What about having "remove +1 / level" as an optional rule, at least?


General Discussion

201 to 207 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
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.

Not sure why the "proper adventurer" would take on town guards either. Are we assuming an evil party game here?

The mechanical question is the same, whether it's low level town guards, a goblin tribe or the dragon's kobold worshippers.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I've kind of lost track of the point here.

Wasn't it originally a mechanical issue about weak enemies posing a challenge to high level PCs? Now we're talking about other reasons why PCs would avoid attacking or wouldn't bother or why the weak enemies would run away.

I mean, yes, for the specific question asked, there are reasons for the PCs not to annoy regular old town guards. Namely that those town guards might have high level backup.

But that's a question completely unrelated to the real topic at hand.


thejeff wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I've kind of lost track of the point here.

Wasn't it originally a mechanical issue about weak enemies posing a challenge to high level PCs? Now we're talking about other reasons why PCs would avoid attacking or wouldn't bother or why the weak enemies would run away.

I mean, yes, for the specific question asked, there are reasons for the PCs not to annoy regular old town guards. Namely that those town guards might have high level backup.

But that's a question completely unrelated to the real topic at hand.

My original point about this specific topic (how monsters pose a challenge in battle) wasn't even about if the players should or shouldn't attack anyone. What I've said, or maybe tried to, I'm not that good with English sometimes, is that gaining the ability to magically dodge or block every single attack from a bunch of lower-level creatures, even when you are outnumbered 10 to 1, isn't a good way of handling difficulty and levels IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here is a fun question. Lets say that instead of a fantasy game, Pathfinder 2E was a superhero game, and high level heroes are basically on par with Superman or Thor or *insert favorite walking battleship here*.

Would the +level to everything thing still be inappropriate? If yes, then what would you replace it with, because 30 goons with handguns should not be a mortal threat to Clark Kent, God of Thunder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Here is a fun question. Lets say that instead of a fantasy game, Pathfinder 2E was a superhero game, and high level heroes are basically on par with Superman or Thor or *insert favorite walking battleship here*.

Would the +level to everything thing still be inappropriate? If yes, then what would you replace it with, because 30 goons with handguns should not be a mortal threat to Clark Kent, God of Thunder.

yes it would be and I don't know, I use a completely different system for my superhero roleplay, one that is better suited for that genre


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

Here is a fun question. Lets say that instead of a fantasy game, Pathfinder 2E was a superhero game, and high level heroes are basically on par with Superman or Thor or *insert favorite walking battleship here*.

Would the +level to everything thing still be inappropriate? If yes, then what would you replace it with, because 30 goons with handguns should not be a mortal threat to Clark Kent, God of Thunder.

Thor and Superman are level 60 to me. In order to become the next Thor or Superman in PF, it would take GM fiat.

A better example would be Hawkeye, who is a mere mortal who has ascended to god-like skill with the bow.

I suspect Hawkeye would be a bit scared of 30 goons with guns, especially if he was caught unprepared.

If my level 20 characters aren't afraid of large numbers of stuff that routinely kills peasants, some form of VERY powerful magic had better be involved.

And "they are special because they are the PCs" is not a satisfying answer to me.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

20 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks,

We have a lot of data on this subject,

The secret is that adding your level (or half your level) to rolls has always been a part of the game, it's just that some characters were less good that the benchmark. Martial characters always added their level to attacks. If you were not a martial, you got 3/4 level, which was fine until that different resulted in an accuracy gap of 25% and you could not fundamentally fulfill your role at the table without jumping through hoops. If you were the best at a save, you added half your level (compared to a DC that scaled up with spell levels, which was, surprise surprise, equal to half the spellcasters level). If not, you only got 1/3, which once again got you in trouble at the higher levels.

While this did serve to reinforce character role and feel, it also broke the game when those formulas were allowed to stretch out to their highest levels.

So now we are a bit more open about it. We add level to simulate an increase in experience and familiarity with the world and we use proficiency to simulate your character's particular aptitudes. These give you the same edge at low levels as they do at high, instead of shifting into larger and larger percentages over time.

It's a different approach and one that not everyone is in agreement with. We get that, but the survey data is telling us this is giving us a much better play experience. There is still work to be done to get the system to feel the right way, but the +level debate has been all but solved for us.

And as has been mentioned, we are confident we can offer up the removal of +level as an optional rule down the road with little trouble.

Since this thread is dancing around the same topic that has been raised a few times before and has arrived in the same spot, I think we will call this one good.

This thread is locked.

201 to 207 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What about having "remove +1 / level" as an optional rule, at least? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion