Giving specialists a bonus - analysis

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Success rate feels too low.

Many have suggested to remove the -10 +10 degrees of success as a solution. But I haven't seen anyone suggesting the other way around: leave degrees of success in place, but also tweak the game to allow for larger numerical differentiation.

Here is how the whole thing would work

if martials (characters specialized at physical combat) had a hit bonus high enough so that they could crit at 15 with their first attack, then I believe this would happen:

-It would make the whole attack routine more worth it (second attack would still be very good, third attack would be decent)
I believe this would make the game feel more satisfactory because players are complaining that success rate doesn't feel high enough for specialist characters, both for narrative and gameplay reasons

-DPR would skyrocket
This is bad with current math

How to fix this problem?

-First, give monsters some more HP
-Second, change how magic weapons work so that crits don't deal as much damage
-Third, make sure that only true specialists can reach this level of success rate

Pros:
-Specialists feel like true specialists
-Character building phase could allow for some numerical tweaking, allowing optimizers to feel rewarded without breaking the game

Cons:
-None that I can think of, if you implement the required changes correctly

This could even be applied to skills

Problem:
Most skills don't require multiple attempts and don't have Multiple Attack Penalty math associated

Possible solutions:

A-Make most skills require either 1 crit success or 3 normal success to succeed. You can try 3 times in a turn, but you get multiple attempt penalty

Pros (All of the above goes without saying, but also):
-the whole game would follow a single basic rule, making gameplay more coherent allaround
Cons:
-requires more rolls

B-Give skills "success pools" similar to HP pools that get "damaged" when a success is achieved, and let crit success deal double success points of "damage" to the task. You can try up to 3 times per turn, but you get MAP.

Pros:
-Allows for more differentiation between long and difficult tasks
For example, building a house might have a very low difficulty, but a very high "task pool" as it takes very long. However if you're good enough to crit often, you can complete the task sooner.
Cons:
-Requires a lot more rolls

C-Redesign crit success and normal success so that crit succ is basically always the same as a normal success, but without the normal resource expenditure (common resource expenditure include time, materials etc)

Pros:
-Elegant and simple, has all the + points of making specialists feel truly superior like they should
Cons:
-less granular than the above solutions, which to me feels like a wasted chance

Let me know what you think. Did I miss any important cons? If so, which ones?
Would you enjoy the game more if similar changes, or different changes with the same purpose, were implemented? If so, why?

Thank you for your opinions.

[HWalsh]

The con is that, if Specialists are gods then everyone needs to be a specialist. That is why the Big Six existed in Pathfinder/3.x. The current system solves the problem that your idea would create.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

As long as the nonspecialist has a reasonable chance at normal success, the issue you are presenting wouldn't really be a problem

[HWalsh]

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

As long as the nonspecialist has a reasonable chance at normal success, the issue you are presenting wouldn't really be a problem

It is a problem that already exists.

PF1 you don't need the "big six" and you don't need to optimize to succeed. People, however, still insist the game expects both - and - that is a prevailing mentality.

IE "You drag the group down if you don't (insert here)."

The best isn't a "thing you can do" for quite a few players, it is the benchmark.

"Don't play X because Y is better." Is a common enough argument.

So we know, from the current game environment, that if specialists are even so much as 20% better than generalists then people will expect everyone to be a specialist.

We can't even penalize specialists in other areas because in a group game someone else will just cover those areas.

[masda_gib]

Another way to give characters an edge in the thing they want to excel could be:

- let every character choose say 3 "things" they want to be good at.
- Things are melee or ranged attacks, AC, a save, a skill, spell DC,...
- they get a +1 bonus to that thing or a +2 bonus if it is a skill (since a skill choice is more specialised)

So regardless of class you can have an edge in a niche. (the numbers are probably not balanced though)

[Vidmaster7]

Well if they every do a mythic or epic book having something for getting +20 over a DC could make sense.

[HWalsh]

This is a post from another thread I'm posting here to illustrate a point about the issue not being a problem if non-specialists could "reasonably succeed" as it were:

Azmodael wrote:

If you go fighter you'll gimp your character if you go with anything other than d12 two-handed weapon, at least damage-wise.

This is the issue we run into with specialists.

If you go with anything less than the absolute best then you gimp yourself.

So - Facts, a typical 1 handed primary weapon does 1d8 damage, avg 4-5.

A typical d12 2 handed weapon does 1d12, avg 6-7

This is a difference of around 2 points.

People consider 2 points of average difference "gimped" which is why specialists can't be a thing.

For math sake:

Assume +4 str at lvl 1, +5 at lvl 10, +6 at lvl 15 (item) and +7 at 20.

This means, using these two weapons and assuming +1 at 5, +2 at 10, +3 at 15, and +4 at 20...

Lvl 01: 8-9 vs 10-11
Lvl 05: 13 vs 17
Lvl 10: 18-19 vs 25-26
Lvl 15: 24 vs 32
Lvl 20: 35-36 vs 39-40

Gimped is defined by a difference of 4 average damage.

Imagine if a specialist could get to a +4 higher than a generalist, only a 20% greater, people would freak out.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

This happens because weapons are not very well balanced.

If this game had a system like Lemmy's weapon creation rules (or was based on a sensible point-buy system for all weapons) nobody would complain because reduced damage would always come with comparable benefits

People say you gimp yourself because, well, if you pick an entirely inferior weapon, then... you ARE gimping yourself.

I'm not proposing that specialists are better at everything. I'm suggesting that specialists are better at one thing, but this must come at some cost so that if a character chooses not to be a specialist, they can contribute better in other areas
(something I very much like to do in PF1, BTW)

The important factor is that you can CHOOSE to either be a specialist or not, and in either case, if the system is well designed, the character will perform well.

[HWalsh]

D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:

This happens because weapons are not very well balanced.

If this game had a system like Lemmy's weapon creation rules (or was based on a sensible point-buy system for all weapons) nobody would complain because reduced damage would always come with comparable benefits

People say you gimp yourself because, well, if you pick an entirely inferior weapon, then... you ARE gimping yourself.

I'm not proposing that specialists are better at everything. I'm suggesting that specialists are better at one thing, but this must come at some cost so that if a character chooses not to be a specialist, they can contribute better in other areas
(something I very much like to do in PF1, BTW)

The important factor is that you can CHOOSE to either be a specialist or not, and in either case, if the system is well designed, the character will perform well.

But what you're not acknowledging is that this is, at the most, a 10% difference.

That is *not* gimped.

It is not the best, but it's not gimped.

The same thing would happen with skills:

"Oh you're level 5 but only have a +10? Gimped! You should have a +14!"

Note that a +10 at level 5 *is* a Specialist. They have the highest stat possible for the level *and* expert proficiency.

Compare to a less specialized 14 stat character who is only trained. They have a +7 - The specialist is nearly 50% better.

Compare to a baseline 10 stat with trained, a +5, the specialist is twice as good.

Then compare to a 10 stat untrained, they have a +1.

-----

The Specialist *is* better.

So I guess, my question is, how much better do you want to be at level 5 (for example)? In PF1 characters can easily get to +17 while an untrained person with the same stat (up to a +7 with buff spells) will have a +7.

Or is this a case of: "I want to succeed on a natural 2 vs a difficult challenge."

-----

I realize the above can sound a bit flippant, which isn't my intention, I'm trying to find out where you're coming from is all.