| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following discussion occurred in the Hear Our Plea(s) thread, but that thread is not for discussions, so I am copying it here.
I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.
Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.
I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.
Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.
I cataloged the 42 Basic Conditions on pages 320 to 324 to see how mixed the conditional and circumstance modifiers were. The results are below.
12 Conditional Modifiers
Blinded: –4 conditional penalty to Perception
Deafened: –2 conditional penalty to Perception. Also DC 5 flat check on auditory activities.
Drained: conditional penalty on Fortitude saves and Constitutionbased checks. Also lose hit points.
Enervated: conditional penalty on checks that include a proficiency modifier.
Enfeebled: conditional penalty on attack rolls, damage rolls, and Strength-based checks.
Fascinated: –2 conditional penalty to Perception and skill checks.
Fatigued: conditional penalty to AC and saving throws.
Frightened: conditional penalty to checks and saving throws.
Sick: conditional penalty on all your checks.
Sluggish: conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves.
Stupified: conditional penalty on spell rolls; spell DCs; and Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks.
Unconscious: –4 conditional penalty to AC6 Circumstance Modifiers
Asleep: -4 circumstance penalty to Perception.
Flat-footed: -2 circumstance penalty to AC.
Friendly: +2 circumstance bonus to Lie, Make an Impression, or Request.
Helpful: +4 circumstance bonus to Lie.
Prone: –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls and +1 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks
Unfriendly: –2 circumstance penalty to Lie and Make an Impression.7 Typeless Modifiers
Accelerated: Numerical increase in speed.
Encumbered: Increase armor check penalty by 2. Decrease Speed by 10 feet, down to Speed 5 at worst.
Entangled: Hampered 10.
Hampered: Numerical decrease in speed.
Hostile: Others have –4 penalty to Make an Impression and Lie.
Quick: Gain 1 additional action
Slowed: Fewer actions per turn.2 Weird
Broken: Broken armor gives a conditional penalty to AC.
Persistent damage: Gives typed damage.7 Other numbers
Concealed: DC 5 flat check against attacks.
Confused: Actions controlled by 1d4 roll.
Dazzled: Creatures concealed from vision.
Dead: Hit points go to 0.
Dying: Adjusts its own number.
Petrified: Gain new stats as a statue.
Sensed: DC 11 flat check against attacks and other activities that target you.8 No Numbers
Fleeing
Grabbed
Immobile
Indifferent
Paralyzed
Restrained
Stunned
Unseen
Maybe it doesn't matter. Seems to me that "conditional", as Paizo is using it here, means "pertinent to or arising from a condition". "Circumstance" seems to apply when the origin of the bonus or penalty is something other than a condition (e.g. "situational" reasons). So if you get a penalty to Perception because you're asleep, that should be a conditional penalty (you have the "asleep" condition") not a circumstance penalty. Same with flat-footed (a condition), even though the rulebook (page 291) specifically calls that out as possibly being due to being flanked (a circumstance). To me, that doesn't matter. The penalty exists because you're flat-footed. It's a conditional penalty. Doesn't matter what circumstance caused you to be flat-footed.
So I wouldn't get rid of the term "conditional bonus/penalty". I *would* call "circumstance" bonuses or penalties "conditional" rather than "circumstance" if it's the condition that is the origin of the modifier.
If your vision is impaired because it's raining, that's a circumstance penalty. If your vision is impaired because you're blinded, that's a conditional penalty.
The situation Ed Reppert describes might be clarified if we also used "circumstance" as a noun for a situation that gives a circumstance modifier. For example, flat-footed could be a circumstance rather than a condition.
I believe that six kinds of numerical modifiers is not enough. The five are ability, proficincy, conditional, circumstance, item, and typeless. Ability and proficiency modifiers are very difficult to change, item modifiers are directly related to items, typeless modifiers are subject to stacking abuse, so that leaves only conditional modifiers and circumstance modifiers as the only modifiers to represent spells and special abilities.
