While +1 / level is a problem, removing it alone is not a solution.


General Discussion

351 to 400 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:

Or maybe...it's connected to the fact that there hasn't been any new news for a month and a half. There hasn't been a blog direct from Paizo in a month. Perhaps that could have a connection.

Turns out when you've exhausted all the things you can talk about, a lull comes in conversation.

The deafening silence has been going for quite a while.

Plus, look at 5E. For a long time their policy was very minimal releases. And yet the excitement and nonstop chatter was overwhelming.

Your reply concedes the point that already the conversation is gone. If people were pumped, that would not be the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:


As for interest in PF2 you might not hear much talk against PF2 in the forums because many have moved on or “watch from a distance”. As others have said it was apparent PF2 had core issues that don’t function well.

It seems like most of your arguments is that the Playtest is functioning too well at balancing the game, and that you enjoy a more broken and loose system. Congradulations! That system already exists, and it is so bloated with material, character options, monsters and even adventures and setting material, that you already have a game that is broader and more complete than any other game system on the market. The structure of pathfinder is so well spelled out and defined that any future material will be relatively easy to bring back to PF1, and to restat, so if future adventure content is something you want from paizo, it won't be as simple to use, but it will be convertible, and even if you don't want to go through that trouble, I am sure third parties will keep publishing adventures for years to come.

It is ok not to like the direction of the playtest, or the structural changes that have been made.

But a lot of people find PF1 to have "hard core issues that don't function well." Many people have been finding it unplayable, either in its complexity, trying to introduce new players, or the major balance issues it has had since it ported over a system that was flawed to begin with, especially around balance. Currently, Paizo is loosing all of that business, and will continue to loose more business if its only solution to its problem is to print more material for PF1.

Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system. The people who have not enjoyed them, have almost all seemed content with the existing pathfinder system, which means that when 2nd edition does come out, you will probably be content to keep using PF1s skill system and character advancement. PF2 is a very modular system and, as many of these threads have demonstrated, house rules will be easy to implement at individual tables because the system is easy to understand and view at a component level. So even if you don't like the new thing, the old one isn't going anywhere, and there will probably be new 3rd party companies that spring up creating hybrid content that meets the needs of any large community of players dissatisfied with whatever rules become core in PF2.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
But a lot of people find PF1 to have "hard core issues that don't function well." Many people have been finding it unplayable, either in its complexity, trying to introduce new players, or the major balance issues it has had since it ported over a system that was flawed to begin with, especially around balance.

This is true. But it is a non sequitur with regard to whether 2E is or is not striking a chord.

The reality is that the 3X engine was adaptable and huge success.

TTRPGs players are a very diverse group and yet also a very small niche in the population overall.

You don't get anywhere trying to count the noses of people who don't like a game in this environment. You need to focus on counting noses of people who are fired up.

No comment about anything to do with 1E is relevant to the lack of widespread energy for 2E.

Quote:
Currently, Paizo is loosing all of that business, and will continue to loose more business if its only solution to its problem is to print more material for PF1.

Certainly true. 3X is old and there are a lot of things that have been learned in game design. 5E has latched onto that and is the young cool game that is crushing the old champion.

Paizo must change. I am totally onboard with a game called Pathfinder 2E.

But none of that comes close to establishing that *any* change is good simply because *some* change is needed. It has to be popular.

Quote:
Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system. The people who have not enjoyed them, have almost all seemed content with the existing pathfinder system, which means that when 2nd edition does come out, you will probably be...

Shrug. This may be the Word of God or it may be a bunch of crap. It makes no difference. It is just changing the subject from the elephant in the room.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also want to point out again that there is no such thing as expert gating checks, at least in the playtest. A skill use is either Untrained or Trained, there are no listed Expert or higher uses. Therefore it's safe to assume that so long you as a GM can ask yourself "would this require special training or knowledge or could a lay person stand a decent chance of winging it" then you should be able to be consistent and fair. It's no harder than trying to come up with an appropriate DC, and it's a common house rule that probably most tables have used anyways (only players with skill ranks in Arcana can roll to see if they know what these runes are, for example).

Expert and higher instead make their presence known through skill feats, as it's around expert that skill feats begin to sometimes be useful if they weren't already something like Battle Medic. Those always come from the player telling you, the GM, what they're doing and referencing rules for you, so you don't have to do more than follow the instructions. Again, there is no such thing as needing Expert in a skill to be able to v Recall Knowledge about an obscure god, that's not what expert+ does and it would be a pain in the ass to be fair and consistent about how much training would be required.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


It seems like most of your arguments is that the Playtest is functioning too well at balancing the game, and that you enjoy a more broken and loose system.

Hmm we misunderstand eachother. Not once have I advocated for PF1. PF1 is a totally broken system because of number bloat, feat taxes/traps, class bloat, etc. I have moved onto 5e. What irks me is it’s like PF2 was created in a vacuum without 5e, and 5e fixed many of PF1 / 3.5 issues. Many. So many that almost all the complaints I see on these forums (dex to damage, magic item reliance / effects on monster stats, unnecessary number bloat, etc) have already been fixed by 5e. That’s not to say it’s perfect.

