| 28 people marked this as a favorite. |
I twitch a little every time I hear the phrase "treadmill" use to deride PF2e. Pathfinder has always, always been designed as a treadmill. EVERY game system that uses levels is by definition a treadmill. A level-appropriate challenge will always be roughly as hard regardless of your level; that's why it's level-appropriate.
In fact, many games are designed as a sloped treadmill: They get harder the farther into the game you get, to challenge your increasing system mastery more and more. Effectively, you get worse against level-appropriate challenges in order to force you to rely more on system mastery and less on numerical bonuses.
WoW is a treadmill. Skyrim is a treadmill. Diablo III is a treadmill. EVERY edition of D&D is certainly a treadmill. Pathfinder is a treadmill.
The problem with PF1e is that the treadmill was poorly designed and broke around level 12, resulting in high level gameplay where it was impossible to challenge any reasonably well built PC with anything that didn't threaten a TPK.
The solid mathematical foundation of PF2e is just making explicit what was implied before, but doing it in a way that makes the math actually work at all levels. Mostly. Not perfect yet. Some tweaking still needed, for sure.
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the real issue is whether the challenges get harder because you are attempting harder things or just because you are gaining levels. In the latter case, the treadmill is too obvious and strains the suspension of disbelief.
The recent Treat Wounds update is an example of the latter option -- the skill DC is based on the healer's level, for no apparent good reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The recent Treat Wounds update is an example of the latter option -- the skill DC is based on the healer's level, for no apparent good reason.
The apparent reason is that it heals more based on the healers level as well. I would probably agree that's not a very good reason and it would make sense to have an ability to "under-cast" treat wounds but it's unfair to say that it is completely arbitrary.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the issue is how much the treadmill gets in your face and causes you to be unable to enjoy the gameplay.
Like yes, all leveling games have a treadmill in the back, but most you're not aware of and never think to ask if it's there.
Here in PF2 it feels like you're playing treadmill the game. You're started off with the treadmill going at a 9/10 and quickly get to 10/10 which isn't a fun or enjoyable pace, especially to start.
A 14 str reach cleric is very viable and able to hit and deal damage in PF1 for like 10 levels and minimal investment. In PF2 a 14 str cleric feels awful cause they are behind and always will be now and need to full invest to stay at bad and not fall to awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the real issue is whether the challenges get harder because you are attempting harder things or just because you are gaining levels. In the latter case, the treadmill is too obvious and strains the suspension of disbelief.
The recent Treat Wounds update is an example of the latter option -- the skill DC is based on the healer's level, for no apparent good reason.
The motivation for the scaling DC seems obvious to me. A higher level character heals more HP than a lower level character. Assuming a party of six, with an average CON bonus of +3, a level 1 character will heal 3*1*6 = 18 HP on a successful Treat Wounds (54 HP on a critical success). A level 15 character will heal 3*15*6 = 270 HP on a successful treat wounds (810 HP on a critical success).
Now I think the way it is implemented right now is a bit inelegant and could be improved quite a bit. I feel like the DC could be based on the number of HP the target is missing, rather than character level, which would potentially model being able to patch up minor wounds more easily with higher level. But I don't pretend that such a system wouldn't have its own potential problems.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF1e definitely punished you for falling behind more than PF2e does, without question. A straight Rogue who decided to have mediocre Str and Dex and focus on being an Int/Cha skill monkey is going to be so far behind a THW Barbarian's combat effectiveness that there often is literally no reason for them to participate in combat.
Even with effectively built Rogues, a creature with a little DR and immunity to sneak attacks is all it takes to make them completely pointless.
I see a lot less of that in PF2e.
I do agree that the treadmill is a little too obvious in some ways. I also think the range of appropriate encounters is a little too narrow.
And Treat Wounds very clearly needs to be based on the level of the target, not the healer.
Lastly, as I mentioned in another thread, I think there is a lot of confusion/poor perception of the system because a lot of people either don't understand Table 10-2 or are spreading misinformation about it.
I've heard a lot of people make comments about how "walls magically get harder to climb as you level up" and the like, and that's not only not true, but Paizo devoted nearly three paragraphs to explicitly saying that it's not true and that doing that is bad GMing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the real issue is whether the challenges get harder because you are attempting harder things or just because you are gaining levels. In the latter case, the treadmill is too obvious and strains the suspension of disbelief.
The recent Treat Wounds update is an example of the latter option -- the skill DC is based on the healer's level, for no apparent good reason.
The motivation for the scaling DC seems obvious to me. A higher level character heals more HP than a lower level character. Assuming a party of six, with an average CON bonus of +3, a level 1 character will heal 3*1*6 = 18 HP on a successful Treat Wounds (54 HP on a critical success). A level 15 character will heal 3*15*6 = 270 HP on a successful treat wounds (810 HP on a critical success).
Now I think the way it is implemented right now is a bit inelegant and could be improved quite a bit. I feel like the DC could be based on the number of HP the target is missing, rather than character level, which would potentially model being able to patch up minor wounds more easily with higher level. But I don't pretend that such a system wouldn't have its own potential problems.
The problem seems to be that they are trying to maintain a more or less stable chance of fumbling. If they based the amount of healing on the magnitude of the adjusted roll and left the skill DC alone, you would eventually reach a point where fumbling a Treat Wounds check is impossible, but the result of a more or less average roll would be right where they want it to be.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. Now, can we stop saying "video game" like it's a bad thing?
Mechanics like Mana/Spell/Power Points, which are very "video gamey", have worked great in tabletop for decades. Other mechanics, like dedicated healers, may be prevalent in "video games" but were borrowed from tabletop by video games. Cross pollination isn't a bad thing.
Let's just evaluate mechanics on their own merits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You act like it won't happen often. What level/difficulty to use for anything is so up in the air that likely it will ended up being the character's level in a lot of cases.
Sure, but that's sloppy GMing, or poor adventure design, or at worst a lack of clarity in how the system is explained.
It's not a fundamental problem with the treadmill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally agree with the OP.
About "undercasting" Treat Wounds, it's an option that would seem quite obvious to have, but the critical success effect gets in the way: it may be statistically convenient to undercast it at a particular level because you have a greater chance for triple healing. That's ugly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need skill specific DC tables in addition to table 10-2 as well. Just porting over all the PF1 tables would give some consistent benchmarks which would help people use 10-2 the way the designers intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
About "undercasting" Treat Wounds, it's an option that would seem quite obvious to have, but the critical success effect gets in the way: it may be statistically convenient to undercast it at a particular level because you have a greater chance for triple healing. That's ugly.
This is another reason Treat Wounds should be based on the level of the target. If it is, you don't end up with players thinking "if I'm the thing that sets the DC, shouldn't I be able to willingly lower the DC at a penalty?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And we get the wonderful benefit that the "old school" ability of high-level characters to take on lower level threats in extreme numbers (Example: a 15th-level fighter, alone, against 30 orcs, a completely survivable encounter prior to 3rd edition) has returned because the "treadmill" used ensures the orcs are going to barely ever hit, never crit, and the fighter is going to barely ever miss, and will almost certainly take down a single orc with every attack made.
Um...this is completely wrong...you can do this easy in 3rd, 3.5, and PF. It never went away....as even a poorly 15th level fighter should not be hit...never critted....should never miss and take down a orc in a single hit...
The reason you might not see it is because such a fight is boring...most GMS and players just handwove those fights...
|
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with the 'treadmill' in PF2 for skills is, or at least has been historically, that you actually get worse at most skills over time.
Specifically, you remain at about the same percentage of success in your absolutely optimized skills...which you must invest increasing (and increasingly limited) resources into keeping at that level. For example, at 1st level, you have no items, but by the pre 1.3 Skill Chart, you needed magic items to maintain the same chance of success you had at 1st level at 10th level (and that's on top of keeping them maxed with skill ranks, something only possible for three skills).
So, the situation goes from:
1st level: Our Bard is maxed in all Charisma Skills (with a 60% chance of success vs. on-level challenges), and is pretty decent at several others.
to
9th level: Our Bard is now only maxed in two skills, which he has had to purchase items to stay maxed in, and his odds of success on them remain at 60%. His other Charisma skills, however, now lag by a full 4 points making his odds with them only 40% and his other skills lag even more.
So the issue is (or more accurately was) that the treadmill is too fast. It requires you to 'run' by investing every possible resource to keep up on your highest skills, leaving all other skills to falter and fail.
Now, these numbers look a tad better as of the 1.3 errata (much better at high levels), and if Mark Seifter's comments bear fruit, mundane skill items may soon soften the complaint quite a bit as well, but the use of 'treadmill' in this context is not inappropriate in terms of diagnosing the problem (which is that characters feel like they are not actually progressing, or at least not at a pace commensurate with their challenges).
Yes, the game is inevitably intended to be equally challenging to 1st and 20th level characters, but it should be challenging in a different enough way that the 20th characters actually feel more powerful, rather than less.
I totally agree with the OP.
About "undercasting" Treat Wounds, it's an option that would seem quite obvious to have, but the critical success effect gets in the way: it may be statistically convenient to undercast it at a particular level because you have a greater chance for triple healing. That's ugly.
Good point. Simply choosing a lower level to heal at won't work then. Still some sort of better balance could be made to let the legendary healer easily heal minor wounds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...it would make sense to have an ability to "under-cast" treat wounds.
I think it's better to fix the DC problem than add another mechanic. I'd probably do something like base the on the target's level + wounded.
Easy DC for target's level at unwounded.
Med DC for target's level at wounded 1.
Hard DC for target's level at wounded 2.
Etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how it is better. Why should a high level character be harder to heal, to encourage, etc? Is it because they have more organs (this is why they have more HP I guess)?
Well... The ideal option would be to base it on the extent of the injury but that starts to get complicated. All this talk is starting to make me want to return to the healing ritual proposal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good point. Simply choosing a lower level to heal at won't work then. Still some sort of better balance could be made to let the legendary healer easily heal minor wounds.I totally agree with the OP.
About "undercasting" Treat Wounds, it's an option that would seem quite obvious to have, but the critical success effect gets in the way: it may be statistically convenient to undercast it at a particular level because you have a greater chance for triple healing. That's ugly.
That's simple to fix - 'if you undercast this ability you can't critically succeed'.
I mean - you undercast to remove the threat of fumbling - it's a decent trade off IMO.
For Treat Wounds, just roll a medicine check and compare the result to the corresponding result on the 10-2 table to figure out how good it is. 1 is always a crit fail (no crit success).
That way it just gets better with time. Easy fix.
If that's too good, limit it somehow (like, you may always remove wounds with it but only gain HP once every hour or whatever).
Dialing in the DCs of challenges is pretty easy stuff to do and will be done through playtesting. I think that the bonuses for items should be scaled way back to +1 or +2 and then all DCs should assume no item bonus. The only place this gets tricky is with weapons and armor because of the long tradition of +5 being the high end of combat accessories and PF2 is pretty militant about trying to keep things like bonus numbers unified across combat and non-combat mechanics. But there is no skill that gets used as often as a weapon or armor so expected item bonuses really get messy, when every character will have the bonus to saves, AC and attack, but having the right skill item becomes a roulette wheel, especially with resonance limiting what your characters want to bring into the dungeon in the first place.
Personally I would much rather get rid of the +x item bonus across the board because I find it forcing characters down a road of equipment specialization that tends to punish creativity with equipment. But that is getting a little off topic.
PCs are not fighting Level equivalent enemies most of the time in PF2, so they get to look pretty awesome more than 50% of the time. There are some wonky edge cases that still need to be dialed in on a more major level than just adjusting DCs (treat wounds), but a lot of the skill stuff is going to work much better than PF1 once the numbers get settled.
To the OP, every narrative game is a treadmill that spins around the protagonists. It is why these games are so much fun. Your characters are the center of the universe. Sometimes the seams show, and the best way to fix them is to point it out quietly to the developers and then keep playing until it happens again. What is happening on the boards is people are exaggerating the seams as much as possible or getting caught up in the reality that the seams show a lot heavier in a play test, often by design. They don't mean that the whole house is crashing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I twitch a little every time I hear the phrase "treadmill" use to deride PF2e. Pathfinder has always, always been designed as a treadmill. EVERY game system that uses levels is by definition a treadmill. A level-appropriate challenge will always be roughly as hard regardless of your level; that's why it's level-appropriate.
In fact, many games are designed as a sloped treadmill: They get harder the farther into the game you get, to challenge your increasing system mastery more and more. Effectively, you get worse against level-appropriate challenges in order to force you to rely more on system mastery and less on numerical bonuses.
WoW is a treadmill. Skyrim is a treadmill. Diablo III is a treadmill. EVERY edition of D&D is certainly a treadmill. Pathfinder is a treadmill.
The problem with PF1e is that the treadmill was poorly designed and broke around level 12, resulting in high level gameplay where it was impossible to challenge any reasonably well built PC with anything that didn't threaten a TPK.
The solid mathematical foundation of PF2e is just making explicit what was implied before, but doing it in a way that makes the math actually work at all levels. Mostly. Not perfect yet. Some tweaking still needed, for sure.
The very fact that PF2e makes explicit what was implied is why your seeing complaints about the treadmill effect. It's the same reason 4e got the same complaint. The treadmill effect is too obvious (what I call the math being too exposed). Obfuscating the treadmill a bit does wonders for people's enjoyment for the game.
Based on past experience the only way you get people to stop making this complaint is to drive them away from the game. This is a serious issue for these people and it has a substantial impact on their enjoyment of the game.
Good luck in your endeavors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes the seams show, and the best way to fix them is to point it out quietly to the developers and then keep playing until it happens again. What is happening on the boards is people are exaggerating the seams as much as possible or getting caught up in the reality that the seams show a lot heavier in a play test, often by design. They don't mean that the whole house is crashing.
Counterpoint, this is the Playtest. "Fun" is, if anything, a secondary consideration right now. Pointing the biggest spotlight we have at the places where the seams are bulging and making it abundantly clear that these are places it's most likely to give over the next 10 years is literally what we're here for right now. Do some people still over-exaggerate things? Yes. Do people disagree on what's a loose seam vs what's just some fanciful lace (fabric metaphors are not my strong suit ^.^; so work with me on this)? Definitely. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be as blatant as we can be about issues, because that's what a playtest is for.
I mean, functionally the entire game is a treadmill and always has been- you fight monsters and overcome obstacles in order get loot and level up to get more powerful so you an fight more powerful monsters and overcome more difficult obstacles.
It was always possible to just "fight CR1 enemies" for one's entire career, but the reason we move on is because that eventually gets dull.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor nitpick: I would hardly call skyrim a treadmill. Not everything in skyrim scales to your level, some things do, but most don't. Oblivion would be the only elder scrolls game I would describe as a treadmill.
Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe more in skyrim scales than I thought. Maybe skyrim is just a treadmill that doesn't feel like one, and the problem with oblivion was that it felt like one. If so then pf2 can be a treadmill, but should avoid actually feeling like one. The fact that people are complaining about it suggests that it feels like one to them, and pf1 didn't.
In Oblivion everything in the world scaled with you, that's a pretty unsatisfying way to do it and that's a major worry about in terms of Pathfinder if you only ever fight level appropriate enemies your chances of success always stay the same since that is what defines the enemies s level appropriate. It's pretty circular.
The other extreme is zones like in WoW you just move on to the next region when you become too powerful for the one you are in. As long as you are in a level appropriate reigon things say about constant difficulty but if you go to a lower level region you dominate and if you go to a high level region you get dominated.
Skyrim did a mix of both. A lot of things in the world leveled only up to a certain point. Dungeons had level ranges that were set when you entered them so for example the lvl 1-10 Starter dungeons leveled with you but only to about lvl 10 so it didn't matter what order you did them in in the early levels each one would be a challenge but if you come back to one you missed at lvl 20 it will be a cake walk. They did a much better job of hiding the treadmill in skyrim than they did in oblivion since they had a mix of static challenges (giants & mammoths) and scaling challenges (dragons). Skyrim is considered a damn good game so I think it makes sense to learn from how the scaling worked in that game when GMing.
Basically the main quest-line is usually level appropriate but the side-quests can be easier or harder. Seeing the same types of enemies as a static reference points go from impossible threats to minor inconveniences helps as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should a lower-level healer have a higher chance of critical success?
Treat wounds:
Con mod : 3
Healer - Level 3 = (con x level) 15 - Crit = (con x (level x 3)) 27
Healer - level 15 = 45 - Crit = 135
Healer - level 15 (undercasts to level 11 to ensure no fail) = 33 no chance of crit.
Seems fine to me - you give up a chance to crit for always fine healing - the lower level healer has more of a chance to crit - represents them doing everything they know how to do (and inventing things on the fly) to heal - and they can fail. You do what you were trained to do (higher level) with no chance of failure - but you aren't taking risks either - no chance of crit.
I mean - the more wounded someone is - the more likely that the healer is going to want to pull out all the stops (and have a chance to crit). I'm not sure why this is a bad thing - you risk it all you can fail - you don't risk it all you get a steady return - that's how most things work in the real world also.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D 5e is not a treadmill. Yes you get stronger and can therefore take on to tougher creatures but the challenges around you remain static. A treat wounds DC is the same at 1st and 20th level. A DC for climbing a steep cliff is the same at 1st and 20th level.
Pretty much every iteration of D&D worked like this. We started seeing the treadmill thought of scaling skill DCs in Star Wars saga edition where characters got half their level added to everything with trained skills getting a +5 bump... and that received a lot of flak just like the treadmill in pf2e.
The problem is in previous editions inflated numbers put pressure on DMs to inflate DCs. 5e solves this by lowering the inflation. PF2e is even worse in this regard because your high numbers mean absolutely nothing cause the mechanics are rigged.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything in the PF2 rulebook that suggests the DC to climb the same slope will ever change, in fact I believe it says the opposite.
Skill DCs mostly scale because the challenges heroes face scale in order to be befitting of someone of their stature. For treating wounds, the DC scaling is mostly just assuming "higher level people will get wounded by more terrible things, hence their wounds are more grievous and thus harder to treat" but is a bit odd.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treadmill isn't just things "scaling", it's that you fall behind unless do everything in your power to max things. When one gets magic items, you expect them to be helpful, but sometimes they only let you have the same odds as a few levels ago. Characters in PF2 start out well-rounded and then get progressively worse except at like 2 skills if they'r elucky with items.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything in the PF2 rulebook that suggests the DC to climb the same slope will ever change, in fact I believe it says the opposite.
And yet you can bet the house on the fact GMs will continue to misinterpret the DC table for the entirety of PF2e without substantial changes. Happened with D&D 4e and there is no material difference in Paizo's implementation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anything in the PF2 rulebook that suggests the DC to climb the same slope will ever change, in fact I believe it says the opposite.And yet you can bet the house on the fact GMs will continue to misinterpret the DC table for the entirety of PF2e without substantial changes. Happened with D&D 4e and there is no material difference in Paizo's implementation.
I mean, "reading comprehension" is not a strong point of modern society as a whole, but I'm not sure you can do anything about it as a roleplaying game company.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "reading comprehension" is not a strong point of modern society as a whole, but I'm not sure you can do anything about it as a roleplaying game company.I don't see anything in the PF2 rulebook that suggests the DC to climb the same slope will ever change, in fact I believe it says the opposite.And yet you can bet the house on the fact GMs will continue to misinterpret the DC table for the entirety of PF2e without substantial changes. Happened with D&D 4e and there is no material difference in Paizo's implementation.
That seems like a really odd statement considering every study/census I've ever seen seems to say that literacy and reading comprehension skills have literally never been higher in human history. In fact, in some regions those numbers have drastically increased in the last 10-20 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I mean PF1 was a game where a reasonably optimized party will just roll over most CR appropriate foes at high levels too, and this becomes more and more apparent the higher level you got. Like how many people's Wrath of the Righteous games actually had the two Demon Lords you fight in that AP put up much of a fight?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, "reading comprehension" is not a strong point of modern society as a whole, but I'm not sure you can do anything about it as a roleplaying game company.I don't see anything in the PF2 rulebook that suggests the DC to climb the same slope will ever change, in fact I believe it says the opposite.And yet you can bet the house on the fact GMs will continue to misinterpret the DC table for the entirety of PF2e without substantial changes. Happened with D&D 4e and there is no material difference in Paizo's implementation.
Its demonstrated that how theyhavecommunicated this mechanic causes MANY people to misunderstand it. They could have presented the same information differently to get the desired result.
The onus is on the communicator to ensure the message they communicate is accurately received. Given the fact PF2 has 4e developers they should have learned this lesson the first time. I even gave them a strategy very early in the playtest previews which they disregarded (despite replying saying they had receieved it. Perhaps that failing was on me).
Blaming your customers for not playing the game correctly is rarely a winning strategy.