Pathfinder has always been a +1 / level system. So get the complaint right.


General Discussion


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Especially when it comes to skills.

In fact D&D 3.x was a +1/level system.

The difference is that in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder 1 you had to buy the +1/level.

You could buy a +1/level attack bonus by playing a martial class like fighter, ranger, paladin, etc... Otherwise you got the 3/4 level for free.

Saving throws are the only thing that now has +1/level that didn't before.
Oh, and AC.

But I don't currently see anyone complaining about having +1/level on saving throws and AC.

I think what people are actually complaining about when the start griping about the +1/level in Pathfinder 2 playtest is that the +1/level is given to all skills for free and attack bonus to all classes. Characters don't have to pay for the +1/level any more.

So please stop misrepresenting your complaints. If you actually have a problem with +1/level then the complaint should be about how low level characters can't compete with high level characters or challenges, or how high level characters aren't challenged by lower level stuff, or how you can't have a widely dispersed level party and have any fun. Stuff like that. I have seen a few posts about things like this, so I know it is out there.

If your complaint is about the +1/level being applied for free, that would be things like how a wizard untrained in acrobatics can still balance across a log almost as well as the monk, or how a bard has nearly as much combat accuracy and damage as the fighter. So if this is your style of complaint, represent it that way. Don't complain about the +1/level system entirely.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

*blink*

*goes and reviews huge bookshelf of D&D materials, dating back decades*

*is unable to find a +1 system in those books*

You know, you can't just call something a +1 system when only incredibly limited things got +1 per level. All the other things got +<some fraction> or +<nothing>. Almost everything was not +1/level, and that made things that did get that progression the strong suit(s) of whoever had them.

Even your example martial character didn't get +1 to most stuff. Just some stuff - BAB and a couple of skills.

I don't like +1/level to AC and saves. I have my reasons, but I'm actually waiting to see how it all plays out through later levels before writing up my commentary, because I'm GMing Doomsday Dawn and I'll have that data soon. But so far, it's not a plus.

There! Someone is complaining! And despite your list of allowed complaints, I am going off script and disliking it as a baseline entire mechanic so far.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:


Even your example martial character didn't get +1 to most stuff. Just some stuff - BAB and a couple of skills.

In my view that does make it a +1/level system. The fighter is getting +1/level to some things - the things that make the fighter strong in the game. But the system does still have +1/level.

But it is not a +1/level to everything system. That is the difference.

Compare this to D&D 5e that is not a +1/level system (at least from the little that I know about it). In that system you can have a much wider range of character levels in the party because the higher level characters don't have a large bonus due to their level (meaning the raw number of skill points that they have been given at every level gained and such things like that).

So disagree with me if you desire. I am just trying to state things as I see them.

But try not to misunderstand me and disagree with that misunderstanding.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

If you told me you were having a "free ice cream party", and only a few of the people got free ice cream, and the vast majority of people got discounted price ice cream or no ice cream at all - that would not be a "free ice cream party", IMAO.

If I tell you a game is a "+1/level system", and the vast majority of things in the game don't get +1/level and get something less or nothing, then I don't consider that an accurate name for the system.

So, we haven't agreed on a definition. I continue to dislike the playtest mechanic as implemented of +1/level to everything, in comparison to PF1E and D&D which were not that way. And you can continue to think and feel whatever you like about the new mechanic, how it compares to the old mechanic, and my opinion of both.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

If you told me you were having a "free ice cream party", and only a few of the people got free ice cream, and the vast majority of people got discounted price ice cream or no ice cream at all - that would not be a "free ice cream party", IMAO.

If I tell you a game is a "+1/level system", and the vast majority of things in the game don't get +1/level and get something less or nothing, then I don't consider that an accurate name for the system.

So, we haven't agreed on a definition. I continue to dislike the playtest mechanic as implemented of +1/level to everything, in comparison to PF1E and D&D which were not that way. And you can continue to think and feel whatever you like about the new mechanic, how it compares to the old mechanic, and my opinion of both.

Your splitting hairs.

Its always been as you level your target on the die goes down vrs the same target. I.E. The ac 10 becomes easier to hit as you level. +1 per level is still the same basic concept except simpler and easier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
I continue to dislike the playtest mechanic as implemented of +1/level to everything, in comparison to PF1E and D&D which were not that way. And you can continue to think and feel whatever you like about the new mechanic, how it compares to the old mechanic, and my opinion of both.

I actually also don't like the +1/level to everything. It makes being trained feel meaningless. The rank gated activities don't make up the difference.

Hmm... How to better explain what I am getting at...

Say a rogue encountered a tricky trap at level 3. Maybe they even failed to disarm it and the party took a pile of damage as a result. The rogue encounters the same trap in a different dungeon later when they are level 14. This time the rogue disarms it by rolling a 2. Because the rogue has been buying +1/level in the skills needed to disarm traps.

Sure, the barbarian in PF1 couldn't disarm the trap and the barbarian in PF2 could. That is a difference between the systems. That is the effect of +1/level to everything.

But in PF1 the trap has to be leveled up to match the power of the party. The party as a whole is getting the benefit of the +1/level that the rogue has been buying. The entire game system: the CR rating, encounter level, and such is based on +1/level. The idea that a 7th level party is going to be drastically more powerful than a 2nd level party, and drastically less powerful than a 17th level party.

...

I guess mostly it is that I have seen a few posts from people saying that they hate the +1/level to everything because it makes the characters too similar and they don't have a special niche that they fill in the team - so to fix it they want to remove +1/level entirely. Make skill checks based solely on ability modifier and a +1 to +3 based on training rank.

That isn't going to fix the problem of characters being too similar in power. Maybe I am not understanding the complaint.

That is why I posted this thread. I want to understand what people are actually having a problem with. But the reasons given don't feel like they match up with the proposed changes.

So if you don't like +1/level at all, what problem do you have with it? Why would having a 7th level character being only marginally more powerful than a 2nd level character be a better thing?

If instead you don't like +1/level to everything for free, that I can understand and somewhat agree with. Let's make untrained suck again. But I don't understand how that complaint relates to the +1/level power curve that the game system is based on and has been since at least D&D 3.0.


Requielle wrote:

If you told me you were having a "free ice cream party", and only a few of the people got free ice cream, and the vast majority of people got discounted price ice cream or no ice cream at all - that would not be a "free ice cream party", IMAO.

I guess I am seeing it as a 'free ice cream party' where some people get vanilla ice cream, some get chocolate ice cream, some get sherbet, and some get mint chocolate chip.

But everybody is getting free ice cream of some variety.

So PF1 is a free ice cream party where everyone gets free ice cream of their choosing and PF2 currently is a free ice cream party where everyone gets free ice cream of all varieties. You get a huge bowl with all the types of ice cream piled on it and then you get an extra scoop of the type of your choosing.

But both are still free ice cream parties.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys are soo ruining ice cream for me with this metaphor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The party certainly did benefit from the rogue's investment in lockpicking - but the party wizard wasn't also almost as good as the rogue at lockpicking just by osmosis in the mid-teens, back in the old edition day. Between the +1/level and the very small increments that investment get you in 2E, there is just much less return on that investment. You don't invest to shine anymore (which you certainly could in 3.x and 1E), you invest to stay slightly ahead of the challenge.

We've summarized it in our group as "some people prefer their wizards to be Raistlin, some prefer Gandalf". If you think that your high-level wizard should be not-quite-as-good-as-Aragorn with a sword, but still darn good... you're a Gandalf kind of campaigner. If you think your high-level wizard would still be mostly brains instead of brawn... you are a Raistlin kind of campaigner.

+1/level to everything makes everything more homogenized. There were certainly drawbacks to the ever-widening gaps as time went on in the old system... but there are new, different drawbacks to this constantly rising floor system.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the issue:

In PF1, the ONLY stuff that was +1 to level was BAB for a few classes, and Skills that players CHOSE to max out.

In PF2, EVERYTHING is +1/level. Saves, BAB, Spellcasting, etc. You don't have a choice.

It causes 2 problems.

1) Players that want to have weaknesses can't have weaknesses. A level 20 character that wants to role play being unable to swim has a +17 to Athletics.

2) Characters that narratively have no reason attempting a particular skill check, still attempt such skill checks, because the difference between them and the party expert is +3.

