At first I hated it, but now I'm not so sure. I've noticed some people here like it. If anyone of them read this, help me understand.
See, for me the wizard is good at spells. A level 13 wizard has tremendous magic powers, but they don't beat a beefy level 3 barbarian in an arm wrestling match. Classes get better at what their class does, but not at what they don't.
What's the advantage of breaking that mold? My guess is that it opens up interesting class combinations. I also think someone pointed out that it allows the group combined to do things like sneak that they couldn't before. But that just seems to make all the classes run together.
It also bothers me because it means that the encounters must be tuned very carefully not to make everyone equally likely to succeed - those couple of points you get from Legendary better pay off. But a single d20 has a high variance that the sum of multiple die rolls doesn't have. This seems like it would result in a lot of misses, even for those who are most likely to hit.
Is there anyone here who didn't like this, but has come around? How did you do it?
For those of you who do like it, why is it?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I like it for a few reasons. One is that, on a BASIC level, mostly anyone can decently do whatever. For example the Wizard can hit decently with a weapon if he has training with it and good Str/Dex but the Fighter hits a bit better. Usually 50% vs 60% against appropriate-level foes. I appreciate this because trying to create a Gish out of a 1/2 BAB class in 1e was suicide. But they avoid having the Fighter not be a good fighter by changing what they can do on a more nuanced level. While the Wizard might be able to swing a weapon at only 10% less than a Fighter, the Fighter gets numerous feat options that let them hit harder, defend with styles other than weapon and shield, rebuff foes with attacks, etc.
It lets characters at least decently do a variety of things while still maintaining distinct differences between classes and also avoiding the "I hit on 2" or "I stealth on 2" Fighter/Rogue/etc. that I've always found a pain to GM. And in that vein keeping closer numbers prevents another situation I and often my game group hate. Where one player has pumped something commonly used (for example Perception) so high that any time perception is rolled one of two things happens. Either the D.C. is low enough everyone else has a chance to succeed or fail and he automatically succeeds or I set it so high that he has a chance to succeed or fail and everyone else just fails. I've found that generally I liked and this edition all but abolishes it. Similar can happen with AC, if there's massive disparity in to-hit between multiple characters that like hitting things then either one player can't succeed or the other can't fail. Whereas in 2e they both have a decent chance to land a hit but one is still much better.
And it works this way for skills too. A Trained in stealth character with high Dex and a Master in stealth with high Dex may be only 10% apart but skill feats alter what the master in stealth can attempt to do independent of their numbers, so while both can make checks to hide or sneak, the master has additional tricks and is thus better at stealth, differentiating the two without making it impossible to challenge both fairly from the same source.
Also especially with the +/-10 crit rule it really establishes general growth of high level characters over low. The level 10 character doing a level 1 task or fighting a level 4 foe doesn't just succeed 80-90% of the time with stuff he's good at, he crits 30-40% of the time, which effects both attacks and skills.
Or for a tamer example, level 10 vs level 8. You'd be succeeding 60-70% of the time on stuff you're good at and crit ting 10-20% instead of 5%. It just makes the idea of how your skill manifests a LOT more nuanced to me overall compared to the massive number gaps and huge success chances even against level-appropriate stuff when you specialize in PF1.
Hope all that makes sense, I personally love the +level system for the above reasons.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
TL;DR, +level system lets characters do the basics of things they don't specialize in while other things like class and skill feats define the skills of those who specialize in more subtle and interesting ways than just % chance of success.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It's simple,
You're an MMA fighter.
You train your whole life for that belt fight when you are about 35-36 years old.
And while you are training for that, you get your masters degree in history, theology and quantum physics.
and you are in top 20% of worlds escape artists,
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Emergent wrote: At first I hated it, but now I'm not so sure. I've noticed some people here like it. If anyone of them read this, help me understand.
See, for me the wizard is good at spells. A level 13 wizard has tremendous magic powers, but they don't beat a beefy level 3 barbarian in an arm wrestling match. Classes get better at what their class does, but not at what they don't.
What's the advantage of breaking that mold? My guess is that it opens up interesting class combinations. I also think someone pointed out that it allows the group combined to do things like sneak that they couldn't before. But that just seems to make all the classes run together.
It also bothers me because it means that the encounters must be tuned very carefully not to make everyone equally likely to succeed - those couple of points you get from Legendary better pay off. But a single d20 has a high variance that the sum of multiple die rolls doesn't have. This seems like it would result in a lot of misses, even for those who are most likely to hit.
Is there anyone here who didn't like this, but has come around? How did you do it?
For those of you who do like it, why is it?
Looking at it from an in-story perspective:
In a straight-up test of abilities (STR vs. STR), they still won’t. However, since skills are about knowledge, adaptability, experience, and training, there are tons of intangibles that add up for the level 13 character that the level 1 character just does not have. In an athletics test, the level 13 character has learned more about pacing, breath control, the limits of his or her body, to have a better chance of success than the level 1 character who is full of raw strength but blows their energy reserves with a burst of display all at once. The level 13 character has also likely worked with some of the best in that field and, while not formally trained, has received some training or has absorbed by watching that person at their tasks.
From an out of story perspective, it simplifies tracking skills by points, and allows other characters besides hyper-specialized ones a ghost of a chance at a task, should the hyper-specialized character fail, or should they be unable to complete a task.
Consider the party with “the faceman” - the PC with Diplomacy, Deception, and Society skills maxed to perfection, who couldn’t fail a roll if he tried. The party is dependent on him to persuade someone to do a crucial thing. Now, at the crucial moment:
1) the player is not able to attend and play the character,
2) the character died in the penultimate encounter to get the party there,
3) the character is tied up elsewhere at the time (got split from the party, or half the group is engaged in a pitched battle.
Under PF1, What was a suitable challenge for him is an impossibility for the rest of the group. Even if the GM tailors the scenario to change to other conditions for success, there are plenty of situations where multiple people need to attempt an action, but unless they have also hyper-specialized in that skill, they don’t stand a chance. Social situations such as balls or courtly events, stealth situations, even so much as two people need to use athletics to climb a cliff to work together to succeed at a team action, there are times where hyper-specialization cuts people out of working together as a team because the level of challenges aren’t even within the same realm.
In these cases, it does sacrifice realism for the sake of party cohesion, and it’s not the way I necessarily would have done it, but by this point, I’ve sacrificed a lot worse in realism for the sake of a cooperative game. :-)
At a very abstract view, it feels like it aims to let you play characters that have a full breath of life and experience, rather than charicatures that have only ever done one thing.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I made a thread about this earlier when it first started making sense to me:
A unicorn's perspective on the +1 to everything
In your arm wrestling match example there are a few ways you could roll that in the new system. The most rules friendly version would probably be Athletics vs Athletics DC. A lvl 13 Wizard would have a +9 untrained Athletics skill (if he had 10 Str). The Barbarian would have a +7 or +8 depending on if he was Expert or not (with 18 Str). Now who roles against who? As the person rolling would generally have the advantage I would give it to whoever has the higher Proficiency, so the Barbarian. So a Barbarian would have to roll against a DC 19. Seems kind of high but certainly doable.
Another way you could do it is simply compare their base stats, which are very similar, and go off the chart to decide the DC. Because they are similar I would argue it's a Medium difficulty. So again who rolls? I would again argue the person with the higher Proficiency. So a medium DC for a lvl 3 character is 15. That's a LOT easier. But maybe a little to outside the box.
The other thing that you could do is have a straight Str vs Str DC. Giving it to the Barbarian again he would get his +4 against a DC 10 (10+str). A lot easier again.
Remember that the system is supposed to help the GM and players. If it needs some quick tweaking it gives you all the tools to do that.
In the old system it would be Str vs Str with most of the outcomes simply decided by the luck of the Dice. A Wizard could roll a 16 and the Barbarian rolls a 6. Does that "make sense"? Not quite sure lol.
All str check always seem funny anyways. Generally you can lift what you can lift. now with a good adrenaline surge maybe you can take that to the next level sure but most contests of str come down to str and endurance luck has very little to do with it in that case. especially a arm wrestling tournament. unless like the table breaks or something.
ENHenry wrote: Emergent wrote: At first I hated it, but now I'm not so sure. I've noticed some people here like it. If anyone of them read this, help me understand.
See, for me the wizard is good at spells. A level 13 wizard has tremendous magic powers, but they don't beat a beefy level 3 barbarian in an arm wrestling match. Classes get better at what their class does, but not at what they don't.
What's the advantage of breaking that mold? My guess is that it opens up interesting class combinations. I also think someone pointed out that it allows the group combined to do things like sneak that they couldn't before. But that just seems to make all the classes run together.
It also bothers me because it means that the encounters must be tuned very carefully not to make everyone equally likely to succeed - those couple of points you get from Legendary better pay off. But a single d20 has a high variance that the sum of multiple die rolls doesn't have. This seems like it would result in a lot of misses, even for those who are most likely to hit.
Is there anyone here who didn't like this, but has come around? How did you do it?
For those of you who do like it, why is it?
Looking at it from an in-story perspective:
In a straight-up test of abilities (STR vs. STR), they still won’t. However, since skills are about knowledge, adaptability, experience, and training, there are tons of intangibles that add up for the level 13 character that the level 1 character just does not have. In an athletics test, the level 13 character has learned more about pacing, breath control, the limits of his or her body, to have a better chance of success than the level 1 character who is full of raw strength but blows their energy reserves with a burst of display all at once. The level 13 character has also likely worked with some of the best in that field and, while not formally trained, has received some training or has absorbed by watching that person at their tasks.
From an out of story perspective, it simplifies... 1) So IYO it is better for everyone (PC) to be essentially interchangeable rather than experience the effects of loss?
2) I do not buy into your example of 13th level being able to learn simply being around high skilled people as I know quite a few people who do not fit this mold. But if you are saying all PC's are special and automatically learn from those around them, then the game should state this so the GM's, players and writers can take this into account.
3) The rules to me seem to be set up for writers more than, GM's and player's and decisions about game rules decided by how it affects writers. I am curious how this will play out in the long run.
MDC
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