Although I feel there is elegance in its simplicity to character design, with much more emphasis on flavor and character background over mechanics, some don’t see enough options which I understand. That is where PF2 should’ve started. Taken all the leaps 5e made (number bloat reduction, magic item reliance reduction, emphasis on this is your world rather than we give you x,y, and z restrictions, etc) and added in more options within character classes and tactics.

Instead we have a system that retains the main problems of PF1 (number bloat) and in some cases expounds on them (class/skill/ancestry feat bloat) to the point where we have abilities that were available in PF1 now behind gates, monsters / npcs with no grounding in their formula, skill DC that fluctuates based on level, etc. Also there are fighting styles locked behind classes... all of this is regression not progression.

Again the problems currently facing PF2 with skills is it’s trying to maintain PF1 number bloat rather than reduce it. The same can be said of attack, ac, and saves.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system.

Neither gating, nor +x/level to all numbers are at all innovative.

They have invariably been tried before to a lacklustre result.

Regarding Gating, when it appears, it tends to manifest in a way for a GM to say "no" to a player as a result of something that a player has little chance of improving in the short-term. Look at the outcry when the Technologist feat was printed.

Adding your level to Everything was tried too in several other systems. None of which received universal praise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have to say, Bryon, saying "there isn't as much excitement for PF2e as there was for literally the most popular tabletop system in the world" strikes me as a somewhat pointless comparison. Like... no duh? Dungeons and Dragons is a household name. Pathfinder is not. The level of excitement is not going to be comparable. Exalted Third Edition is doing well enough that Onyx Path is continuing to support the line, but the excitement for that was less widespread than the excitement for PF2e already is.

Also going to agree with a previous poster; claiming you know Paizo's market better than Paizo does comes across as fairly pretentious unless you also have ten+ years experience running a business in the roleplaying industry.

And really... Is there any kind of constructive purpose to the doom and gloom posting? Do you hope to accomplish something other than seemingly trying to drive people away from the system?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:
Thoughtful reply

So it sounds like you are suggesting that Pathfinder 2nd edition try to do to 5e what Pathfinder did to 3rd edition. That sounds like a sure fire path towards massive litigation with a company that has all the resources to destroy Paizo as a company. Especially because 3rd edition was an abandoned system when pathfinder usurped it. 5e is a thriving game that has incredibly strict copyright rules and you can bet Wizards of the Coast is watching what Paizo does with PF2.

The ways in which the playtest pushed towards rapid character advancement, and big differences between high and low level play seem like a very intentional shift away from 5e. Same with the equipment and magic item reliance. Neither of those are systems I love, but I am content with the way they are balanced in the playtest (much better than in PF1), and I am interested in seeing how they are handled in an AP where character's equipment is more organically distributed that in spontaneous high level character generation. This is where everything hinges for me with PF2's success, are the adventures fun to play?

The playtest gave incredibly mixed feelings on this, and might have given PF2 some trouble from folks who tried parts of the playtest that were not designed first around the goal of making fun adventures. The first chapter of DD fit this bill for me and was a lot of fun, but suffered from being played before many of the best revisions to the playtest were released.

The feat bloat thing is not an issue that I see at all. I see people complaining about lack of feats, and wanting better feats, not that the playtest had too many. The argument in favor of letting all classes take all class feats is an argument in favor of a classless system, which is basically what PF1 was half way stumbling towards, but growing into a confusing mess by doing so. Doubling down on class niche and focus was a necessary step if the new game was going to retain classes, which seems like something that the development team have decided is a "must retain" element of the game for the sake of ease of learning the system, as well as the legacy feel of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well said, Unicore.

For me personally, the continued quality of the Adventure Paths is going to 100% determine my level of support for PF2e. There is simply no other company on the market that publishes prebuilt adventures with the regularity and quality that Paizo does, and believe me I've looked.

As someone who really loves running games but doesn't have the time to build my own campaigns from scratch, that is the make or break issue for me. I'll accept a fair number of flaws from the system itself if the APs continue to be rock solid.

I suspect I am not anything near alone in this.

Dark Archive

kaisc006 wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It seems like most of your arguments is that the Playtest is functioning too well at balancing the game, and that you enjoy a more broken and loose system.

Hmm we misunderstand eachother. Not once have I advocated for PF1. PF1 is a totally broken system because of number bloat, feat taxes/traps, class bloat, etc. I have moved onto 5e. What irks me is it’s like PF2 was created in a vacuum without 5e, and 5e fixed many of PF1 / 3.5 issues. Many. So many that almost all the complaints I see on these forums (dex to damage, magic item reliance / effects on monster stats, unnecessary number bloat, etc) have already been fixed by 5e. That’s not to say it’s perfect.

Although I feel there is elegance in its simplicity to character design, with much more emphasis on flavor and character background over mechanics, some don’t see enough options which I understand. That is where PF2 should’ve started. Taken all the leaps 5e made (number bloat reduction, magic item reliance reduction, emphasis on this is your world rather than we give you x,y, and z restrictions, etc) and added in more options within character classes and tactics.

Instead we have a system that retains the main problems of PF1 (number bloat) and in some cases expounds on them (class/skill/ancestry feat bloat) to the point where we have abilities that were available in PF1 now behind gates, monsters / npcs with no grounding in their formula, skill DC that fluctuates based on level, etc. Also there are fighting styles locked behind classes... all of this is regression not progression.

Again the problems currently facing PF2 with skills is it’s trying to maintain PF1 number bloat rather than reduce it. The same can be said of attack, ac, and saves.

Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

Lantern Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I have to say, Bryon, saying "there isn't as much excitement for PF2e as there was for literally the most popular tabletop system in the world" strikes me as a somewhat pointless comparison.

I think you’re being a little disingenuous to the success of PF1. For sure the name pathfinder didn’t stick it or resonate among players but there’s a big difference between knowing a name and playing the game.

Prior to 5e, PF1 was dominating the tabletop scene. Saying we are playing d&d pretty much meant we are playing pathfinder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That is fair, but I think it's fairly obvious at this point that had as much to do with WotC's mishandling of 4e as it did with PF1e. As soon as Wizards released a more appealing version of D&D, they retook the top spot almost immediately.

And the cultural impact of the two is unquestionably different. Like I said - D&D is a household name. Pathfinder isn't. That's why you still said you were playing D&D, isn't it? :) The marketing advantage of your product being a household name is almost insurmountable.

I love Pathfinder and I'm an ardent supporter of Paizo. But I think it's hard facts that they are not going to overtake WotC unless Wizards makes another 4e-level misstep. PF2e could be the most fantastically designed game system ever made and 5e would still outsell it, simply because every new person who enters the market has already heard of D&D but has to be sold on Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
kaisc006 wrote:

To clarify I don’t see a problem gating certain skills like disable device or knowledge (x) to require training. It’s when you pile on a master / legendary with more gates that they don’t make sense for a d20 system. It should simply be trained or untrained like it’s been since 3x. I don’t think this is some revolutionary concept for master / legendary skills, I think other devs in the countless editions since 3.0 have probably tried it and realized it doesn’t work in a d20 system.

Classless systems commonly use terms like this because being a master in something means you have a higher bonus / die pool than you would if you were trained. Those systems are generally ability + skill training + item. D20 replaces skill training with level which adds such a significant bonus at a fast and prolonged rate you can’t put a title to a particular bonus. Not to mention the DC should be static across the board not adjusted based on level or training. Otherwise it’s an unnecessary step when the training could’ve just amounted to a static bonus meaning the same thing as lowering the DC.

As for interest in PF2 you might not hear much talk against PF2 in the forums because many have moved on or “watch from a distance”. As others have said it was apparent PF2 had core issues that don’t function well. It’s frustrating when all the updates have tried to make those rules work at the cost of creating a totally arbitrary, Unnecessarily restrictive world.

Skill gates and +1 / level were a problem outlined day one of the playtest. And we are nearing the end with another 300+ thread on the matter...

If PF2 objectively didn't function well at its core, then people like me wouldn't still be here playing and defending it. The fact that plenty of groups have had a great time with it is proof enough that the core of the game does work well. People disliking the game and moving on because it isn't enough like PF1 for them or it isn't broken enough or even some other reason it doesn't quite fit their style isn't proof that the system is bad at its core. We've had enough successful playtest runs in the community that the "Omg this system is so bad it doesn't function" boat has long since sailed, not that it had any wind to begin with. Skill gates and +/level were a problem outlined by day one of the Playtest for SOME PEOPLE. They were a system greatly liked and highly praised by OTHER people, even if we weren't as loud on the forums about it. And Paizo has been watching the forums and surveys from day 1 for both the positive and negative and there hasn't been enough negative to make them believe removing +/level is worth it as a core rule (Though they have mentioned intent to provide an optional ruleset or at least make it super-easy to houserule, that alone should please the +/level detractors but for some reason isn't enough)

People are going to dislike the game. People won't want the change from PF1, or they won't like the more balanced system, or they will find some system like unified proficiency or +/- 10 doesn't quite tickle their fancy. And that's fine. Some will voice their grievances and move along, several have voiced their grievances but said they will give the final product a look since so many changes have happened, several have voiced their grievances and continue to push their particular grievances on these forums anytime a scant opportunity presents itself. Others still have their grievances but discuss them here in a civil and productive manner.

