| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really get what people mean when they say "it's so easy to remove".
I mean, mathematically it's easy. Just don't give anyone the +1/level (or subtract level from existing stats).But doesn't that essentially change everything?
Mathematically, it only changes the relationship between high-level things and low-level things, by narrowing the gap. It makes no difference whatsoever when dealing with same level challenges.
Though this might lead to oddities. Made-up hypothetical example, no need to quote me the actual rules:
Player: "I climb the wall of ice."
GM: "That's a DC 11 challenge."
Player: "I made it. Now I throw down a rope for my allies to climb up."
GM: "Climbing the rope is a DC 10 challenge."
Player: "Why is the difference so small?"
GM: "Because I subtracted 10 from the DC of the level 10 icy wall to remove the +1/level DC increase. The rope was level 1, so I subtracted 1. This was the result."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?
A lot of the Pathfinder 1st Edition feats are pure numbers. Dodge gives a +1 to AC. Weapon Focus gives a +1 to attack rolls with one kind of weapon. Skill Focus gives a +3 to skill rolls of the selected skill. Power Attack is also a numbers game, but I consider it tactical beyond its numbers, because it balances an attack penalty with a damage increase and the player has to judge the tradeoff.
Moving the better numbers out of the feats and into the proficiency system has the potential to free up players to select new, more interesting feats. However, most new feats in Pathfinder 2nd Edition did not live up to that potential, because +1/level is such a big improvement per level that a strong feat would be overkill. See Matthew Downie's comment #15 yesterday for a more detailed explanation, or see The Mind-Boggling Math of Exponential Leveling for even more explanation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.
This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up.
To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.
If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.
This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable.
Bounded accuracy is not inherently a good thing. How much have you grown if a level 4 enemy is still a threat at level 14?
People already complain about not being able to reliably hit things on the same level as them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.
This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up.
To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.
If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.
This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable.
This is intentional. PF2 is not, by default, aiming to tell the story you told in 5E. 14th level PF2 characters are intended to be narratively more powerful than 14th level 5E characters. To the point many dangers fall off.
Dispite what you say, I think PF1 was the same. Even with a super high level caster giving them +6 AC/to-hit/etc, which is a big buff, level 4 goblin warriors would not have any notable impact against level 14 characters. Hell, against competent character builders, level 13 creatures can fail to impact level 14 characters. Power across levels in both editions of Pathfinder is far more disparate than in 5E.
Personally, I'm glad for PF's style that the folks on first name basis with heralds of the gods and elder dragons, and other such super fantasy things, can destroy basic goblins or bandits with a blink. They should be able to!
The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.
This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up.
To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.
If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.
This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable.
Bounded accuracy is not inherently a good thing. How much have you grown if a level 4 enemy is still a threat at level 14?
People already complain about not being able to reliably hit things on the same level as them.
. A threat to a degree but not nearly as much of one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way system is built currently is that you could be utterly surrounded by low level creatures and not care at all, because their only hope is to roll a nat 20 to hit you and even if they did they would do insignificant damage because damage dice also scale with levels.
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
I don't think it harms my immersion.
A high level demon isn't afraid of a few dozen level 1 town guards, and the PCs who fight high level demons wouldn't be afraid of them either; they're now protected by magical armor / god-like powers.
I think the bigger problem is that the level 1 goblins seem to fall out of existence as soon as they're no longer a challenge to the PCs. 5e Orcs are only a token threat to high level PCs, but they're relevant enough that high level 5e adventures might still include them, so you get to feel your power by shrugging off their attacks or destroying them in a single fireball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?
I'm saying the Caster/Martial Disparity will be much more apparent with it removed. Martials benefit from +1/Level way more than Spellcasters do, since more of their options are reliant on numbers inflation, and this hasn't changed from PF1.
Martial options need to be more cool and powerful to warrant doing and choosing those options over the traditional "I swing until it dies."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?I'm saying the Caster/Martial Disparity will be much more apparent with it removed. Martials benefit from +1/Level way more than Spellcasters do, since more of their options are reliant on numbers inflation, and this hasn't changed from PF1.