In PF2 a barbarian's rage gives a +2 conditional bonus to damage rolls and a -1 typeless penalty to AC, a bard's inspire courage composition cantrip gives a +1 conditional bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against fear, and a cleric's bless spell gives a +1 conditional bonus to attack rolls. They don't properly stack. A cleric could prepare a different spell, but rage and inspire courage are primary class abilities of the barbarian and bard.
Keeping with my tradition of making lists, here is the list of Pathfinder 1st Edition modifiers (source): alchemical, armor, base attack bonus, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, enhancement, inherent, insight, luck, morale, natural armor, profane, racial, resistance, sacred, shield, size, and trait. Some, such as dodge and resistance, restrict themselves to certain rolls. Others, such as sacred and size, restrict themselves to a narrow source. Competence is too much like proficiency, and trait has a significant other meaning in PF2. That leaves enhancement, insight, luck, and morale if we want to copy a term from PF1. In PF1 a barbarian's rage is a morale bonus, a bard's inspire courage is a competence bonus on attack and damage rolls, and a cleric's bless is a morale bonus.
I recommend "inspirational bonus" for inspire courage.
The situation Ed Reppert describes might be clarified if we also used "circumstance" as a noun for a situation that gives a circumstance modifier. For example, flat-footed could be a circumstance rather than a condition.
I think this would just move the source of the confusion, but not solve it. Instead of wondering if a bonus is a conditional or circumstance bonus, we'd wonder if something is a condition or a circumstance. Is prone more of a condition, or a circumstance? How about entangled? I don't think this could work.
I believe that six kinds of numerical modifiers is not enough. The five are ability, proficincy, conditional, circumstance, item, and typeless. Ability and proficiency modifiers are very difficult to change, item modifiers are directly related to items, typeless modifiers are subject to stacking abuse, so that leaves only conditional modifiers and circumstance modifiers as the only modifiers to represent spells and special abilities.In PF2 a barbarian's rage gives a +2 conditional bonus to damage rolls and a -1 typeless penalty to AC, a bard's inspire courage composition cantrip gives a +1 conditional bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against fear, and a cleric's bless spell gives a +1 conditional bonus to attack rolls. They don't properly stack. A cleric could prepare a different spell, but rage and inspire courage are primary class abilities of the barbarian and bard.
Keeping with my tradition of making lists, here is the list of Pathfinder 1st Edition modifiers (source): alchemical, armor, base attack bonus, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, enhancement, inherent, insight, luck, morale, natural armor, profane, racial, resistance, sacred, shield, size, and trait. Some, such as dodge and resistance, restrict themselves to certain rolls. Others, such as sacred and size, restrict themselves to a narrow source. Competence is too much like proficiency, and trait has a significant other meaning in PF2. That leaves enhancement, insight, luck, and morale if we want to copy a term from PF1. In PF1 a barbarian's rage is a morale bonus, a bard's inspire courage is a competence bonus on attack and damage rolls, and a cleric's bless is a morale bonus.
I recommend "inspirational bonus" for inspire courage.
A bonus type needs to be applicable to more than one case (a lot more, really). I like "morale bonus" because it's usually not to hard to know a bonus comes from morale enhancement, especially if luck and competence bonuses don't exist. Using "morale bonus" would however leave two unresolved issues: 1) the barbarian's rage and bard's inspire courage still wouldn't stack - but maybe they shouldnt stack anyway? And 2) this leaves a lot of bonuses that are called conditional today and remain ambiguous; those would need to find a home.
Why is a special ability not an ability? I think Paizo's use of "ability" is confusing - it refers in some cases to something a character can do, and in other cases to something that is an intrinsic part of the character. Personally, I'd call the latter an attribute. "Your character has six ability scores that represent her basic attributes and raw potential: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma" (Playtest Rulebook, page 17) just confuses things when "ability" is used elsewhere to mean something else.
In fact, the whole thing shows, to me, a fundamental problem in terminology. :-(
Why is a special ability not an ability? I think Paizo's use of "ability" is confusing - it refers in some cases to something a character can do, and in other cases to something that is an intrinsic part of the character. Personally, I'd call the latter an attribute. "Your character has six ability scores that represent her basic attributes and raw potential: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma" (Playtest Rulebook, page 17) just confuses things when "ability" is used elsewhere to mean something else.
In fact, the whole thing shows, to me, a fundamental problem in terminology. :-(
Yes, you are right. Calling Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma "attributes" is less ambiguous than "abilities." I am accustomed to having abilities do something instead of add something.
My wording bounces back and forth between PF1 terms and PF2 terms. Before writing the original post, I reread pages 290 and 291 about the modifiers, so "ability modifier" stuck in my mind. Yet I wanted to talk about the class and skill features that a character used. I recognized the ambiguity of calling such a feature an ability, and said "special ability" instead. I probably ought to have worked on my phrasing longer.
I say "ability score" for attribute when writing emails to my players. That uses the word "ability" from the Playtest Rulebook, but emphasized that it is a stat.
Terminology has two distinct roles in Pathfinder, so it will always be difficult. First, it has to relate precisely to the rules, so that we can tell the difference between a Step and a Stride and whether two bonuses will stack. Second, it must sound natural rather than a mechanical, so that when I say, "Blackjack Steps adjacent to the ogre and Strikes him," I can pretend I am storytelling, "Blackjack steps beneath the ogre's grasp to strike the foul beast with his saber."
Again, as a dyslectic, my main stake in bonus/penalty types is that the names are not too similar. circumstance and conditional are WAY too similar, both in spelling, length, and word-image. At minimum, they should have different first and last characters in each condition name. Preferably different sounds too.
If one condition is named Conditional, no other condition should start with a C.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!" -- Lewis Carrol, Through The Looking Glass
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish we had one or two more types of bonuses. Maybe adding a morale bonus and a spell or magic bonus or something? I understand they wanted to simplify things, but it's to the point that characters that act first make others much less useful and interesting because things like debuff spells and successful intimidations or flanks don't stack... Also, the bonuses and penalties from spells never make any sense. Why give a conditional bonus that isn't actually from a condition? Why are some other spells circumstancial? How do we keep them straight?
Here's what I imagine:
Conditional : physical things within the affected person : so conditions like enfeebled, drained, fatigued, blind, deaf and others, including basically brain damage like stupefied. Some spels give conditions that then give you these modifiers.
Morale : Conditions related to emotions : fear, courage, rage, fascination, enervated (I think that's what it's meant to be), maybe mutagens (considering their origin in the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) and others
Circumstancial : physical things coming from the outside : flanking, concealment, slippery ground, entanglement, grapple and such.
Item : Only item bonuses give those. No spells, unless they create or change an item. Edit: Weapons might have to be an exception, although effects that give temporary weapon enhancements could probably be reworded somehow.
Mystical : Effects brought on by magic (wether spells or strange places) that just make you better without really changing much in appearance. This would be for things like luck bonuses, bless, bane that basically give you the favor of the gods or other forces in the universe. It could also include some class features that come from within but aren't natural, things with flavor similar to ki control by a monk or the powers of 1E's occult classes, for example.
These five types of bonuses would then be added to your proficiency and ability. Yes, it's a bit more to keep track of, but it allows more abilities to be relevant together, it makes most situations fall into one clear category that has sense in the game world, and it's still way easier than first edition's, as everything simply applies to a roll, rather than having to keep track of the conditional modifiers to your stats and abilities at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few days ago I wrote about the PF1 problems that lead to Paizo's current decisions about tight math on bonuses and proficiency. But I felt that a better solution must be possible, so I thought about the problem. My solution is only slightly better and it is subtle and philosophical, so it is far from a cure. I felt it worth writing down, but it fit better in this thread rather than in Niroh's thread,Proficiency System and the Change I'd Like to See.
Pathfinder 1st Edition has a ridiculously large number of bonus types. d20pfsrd's glossary lists 20 different bonus types in PF1: Alchemical, Armor, Base Attack (BAB), Circumstance, Competence, Deflection, Dodge, Enhancement, Inherenet, Insight, Luck, Morale, Natural Armor, Profane, Racial, Resistance, Sacred, Shield, Size, and Trait. PF1 also has many typeless bonuses and bonuses related to individual attributes such as a Strength bonus to a melee attack roll, so we have at least 27 bonus types.
This leads to abuse that has been mentioned directly by Jason Bulmahn in his videos. Since different bonuses stack, finding several small bonuses of different types lets the total bonus sum to an enormous number. People have posted examples of AC 45 and Perform +50 at 20th level. Even at capstone level, total bonuses around +40 or +50 make encounter balance very difficult.
Current situation
Pathfinder 2nd Edition compressed PF1's list of bonus types down to circumstance, condition, item, and the six attributes. PF2 added another universal bonus: proficiency (which includes level). Off in the margins, armor check penalty and multiple attack penalties are penalties, and the type of a penalty is a bonus type. The PF2 has very few typeless bonuses or penalties to a d20 roll or passive check, such as the –1 penalty to AC from barbarian's rage. I think that the –1 penalty from Hostile is probably an error that left off "circumstance" type used by the other attitudes. Some typeless numerical increases exist that don't directly affect a d20 roll, such as a Headband of Inspired Wisdom increasing the wearer's Wisdom score by 2. In PF1 that would be called an enhancement bonus.
The reduced number of types affects penalties, too. A character who is fatigued (–1 conditional penalty to AC and saving throws), frightened 1 (–1 conditional penalty to checks and saving throws), and sluggish 1 (–1 conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves) takes a –1 conditional penalty to Reflex saves because conditional penalties don't stack with each other.
By limiting the types of bonuses to five--circumstance, condition, item, attribute, and proficiency--and capping the size of those bonuses (the cap on proficiency is how far it can deviate from level), Paizo can prevent outrageous bonuses. That is their primary goal behind reducing the number of bonus types and the sizes of bonuses.
Unfortunately, this has other effects. Many bonuses need to increase to +20 at 20th level to give a proper progression in power. Paizo developers know this and add level into proficiency to reach that +20 in a contrained and predictable manner that simplifies encounter design. However, sometimes +30 is necessary to give a feel of legendary competence, especially against hazards rated level 23. And the only way to reach that is from builds that resemble PF1-style abusive builds: find bonuses of all types and pile them on: +20 from level, +3 from legendary proficiency rank, +5 from attribute, +5 from an item, +1 from a condition, and +1 from a circumstance to gain +35 total. Oops, we exceeded the +30 goal.
Furthermore, I and several others look at the +23 proficiency bonus and feel that +20 from level and only +3 from legendary rank makes the rank feel inconsequential. Lots of people advocate for more skill gating via rank to make the rank feel worthwhile. In practice, trying to reach maximum bonus makes every type of bonus, especially a hefty +3, important. Missing it would be like missing three rungs on a ladder. But that is one of the rare cases where the math did not change my feelings.
Effect-based Bonuses
The inspiration for my own idea is inventory management. Back in 1980s, U.S. manufacturing began adopting the Japaneses just-in-time inventory management system to replace large warehouse inventories. One Japanese explanation of just-in-time was very philosophical. Instead of imagining the parts flowing from the shops that make parts to the warehouses that store the parts to the factory that assembles the parts into the final product, imagine starting with the product. Go backwards in time as the parts flow back to their shops of origin. With time flexible we can imagine a perfect flow where the parts arrive in the factory pulled in by the immediate need for that part rather than piling up in a warehouse pushed by the manufacture of that part. Use the foresight gained from that vision to make that perfect flow work in the real world. That is Just-in-Time inventory.
For Pathfinder, imagine a character. He or she has bonuses to every dice roll. Break those bonuses down into their components, +X = +A from attribute and +P from Proficiency and +Co from conditions and +Ci from Circumstance and +I from items. Track back the components to their origins. For example, the 9th-level raging barbarian with a +2 greataxe gets a +16 bonus to attack rolls, broken down as +4 attribute bonus from Strength, +9 proficiency bonus from trained in greataxe, +2 item bonus from the expert greataxe, and a +1 conditional from a cleric's Bless spell, and no circumstance bonus. (The Assist action could provide a +2 circumstance bonus, but no-one assisted.) That is a bit of a mess.