None of that means the system is objectively bad. Paizo can't please everyone, nor should they try to. If Paizo tried to please all the +/level detractors or turn the skill system back to just a single number defining how good you are at every possible aspect of a skill or drop the +/-10 system or break the math wide open all over again or just turn the game into PF 1.5 instead of PF2, ETC., they would lose other customers in the process. The people who are looking for a big change from PF1 and love what Paizo has done here with the Playtest.

And trying to state for a certainty that the group who like the Playtest is small while the group who dislike it is large is completely fallacious as we have no way to actually prove it. We have no way to solidly prove the other way either perhaps, but given how receptive Paizo has been to feedback I think if things were as bad as a few people are saying then they'd be making some serious reconsiderations.

I don't think "Being near the end with another 300+ thread on the matter" is a bad thing. It doesn't mean +/level is a widely hated system. It started because one person had a problem with the system and decided to say something about it Some people agreed, qite a few people came out saying they liked +/level or didn't have the same problems as the OP, and it's gone on into a lot of discussion between people who do and don't like the system, exploring in detail what is liked and disliked, and talking about ways to improve and refine it with precious few toxic or trollish remarks (Until maybe very recently). It's actually been rather enjoyable to partake in due to the low levels of toxicity. It's not been an echo chamber nor a hate-fest, it's been a discussion.

Now it would be a really good idea to quit this nebulous assuming about the PF2 market on all sides before this ends up getting the thread locked. This thread has been a REALLY good discussion on +/level until now, I'd hate to see it locked because of a tangent started by one individual known for causing trouble around here. (Not you, kaisc006)
This is a system thread, not a PR thread. ;P

EDIT: Holy frick there were literally a dozen comments added while I typed that!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Unicore wrote:
But a lot of people find PF1 to have "hard core issues that don't function well." Many people have been finding it unplayable, either in its complexity, trying to introduce new players, or the major balance issues it has had since it ported over a system that was flawed to begin with, especially around balance.

This is true. But it is a non sequitur with regard to whether 2E is or is not striking a chord.

The reality is that the 3X engine was adaptable and huge success.

TTRPGs players are a very diverse group and yet also a very small niche in the population overall.

You don't get anywhere trying to count the noses of people who don't like a game in this environment. You need to focus on counting noses of people who are fired up.

No comment about anything to do with 1E is relevant to the lack of widespread energy for 2E.

Quote:
Currently, Paizo is loosing all of that business, and will continue to loose more business if its only solution to its problem is to print more material for PF1.

Certainly true. 3X is old and there are a lot of things that have been learned in game design. 5E has latched onto that and is the young cool game that is crushing the old champion.

Paizo must change. I am totally onboard with a game called Pathfinder 2E.

But none of that comes close to establishing that *any* change is good simply because *some* change is needed. It has to be popular.

Quote:
Skill gates and feats a +level to proficiency were innovative ways to simplify certain aspects of building and advancing a character, while giving room for future growth and conceptual diversity within the system. The people who have not enjoyed them, have almost all seemed content with the existing pathfinder system, which means that when 2nd edition does come out, you will probably be...
Shrug. This may be the Word of God or it may be a bunch of crap. It makes no difference. It is just changing the subject from the elephant in the room.

When the assertion was made that "People are deserting PF2 because of core issues", pointing out that PF1 had great success despite core issues is not a non sequitur.

As for your wailing on about the "elephant in the room", your so-called elephant in the room is nothing more than your assumptions about the market that you keep pushing and harassing people with on these forums and derailing threads.

As MaxAstro asserted it's extremely pretentious to assume you know the market so much better than Paizo and you have never backed it up with anything more than nebulous assertions that we are supposed to take your word on, unlike Paizo who actually has data to assess their market by.

Not to mention this discussion doesn't even belong in this thread, so please take it elsewhere. Maybe make your own thread instead of derailing others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:


Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

And yet the funny thing is the numbers have been cut far back from PF1, which was cut far back from 3.5.

I'm going to assume you just want 5e bounded accuracy, even though that in no way fits for Pathfinder.


Ikos wrote:
kaisc006 wrote:
Unicore wrote:


It seems like most of your arguments is that the Playtest is functioning too well at balancing the game, and that you enjoy a more broken and loose system.

Hmm we misunderstand eachother. Not once have I advocated for PF1. PF1 is a totally broken system because of number bloat, feat taxes/traps, class bloat, etc. I have moved onto 5e. What irks me is it’s like PF2 was created in a vacuum without 5e, and 5e fixed many of PF1 / 3.5 issues. Many. So many that almost all the complaints I see on these forums (dex to damage, magic item reliance / effects on monster stats, unnecessary number bloat, etc) have already been fixed by 5e. That’s not to say it’s perfect.

Although I feel there is elegance in its simplicity to character design, with much more emphasis on flavor and character background over mechanics, some don’t see enough options which I understand. That is where PF2 should’ve started. Taken all the leaps 5e made (number bloat reduction, magic item reliance reduction, emphasis on this is your world rather than we give you x,y, and z restrictions, etc) and added in more options within character classes and tactics.

Instead we have a system that retains the main problems of PF1 (number bloat) and in some cases expounds on them (class/skill/ancestry feat bloat) to the point where we have abilities that were available in PF1 now behind gates, monsters / npcs with no grounding in their formula, skill DC that fluctuates based on level, etc. Also there are fighting styles locked behind classes... all of this is regression not progression.

Again the problems currently facing PF2 with skills is it’s trying to maintain PF1 number bloat rather than reduce it. The same can be said of attack, ac, and saves.

Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

Thing is, the problematic part of PF1 number bloat wasn't "the numbers are big", it was "The numbers can be pumped insanely and broken over numbers they are supposed to go against". Accuracy typically outstripping AC and players in general far outclassing equal level monsters being the classic examples but skills were nuts too.

PF2 has striped away basically all of that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

The fact that there is nothing to "cite" is a huge concern.

The claim that the ruleset in its current form is generating any widespread enthusiasm is the claim that requires demonstration.

If it was then the links debunking me would fly left and right.

On the other hand, if the claim is, "We haven't the slightest actual clue what the broad reception is like," then you'd see exactly what you're seeing.

If you're going to make a claim, point to evidence. Period.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post.

Be mindful to always respect your fellow posters. There is no need to personally attack an individual's participation in the discussion. If you would like to avoid participating in certain aspects of a debate, simply do not engage in the unwanted topic and direct the conversation in a new direction.

Lantern Lodge

Sorry I don’t quote everyone, I’m on mobile and it’s hard to copy / paste and what not lol.

Regarding number bloat not being the problem in PF1, it absolutely was. Yes you could push your numbers higher through system master, but the real problem was the difference between an unspecialized and specialized character. You could have someone sitting at the table with +20 diplomacy and one with nothing. It was a catch 22 where you could either keep DC relevant / realistic for all players and lose all tention whenever a specilisr went, or raise the DC to ridiculous amounts to pose a challenge for the specialist. Same was true for everything from attacks, AC, saves, etc.

To fix this disparity PF2 gave everyone a static bonus to everything. When facing encounters your level, there is little variation between players making it meaningless bloat. When facing things below your level you will crush them. When facing things higher level you will get crushed. This is due to how each level is effectively 5% anything in either direction. So a 3 level difference is -15% chance to hit, +15% chance to save, generally -15 % chance to crit, etc. The +10/-10 coupled with penalties to attacks really makes level difference a big deal.

They would accomplish the same goal (disparity between untrained and trained) by reducing the high numbers to keep the disparity between players still there just not as much. Yes bounded accuracy. I’m not sure why that’s something that can’t work in Pathfinder?

Also this leads to a much more believable world in that level 20 characters aren’t literal gods who began their career as peasants. You could say well PF1 was that way and no one had a problem which is partially true. That’s all we knew in a d20 system. Aside from fringe games like Castles and Crusaders that’s just what d20 meant. When 5e showed you can have a believable fantasy world from levels 1-20 not just 1-12, many players liked that. Most campaigns in PF1 ran from 1-12ish before the system really broke down not just in numbers but also verisimilitude.

As for copyright laws, they don’t have to be an exact replica. I’m just saying 5e has fixed many of the things listed as problems with this system on the boards. Perhaps there is some copyright protection preventing PF2 from being closer in design. If that’s the case I don’t see much of a future for PF2.

And I want PF2 to be successful. I want to come back to Pathfinder. And I could be, but don’t feel like, I’m the only one in this position. But PF2 has so many things from inflated numbers across the board, magic item reliance for damage / monster inflation for damage to work with the 3-action system, fighting styles locked to certain classes, dex to damage locked to only rogues, races that don’t feel like races, certain feats level locked for the sake of level locking, etc. I think many people who come to the genre from 5e will look at those and think... why? Others are thinking why all these concepts that were explored in Star Wars Saga and 4e and were identified as problems... Why are they in this system? Why change back?

Also, the ship hasn’t sailed regarding the core problems of PF2. I think people just sailed away and gave up talking about them because they knew it would be a massive change to the system.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think you are right that bounded accuracy is an elegant fix to a lot of the issues 3.5 has.

IMHO the problem is that PF2e can't directly compete with 5e. The more similar it is to 5e, the more people will be asking themselves "why not just play 5e, it has five times the playerbase?"

Paizo seems to have made an intentional decision to make a game distinctly different from 5e and not fix the same problems in the same ways, and I would put money that is why. The majority of the people who like bounded accuracy are much more likely to buy 5e than they are to buy a version of Pathfinder that has bounded accuracy.

Partly I have this opinion because I am seeing it in play personally. I have a game I want to run where I'd like the players to be challenged by groups of weaker creatures even at high levels; I'm definitely going to run that game in 5e.