Martial options need to be more cool and powerful to warrant doing and choosing those options over the traditional "I swing until it dies."
Plus one per level also applies to spells, spell dcs, et al.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest reason the +1/level system is bad is because it artificially de-powers lower level creatures and empowers higher level creatures.
This forces DMs to either auto-level opponents or be forced to replace them as the party levels up.
To give a comparison - our D&D 5e campaign started as fighting an invasion of orcs & hobgoblins. We were level 4 and the campaign has progressed to level 14 now. The DM has used basically the same monsters as minion fillers for several combats through the campaign, on various PC levels. The only upgrade they got was a minor AC and Hit boost of +1, because during the story they were armed by a dragon overlord. Even at level 14 these minions pose a credible threat and have to be removed quickly via AoE.
If we had to run the same campaign in Pathfinder 2e they would either miss or crit us on a natural 20 due to the 10+ level difference between PCs and NPCs.
This wasn't a problem in PF 1e, because you could use lower level creatures and buff them via spell casting allies to hold up somewhat against higher level PCs. But with PF 2e math being so tight they are utterly unusable.
Bounded accuracy is not inherently a good thing. How much have you grown if a level 4 enemy is still a threat at level 14?
People already complain about not being able to reliably hit things on the same level as them.
The way system is built currently is that you could be utterly surrounded by low level creatures and not care at all, because their only hope is to roll a nat 20 to hit you and even if they did they would do insignificant damage because damage dice also scale with levels.
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
You know, it's a pity that there aren't a ton of mythological examples of that happening, not to mention in other literature.
(There are tons of examples.)
Look, why doesn't it break immersion to have wizards that can make their own planes of reality, but it breaks logic to have warriors that can fight their way through masses of lesser soldiers?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying the Caster/Martial Disparity will be much more apparent with it removed. Martials benefit from +1/Level way more than Spellcasters do, since more of their options are reliant on numbers inflation, and this hasn't changed from PF1.
Martial options need to be more cool and powerful to warrant doing and choosing those options over the traditional "I swing until it dies."
Well, the second point is definetly something I can agree with. Although I think that this is the best version of martial characters that I've seen in D&D/PF when you consider the class feats, it can get even better, and I currently find the Paladin a little lackluster compared to the other martials.
About the spellcaster/martial disparity, I don't really think +1/level has anything to do with that, really. DCs scale with level, and spell rolls scale with level. Now that we have 4 degrees of success, a Wizard that is higher level than a creature has a higher chance of the creature critical failing the save, as much as a fighter in the same situation has a higher chance of critical hitting the attack. Removing that scaling or at least decreasing it's numbers wouldn't benefit one class more than the other, it would just make everyone be less ridiculously powerful compared to lower level foes, and less ridiculously useless compared to higher level foes.
Just one more thing, if you really think that martial's features and class feats are so bad and boring, how does sticking a bunch of numbers make it any better? It's like putting a cherry in the top of a plastic cake and trying to eat the cake.
I think that Perception is another case where I really don't like removing +Level. In PF1, pretty much everybody maxed the skill, so everybody was rolling 3+Level+WisMod for perception checks. As a result a level 6 party was going to be much more perceptive than their level 2 selves, even if nobody increases wisdom (via headband, say) in the interim.
Switching this to just ProfMod+WisMod is going to really make wisdom super important for perception checks, whereas formerly people with lowish wisdom could be quite perceptive if they just put a bunch of ranks in it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(
Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.
For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.
On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.
It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(
Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.
For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.
On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.
It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.
By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
Depends on what immersion you are looking for. I don't consider a game where minor foes remain threats against people who can travel to different planes and challenge ancient dragons to be very immersive. High fantasy, high power heroes are not threatened by minor foes. That's just below their pay grade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(
Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.
For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.
On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.
It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.
Well you really can't tell both in the same system.
In PF1 you absolutely could. I know, because I did.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.Depends on what immersion you are looking for. I don't consider a game where minor foes remain threats against people who can travel to different planes and challenge ancient dragons to be very immersive. High fantasy, high power heroes are not threatened by minor foes. That's just below their pay grade.
