whatever armour you feel like wearing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:

Yeah, no, you're making a lot of assumptions about "Fighter" in PF1. I've played plenty of Duelist or Archer fighters, and for one or two, I did decide to invest in stealth. A single trait (one making stealth a class skill) makes you as good as a rogue, minus the moving at full speed part.

Also, no, your chances aren't the same. Enemies perceptions are ludicrously high (something they've already said is actually an error). So... where are you getting this info from?

Lyee said that the Arcanist "might as well not try" with a similiar level of investment in PF2. I show you that s_he can, and if Perception of monsters is in fact too high and will be brought down, more power to the sneaky Arcanist (and Fighter buddy).

Finally you can have an entire adventuring party that's somewhat competent in sneaking around with minimum investment straight out of Core Rulebook.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / Please let me design my own character, not play a Class Cardboard cutout All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game