Meanwhile, I have another campaign I'm planning where I want the PCs to end up unstoppable demigods that can mow through armies of low level creatures. PF2e is likely going to be perfect for that. Different systems enabling different stories is really good.


kaisc006 wrote:
They would accomplish the same goal (disparity between untrained and trained) by reducing the high numbers to keep the disparity between players still there just not as much.

Surely the primary goal of +1/level is to ensure that high level PCs can reliably crush low-level foes.

The disparity between specialist and nonspecialist isn't innately fixed by +1/level; it's fixed by removing the options that allow for disparity. In PF1, you could have six different stacking items for boosting AC. This creates AC disparity between the characters who do that and the characters who don't. In PF1, I could put a skill rank into Diplomacy skill every level, or I could not do it at all. By level 20 Diplomacy skill is going to vary wildly from one character to the next.

PF2 takes those options away, meaning specialists and nonspecialists are closer together.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've ran 74 PFS sessions this year in addition to seven PFS2.0 sessions. I really hate running anything past 7th level anymore because the sessions are exercises in Mathfinder and idiotic, totally broken encounters where the foes have no chance and the challenge is sadly lacking.

I really enjoyed the incredible open and simplistic combat encounters in PFS2.0 scenarios. Now I'm playing some of them and they are just a lot of fun. It takes some getting used to after spending so much time building up characters in 1e, but character building in 2e is still engaging. I think with the addition of more feats (the stuff that isn't in the Playtest) and stuff like that we'll see a system that is worthy of the Pathfinder name.

The +1/level thing is fine with me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that PF2 has going for it, from my perspective, is that a lot more of combat success is determined by tactics on the battlefield instead of before the battle begins with buff chaining and character building.

This does create situations where a well prepared GM can really make life difficult on the PCs if they play monsters with expert intelligence and tactics. Saying that 10 enemies 3 levels too low is a cake walk for the party assumes the party is going to be able to fight those enemies on equal footing. With three attacks and deadly weapons, crit fishing is a very dangerous tactic for enemies to employ with ranged weapons. Environmental advantages are also something that can really shift a combat in the playtest (fighting underwater for example).

I am curious to see how the adventure designers handle that, and how GMs respond.

Dark Archive

Cyouni wrote:
Ikos wrote:


Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

And yet the funny thing is the numbers have been cut far back from PF1, which was cut far back from 3.5.

I'm going to assume you just want 5e bounded accuracy, even though that in no way fits for Pathfinder.

The baseline numbers are higher in PF2. This is not debatable. I’m assuming you did not play the second half of the playtest to claim otherwise. It is a consequence of adding +1 to everything. I don’t need things as flat as 5e; but would rather not have them higher than the previous edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Ikos wrote:


Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

And yet the funny thing is the numbers have been cut far back from PF1, which was cut far back from 3.5.

I'm going to assume you just want 5e bounded accuracy, even though that in no way fits for Pathfinder.

The baseline numbers are higher in PF2. This is not debatable. I’m assuming you did not play the second half of the playtest to claim otherwise. It is a consequence of adding +1 to everything. I don’t need things as flat as 5e; but would rather not have them higher than the previous edition.

The Floor was raised, yes. The Floor could be argued to have been too low in the past. The Ceiling however, which I'm pretty sure is what Cyouni was talking about, is undeniably much lower than it used to be. It is possible in PF1e to get some numbers into the hundreds (just yesterday a couple of the people in my group and I did an exercise and found ways to get a character to 220 Initiative through maximum cheese for instance, and one member had a player in another group who got an effective 616 Acrobatics modifier for jumping completely legit) which for some is far too ridiculous, and for others is Tuesday. In contrast, another character moderately invested (full ranks, class skill, 16 base stat and a +6 item) in a skill (say Acrobatics since I gave a numeric example there) might have a mere 29 at level 20. And a third (non-Fighter) character with no investment and, say, Full-Plate Armor with just enough Dex to cap it would have an awe-inspiring -4. And it's possible for any of these to be the maximum Acrobatics score in a given game. Makes it really hard to have any challenge that might involve jumping, given the third physically can't do it, and the first can auto-succeed at things a couple times the max the second can manage on a nat 20.

Contrast this to the Playtest. Yes the bare minimum Acrobatics is going to be 11 at level 20 (for an Untrained level 20 character in Normal Gray-Maiden Plate for some reason) but in contrast the maximum reliable value is going to be roughly 35 (20 levels, 7 Dex, 3 Legendary, 5 Item) plus competence and circumstance, ultimately you're probably not getting too far above 40. Which granted is still a roughly 30 point difference, but is much easier to design around than a 620 point differential.


Ikos wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
Ikos wrote:


Yes, the numbers bloat in double-digit levels of the playtest ruleset currently borders on satire and can be squarely placed in the “worst parts of the 3x system” file.

And yet the funny thing is the numbers have been cut far back from PF1, which was cut far back from 3.5.

I'm going to assume you just want 5e bounded accuracy, even though that in no way fits for Pathfinder.

The baseline numbers are higher in PF2. This is not debatable. I’m assuming you did not play the second half of the playtest to claim otherwise. It is a consequence of adding +1 to everything. I don’t need things as flat as 5e; but would rather not have them higher than the previous edition.

Quite a few of the baseline numbers are not higher, not even close. My heavily optimized bard in Red Flags has +24 to Thievery (28 effective). That's not even close to what I can put together in PF1 in Disable Device - just a cursory glance tells me I can give that character a permanent +32, spending only 11k out of their allotted money instead of a 13th level item, and that's not even accounting for any other bonuses - just items and a 20 Dex. Trying even a tiny bit harder gets me +35 from adding Dex.

I recall a random cavalier who wasn't trying very hard at it had 41 AC at level 15.
You can easily hit an AC of 53 at level 20 in core PF1.

I can keep going if you like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Alternative option 5:

Keep +1 per level, but you don't get it if you're Untrained.

Looks like they're going with this one. Which means all the "Every Level 20 Barbarian is really good at music and computers" issues will go away and we can stop trying to make jokes about it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Alternative option 5:

Keep +1 per level, but you don't get it if you're Untrained.

Looks like they're going with this one. Which means all the "Every Level 20 Barbarian is really good at music and computers" issues will go away and we can stop trying to make jokes about it.

Yay!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Alternative option 5:

Keep +1 per level, but you don't get it if you're Untrained.

Looks like they're going with this one. Which means all the "Every Level 20 Barbarian is really good at music and computers" issues will go away and we can stop trying to make jokes about it.

Thank Cthulhu, they came to their senses


Unicore wrote:

One thing that PF2 has going for it, from my perspective, is that a lot more of combat success is determined by tactics on the battlefield instead of before the battle begins with buff chaining and character building.

This does create situations where a well prepared GM can really make life difficult on the PCs if they play monsters with expert intelligence and tactics. Saying that 10 enemies 3 levels too low is a cake walk for the party assumes the party is going to be able to fight those enemies on equal footing. With three attacks and deadly weapons, crit fishing is a very dangerous tactic for enemies to employ with ranged weapons. Environmental advantages are also something that can really shift a combat in the playtest (fighting underwater for example).

I am curious to see how the adventure designers handle that, and how GMs respond.

It looks like I spoke too soon. This is something that was true of the play test. PF2 looks headed back towards a focus on hyper-specialization of character build trumping strategic play at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
trumping strategic play at the table.

Good. If I want to play chess, then I play chess and don't have to invite 4 to 6 people for that


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I have to say, Bryon, saying "there isn't as much excitement for PF2e as there was for literally the most popular tabletop system in the world" strikes me as a somewhat pointless comparison. Like... no duh? Dungeons and Dragons is a household name. Pathfinder is not. The level of excitement is not going to be comparable. Exalted Third Edition is doing well enough that Onyx Path is continuing to support the line, but the excitement for that was less widespread than the excitement for PF2e already is.

The claim was that the dearth of enthusiasm was natural because of the state of the playtest and lack of new stuff to talk about.

Forget that for a while Pathfinder *was* the most popular TTRPG in the world. If we assume it is 10% of 5E (or whatever other number you want to pick, but if you go below 10% this this conversation is a waste of time anyway)then the ability to maintain that enthusiasm should persist in a similar fashion. It may persist at 10%, but it should persist. And one would hope that it would grow, even if *only* to, say, 15%.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

The fact that there is nothing to "cite" is a huge concern.

The claim that the ruleset in its current form is generating any widespread enthusiasm is the claim that requires demonstration.

If it was then the links debunking me would fly left and right.

On the other hand, if the claim is, "We haven't the slightest actual clue what the broad reception is like," then you'd see exactly what you're seeing.

If you're going to make a claim, point to evidence. Period.

What exactly do you want to to point to? Are you REALLY saying that you are right unless I prove a negative?

I can point to the way the 4E response ran and how that ended. I can point to how the PF1E response ran and how that ended. I can point to how the 5E response ran and how that ended. I can point to how the 3E response ran and how that ended. The patterns are clear.

Again, if you are disputing me, then your task of making me look the fool should be easy. Link the the various huge bastions of enthusiasm and I'll lose all face. I'll be at your mercy. If you are right, then I'm a fish in a barrel.

I'm not a fish.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

The fact that there is nothing to "cite" is a huge concern.

The claim that the ruleset in its current form is generating any widespread enthusiasm is the claim that requires demonstration.

If it was then the links debunking me would fly left and right.

On the other hand, if the claim is, "We haven't the slightest actual clue what the broad reception is like," then you'd see exactly what you're seeing.

If you're going to make a claim, point to evidence. Period.

What exactly do you want to to point to?

I am not disputing your claim. I'm asking you to point to a reason why your claim should be paid attention to.

You keep speaking for "people," the way you did above, and I'm asking you to point to a justification for your doing so. I'm asking you to explain where you're getting this insight into what "people" think. Your cited references so far fall 100% into the category of anecdote - can you point to anything that has any objective weight? Anything at all?