Let's reimagine the character. Our goal is to get bonuses pulled to the character by character concept rather than pushed to the character by being available in a splatbook. The developers decide what would be appropriate for an optimized character. Since I don't have a Paizo developer handy, let me stand in place for one. That 9th-level raging barbarian with a level-appropriate greataxe should have a +16 bonus to attack rolls without a Bless spell, I decide. And that +16 will be +9 from level (since I don't want to argue about changing +1 per level here) and +0 from proficiency (sans level) and +1 from expert weapon and +6 from raging Strength, because those numbers feel right to me.
And that +6 Strength-based bonus breaks down into +4 Strength bonus from Strength and +2 capacity bonus from raging, where capacity is a new bonus type designed for temporary increases to attributes. I appreciate the PF2 clarity that avoids temporary changes to Strength; nevertheless, I want temporary changes in Strength. So I want a bonus type for mimicking a temporary change to Strength.
Similarily, the 9th-level fighter would gain most of his non-level bonus from proficiency. PF2 already gives a fighter master (+2) proficiency in the fighter's favorite weapon group, but we want the fighter to be even better at hitting than the barbarian, so the Weapon Mastery class feature that established the favored weapon group no longer grants mastery. Instead, it simply says that the fighter gains a +3 proficiency bonus for weapons in that favored weapon group, which does not stack with the +1 proficiency bonus from expert proficiency rank. The fighter is still merely expert in proficiency rank, despite the higher bonus.
The monk would be like the fighter, with a large proficiency bonus on both unarmed strikes and unarmored defense.
The bard, in contrast, would not have any Strength-like capacity bonus nor proficiency bonus, because the bard is supposed to be only partly martial. A bard can grant the party, including him- or herself, a +1 inspiration bonus from Inspire Courage.
Why am I inventing new bonus types when they were part of the abuse problem in PF1? Because I want to change the emphasis of the bonus types so that they will stack in a properly controlled fashion. In PF1, the bonus types described the source of the bonus. An alchemical bonus came from an alchemical item, an armor bonus came from armor, a dodge bonus came from dodging, an insight bonus came from knowledge, etc. The insight bonus is especially represented by the neh-thalggu, whose Brain Collection ability said, "Each stored brain grants a neh-thalggu a cumulative +1 insight bonus to AC, concentration checks, and Knowledge checks." (Yes, a giant insectoid alien received better AC by plopping more human brains into its backside. The Playtest Bestiary made the AC change a conditional penalty via gaining the enervated condition for losing collected brains.) Thus, if a player finds three effects that do the same thing, yet one is alchemical, one is profane, and one is sacred, then he can stack them all.
However, if we group the bonus types by their effect, then the ability to pile on the bonuses would be limited. For example, suppose we had a melee bonus, that existed to give +X to melee attack rolls. The barbarian could get a +2 melee bonus from raging, the bard's song could give a +1 melee bonus from Inspire Courage, and the expert melee weapon could give a +1 melee bonus, and none of them would stack so the raging barbarian swinging an expert greataxe and inspired by a bard song would have only a +2 melee bonus. Of course, we want some stacking, so using only a melee bonus for adding to a melee attack roll would be too bland.
A set of efect-based bonuses that seems appropriate to me would be:
1) Level: This represents +1 per level to all proficiencies, but it will no longer be hidden inside the proficiency.
2) Proficiency: This represents dedicated training: -4 for untrained, +0 for trained, +1 for expert, +2 for masterful, +3 for legendary. It applies the same way PF2 proficiency applies, except that I separated level from it.
3-9) Attribute: This is the modifier from attributes, Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma.
10) Capacity: This is the modifier that mimics temporary changes to attributes.
11) Quality: This represents high-quality tools. -2 for poor, +0 for ordinary, +1 for expert, +2 for master, and +3 for legendary. It is like an item bonus, but only when the quality of the item matters.