In a different thread, someone mentioned a Goblin Alchemist that was untrained in Religion knowing more about a particular deity than a Cleric of that deity, just because they rolled better. This shouldn't happen outside of nat 1s or nat 20s.

The problem that +1/level is supposed to solve is letting everyone contribute, but I have yet to find ANY story involving a group of people working together, where everyone is able to "contribute" to everything.

Interesting characters have strengths and weaknesses. The reason PCs form parties is because they need people to cover weaknesses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They really need to combine all of these thread into one the issues you guys have brought up have been brought up elsewhere. Everyone just keep s making the same arguments over and over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

3rd Ed/PF1 have the situation of BAB scaling, but not AC, that starts some problems (math wonkiness).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Requielle wrote:


Even your example martial character didn't get +1 to most stuff. Just some stuff - BAB and a couple of skills.
But try not to misunderstand me and disagree with that misunderstanding.

I've got to say that this statement here is hugely ironic.

Your entire OP is a mischaracterization of the complaints against +1/level.

And, if you dig a little, you will find posts, from me at least, which focus on how to AC part is the biggest problem. And there are a lot of others saying the same thing.

Please do your homework and stop putting words in other people's mouths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
Interesting characters have strengths and weaknesses. The reason PCs form parties is because they need people to cover weaknesses.

THANK YOU! I just don't get how this principle of storytelling seems to have been lost in some places.


PF1 was an approximately +1 / level system.

Your BAB went up 1 per level if you were a full martial, but total attack bonuses went up by about 1.5 per level due to magic weapons, etc.

Your AC went up when you spent money on it. Maybe it went up 1 per level and maybe it didn't.

Your saves went up by less than 1 per level, except when you got a cloak of resistance or stat boosts.

DCs and enemies went up at a similar rate, so it was still a 'treadmill', but it didn't draw attention to itself so much, because you could get ahead of the curve if, for example, you focused on AC boosts.

Also, things like extra attacks for high BAB meant that combat at high levels didn't feel the same as it did at low levels. (It felt slower and less balanced, but at least it gave a sense of progress.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
Requielle wrote:


Even your example martial character didn't get +1 to most stuff. Just some stuff - BAB and a couple of skills.

In my view that does make it a +1/level system. The fighter is getting +1/level to some things - the things that make the fighter strong in the game. But the system does still have +1/level.

But it is not a +1/level to everything system. That is the difference.

Um, by this reasoning, since my cleric character gains 5 hit points per level, Pathfinder 1st Edition is a +5/level system. Or because the first skill rank in a class skill gives a +4 to the skill check, it is a +4/level system. My character has often neglected a skill for a few levels in order to learn others, and then spent 2 or 3 skill points on that neglected skill to catch up. Does that make Pathfinder 1st Edition +3/level?

Spending points is very different from an automatic +1 per level.


Matthew Downie wrote:

PF1 was an approximately +1 / level system.

Your BAB went up 1 per level if you were a full martial, but total attack bonuses went up by about 1.5 per level due to magic weapons, etc.

Your AC went up when you spent money on it. Maybe it went up 1 per level and maybe it didn't.

Your saves went up by less than 1 per level, except when you got a cloak of resistance or stat boosts.

DCs and enemies went up at a similar rate, so it was still a 'treadmill', but it didn't draw attention to itself so much, because you could get ahead of the curve if, for example, you focused on AC boosts.

Also, things like extra attacks for high BAB meant that combat at high levels didn't feel the same as it did at low levels. (It felt slower and less balanced, but at least it gave a sense of progress.)

The base problem is at the root though that you're getting 1/level at the things you focus on, which means that the gap between characters grows dramatically as you reach higher levels.

AC was mostly money as you say, which presents its own problems. The difference between full BAB and even 3/4 meant that you were pretty useless in a fight without full - which most of the non-martial classes intended to fight made up with pseudo-full BAB abilities.
Even good saves weren't 1/level (though with gear and stat boosts they probably came close), but the difference between good and bad saves was still drastic at high levels.
Bringing those numbers closer together was a reasonable goal. Saves being most likely the worst problem.

Skills are probably where it both matters least and presents the worst world-building weirdness. Especially with things like Craft and Profession skills. Huge differences in some of the opposed roll skills could have bad balance effects though. In ways that can't easily be compensated for just by having someone in the party with a high skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:


Sure, the barbarian in PF1 couldn't disarm the trap and the barbarian in PF2 could. That is a difference between the systems. That is the effect of +1/level to everything.

Actually, no, the PF2 barbarian can't unless they are traind in it. (i know I'm splitting hairs, but it is one of those specific things I don't want to get lost in the shuffle.) PF2 uses a combination of proficiency and skill feats to gate things that purely came down to numerical scores in PF1.

I think that's important to remember, both for adding level to everything and skill feats not being as impressive as we might like. (I'd like it if the latter changed, but tempering the expectation for what skill feats are meant to be is probably healthy.)

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

*blink*

*goes and reviews huge bookshelf of D&D materials, dating back decades*

*is unable to find a +1 system in those books*

Let's go back ten years. Pathfinder Alpha. V1.1 March 2008. The initial release had +1/level for trained class skills, +0.5/level for trained cross-class skills (remember them?) and +0 for untrained skills.

This was removed by Alpha 1.2.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hylq?Keep-Skill-Points

It would be interesting if Jason could explain why, if it was a bad idea then, it's a good idea now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

PF1 was an approximately +1 / level system.

Your BAB went up 1 per level if you were a full martial, but total attack bonuses went up by about 1.5 per level due to magic weapons, etc.

Your AC went up when you spent money on it. Maybe it went up 1 per level and maybe it didn't.

Your saves went up by less than 1 per level, except when you got a cloak of resistance or stat boosts.

DCs and enemies went up at a similar rate, so it was still a 'treadmill', but it didn't draw attention to itself so much, because you could get ahead of the curve if, for example, you focused on AC boosts.

Also, things like extra attacks for high BAB meant that combat at high levels didn't feel the same as it did at low levels. (It felt slower and less balanced, but at least it gave a sense of progress.)

I did the math once. Monsters gain about 1.2 HD/CR, +0.9 Will/CR, and 1.15 AC/CR. Additionally, using just HD and average Cha, DCs increase at about +0.96/HD

A rogue investing in Dex gets +0.75 BAB/HD, +0.125 attack/HD from level-based ability boosts, about +1 attack / 6 HD from magical Dex increases, ad about +1 attack / 3 HD from magic weapons. (Using ABP to get rough numbers for those two) That adds up to +1.375 attack/CR, which is enough to keep pace with monsters.

Full BAB classes have it easier with +1.125/CR without magic, or roughly +1.625/CR with magic.

So yes, you could call full BAB classes +1/level, but if you account for magic items, +3/4 seems to be the norm.

Meanwhile, a caster gets +0.5 DC/HD from spell level, +0.125 DC/HD from the level-based increases, and that same +1/6 DC/HD from magic items boosting ability scores. That adds up to about +0.8 DC/HD, which the average monster outpaces.

--

On the other hand, monster attack bonuses increase at about 1.6/CR on average, which is surprisingly close to the full BAB class. The problem is, that will rapidly outpace PC AC, because you can't just slap on more natural armor like they do in the bestiary.

And similarly, a cleric has good Will saves and invests in Wisdom, so they should be good at Will. Except they only get +0.5/HD from the base save, resulting in the same +0.8/HD they get to DCs, which falls behind the rough monster estimate of +0.96 DC/CR. Even if you approximate cloaks of resistance as +1/3 Will/HD, that's only +1.125/HD. You're technically increasing more quickly, but that's with magic items and doesn't account for any other bonuses the monster gets. Overall, you're effectively keeping pace, when you're theoretically the absolute best at this.


Ecidon wrote:
Requielle wrote:

*blink*

*goes and reviews huge bookshelf of D&D materials, dating back decades*

*is unable to find a +1 system in those books*

Let's go back ten years. Pathfinder Alpha. V1.1 March 2008. The initial release had +1/level for trained class skills, +0.5/level for trained cross-class skills (remember them?) and +0 for untrained skills.

This was removed by Alpha 1.2.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2hylq?Keep-Skill-Points

It would be interesting if Jason could explain why, if it was a bad idea then, it's a good idea now.

My guess would be changing market conditions. To give an example, 5e is skill-point-less, and is the most popular edition of any tabletop RPG. I don't think these two factors are correlated in the slightest, but then again that's speaking from my personal perspective and preference and not from a market analysis point of view. It may very well be that the removal of granular systems like skill points provides a higher uptake rate of new players. Whether the uptake would be sufficient to replace those driven off by the changes remains to be seen, especially since there's the 800 pound gorilla of 5e sucking up a lot of new entries into the hobby too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:

Here's the issue:

In PF1, the ONLY stuff that was +1 to level was BAB for a few classes, and Skills that players CHOSE to max out.

In PF2, EVERYTHING is +1/level. Saves, BAB, Spellcasting, etc. You don't have a choice.

It causes 2 problems.

1) Players that want to have weaknesses can't have weaknesses. A level 20 character that wants to role play being unable to swim has a +17 to Athletics.

2) Characters that narratively have no reason attempting a particular skill check, still attempt such skill checks, because the difference between them and the party expert is +3.

In a different thread, someone mentioned a Goblin Alchemist that was untrained in Religion knowing more about a particular deity than a Cleric of that deity, just because they rolled better. This shouldn't happen outside of nat 1s or nat 20s.

The problem that +1/level is supposed to solve is letting everyone contribute, but I have yet to find ANY story involving a group of people working together, where everyone is able to "contribute" to everything.

Interesting characters have strengths and weaknesses. The reason PCs form parties is because they need people to cover weaknesses.

No level 20 character should be unable to swim. They're practically a demigod. It was always so dumb that my practical avatar of Iomedae Cleric could be thwarted by a little bit of water. Or my Halfling Monk capable of jumping 15 feet straight up being worried about climbing an unknotted rope.

And there are plenty of cases where smart people know way too many things and then can't remember a relatively simple detail about their field of expertise because of it.

In PF1 there were tons of times the 20 Str fighter tried to break down a door, rolled a 4, and then the 8 str gnome wizard rolled a 17 and did it. Or the +10 perception ranger rolls a 3 while the bumbling paladin rolls a 15 and finds the very obvious loot. That sort of thing is always going to be around if the rolls decide so.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I always thought attributing skill points was the most tedious part of the levelup process. The current skill system in the playtest is certainly flawed. For example I don't think untrained skill modifiers should be that close to trained. But otherwise i'm glad the granular skill point attribution every level is gone.


RazarTuk wrote:
On the other hand, monster attack bonuses increase at about 1.6/CR on average, which is surprisingly close to the full BAB class. The problem is, that will rapidly outpace PC AC, because you can't just slap on more natural armor like they do in the bestiary.

Bingo, the flat AC, unless you invest, magic, etc, vs. an extreme scaling attack bonus system. Contributing to why 3rd Ed/PF1 can become unwieldy at higher levels.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
They really need to combine all of these thread into one the issues you guys have brought up have been brought up elsewhere. Everyone just keep s making the same arguments over and over.

So to say it another way, "There is a widespread consensus that this is a problem."


BryonD wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Requielle wrote:


Even your example martial character didn't get +1 to most stuff. Just some stuff - BAB and a couple of skills.
But try not to misunderstand me and disagree with that misunderstanding.

I've got to say that this statement here is hugely ironic.

Your entire OP is a mischaracterization of the complaints against +1/level.

And, if you dig a little, you will find posts, from me at least, which focus on how to AC part is the biggest problem. And there are a lot of others saying the same thing.

Please do your homework and stop putting words in other people's mouths.

My apologies if I have irritated you. That is not my intent.

I'm just trying to clear up something that I keep getting confused on when reading things on this forum.

For example, Level bonus explain why we need it

Are people wanting to remove the character progression entirely, or just remove the 'get trained in everything for free'?

There are some who want to remove +1/level from everything. Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increases, but don't get any other increases.

There are others who want to go back to something like the PF1 system where if you put training into something, they you can get to the higher numbers, but if you don't then you stay at +0.

But both of these completely different concepts are referred to as 'Let's get rid of +1/level'. Can we at least agree that there are two different concepts involved in the above two paragraphs? Or are people actually thinking that those two paragraphs are redundant and mean exactly the same thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At least two different concepts. Being argued simultaneously by different subgroups and often in response to counter-arguments against the other concept.

But yeah, the 5E camp (no level bonuses at all, just training ones) and the PF1e camp are the big divisions I think.


Edymnion wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
They really need to combine all of these thread into one the issues you guys have brought up have been brought up elsewhere. Everyone just keep s making the same arguments over and over.
So to say it another way, "There is a widespread consensus that this is a problem."

No, that means that there is widespread evidence that this is a contentious issue. Those threads would have few posts if no one disagreed.


thejeff wrote:
At least two different concepts. Being argued simultaneously by different subgroups and often in response to counter-arguments against the other concept.

Exactly. The confusion around the concepts is causing contention between the people. Because of misunderstanding rather than actual disagreement.

thejeff wrote:


But yeah, the 5E camp (no level bonuses at all, just training ones) and the PF1e camp are the big divisions I think.

Well, there is also the camp that likes the current PF2 system of +1/level to everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:


No level 20 character should be unable to swim.

First of all, what gives you the right to tell people what their characters can and can't do?

Secondly, while level 20 characters should probably be able to tread water, I don't think EVERY SINGLE level 20 character should be able to swim in stormy seas.

The character I had in mind was a wizard that never learned how to swim, because he can cast spells to walk on water, or fly over it, or teleport past it, and thus doesn't NEED to know how to swim(or climb, or jump, or any other use of Athletics).

Quote:
They're practically a demigod.

This is probably my personal bias for 3.5, but I have the book on Deities and Demigods. A level 20 character is a joke compared to them. You don't even qualify for godhood until level 40. They're superheroes, not demigods.

Even if you want to claim a difference between Golarion Lore and Faerun Lore, most of us play in worlds of our own making, and are thus not limited by the lore of the system. If level 20s are demigods in your games, then so be it, but they aren't in mine and nobody should be forced to play in a particular way.

Quote:
It was always so dumb that my practical avatar of Iomedae Cleric could be thwarted by a little bit of water.

Because your Avatar of Iomedae couldn't cast a single spell to bypass that puddle? I find that hard to believe.

Quote:
Or my Halfling Monk capable of jumping 15 feet straight up being worried about climbing an unknotted rope.

Well, in this new system, climbing ropes and Jumping are the same skill, so that's a moot point, but I can imagine that pole-vaulters aren't necessarily mountain climbers.

Quote:
And there are plenty of cases where smart people know way too many things and then can't remember a relatively simple detail about their field of expertise because of it.

A literal priest of a deity not knowing a basic tenant of their faith and being schooled by a complete layman? According to the person who shared the story, his cleric didn't even roll that low, and the Alchemist didn't roll that high.

Quote:

In PF1 there were tons of times the 20 Str fighter tried to break down a door, rolled a 4, and then the 8 str gnome wizard rolled a 17 and did it. Or the +10 perception ranger rolls a 3 while the bumbling paladin rolls a 15 and finds the very obvious loot. That sort of thing is always going to be around if the rolls decide so.

Ability Checks are notorious for not reflecting a character's true capabilities. A 20 STR character is, supposedly, 4 times as strong as a 10 STR character, yet only has a 25% greater chance of succeeding at a given STR check.

Your +10 perception Ranger vs a +0 Paladin truly does illustrate the point.

On a given Perception Check, the Paladin can only expect to beat the Ranger 11% of the time. A 1/10 chance that the Paladin catches a detail that the Ranger missed is acceptable.

In PF2, a Legendary character has a +5 over an Untrained Character, which yields a 26% chance that the Untrained Character beats the Legendary character at a given task.

The guy with no idea what he is doing has a 1/4 chance of out performing the guy who is so good at this particular task, that his exploits are considered legendary. There shouldn't even be a competition.


breithauptclan wrote:
There are some who want to remove +1/level from everything. Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increases, but don't get any other increases

Misinformation, aside, that is not what the not digging the treadmill deal people want or are talking about.

Irresponsible, silly and vulgar, come to mind.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
There are some who want to remove +1/level from everything. Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increases, but don't get any other increases

Misinformation, aside, that is not what the not digging the treadmill deal people want or are talking about.

Irresponsible, silly and vulgar, come to mind.