The READ BEFORE YOU POST thread stickied at the top of this forum includes this bullet point:

Vic Wertz wrote:
• Don’t speak for others. You can give us feedback for your gaming group, but talking like you're speaking for gamers in general is obviously not so, and renders everything you have to say suspect.

I'm asking you to point to why you think that doesn't apply to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raylyeh wrote:
I’ve noticed a trend. Where a certain somebody steps into an already volatile thread, throws out inflammatory statements that cannot definitively be proven or disproven. The certain somebody tries to deflect all arguments about their unprovable statement by way of showing that it can’t be disproven either and then threads quickly become derailed train wrecks. There is a word for this kind of someone, I think it starts with a “T”. I suggest we start ignoring said somebody. Anyone want to second that?

Hear, hear! I said pretty close to the same thing when someone first popped in, but in a somewhat more... acerbic tone that ended up getting moderated.

But yes, agreed, I'd like to see us swing back to the more productive discussions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

How's that different from PF1 CR=APL-2 encounters being non-existient threats? A APL 10 party wouldn't even notice a CR 8 opponent, they would just walk past it.

Superheroism was so hardcoded in PF1 to a degree that a mid to high level party was less Fellowship of Rings or Conan and Co. and more Justice League.


Hythlodeus wrote:
Unicore wrote:
trumping strategic play at the table.
Good. If I want to play chess, then I play chess and don't have to invite 4 to 6 people for that

For me PF was fantasy hero Barbie. Making up characters and backstories was fun. Putting those characters into play with my friends usually resulted in fights with my friends because somebody had the fancy Malibu Barbie set and somebody else didn’t. Role playingGames that lack fun ways to focus characters on playing well together are disappointing. The playtest did this very well. I hope they don’t lose it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

How's that different from PF1 CR=APL-2 encounters being non-existient threats? A APL 10 party wouldn't even notice a CR 8 opponent, they would just walk past it.

Superheroism was so hardcoded in PF1 to a degree that a mid to high level party was less Fellowship of Rings or Conan and Co. and more Justice League.

They could be included as an element of an encounter and have some meaning. Now they aren’t even a speedbump at all.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

*remembers a recent encounter with 10 CR 9 foes that nearly TPKed our level 15 party in PF1e due to positioning and surprise*

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

How's that different from PF1 CR=APL-2 encounters being non-existient threats? A APL 10 party wouldn't even notice a CR 8 opponent, they would just walk past it.

Superheroism was so hardcoded in PF1 to a degree that a mid to high level party was less Fellowship of Rings or Conan and Co. and more Justice League.

They could be included as an element of an encounter and have some meaning. Now they aren’t even a speedbump at all.

Doomsday Dawn part 7 spoilers:
The level 18 dragon with his level 14 sidekicks my 17th level monk just had to tangle with would disagree. Sure, the adds weren't huge on their own, but between granting the dragon a flank and the occasional high rolls, the deh-nolos did have an impact on the fight.

Shisumo wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Part of my problem with the plus one per level to all, is how it really really restricts the universe of opposition that is useful as even cannon fodder. Below say two levels lower things might as well not even be there and above two levels higher and the pcs might as well not even be there. I really don’t like hardcoding ‘superhero’ status like that.

How's that different from PF1 CR=APL-2 encounters being non-existient threats? A APL 10 party wouldn't even notice a CR 8 opponent, they would just walk past it.

Superheroism was so hardcoded in PF1 to a degree that a mid to high level party was less Fellowship of Rings or Conan and Co. and more Justice League.

They could be included as an element of an encounter and have some meaning. Now they aren’t even a speedbump at all.
** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, I've seen a level +4 soundly beaten and level -3 or 4s have an impact o combat. The effective range does seem to work out to 4 levels as indicated in the Bestiary.

That said, with the math adjustments coming this may not be the case in the final book.


Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I think 5th edition D&D handled this really well. The proficiency bonus essentially adds a +1 to Attack after every 4 levels, and is not applied to Defense. Provides for some advancement so that you properly clean house against those level 1 goblins when you are 6th level but there is still a number of s&&&ty 1st level goblins where you can say "oh, we may have a problem".

Attribute Bonuses, bonuses from Feats and Magic Equipment provide all the progression you need from a numbers standpoint, and since the with a +level system the monsters essentially level up with you, those bonuses are the only ones that actually even matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Small Upsetters wrote:
since the with a +level system the monsters essentially level up with you, those bonuses are the only ones that actually even matter.

*glares in level difference*


Small Upsetters wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but I think 5th edition D&D handled this really well.

Yea. In this thread. And all the other please-remove-+1-per-level threads. They're all the same thread. Someone posts that +1/lvl bloats the system. And a bunch of people say, "In 5E D&D..."

351 to 400 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / While +1 / level is a problem, removing it alone is not a solution. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.