12) Access: This represents when you take advantage of an opportunity. I wanted to call it "opportunity" but PF2 still uses that name for Attack of Opportunity. It is like a circumstance bonus, but it applies only when the circumstances give you an opportunity. As a penalty, it represents less opportunity, perhaps due to busyness.
13) Inspiration: This represents guidance, the bonus for following good advice or gaining good morale. (The Order of the Slick Comic, 262 All You Need is Love and Improvised Thieves' Tools would have an inspiration bonus rather than a circumstance bonus.
Some numbers and examples
Let's look at the barbarian's rage under effect-based bonuses in more detail. Its bonuses change to:
• Gain a +2 capacity bonus to all rolls and passives with a Strengh modifier, such as Athletics skill checks, attacks with melee weapons, and weapon damage rolls, and the same bonus to carrying capacity. This bonus increases by 1 at level 3 and every 6 levels thereafter. (It had been every 4 levels, but that is too much bonus at 15th and 19th levels.)
• Take a –1 access penalty to AC.
This capacity bonus mimics an increase in Strength without changing Strength itself. The penalty to AC, in contrast, is modeled as being distracted by rage. Flatfooted and flanked would also give an access penalty, so they don't stack with rage's access penalty. Thus, rage is a foretaste of the barbarian's 5th level Deny Advantage AKA Uncanny Dodge.
The Belt of Giant Strength changes from a typeless bonus to a capacity bonus:
This thick leather belt is decorated with a buckle carved from glittering quartz in the shape of a mighty fist. You gain a a +1 capacity bonus to all rolls and passives with a Strengh modifier, such as Athletics skill checks, attacks with melee weapons, and weapon damage rolls, and the same bonus to carrying capacity. If your Strength is 14, the capacity bonus is +2 instead. If your Strength is 12 or less, the capacity bonus is +3 instead.
The Belt of Giant Strength's Strength-like capacity bonus does not stack with Rage's Strength-like capacity bonus. The barbarian should select a different magic item.
Due to the non-stacking, we can return Bull's Strength to the spell lists.
BULL'S STRENGTH Spell 2
Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range touch; Targets one creature
Duration 10 minutes
The target gains a +1 capacity bonus to all rolls and passives with a Strengh modifier, such as Athletics skill checks, attacks with melee weapons, and weapon damage rolls, and the same bonus to carrying capacity.
By the playtest rules, The Belt of Giant's Strength gives an item bonus and Bull's Strength would give a conditional bonus, so they would stack. I suspect this is why Bull's Strength was left off the spell list. As capacity bonuses, they don't stack.
PF2 already has Enfeebled condition that mimics a Strength penalty. It converts to a capacity penalty.
Enfeebled
You’re physically weakened. Enfeebled always includes a value. When you are enfeebled, you take a -2 capacity penalty to all rolls and passives with a Strengh modifier, such as Athletics skill checks, attacks with melee weapons, and weapon damage rolls, and the same penalty to carrying capacity.
Potency runes would become a thing of the playtest past. They don't act like an attribute for a capacity bonus nor like an opportunity for an access bonus nor like guidance for an inspiration bonus. My system is very strict about how bonuses affect the character. The weapon quality already gives a quality bonus to attacks. A proficiency bonus fits how weapon enchantments work, but a character's proficiency bonus would not stack with a proficiency bonus on the weapon, which would be disappointing.
However, we could reuse the name "Potency" for a property rune that doubles (double potency) or triples (triple potency) the weapon's damage dice, since that is not a bonus.
The above examples focus on Strength-like capacity modifiers, but my overall intent is to balance the bonus types to prevent outrageously high bonuses. Technically, Strength modifiers and Dexterity modifiers would stack, but since the rules carefully don't use both in the same place, they never stack in practice. Likewise, capacity modifiers would stack with proficiency modifiers and inspiration modifiers, but the use of the bonuses will prevent putting together two large bonuses of different types, not counting the large level bonus.
The Pathfinder game actually needs some large bonuses at many levels, not counting the level bonus that is cancelled out by opponents' own level bonuses. The large bonus lets the character be good at his or her main job. We currently begin at 1st level with a large attribute bonus in one attribute. But at 5th level and higher, the character needs supplemental strengths, too, so a single large attribute bonus is not enough. That is when +1 proficiency becomes available, +1 quality bonuses are affordable, and good feats should be providing access and inspiration bonuses. At higher levels, the character should not simply be good at his or her main job, the character needs to feel extraordinary. As many playtesters have commented, being able to barely handle extraordinary challenges adequately does not feel extraordinary. Carefully channeled bonuses, or feats that change the meaning of failure, can create the feeling of mastery. Effect-based bonuses will be easier to channel than source-based bonuses.
Let's add up the maximum bonuses to see what the general, non-channeled bonuses could give.
• A 20th-level character could receive proficiency in skills up to +3, quality tools for a skill up to +3, one attribute associated with the skill for a +5 attribute bonus and +1 capacity bonus, a +2 inspiration bonus related to any skill, and of course a +20 level bonus for a maximum combined +34 bonus in the skill checks. Access bonuses won't be available to exploration or downtime skill checks, those are encounter-mode bonuses.
• For a saving throw, a 20th-level character would receive proficiency up to +1, one attribute associated with the saving throw for a +5 attribute bonus and +1 capacity bonus, a +2 access bonus from an appropriate feat or magic or aid, and +20 from level for a maximum combined +29 bonus. Quality and inspiration bonuses won't apply to saving throws.
• Attacks would have proficiency up to +3, quality up to +3, a +5 attribute bonus and +1 capacity bonus for Strength or Dexterity, a +2 access bonus from an appropriate feat or magic or aid, +1 from inspiration, and +20 from level for a maximum combined +35 bonus.
The channeled bonuses, such as Strength-like capacity for barbarians, proficiency for fighters, and access for rogues, could go to +4 beyond those general bonuses, which would run up to the +39 bonuses that are hard to design encounters around. But that is full maximization, so nothing goes beyond that.
Circumstance and Conditional
The original purpose of this thread was to discuss how circumstance and conditional bonuses could be distinguished, so that we could know whether they stack without consulting a rulebook. My notion tosses out conditional bonuses and splits circumstance into access and inspiration. But how easy would distinguishing my bonus types be?
1) Level: Applied only once, so it never needs to be checked for stacking.
2) Proficiency: Is the bonus about the character's training?
3-9) Attribute: Applied only once, though sometimes switched, such as finesse weapons replacing Strength modifier with Dexerity modifier.
10) Capacity: This mimics an attribute and the attributes are easily recognized.
11) Quality: It comes only from items and is based directly on a description of the item.
12) Access: Is the bonus about exploiting an opportunity? Is the penalty about being busy?
13) Inspiration: Is another player character encouraging you?
The line between access and inspiration is especially fine between the Assist and Aid actions. Assist would be access, since the assisting character is probably distracting the opponent. Aid would be inspiration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to ask for just one thing: That we intuitively know what type a bonus is, solely based on its source and without having to consult the rules. With a lot of experience, I can do this in PF1 and be correct most of the time. PF2 has less bonus types (good!) so I would expect this to be easier now, and unfortunately the playtest isn't quite there yet.
Directly related to this, can we get rid of the term "conditional bonus"? The fact that some conditions give circumstance penalties/bonuses while others give conditional penalties/bonuses is very confusing.
Gonna agree with the skull once again. My pitch has been along these lines for a while:
Item bonuses come from items.
Spell bonuses come from spells.
Feat bonuses come from feats.
If you already get a spell bonus to something, you know not to cast a second spell that provides the same bonus.
I do feel like conditional and circumstance bonuses both seem like legitimate categories in this paradigm. Rage or Frightened seem like conditions and flanked or shields seem like circumstances. But the names of those two need changing for our dyslexic friends.
I think this should make it intuitive without allowing so much layering you break the math. You can only benefit from one item, spell, and feat at a time.