Emphasis mine. There definitely are people who want to take the +level out and leave a flat competency curve relying on the other bonuses in the system, similar to D&D 5e. There are also other people, like myself, who would prefer a 1e-like system where you can chose what you get good at and how good at it you can get in a granular fashion. And, of course, there are people who don't want to remove it at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
This is probably my personal bias for 3.5, but I have the book on Deities and Demigods. A level 20 character is a joke compared to them. You don't even qualify for godhood until level 40. They're superheroes, not demigods.

Actually, archdevils and demon lords count as demigods in Golarion lore, as far as I'm aware (they surely can grant spells to Clerics), and they range from CR 25 to CR 30. So the difference is not all that great as in 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am going to try to put this as succinctly as I can:

The scaling in PF1 is down to the acquisition of resources which are indeed gained through leveling. When you level, you can choose what class to advanced, where to put skills feats etc. Its a pretty granular system. For those stating that Fighters were a +1/lvl class because of BAB, for example, remember that no character was a Fighter. They could choose whatever class they wanted at each new Player level, so this too was an intentional expenditure of character building resources. One camp seems characterized by a desire to return to a system where leveling means gaining new resources to spend on building a character, and where essentially everything is a choice. A system where competency in some activity requires investment... or rather investment is rewarded with competency.

What we might call the "bound accuracy" camp, is a bit less traditional, but sees the opportunity to escape the treadmill altogether.. While the first camp is interested with having far more control over where they can overtake or be overtaken by the treadmill through player choice, this Bound camp wants to eliminate the treadmill entirely. Eschewing the more numerically dependent and arbitrary system for one that focuses more on abilities, action types etc. If the numbers aren't going to be an expression of character, and don;t really change the dynamic of success/failure in realistic encounters, then why have them at all?

I think both camps are trying to either regain control of or eliminate a system that feels alien to the character and overly forced. Since its narrative manifestation is almost always problematic whenever its mechanical implementation isn't almost entirely irrelevant.

To Summarize:
Bigger numbers for the sake of bigger numbers are being argued against using option
(A) Bigger numbers are fine but only for the sake of intentional character definition by the player through choices
or
(B) Just get rid of the bigger numbers entirely if they serve no other purpose than to make the numbers bigger.


neaven wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
There are some who want to remove +1/level from everything. Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increases, but don't get any other increases

Misinformation, aside, that is not what the not digging the treadmill deal people want or are talking about.

Irresponsible, silly and vulgar, come to mind.

Emphasis mine. There definitely are people who want to take the +level out and leave a flat competency curve relying on the other bonuses in the system, similar to D&D 5e.

"Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increase"

That is the nonsense part, as not even 5th Ed has just ability score/feat and HP increases. The PF2 bonus scales from -2 to +14, without + Level, so it's flatter, but there is progression, aside from ability scores and hit points.


Vic Ferrari wrote:

"Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increase"

That is the nonsense part, as not even 5th Ed has just ability score/feat and HP increases.

Just because 5e has proficiency bonus increases doesn't mean PF2 has to have them.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

"Make it so that characters only get the feat and ability and HP increase"

That is the nonsense part, as not even 5th Ed has just ability score/feat and HP increases.

Just because 5e has proficiency bonus increases doesn't mean PF2 has to have them.

True, PF2 does not need to have any increases, aside from ability scores and feats, etc.


Edymnion wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
They really need to combine all of these thread into one the issues you guys have brought up have been brought up elsewhere. Everyone just keep s making the same arguments over and over.
So to say it another way, "There is a widespread consensus that this is a problem."

Theirs back and forth on both sides so emphatically no. Also trying to create a dumb word game to make yourself seem right does not help your case.


magnuskn wrote:
thflame wrote:
This is probably my personal bias for 3.5, but I have the book on Deities and Demigods. A level 20 character is a joke compared to them. You don't even qualify for godhood until level 40. They're superheroes, not demigods.
Actually, archdevils and demon lords count as demigods in Golarion lore, as far as I'm aware (they surely can grant spells to Clerics), and they range from CR 25 to CR 30. So the difference is not all that great as in 3.5.

Also, Superheroes are the demigods of the modern era. The greater than human beings with tales told of their mighty deeds.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Pathfinder has always been a +1 / level system. So get the complaint right. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion