| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the automatic scaling to a degree. I might be happiest with half level to everything as opposed to full level due to the critical system. I liked the scaling of PF1 which was on order of level to everthing but in PF2 with each +1 being 5% hit and 5% critical +lvl to everything feels more dramatic and maybe too much.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the answer to "the Paladin can do everything the rogue can do, just with a lower number" is *not* dropping level to everything, but the application of more aggressive proficiency gating.
So your level 10 Paladin with 14 dex and splint mail having a +5 to stealth just means "they will not auto-fail routine stealth checks". If some bit of sneaking is legitimately tricky, demand expert or higher proficiency to roll.
I'm vastly happier with level to everything, with more checks gated by proficiency than any other suggestion I have heard.
Except... that paladin will be making +5 stealth checks against perception totals around +20. While that technically isn't auto-fail, it's pretty close.
Proficiency gating (expert or otherwise), doesn't have any real impact. The rolls either fluke out (pally rolls 18+ when the monster rolls 1-3) or you fail.
It's the usual problem: after enough failed attempts, the party throws out stealth as an option.
---
The change to treat wounds will have similar problems. Even a specialist will find they are magically worse at treating the same person as the characters level (healed you yesterday, today we dinged, so it's 5-10% harder), and non-specialists (and NPCs) will quickly fall off any possibility of healing PCs.
It should really be an open roll (higher result = more HP healed) not a falling progression that gets worse as the characters get better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.
I mean the bigger issue is that "promising something then taking it away" is more irksome than never offering it in the first place. "Broadly competent heroes" was one of the things that sold me on PF2 in the first place since the sorts of people we tell stories about in this kind of game are not the sorts of people who should be in danger of drowning in a still pond if they fall out of the boat, no matter how heavy their armor or how little swimming practice they have had- everybody should be able to climb a rope.
So the "you never get better at stuff you don't invest in" model for skills in these games always annoyed me. Particularly since the 12th rank in Skill A and the 1st rank in Skill B were exactly the same price (systems which have higher costs for the bigger numbers encourage people to spread out their choices, IMO.)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is why level to everything is good...
I am not disputing your taste.
Are you disputing mine?I, personally, find your defense to be the very essence of what is wrong with the system.
To me RPGs are about “being” a character in a scenario and going through it. Resolving it as best that character could.
If a character is unable to resolve a specific situation a specific way, then they find another way. Or, they simply accept that and deal with the consequences. I mean, seriously, you example flat out describes that your characters CAN’T do something. Now the characters have not changed at all and yet by purely mechanical fiat you get a different result. That is not “fixing” a “problem”. It is getting the characters wrong and then pumping your fist in victory.
Someone just said that this is more simple. Well. Just saying, when you try to interact with NPCs outside of combat you have a 75% chance of success, unless you character should have a better chance. That is way more simple. It is no less true to the narrative merit of the characters. And it achieves the same result.
Truly, I loathe this. It is a slap in the face to the kind of character first storytelling that I have loved about RPGs for decades.
Now, my loathing doesn’t mean I’m taking back my complete acceptance of your taste.
I’d wager there are more people playing pickup games of basketball today than there are playing TTRPGs. There is probably individual computer games with more players at any given time. You and I are in a pretty small niche when all is said and done. So getting in a snit over your taste vs. my taste is a failure of self awareness. But recognizing the differences in taste is still important to a conversation such as this.
If I imagine a gruff, jerk, full plate dwarf fighter, then I want the mechanics to faithfully adhere to that above all other matters. He should never ever (lacking magic) be able to diplomacy his way past anyone, regardless of his level or theirs. And he should never ever (lacking magic) be able to sneak his full plate clanking self past anyone. We he needs to, he fails. And we at the table celebrate the fun of seeing how that character deals with this situation. This is the kind of thing that gets talked about over the table ten years later.
Do you see where I’m coming from? Does it seem reasonable that I would have this taste and preference?
If you want characters to do things just because not being able to sucks and isn’t fun to you, then cool. You are still much closer to me than somebody playing basketball. But what you want and what I want are very far apart within our little teacup.
1E has run its course. It is getting crushed in the market. It lived a very long heroic life by RPG standards. And it appealed to a lot of people over that time (know issues not withstanding).
Should 2E turn its back on a whole approach to gaming?
I hear what you are saying. I respect that you want it that way. Do you want a game that can deliver that to you to simply fail because it ran existing players off? 2E has a much harder hill to climb than 4E ever had. You need fans.
Do you have a solution for both of us?
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.I mean the bigger issue is that "promising something then taking it away" is more irksome than never offering it in the first place. "Broadly competent heroes" was one of the things that sold me on PF2 in the first place since the sorts of people we tell stories about in this kind of game are not the sorts of people who should be in danger of drowning in a still pond if they fall out of the boat, no matter how heavy their armor or how little swimming practice they have had- everybody should be able to climb a rope.
So the "you never get better at stuff you don't invest in" model for skills in these games always annoyed me. Particularly since the 12th rank in Skill A and the 1st rank in Skill B were exactly the same price (systems which have higher costs for the bigger numbers encourage people to spread out their choices, IMO.)
What game would you play?
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.There are tons of RPGs out there.
From PF1, to all iterations of D&D, to Palladium, V:TM, W:TA, M:TA, C:TD, V:TDA, Aberrant, GURPs, Exalted, Ars Magicka, MERP, Everquest RPG, Forged, Blue Rose, M&M, C&C, Rolemaster, GoT, CoC, DR, SF:RPG, Starfinder, Rifts, HU, Nephilum, Pendragon, Fate, SW, Star Wars (WEG, WotC, Revised, Saga, Freedom Flight)... I mean I can go on all day.
Yeah, and 2E needs to beat ALL of them.
But listing games misses the point of my question in context.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bryon, I get what you're saying. I really do. It's one thing I like about PF1. Not every character is going to be great at everything and it adds a lot of story element to playing a character. And I do see where level to everything takes that away. It doesn't automatically make every character great at everything and totally unstoppable though. You're sitting here making a tirade that level to everything is going to completely kill the genre, when I'm honestly starting to think that you're not getting a full picture here. You've got a group or two that focuses on story first. That's cool. But I have been all over the country and have tried to run countless groups and there's one thing I can tell you. When it comes to the 3.x/PF mechanics, story goes south real fast. It's rare that I see anyone have more than one or two ranks in Sense Motive. It's rare that I see anyone have any points into Diplomacy, several different Knowledge skills, Perform or Profession skills, hell, even Linguistics. It's always Stealth, Perception, Climb, Use Magic Device. The skills meant for story use are hardly ever used, and when they are, they're rarely a clutch game saving moment, it's a "Well crap, I got nothing for this, anyone have any other idea?"
I get that you don't like level to everything, and I'm not going to fault or blame you on that. But the thing is that there are more people who play this and get very discouraged and very frustrated and feel there is no longer a point in playing because everyone said that such and such skill is worthless and that they were stupid for wanting to invest in such a stupid skill, and then when the time comes for said stupid skill, it stops the entire party. You can still have level to everything be a challenge as long as the GM knows how to make them appropriate. But if a GM doesn't properly know how to do so, that doesn't mean the system is automatically broken and stuck on easy mode. It just means the GM is either lacking experience or hasn't figured out how to properly adjust encounters.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a thought re: level to everything. I wonder if the part of its merit is that, without it, character's options for level appropriate situations goes down with level.
Take a "level 1" fortress invasion. There's a little moat that you could swim through, or you could try to sneak (or bribe) your way past the door guard. Or climb up the small cliff on the back. All sound reasonable? At level 1, the difference between any player on any of these challenges is going to be something like 5 points, because that's how attributes work.
Now, take a "level 10" fortress invasion. This is a well defended camp. A moat with magically enchanted tumultous waters filled with aggressive creatures. A well paid (or well controlled) door guard with scouts on the front walls. A massive cliff, in places trapped, on the back. Using pf1 as an example system, the difference in ability for a party member to tackle any given challenge is going to be something like 20 points. So, you write off the moat, because no one took swim because why would you? If the wizard doesn't have fly, you write off the back wall because only the rogue took climb. The rogue is also the only one with stealth, so no one else is sneaking past the guard. So you're left with "get the diplomancer to diplomance his way in."
With level to everything, all of those options are available, with varying chances of success. The party can actually decide what route they want to take in, instead of having more and more doors close for any given challenge as they level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rare I see Diplomacy. I'll see maybe, and I mean MAYBE one person have diplomacy, and that's only if they have a good Charisma score. And then when the chance for diplomacy comes up, it's often ignored. They rely on Diplomacy only to get more gold, not to avoid fighting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What RPG would you play then? I'm seriously curious.I mean the bigger issue is that "promising something then taking it away" is more irksome than never offering it in the first place. "Broadly competent heroes" was one of the things that sold me on PF2 in the first place since the sorts of people we tell stories about in this kind of game are not the sorts of people who should be in danger of drowning in a still pond if they fall out of the boat, no matter how heavy their armor or how little swimming practice they have had- everybody should be able to climb a rope.
So the "you never get better at stuff you don't invest in" model for skills in these games always annoyed me. Particularly since the 12th rank in Skill A and the 1st rank in Skill B were exactly the same price (systems which have higher costs for the bigger numbers encourage people to spread out their choices, IMO.)
The problem I have is that the cost of not being trash at things you didn’t invest in is you’re not that great at the things you optimised for, people can say
“Well it’s because it’s boring if the rogue is never caught or fails a deception check’I honestly could care less when I decide to optimise towards something I want to be very good at it, but as I’ve said countless times though monsters have better skills anyway to the point that I focus on skills even less in the playtest than in 1E, with the experience I’ve had with the playtest if it doesn’t make killing the target easier or buff the party then it was a sub par choice, you may not like 1E skills but at least when you invested in them you were getting something out of them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If PF2 makes choices that are too far removed from my preferences and I find it isn't for me I have my own options in place.
I'm a game designer with a soon to be released fantasy novel series, you may not be aware of that, I have plenty of options.
Of course.
But the question was in response to a complaint that removal of +level would be a dealbreaker.I'm totally ok with dealbreakers. But if something is a dealbreaker then you need an alternative that provides that something, or you just play nothing.
Or you are just saying "I don't care about anyone else, I'll pout and go home if you don't cater to me."
+level is a dealbreaker for me. But, for starters, I can readily point to other games which resolve that dealbreaker. So it makes sense for me to prefer those games. Further, I've said many times that I want 2E to be successful. 5E is good. I like it a lot. So it isn't a great example here. But I like PF more. Changing 5E to better cater to my taste would be a stupid move on WotC's part. Changing 2E to cater to my taste would be a stupid move on Paizo's part, unless that change was something that increased overall appeal.
I have not demanded any one addition. But I am saying that it is more than reasonable to expect narrative first. And it is possible to have a flexible game that many differing tastes can fine tune to their own preference. Unfortunately, it is also very easy to just shove a group out. And, as history has shown, that can be a bad idea for everyone.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing is that there are more people who play this and get very discouraged and very frustrated and feel there is no longer a point in playing...
I hear you.
I don't believe there is any precedent to show that more people leave a game because it tells less story over people who leave a game because it is easier to "win".
We had this debate around 4E. And, I've pointed out elsewhere, it is quite interesting to me that Mearls and team came off of the huge success of 3X and designed 4E with the complaints about 3X ringing in the ears.
And here we are with Paizo hearing the exact same complaints and doing a nearly identical thing. It is striking.
And yet WotC learned the hard way that "the math works" lost a lot of people right out of the gate and then steadily lost more as time went by. More and more people who liked it as first found it didn't "feel" right as the math being the same over and over became obvious. So they turned around and hit another homerun by rejecting that approach and making a game that the small group of 4E devotees decry as way too much of a 3E reversion.
And, you know, even with that I've slipped into too much of an X vs. Y. I don't think there are any great number of people paying super close attention to 2E who hated 1E. (I'm sure I'll get the "I've seen a purple elephant" folks in response to that. But overall I think it remains true). I am certain that there are people who have burned out on 1E and would like to see something else.
But the bottom line remains, there are a ton of people who love the ideas in 2E who played a whole lot of 1E. Obviously at some level, with some degree of table rules and whatever constraints, they enjoyed that game and played it over all the other options.
1E threw a wide net and people adapted. Why is ti unfair to hope for 2E to also throw a wide net?
It doesn't need to be X vs. Y.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a thought re: level to everything.
Can you follow that with an explanation of how this retains that being true to character is key? Respectfully, you have just restated the prior statement.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything isnt really bad.Dropping "level to everything" would be a dealbreaker for me. It's one of the best things about the system I feel. Some of the math needs work but I don't want great heroes to ever feel incompetent.
I think this is exactly the reason I dislike the current level to everything: to keep things in the +/- 10 crit range, you just can't be very competent OR incompetent. It all seems to be slightly different versions of a coin flip with the amount of specialization only shifting the chances ever so slightly one way or the other with your very best chances maybe hitting 2/3rds... It doesn't feel very satisfying when any roll you make, a character that's put much less resources into a roll has a decent chance to beat you and it's worse to compete with overtuned monster numbers that seemingly need NO investment in anything to be much better than you.
So for me, this is a system that makes characters never seem competent: legendary characters can still fail at the simplest checks [you know the ones that the game suggests are so easy, there isn't reason to ask for them most times] 5% of the time and to me that really isn't pathfinder levels of competence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't understand. I already play games other than PF. A dealbreaker just means I stop playing *this* game.
I play half a dozen games. Again I'll be launching *my own game* also if I find things change to a manner that I can't support.
So I've got PLENTY of options. I run like two groups who will play whatever I choose to run. I have no other way to explain it. If I choose to play something else it's no big deal.
Hang on a second
I responded to PossibleCabbage. He said "Dropping "level to everything" would be a dealbreaker for me." He said that with ZERO consideration of how it would be replaced. They might come up with the most insanely awesome game that was ever know to the species. He doesn't care, he is out.Me being out for a specific defensible reason for an existing know issue is quite different than someone else saying they will quit all possible alternatives out of spite. And, until this post, you had not suggested "me too". i had assumed you were just speaking up for him.
But the point remains. you *SHOULD* play the best game for you. DUH!!!!
But, if not having +level is specifically a deal breaker, it is reasonable to conclude that a game that specifically replicates that mechanic is available as an alternative.
I'd like to know what that game is. As I said, "I'm seriously curious".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to know what that game is. As I said, "I'm seriously curious".
I mean, the other D20 game I run and play is 13th Age, which does add level to everything. I honestly considered this a strength of that game and was glad to see it come over to Pathfinder.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's rare I see Diplomacy. I'll see maybe, and I mean MAYBE one person have diplomacy, and that's only if they have a good Charisma score. And then when the chance for diplomacy comes up, it's often ignored. They rely on Diplomacy only to get more gold, not to avoid fighting.
This is entirely dependent on who you play with and will vary wildly. My groups use Diplomacy to avoid encounters all the time. We offer surrender terms. We spare enemies to talk to them then let them go. We use it all the time.
I know of other groups local to me that never use it, to the point that one person in that group will literally start a combat if you try to use it. I actually refuse to play in that group because of that; although I acknowledge it's a legitimate play style and they have fun with it, I can't stand being shut down from the talking avenue so completely.
Those two groups would give you totally divergent feedback. The game should ideally enable both of them to have fun.
I'd like to know what that game is. As I said, "I'm seriously curious".I mean, the other D20 game I run and play is 13th Age, which does add level to everything. I honestly considered this a strength of that game and was glad to see it come over to Pathfinder.
Thank you
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, a level 5 challenge should be trivial at level 15.
On the other, why would climbing a wall as a 5th level challenge be trivial 10 levels later if I have not improved Climb and/or Str?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, a level 5 challenge should be trivial at level 15.
In the broadest sense, this is a reasonable default. But, if you put "being the character" first, it is absolutely not true in all cases. The gruff jerk full plate fighter at level 15 is still the same gruff jerk he was a level 1.
Level 5 combat encounters are trivial. "Level 5" diplomacy events are just as hard as ever.
IRL I'm an engineer with 30 years experience. I've yet to get any better at watercolor painting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
level to skills you never intended to invest in.And this right here is the part where I abandonded all hope for the playtest. Expecting your character to be good at everything, not having any weaknesses is just not a gaming style I feel comfortable with and would definately hate to see at my table. It's this entitlement that the Paladin shouldn't suck at sneaking in relation to the Rogue that leads to a mindset that gives us Lvl to ALL skills, even to those that make no sense to have in the first place.
1.2 broadened the field a little bit, opened the gap, but 1.2 just wasn't enough to make the difference big enough, since it kept the horrible level to skills in the system
I'm sure glad mythological heroes weren't cripplingly bad at the vast majority of things they'd encounter, otherwise we wouldn't have myths.
Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.
But look at it from the other side: we now have a situation where we STILL can't have myths because "mythological hero" level power equals a 50% to 70% chance of success. So those mythical heroes STILL drown in a level appropriate pond or a level appropriate pit [or 5% of the time, a pond/pit 19 levels lower than appropriate...].
So I'm not seeing the current way a big 'win' for representing mythical heroes. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.But look at it from the other side: we now have a situation where we STILL can't have myths because "mythological hero" level power equals a 50% to 70% chance of success. So those mythical heroes STILL drown in a level appropriate pond or a level appropriate pit [or 5% of the time, a pond/pit 19 levels lower than appropriate...].
So I'm not seeing the current way a big 'win' for representing mythical heroes. :P
Well, aside from the "don't bother rolling this once they hit a certain level" section for low-level things, I'd assume a level appropriate pit would be significantly more impressive than a 10 ft gap. If they're tossed into a whirlpool from Charybdis, it makes sense that they have a chance to fail, for example.
I'm optimistic on the direction where treat wounds is heading with that change.
The death save dc on a monster block would be pretty helpful, but did they mention if the death save is a 50/50 chance (basically a 10 or higher to pass)?
Blasting buffs are good, and I agree that it's a good place to start in terms of magic, as damage is way easier balance around compared to crowd control/disables. Plus I was always more partial to blaster sorcerers than the battlefield control/toolbox wizards. I never really liked being the one who solves everything for the party, or carrying fights by instantly disabling half the baddies in one turn (it usually feels cheep to me).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything wasn't the one and only reason 4e failed to take off with table top players. So trying to link that PF2 will fail solely because of just one bad element from a system that failed it's execution on so many other levels is a complete stretch. It's like trying to say the next Avengers film is going to fail because it has actors in it that were in other movies that weren't successful.
And in regards to the skills that I'm talking about. I'm not trying to say that no one period uses these skills. I've been lucky to have played in groups that considered skills to useful all over, and I've been lucky to have ran groups that made their own choices that some skills should be taken. So I know there are groups out there that I know will see value in skills like Craft, Sense Motive, Profession... But when it comes to mass groups where you have no cohesion and people just want to throw dice and say screw the plot, kill everything that moves, these are skills that get thrown away. And then when I see the new players who hardly know what they're doing try to ask questions, the people who don't care about story tell them to not worry about certain things because they'll never be used. If you get a new player who's only been told to power build a character for mechanics get into a game that's focused on story, how're they going to have fun when their character can't do anything that isn't related to a power build because everyone else they've ever met told them the wrong things?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if he WANTS to be a jerk and not use diplomacy, no one is forcing him to.
I want to underline this. Previously if you wanted your character to be bad or hapless at something, you just "chose not to invest skill ranks in it" (else you chose "bad at x" as a character trait as a post hoc justification for spending resources elsewhere) but it is still a choice. Now you can just replace that choice with "I choose not to roll, since there's no reason my character who spent their entire life up until now in the desert would know about sailing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few good threads with a solid math analysis of why the system doesn't really work with out. (And, really, if it was that easy, I'm sure they would be looking for a compromise rather than steadfastly not acknowledging it)
The playtest has a math problem. Jason talked about it on yesterday's stream. I'm not going to fix that with a houserule - someone else might but not me - but if Paizo does fix it I'm optimistic that omitting +lvl will as simple as Mark described. If Paizo doesn't fix the math problem...well, frankly, I don't think the game will succeed.
I could retool cool ideas into 1E and have a much better game than trying to prop up current-iteration 2E with +level stripped out.
Ten years ago, when I had more time and energy for things like this, I did my own series of fundamental reworks of 3.5. I think it's harder than it seems to retool - if it were that simple Pathfinder First Edition wouldn't need a Second Edition (that's a debatable point, I know).
(Again, this becomes a conversation that happened in the 4E rollout as well)
Comparisons could be made but I don't see how they'd be helpful for discussing this topic.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that any final version of the game doesn't increase damage to damage dealing spells, but instead lowers hp across the board. I get that in a playtest update environment it's a lot easier to increase damage, but there's no reason to have a hp escalation in the game in the first place.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, aside from the "don't bother rolling this once they hit a certain level" section for low-level things, I'd assume a level appropriate pit would be significantly more impressive than a 10 ft gap. If they're tossed into a whirlpool from Charybdis, it makes sense that they have a chance to fail, for example.Not having level to skills makes that happen. It leads to "mythological hero" level power in very few aspects, and the inability to jump over a 10 foot pit, or drown in a pond, in the rest.But look at it from the other side: we now have a situation where we STILL can't have myths because "mythological hero" level power equals a 50% to 70% chance of success. So those mythical heroes STILL drown in a level appropriate pond or a level appropriate pit [or 5% of the time, a pond/pit 19 levels lower than appropriate...].
So I'm not seeing the current way a big 'win' for representing mythical heroes. :P
"don't bother rolling this once they hit a certain level" section: It offers a suggestion and not a rule so... Dm fiat. As such, it's as useful as pointing to rule 0. And if these rills are never used, then what rolls does assurance apply to as trivial is about the only one it'll apply to.
Secondly, that's only part of the issue. No matter what you dress the 'level appropriate pit", there is ALWAYS a good chance the hero WILL fail. That's not mythic hero chances IMO. It's more 'three stooges' chances as a group of 4 heroes are very unlikely to all make any particular roll even if all took EVERY opportunity to improve it..
Now you can just replace that choice with "I choose not to roll, since there's no reason my character who spent their entire life up until now in the desert would know about sailing."
I have to say I don't find the system satisfying if the only way I can get it to work is to ignore how things work and pretend that I don't have abilities I actually have.
And then, how do you work it if your 'desert" PC WANTS to or HAS to try and help, like the ship is undermanned? Do I then pretend my roll is different then what my bonuses tell me? Or what happens if your 'desert' PC that's never swam gets tossed in some water? Am I know expected to not roll? And if I roll, what should I 'pretend' I use for the modifier?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that any final version of the game doesn't increase damage to damage dealing spells, but instead lowers hp across the board. I get that in a playtest update environment it's a lot easier to increase damage, but there's no reason to have a hp escalation in the game in the first place.
Yeah there is a reason. Most combats in 1e ended in 2 rounds or less. That's not satisfying. The HP increase across the board is great.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"don't bother rolling this once they hit a certain level" section: It offers a suggestion and not a rule so... Dm fiat. As such, it's as useful as pointing to rule 0. And if these rills are never used, then what rolls does assurance apply to as trivial is about the only one it'll apply to.
Secondly, that's only part of the issue. No matter what you dress the 'level appropriate pit", there is ALWAYS a good chance the hero WILL fail. That's not mythic hero chances IMO. It's more 'three stooges' chances as a group of 4 heroes are very unlikely to all make any particular roll even if all took EVERY opportunity to improve it..
Yes, Assurance has issues. I don't think that's really ever been in debate. And it's about as much of a rule as the one saying "the GM isn't going to throw a Balor at level 1 characters and expect them to win".
If a person or group is guaranteed to succeed against a "level-appropriate" challenge, then clearly it's not level-appropriate at all. If you're guaranteed to hit someone spending all their effort on defense, then obviously they're no match for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it's about as much of a rule as the one saying "the GM isn't going to throw a Balor at level 1 characters and expect them to win".
I see it much like the non-FAQ for take ten: the devs said that dm's could toss out the rule if it helped 'pacing'. As such, I don't see how this is ANY different: if a DM for some reason thinks you need to take the time to roll, you do and you have a 5% chance to fail no matter your character or skill level no matter how simple the task.
It the same kind of situation [auto success] based 100% on the DM's whim...
If a person or group is guaranteed to succeed against a "level-appropriate" challenge, then clearly it's not level-appropriate at all.
LOL Well I disagree: I see NO reason why a character couldn't get a roll high enough to succeed in a "level-appropriate" challenge. For me, I don't see it 'heroic' to roll multiple times to do a task when it can be done in 1...
Secondly, there is a LOT of room between a 50% failure rate and auto-success. Even if you want to always roll, a truly skilled person feels better if they make rolls more often than a coin flip: always having a coinflip no matter HOW high you level your skill/class makes it feel like you've had NO progress at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything wasn't the one and only reason 4e failed to take off with table top players. So trying to link that PF2 will fail solely because of just one bad element from a system that failed it's execution on so many other levels is a complete stretch. It's like trying to say the next Avengers film is going to fail because it has actors in it that were in other movies that weren't successful.
True.
But in this case it is more like they were in other movies that were not successful and this new movie is getting similar buzz.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest has a math problem. Jason talked about it on yesterday's stream. I'm not going to fix that with a houserule - someone else might but not me - but if Paizo does fix it I'm optimistic that omitting +lvl will as simple as Mark described. If Paizo doesn't fix the math problem...well, frankly, I don't think the game will succeed.
This is two different things. You are absolutely correct that a disconnect in the math working as designed and they are discussing corrections. But that is unrelated to the challenge of decoupling +level.
Ten years ago, when I had more time and energy for things like this, I did my own series of fundamental reworks of 3.5. I think it's harder than it seems to retool - if it were that simple Pathfinder First Edition wouldn't need a Second Edition (that's a debatable point, I know).
I have a lot less time now was well. But, that said, I find this kind of stuff easy. It isn't the time required, it is the end result. 2E "as-is" with +level simply stripped out is still not a good game for my tastes. Or at least, it doesn't stand up to the very stiff competition it faces.
Comparisons could be made but I don't see how they'd be helpful for discussing this topic.
I think refusing to learn lessons from historic precedent is a very bad idea. And, again, +level alone isn't everything. I totally agree that there are a lot of differences. But the buzz and feedback (online and meatspace), the declining trends, the nature of the "debates" are all very much a replay.
And it's about as much of a rule as the one saying "the GM isn't going to throw a Balor at level 1 characters and expect them to win".I see it much like the non-FAQ for take ten: the devs said that dm's could toss out the rule if it helped 'pacing'. As such, I don't see how this is ANY different: if a DM for some reason thinks you need to take the time to roll, you do and you have a 5% chance to fail no matter your character or skill level no matter how simple the task.
It the same kind of situation [auto success] based 100% on the DM's whim...
Yeah, and how many tables removed the ability to take 10?
If a person or group is guaranteed to succeed against a "level-appropriate" challenge, then clearly it's not level-appropriate at all.LOL Well I disagree: I see NO reason why a character couldn't get a roll high enough to succeed in a "level-appropriate" challenge. For me, I don't see it 'heroic' to roll multiple times to do a task when it can be done in 1...
Secondly, there is a LOT of room between a 50% failure rate and auto-success. Even if you want to always roll, a truly skilled person feels better if they make rolls more often than a coin flip: always having a coinflip no matter HOW high you level your skill/class makes it feel like you've had NO progress at all.
You're conflating a level-appropriate challenge with level-equivalent.
So let's ask this question: let's say you have the best possible guard at a particular level (we'll say 5, hypothetically) try to spot the best possible thief of the same level. What should his success rate be?
Level-appropriate challenges don't have to be level-equivalent. They can easily be level-1 or level-2 (and a lot of the ones in Doomsday Dawn are) and still be level-appropriate.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I imagine a gruff, jerk, full plate dwarf fighter, then I want the mechanics to faithfully adhere to that above all other matters. He should never ever (lacking magic) be able to diplomacy his way past anyone, regardless of his level or...
that gruff, jerk, full plate dwarf, at level 10 has listened for 10 levels his party negotiating. He has seen what works and what doesn't. He, in one way or another, has seen diplomacy work and fail countless times.
Now, if he WANTS to be a jerk and not use diplomacy, no one is forcing him to.
That doesn't mean he hasn't picked a phrase or two that work if he ever need to try to.
First, this is not a valid description of +level to everything. It doesn't even match the other pro +level comments.
But, beyond that, my wife is a great artist. My daughter has graduated as an art director and sold work. I'm around artists. I'm not getting any better. And I don't see any precedent for "everyone gets better at everything" in either real life or any of the fiction I wish to emulate.
As I said, I completely respect your personal preference. You do you.
But if you try to present it as a truth on its face that I should accept, then you fall very short of making the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if he WANTS to be a jerk and not use diplomacy, no one is forcing him to.I want to underline this. Previously if you wanted your character to be bad or hapless at something, you just "chose not to invest skill ranks in it" (else you chose "bad at x" as a character trait as a post hoc justification for spending resources elsewhere) but it is still a choice. Now you can just replace that choice with "I choose not to roll, since there's no reason my character who spent their entire life up until now in the desert would know about sailing."
And yet the mechanics say you know quite a bit about it.
As DM would you force the player to not roll? Neither answer is good.
Admitting that the mechanics are wrong is not a good defense of the mechanics.
Why not just design a game where the mechanics are right? It can be done.
Edit: And you sold "previously" short. The limit on resources made choosing what a character had invested in relevant. It was more than simply choosing to forego.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that any final version of the game doesn't increase damage to damage dealing spells, but instead lowers hp across the board. I get that in a playtest update environment it's a lot easier to increase damage, but there's no reason to have a hp escalation in the game in the first place.Yeah there is a reason. Most combats in 1e ended in 2 rounds or less. That's not satisfying. The HP increase across the board is great.
I don't agree. PF2 is set up for 4e style 'endlessly hacking at walls of flesh.' I have no desire to spend a full hour of a ~4 hour game session just ticking hit points off as the combat just muddles on.
And even then, not having hit point bloat doesn't have to mean '2 round combats.' There is a lot of middle ground.
But currently hit point bloat is a designer created problem that is being addressed by more (magic weapon) damage and more spell damage. The vastly simpler solution is to not have the problem, and then not grinding out changes to all the numbers to make it slightly less intolerable.
PF2 is currently set up to throw loads of attacks that mostly miss, for lots of damage that isn't enough. 'Roll even more dice and make it take longer yet' is a puzzling solution to a self-created problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to know what that game is. As I said, "I'm seriously curious".I mean, the other D20 game I run and play is 13th Age, which does add level to everything. I honestly considered this a strength of that game and was glad to see it come over to Pathfinder.
so, not being familiar with this game beyond having heard of it, I decided to go look into it.
It seems to be popularly described as a spiritual successor to 4E. Certainly there are differences, but that theme keeps coming up in the reviews and blurbs. And, with +level, you can see some bit of that.
And, it seems to be invisible on the marketplace in terms of sales or on-going games. Not saying a thing in the world against the massive fun its fans have playing it.
But it doesn't speak to "emulate this for success"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level to everything wasn't the one and only reason 4e failed to take off with table top players. So trying to link that PF2 will fail solely because of just one bad element from a system that failed it's execution on so many other levels is a complete stretch. It's like trying to say the next Avengers film is going to fail because it has actors in it that were in other movies that weren't successful.True.
But in this case it is more like they were in other movies that were not successful and this new movie is getting similar buzz.
The buzz however is only being generated by the same people who refuse and argue every single other possible view point and consistently reuse the same failed logic of a stretched circumstance simply because they don't even want to think it could be good because they don't like it. And since they don't like it, it's automatically the worse product ever that could never hope to have any aspect considered only 99% failure over 100% total failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The buzz however is only being generated by the same people who refuse and argue every single other possible view point and consistently reuse the same failed logic of a stretched circumstance simply because they don't even want to think it could be good because they don't like it. And since they don't like it, it's automatically the worse product ever that could never hope to have any aspect considered only 99% failure over 100% total failure.Level to everything wasn't the one and only reason 4e failed to take off with table top players. So trying to link that PF2 will fail solely because of just one bad element from a system that failed it's execution on so many other levels is a complete stretch. It's like trying to say the next Avengers film is going to fail because it has actors in it that were in other movies that weren't successful.True.
But in this case it is more like they were in other movies that were not successful and this new movie is getting similar buzz.
That is nothing but see-no-evil.
I can't do anything about it.You can go back into this very thread and see an explanation that went unresponded.
But, nope, the growing complaints offline don't count.
The reports of groups dropping left and right don't count.
Nothing counts.
Ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, that's THE most valid interpetation of +level to everything.
Ok, you need to start explaining that to everyone else on your side then.
Secondly, speaking on Art, since it's related to my job as well, I 100% disagree.
So you are saying *I* have gotten better at art? Cuz you would be wrong.
I mean, when i started working where i work now, I was clueless and terrible regarding art. Now, 10 years later, I even make pieces myself.
There are techniques and rules. And believe it or not, especially if you grow around them or if they are always present in your enviroment, they do become second nature to you.
Ok, obviously you have been doing something to make yourself better at it then. (You have put a handful of ranks in). Saying that *you* got better at *something* doesn't make the case at all. Pretty much everyone does get better at something, just not everything.
Are you better at *everything* I could possibly suggest?
Thirdly, and the MAIN thing that you ignore is this:
[b]You don't become "better at everything" with level.
I get that. I was actually holding on to hope before August that this would be the solution. I was disappointed that the gating is so terribly sparse.
Just read up in this thread and you will see fans arguing that everyone should be effective at diplomacy. The always being able to sneak past the guards is a trope of these conversations.
You have a small point here. But you are WAY overplaying it. The system fails to model "being the character" because making the math balance was more important.