Yeah, what kind of stories let the underdogs win? That never happend in fiction or myths
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really doubt that you can tell a PF1 story where the level 14 PCs are genuinely afraid of annoying regular old town guards without an extreme amount of GM strongarming or player cooperation. I mean, the level 14 Wizard can cast Limited Wish now, so why are they afraid of the guards?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By completely eliminating the ability to tell the other type of story.Hm, tried to make a post here and I think the forum ate it. :(
Basic gist of it was, I think people are coming at this wanting two very different styles of story, and I see this as a major difference between Pathfinder (1 and 2) and 5e.
For example, I'm looking at running the Zeitgeist adventure path, and I've made the very conscious decision to run it in 5e, because I think that story benefits from a flatter progression where 14th level PCs still have to worry at least a little about pissing off the town guards.
On the other hand, I wouldn't run Return of the Runelord in 5e, because by the end of that the PCs should be demigods fighting demigods, and regular mortals shouldn't threaten them.
It's the main reason I support PF2e keeping +1/level, because it differentiates the system and the kinds of stories you can tell from 5e.
Well you really can't tell both in the same system.
Not even remotely true.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I most strongly object to in the +1/level system isn't encounter-building as such, it's that it irrevocably dissociates the game from any sense of the game world.
In PF1, when the goblin can't hit the 20th lvl fighter, as a GM I always know exactly why: that fighter was fast or well-armored or decked out in some magic stuff. Also, the goblin's atk bonus reflects how much martial training he's had. I can describe that.
In PF2, the +1/level atk bonus can't reflect martial training because wizards and fighters are identical. The +1/level AC bonus can't reflect dodging, because that's dexterity, and you get the same bonus even if your dexterity is 3. It can't reflect character skill, because it still applies when you're unconscious or unaware. So what the heck is happening?
I can't see it, I can't imagine it, how can I describe it to my players?
It feels like a board game mechanic, not something for a role-playing game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see it, I can't imagine it, how can I describe it to my players?
I've just been going with "It's a preternatural and pre-rational sense for when and where to move to extricate yourself from danger, honed through experience." Separate from dodging since it's about subtle and efficient movements to keep yourself safe.
Applying +Level to a PC who is asleep is no weirder than having PCs make perception checks while asleep as it was in PF1 (there's a big penalty, but you can still listen in on people's conversations.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way system is built currently is that you could be utterly surrounded by low level creatures and not care at all, because their only hope is to roll a nat 20 to hit you and even if they did they would do insignificant damage because damage dice also scale with levels.
I hate that in previous D&D editions. I hate it now with PF2e. It breaks down all immersion.
I haven't been playing PF1 for as long as some people here, but... is PF1 (unmodified!) actually capable of telling the story you guys speak of? Unless you stoped at like, level 4, I don't think so. In a couple levels the ole goblin guys were just irrelevant anyway. I'm not sure what has actually, directly changed that's causing all this outrage. As far as I've played and read, PF1 should already be immersion breaking for you. I mean this in a completely honest way, but I don't get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All the leveled accuracy system says is: well this guy that has 5 levels above you is unbeatable because you do 25% damage to him and he does 175% to you (i pulled the numbers out of my ass but you get the point) and no amount of planning, buffs or preparation can change that.
Well, it can also say, "You have 5 levels on this guy. You are unbeatable and no amount of preparation on his part can change that."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it can also say, "You have 5 levels on this guy. You are unbeatable and no amount of preparation on his part can change that."
I mean, if it is the case that only people above a certain level pose a credible threat to whatever monster is threatening the kingdom, that at least explains why they need the PCs to go solve the problem instead of just sending a thousand soldiers.
PCs feel less special if just rank and file military organizations can do their job just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.
Honestly, I consider "squishies are much less squishy" to be a major advantage PF2 has over its immediate predecessor. Since "having to run away from relatively weak monsters" is one of the reasons people I played with avoided those classes (we rarely had any 1/2 BAB d6 HD classes in any of our games.)
Plus one per level also applies to spells, spell dcs, et al.So you are saying they will have more fun options because ‘bigger numbers’?I'm saying the Caster/Martial Disparity will be much more apparent with it removed. Martials benefit from +1/Level way more than Spellcasters do, since more of their options are reliant on numbers inflation, and this hasn't changed from PF1.
Martial options need to be more cool and powerful to warrant doing and choosing those options over the traditional "I swing until it dies."
Spell DCs, yes. But save/suck effects are bad in this edition more often than not, so I don't see the real benefit here outside of culling mooks, but anyone can do that. Spells in general? No. Maybe ones with attack rolls, but if we want to be realistic here those spells aren't too good either for the same reasons why removing +level to the result isn't a solution, because the spells themselves are as lackluster as "I swing at it until it dies." Which is a boring waste of the potential that spells possess(ed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What has changed directly:
-No longer possible to provide huge to hit buffs
-Stacking AC actually required investment in first editionAs DM I could easily harass the squishy back line using relatively weak monsters and some creative thought.
So... you no longer can easily kill things that were supposed to be difficult, and now can spend brain power and resources on other more interesting things besides maxing AC, which you were gonna do anyway. Sounds like fixes to me, honestly.
I'm pretty sure you can still harrass the unarmored 'squishies' with something. Not all wizards will have maxed dex and athletics, and if they have built for that, they're not quite 'squishies' are they? In our game there was around 4 AC difference between 2 characters, which is a big number now, so...
But, beyond my possible issue blindness, I think Zman0 has the right of it. Why not both, indeed.
I really doubt that you can tell a PF1 story where the level 14 PCs are genuinely afraid of annoying regular old town guards without an extreme amount of GM strongarming or player cooperation. I mean, the level 14 Wizard can cast Limited Wish now, so why are they afraid of the guards?
Because guards evolve into towns evolve into kingdoms evolve into continents.
If the PCs are really stupid and pick a fight with guards, eventually the townsfolk might rebel (militiamen and all that). If they get slaughtered, the kingdom wages war against the PCs. If the PCs defeat them, then a power vacuum is in place, and other nations will try to occupy the new void and attempt to overtake the PCs.
Not only does this severely derail an adventure, but quite frankly if the PCs are capable of sundering or outright conquering nations, then the argument of "Why didn't that much stronger nation seize control of this one?" shows up, which will most likely give an answer to why the PCs wouldn't (or more accurately, shouldn't) fight the town guards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as the APs stick with the +level bonus and the world of Golarion is built around the same assumptions about an exponential growth of power with level (which is how the world was built for PF1), it doesn't bother me to see an alternate rule. But, as an alternate rule, it probably needs more explanation than just "subtract level from everything." It needs to point out what feats get broken, how to approach things which had static DCs that are now spread across too far a scale, and probably a warning about attempting to jump right into existing play material with this rule applied, as far as the much greater threat posed by monsters in the party level -1 to -4 range, which often make up the bulk of monsters faced in dungeons, or other situations where the party might find themselves fighting 20 creatures at once that now have a serious threat of killing them.
Beyond that, it is a rule I would probably never play with because there are better low power gritty fantasy games on the market that give more nuance to the kinds of challenges less super heroic characters might face, with things like magic weapons and HP dialed down as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the issue is that when you're level 14 the town guards are going to keep a wide berth of you and look the other way whenever possible, because they don't want to get on your bad side.
Generally if they make too much trouble there will be official diplomatic overtures from important people regarding "what do we need to give you in order for you to go away and do what you do somewhere else." Perhaps not explicitly, like granting the PCs land and titles in the Hinterlands, if they seem responsible in addition to terrifying*, so that they spend more time there than here.
*anyone who can cast 7th level spells is terrifying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Zman0: Unfortunately, the original topic pretty much ran it's course when the answer of "yeah, Mark Seifer totally said they are almost certain to offer that as an official optional rule at some point" was offered in the first... ten posts or so? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has a lot of great arguments supporting different positions. I would love to quote some, but they are too many. I will limit myself to gwynfrid's summary of the positions.
This discussion of the +level mechanic has consistently been one of the forum's most contentious. ... Let me consider a few alternatives I have seen here and there:
1) Don't add anything tied to level, leave everything else unchanged. For the purpose of equal-level challenges, this changes nothing. However, it means a low level challenge can be a threat for high-level PCs. I guess we could call this the gritty option.
2) +level/2 to everything. Kind of an intermediate step. Low level challenges will threaten mid-level PCs but not high-level ones.
3) +level to everything except skills, which presumably would get a separate system. This creates some more complexity since a unified system is replaced by 2 separate ones. This would also make skills less relevant in combat, except for characters that invest in them. Combat maneuvers would likely be more difficult to balance.
4) +level to everything except untrained. This means not investing in a skill can be very costly, especially Acrobatics, Athletics, and Stealth (maybe Diplomacy as well, but the thing with Diplomacy is that you can always let someone else speak for you). I suspect the classes with few starting skills would be at a marked disadvantage, while the rogue would barely notice the change.
5) Any one of the 4 options above, but with higher proficiency bonuses for Expert/Master/Legendary. This would come with the same impacts as the chosen 1 out of first 4 options, plus added differentiation between classes: The wizard without armor training would be much more fragile in melee combat, while the rogue with only basic will save training would be more susceptible to mind-bending magic. This would make combat faster, but also a lot more swingy: If your PC gets high initiative and happens to know the opponents' weakest defense, you gain a huge advantage.
6) Back to PF1, with the warts and all.
I wonder which of the above house rule would be favored by a majority. Personally, I tend to favor keeping +level as is, but I'd be happy to play PF2 under any of options 1-5, if that's what the majority at the table prefers.
I mentioned the discussions in this thread to my wife, and she asked, "Are you in the tiny +level/2 camp, or are you camping high up a cliff somewhere yelling from the distance with a view all your own?" My adorable wife understands me very well. The view from atop the cliff is lovely. But I am not far from the +level/2 camp.
I have a compromise.
First, step back to the Pathfinder 1st Edition skill system. It was a vast improvement over the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 skills system, eliminating nuisances such as cross-class skills and simplifying the max level+3 skill ranks to max level skill ranks with +3 class skill bonus. But distributing a new level's skill points is a chore. Mentally, I simplified it. I chose some skills that I would keep at maximum ranks. I chose some skills that I would keep at half their maximum ranks. I chose some skills that I would train for the class skill bonus. And I chose some skills to ignore.
So I essentially sorted my skills into 4 categories: Master, Expert, Trained, and Untrained. That is compatible with the PF2 proficiency system. And sorting skills that way solves one argument against +1/level, that the ranks are unearned. The different proficiencies would represent that the character has been practicing to hone that ability.
Masterful (I renamed Master to an adjective) will be the skills that the character is said to be working as hard as possible to improve. Expert will be the skills that the character practices to improve, but not as seriously. Trained will be the skills that the character wants to develop, but does not practice beyond regular use. Untrained will be the ones that the character is not developing, but might learn a bit about anyway. Legendary is just legendary, the proficiency even more amazing than Masterful. And their differences will be greater than +2, +1, +0, and -2. They will have different rates of increase. The more practice the proficiency represents, the higher the rate of increase by level.
The rates of increase have a secondary goal. For my tastes, the biggest problem with +1 per level is that the rate of improvement from numbers alone breaks the challenge rating system where two identical monsters are a challenge equal to one monster two levels above them. The numbers improve too much. And Paizo made the feats disappointingly weak to not exasperate the problem. +1/2 per level should be manageable, except that +1/2 per level really means +1 per even level and +0 per odd level. That alternates too much improvement and too little improvement. Workable +1/2 per level requires staggered advancement, were some numbers improve at odd levels and some improve at even levels. With different rates of increase, I can manage that.
Here are the rates of increase, where n is the level:
Untrained starts at -2 at 1st level, follows the formula (0.5)n - 2.5, and ends at +7 at 20th level.
Trained starts at +1 at 1st level, follows the formula (0.5)n + 1, and ends at +11 at 20th level.
Expert starts at +2 at 1st level, follows the formula (0.7)n + 1.6, and ends at +15 at 20th level.
Masterful starts at +3 at 1st level, increases +1 every level except 4th, 6th, and 10th, and ends at +19 at 20th level.
Legendary starts at +4 at 1st level, increases +1 every level, and ends at +23 at 20th level.
The weird constants I selected stagger the improvements. You can see the staggering in a table. Equal signs separate non-increasing values, and less-than signs separate increasing values.
Level_____ 1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9_10_11_12_13_14_15_16_17_18_19_20
untrained -2=-2<-1=-1<<0==0<<1==1<<2==2<<3==3<<4==4& lt;<5==5<<6==6<<7==7 slope 9/19 = 0.47 using (0.5)n - 2.5
trained___ 1<<2==2<<3==3<<4==4<<5==5<<6==6<<7==7&l t;<8==8<<9==9<10=10<11 slope 10/19 = 0.53 using (0.5)n + 1
expert____ 2<<3==3<<4<<5==5<<6<<7==7<<8<<9== 9<10<11=11<12<13=13<14<15 slope 13/19 = 0.68 using (0.7)n + 1.6
masterful_ 3<<4<<5==5<<6==6<<7<<8<<9==9<10<1 1<12<13<14<15<16<17<18<19 slope 16/19 = 0.84 arbitrary
legendary_ 4<<5<<6<<7<<8<<9<10<11<12<13<1 4<15<16<17<18<19<20<21<22<23 slope 19/19 = 1.00 using (1)n + 3
For example, at 2nd level where most skills are untrained and trained, untrained does not get a +1 but trained does. At 5th level, where skills will be untrained, trained, and expert, untrained and expert gain a +1 but trained does not. I have a few places, such as 8th level, where too many different proficiencies improve at the same time, but I can't avoid such places if I keep the slopes linear.
I also hid another number sequence in the table. A fighter's martial proficiency would start at trained, +1 at 1st level and +2 at 2nd. At 3rd level, it would improve to expert, +3 at 3rd level, +4 at 4th, and +5 at 6th. At 6th level, it would improve to masterful, +6 at 6th level, +7 at 7th, +8 at 8th, and so on except for skipping a +1 at 10th level. That is almost full BAB like a fighter had in Pathfinder 1st Edition. And the fighter will eventually move up to legendary for his favorite weapon group, maybe at 10th level.
Most non-skill proficiencies, such as AC and saving throws, will be not go beyond expert, so masterful will have an advantage over them to give a 70% success rate rather than a 60% success rate.
I am not quite satisfied with the table yet. I think it should have lower slope, but slope 0.5 alternates well with itself and slope 1 seems very appropriate for legendary. I will keep experimenting with numbers to see whether I can find better formulae.
The biggest problem is that the five different rates of increase are much more complicated than a simple +1 per leevel. However, it is a lot like the good saves and weak saves and the 1/2 BAB, 3/4 BAB, and full BAB of Pathfinder 1st Edition, so the 1st Edition players can handle that level of complexity. The players don't need to memorize the full table. Instead, the write down the UTEML values for their level on a spot on the character sheet and consult that. For example, at 12 level it would be U = +3, T = +7, E = +9, M = +11, and L = +15. And the increase to 13th level would be +1 to UEML but not to T.
The second biggest problem is that the gap between the proficiencies widens. That means that a high-level boost in proficiency is not just a +1; rather, it could be a +2, +3, or +4. That is a feat-worthy increase. To lessen the impact of that increase, I borrow an idea from another system I am experimenting with, and introduce an action that blends together two adjacent proficiencies.
[[A]] Promote
Chose one proficency, such as Deception Proficiency, Light Armor Proficiency, Martial Weapon Proficiency, or Will Save Proficiency. The next d20 roll in that proficiency you make before the beginning of your next turn is at one proficiency rank higher than your true rank, such Trained is promoted to Expert or Expert is promoted to Masterful. Promotion does not unlock skills that require the higher rank, but if the effects of the d20 roll are based on proficiency, then the effects happen at the higher rank.
Thus, an 8th-level fighter with masterful martial weapon proficiency could take a Promote action before a Strike or Sudden Charge or Power Attack in order to replace his masterful +8 martial weapon proficiency with a legendary +11 martial weapon proficiency for a typeless +3 to hit. Someone carefully balancing on a narrow ledge with 4th-level untrained Acrobatics could promote their Acrobatics from untrained -1 to trained +3 for a typeless +4 to the skill check. All it costs is time. But in the action economy, time is worth its weight in gold.
The third biggest problem with my proficiency system is the Pareto Principle, also known at the 80-20 rule. 80% of the time, a character will use only 20% of his or her proficienies. Thus, if he advances those 20% proficiencies as much as possible, it will have an 80% effect. Balancing the Pareto Principle might require some limits on what can be advanced to a higher proficiency. Pathfinder 2nd Edition already has some limits on proficiencies built in.
I have to say I would much rather bring back BAB, the PF1 skill system, and the rest of the Big Six rather than drop +Level completely.
But none of those things were great in PF1, but it's preferable to "you never get any better except from proficiency and feats."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I would much rather bring back BAB, the PF1 skill system, and the rest of the Big Six rather than drop +Level completely.
But none of those things were great in PF1, but it's preferable to "you never get any better except from proficiency and feats."
Um, the +1 per level is part of Pathfinder 2nd Edition proficiency. Perhaps PossibleCabbage ought to rephrase that as "from proficiency rank increases and feats." Or did he mean something else?
Well, I've been thinking about it as:
Add to your roll: [Relevant Attribute Modifier] + [Proficiency Modifier] + Level + [Circumstance (Bonus - Penalty)] + [Conditional (Bonus - Penalty)].
So in shorthand I mean the -4/+0/+1/+2/+3 you get from uteml by proficiency.
But a level 20 fighter with 18 strength naked with a makeshift club and no relevant feats or features adds +24 to their attack rolls in PF1. I don't like an emphasis on "the weapon you are specialized in" or "magic gear" or "stats" as opposed to "the broad experience that level represents."
But, as long as they keep it, its easy to houserule out and I'll deal. And my couple months of playtesting has led me to believe that it is indeed the playstyle for me. It just means that instead of buying a physical rulebook, I have to buy the cheaper pdf, modify the things that need it, and print it off and bind it with the remainder of the money I saved. Same for the Bestiary.
I know this isn't on the topic, but I don't think this forum has a way to DM people, so I'm sorry for that. How exactly do you modify things in the PDF before printing it? I would really like to do that, but I though PDFs were made to be uneditable.
...Mathmuse? I love you. Never change. <3
I really doubt that you can tell a PF1 story where the level 14 PCs are genuinely afraid of annoying regular old town guards without an extreme amount of GM strongarming or player cooperation. I mean, the level 14 Wizard can cast Limited Wish now, so why are they afraid of the guards?Because guards evolve into towns evolve into kingdoms evolve into continents.
If the PCs are really stupid and pick a fight with guards, eventually the townsfolk might rebel (militiamen and all that). If they get slaughtered, the kingdom wages war against the PCs. If the PCs defeat them, then a power vacuum is in place, and other nations will try to occupy the new void and attempt to overtake the PCs.
Not only does this severely derail an adventure, but quite frankly if the PCs are capable of sundering or outright conquering nations, then the argument of "Why didn't that much stronger nation seize control of this one?" shows up, which will most likely give an answer to why the PCs wouldn't (or more accurately, shouldn't) fight the town guards.
So the basic reason they shouldn't fight the town guards is that more powerful people might notice and come after them?
Applies to town guards, I suppose, but not to all the other low level mooks - especially the ones it was perfectly appropriate to fight when you were low level enough for it be a challenge.
Let's bring back the ubiquitous goblins instead of town guards.
"All the other low level mooks" aren't really in the same standing as town guards, so it changes the analogy entirely. However, I'm sure some super powerful adventurers would rather not bog themselves with a task as tedious and unrewarding as slaying some goblins. "Hmmmm, kill goblins for a few gold coins, or slay a dragon and take its entire hoard for ourselves..." The proper adventurer would take the Dragon every day of the week.
I mean, even if the mighty heroes decide to slum it and go murk some goblins, nothing is saying that the goblins might not hear that these folks are coming and decide to run away, or surrender, or beg for mercy.
Just like the PCs shouldn't want to fight certain things at their current level because the odds are bad, certain NPCs shouldn't want to fight the PCs at a given level because they estimate that their odds are bad.