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


General Discussion

401 to 450 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Cyouni wrote:
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.

Yes, please keep citing individual cases as evidence disproving a general trend. By the double digit levels of play, the baseline numbers are higher in PF2.

Me: It's raining out. Here's the doppler. You: No, I've seen several people with dry shoes. Case closed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
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.

Yes, please keep citing individual cases as evidence disproving a general trend. By the double digit levels of play, the baseline numbers are higher in PF2.

Me: It's raining out. Here's the doppler. You: No, I've seen several people with dry shoes. Case closed.

Uh, just saying, my Path1 group averages +20-22 on their best skills. That’s a Witch’s Diplomacy, Summoner’s Sense Motive, Monk’s Intimidate, and a couple Knowledge skills here and there. There’s also a dozen +16-18s floating around.

They’re level 5.

I don’t see any bloat in P2.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ikos wrote:

Yes, please keep citing individual cases as evidence disproving a general trend. By the double digit levels of play, the baseline numbers are higher in PF2.

Me: It's raining out. Here's the doppler. You: No, I've seen several people with dry shoes. Case closed.

Can... you actually show us this metaphorical doppler? Because most of the numbers at high levels of the playtest are markedly lower than what I have seen and would theorycraft to expect out of even moderately effective characters in PF1. (AC is really the only exception.) What is your proof of the contrary?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The magnitude of the modifier isn't what's important. The difference between modifier and DC is more important.

I don't care if I have +100 vs DC110 as opposed to +10 vs DC20. And if a modifier that I keep investing in remains at +10 vs DC20 for levels 1-10, it's not advancing.

Likewise, if a modifier that I keep investing in grows to +100 vs DC110 by level 10, it's still not advancing. It's just inflating.

Big numbers alone don't excite me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ikos wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
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.

Yes, please keep citing individual cases as evidence disproving a general trend. By the double digit levels of play, the baseline numbers are higher in PF2.

Me: It's raining out. Here's the doppler. You: No, I've seen several people with dry shoes. Case closed.

I think by baseline numbers you mean numbers before bonuses. From that perspective you're correct, technically. In PF1, BAB is 3/4 or 1/2 levels, while saves are either 1/3 or 2/3 levels.

This is only part of the story, though, because PF1 bonuses dwarf those of PF2, via the use of ability-boosting items and many more opportunities for stacking different bonus types. A competently built character in PF1 will reach higher numbers than her PF2 counterpart in most cases. Exceptions would be for saves with 1/3 progression in PF1, attack for 1/2 level BAB classes, as well as AC for wizards, maybe a few others.

To be more precise: In PF1, one can easily reach much higher numbers than PF2 in the things they want to specialize in, but this comes at the expense of other things, where the numbers will be lower than PF2. By design, PF2 strikes a more consistent balance. This is one of the ways the devs fixed the high-level PF1 rocket tag issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mekkis wrote:

The magnitude of the modifier isn't what's important. The difference between modifier and DC is more important.

I don't care if I have +100 vs DC110 as opposed to +10 vs DC20. And if a modifier that I keep investing in remains at +10 vs DC20 for levels 1-10, it's not advancing.

Likewise, if a modifier that I keep investing in grows to +100 vs DC110 by level 10, it's still not advancing. It's just inflating.

Big numbers alone don't excite me.

Luckily for you, Pathfinder 2e doesn't work that way and neither does the Playtest.

The only system that works that way is the strawman system opponents of +1/level keep inventing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

The magnitude of the modifier isn't what's important. The difference between modifier and DC is more important.

I don't care if I have +100 vs DC110 as opposed to +10 vs DC20. And if a modifier that I keep investing in remains at +10 vs DC20 for levels 1-10, it's not advancing.

Likewise, if a modifier that I keep investing in grows to +100 vs DC110 by level 10, it's still not advancing. It's just inflating.

Big numbers alone don't excite me.

Luckily for you, Pathfinder 2e doesn't work that way and neither does the Playtest.

The only system that works that way is the strawman system opponents of +1/level keep inventing.

Unfortunately, the Playtest, as published, and as implemented in Doomsday Dawn, does use such a system.

As with Page 42 of the DMG of the fourth edition of the world's oldest roleplaying game, table 10-02 literally calls it out.

Except this time it's clearly more explicit in that player abilities are also tied to it.

There is no strawman here. It actually exists.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay but do the math. At level 1 you have about a 55% chance of passing a Medium difficulty check if you optimize. At level 20 you have a 95% chance if you optimize.

That is not "I have the same +10 against DC 20 for 20 levels".


Mekkis wrote:

The magnitude of the modifier isn't what's important. The difference between modifier and DC is more important.

I don't care if I have +100 vs DC110 as opposed to +10 vs DC20. And if a modifier that I keep investing in remains at +10 vs DC20 for levels 1-10, it's not advancing.

Likewise, if a modifier that I keep investing in grows to +100 vs DC110 by level 10, it's still not advancing. It's just inflating.

Big numbers alone don't excite me.

Magnitude isn't unimportant by any stretch, because DC's don't exist in isolation and a D20 can only handle a difference of 20 points. If the DC is 110 and your modifier is 100, it means that being even a single level off could make a task virtually impossible or virtually guaranteed to succeed, a DC 100 check you were challenged by just a level ago is now a gimme.

Smaller numbers make it easier for fixed DC's to remain relevant for more levels, as evidenced by 5e's bounded accuracy. If numbers aren't getting much higher than a +17 at the very extreme end (expertise at level 20 + a 20 in the relevant attribute for 5e), then a DC of 20 is relevant to everyone, those with just a +0 or a +1 and those who've done everything possible to max the skill.

For PF2, the size of the numbers were likely chosen so that only some activities can become irrelevant gimmes at high level or require some amount of training to even attempt, but otherwise having it so most stuff is neither gyaranteed nor impossible. +/- 4 levels before things start to break down is a 9 level spread, not as wide as 5e but still pretty reasonable.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'll be honest, I don't care about the market appeal of the game and I think it's kinda arrogant of you to say you do.

I want Paizo to make a game that appeals to me, because I'm going to be the one playing it. I trust Paizo to make a game that has market appeal because they have done pretty well as a company so far. But it's not my job nor my field of expertise to "help" them do that, so I'm going to argue for them to make a game I would like because everyone doing that is how Paizo figures out where the market appeal is.

If everyone tried to argue for the position they thought would be most appealing to the market no one would be arguing for the game they actually want, which would leave no metric for Paizo to figure out what people actually want.

I know exactly what I want out of PF2e and I bet several other people on the forums could tell me what I want out of it, because I've been arguing for what I, personally, want since day one.

You make all these arguments about "broad market appeal" and "what people as a whole want from this game" but I honestly have no idea what YOU want out of PF2e and I doubt Paizo does either.

If all you want is "a game with broad market appeal", congrats there are literally dozens if not hundreds of ways to achieve that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I'll be honest, I don't care about the market appeal of the game and I think it's kinda arrogant of you to say you do.

I want Paizo to make a game that appeals to me, because I'm going to be the one playing it. I trust Paizo to make a game that has market appeal because they have done pretty well as a company so far. But it's not my job nor my field of expertise to "help" them do that, so I'm going to argue for them to make a game I would like because everyone doing that is how Paizo figures out where the market appeal is.

If everyone tried to argue for the position they thought would be most appealing to the market no one would be arguing for the game they actually want, which would leave no metric for Paizo to figure out what people actually want.

I know exactly what I want out of PF2e and I bet several other people on the forums could tell me what I want out of it, because I've been arguing for what I, personally, want since day one.

You make all these arguments about "broad market appeal" and "what people as a whole want from this game" but I honestly have no idea what YOU want out of PF2e and I doubt Paizo does either.

If all you want is "a game with broad market appeal", congrats there are literally dozens if not hundreds of ways to achieve that.

Nail on head. Capitalism is terrible and using it as a metric of a system's worth has little importance to me beyond a general desire for a game I like to be shared with others. What I want is a crunchy fantasy RPG that incorporates some of the best ideas of 5e and streamlines the system such that every ounce of crunch provides depth during play and meaningful customization with many valid choices rather than a few that can broadly be considered the most optional. I want a system that assumes players are trying to optimize and still gives them plenty of flexibility to make at least some choices for flavor or aesthetic reasons; races not being shoehorned into specific classes was a big favorite of mine. I want a game I throw a bunch of munchkins at, let them have fun, and not have to step in too much to make sure those with less system mastery can have fun too.

For all this talk of "market share" it seems that the possibility that non-PF1 players who are interested in PF2 isn't really being considered. Like, yeah, no s$#& PF1 players aren't going to want a new edition, they've spent a lot of money on PF1 and if they're still playing it exclusively then clearly it hit a mark for them. It's a system that was birthed by an aversion to change, I don't expect any major overhaul to really go over well with that crowd.

But PF1 has been shrinking for a while, not everyone who left necessarily wants to play 5e exclusively, having an RPG with OGL rules is extremely useful, and people who came into the hobby through 5e may want something a bit more advanced. PF2 works for that niche, and it still feels like Pathfinder, or at least the good bits I remember about it, much as 5e felt like 3.5 without the suck after years of only having 4e and PF1 as the big name alternatives.

So its like, who thinks they're speaking for the bigger market share? Who the f&@% knows. I just want a game that appeals to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Plus, I mean "whether or not a game is popular" has a lot more to do with marketing, a steady release schedule, the strength of modules and adventure paths, good times had at events at cons and at gaming stores, "the cover art looks good", etc. than it does to any specific aspect of the system math.

People have been having fun with roleplaying games in spite of the rules for nigh on 30 years, in large part because "the rules" are the easiest part to change. So "this particular math detail is going to keep the game from having broad appeal" is just a baffling claim to make.

I mean, people pick up games and think of the kinds of stories they can tell, not the kinds of ones they can't (e.g. Call of Cthulhu is a very bad system for superheroes), and if something is very easily changed to enable them to tell a story they want to tell then it's not a problem in its unchanged state.


I just want to be excited to show up and play on my weekly game night.
And while, really, that's going to happen no matter what system I'm playing, I'm hoping hard for a system that will excite me for the next 10, 20, or 30 years.
Personally, I like the idea of getting a set system that works great, that my friends can agree we like for our stories. And, once we have it set, I want to forget about it like it's a given.
Sort of like watching football. We have the rules... what we care about are the games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I just want to be excited to show up and play on my weekly game night.

And while, really, that's going to happen no matter what system I'm playing, I'm hoping hard for a system that will excite me for the next 10, 20, or 30 years.
Personally, I like the idea of getting a set system that works great, that my friends can agree we like for our stories. And, once we have it set, I want to forget about it like it's a given.
Sort of like watching football. We have the rules... what we care about are the games.

Of course.

But that happens because you *first* pick a ruleset that resonates for you. Then you love that game. Then you are able to take the mechanics for granted. The last step is the goal, but the first step is critical.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Pretty much.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Byron it isn't that people want to force others to play the game their way, or that they think their way is the way that will definitely have the broadest appeal, its that they don't know any better and in that case they can only present information with the sample size they have (them and their groups.)

What people get upset about is you pretending you have anything other than that to present, whilst repeatedly and nonsensically banging on about Market Appeal with nothing to back it up and no way to know whether MA lines up with your point of view or that of any other poster.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

You fixated on an offhanded comment to the exclusion of the rest my post with some extremely bad takes about a topic you don't seem to be very well versed on, in an attempt to imply I'm a Stalinist authoritarian looking to control RPG's. Because I was critical of the wealth worship and endless speculation about a market share you can't possibly speak for with any authority. Not everyone who takes issue with some facet of the free market is a Stalinist, and there is in fact an extreme variety of possible positions running the gamut from left to right about how to handle those criticisms.

Never mind that the tiny segment you quoted directly contradicts what you implied about me, as I said there that I want to share a hobby I enjoy. More generally I've been insistent on having accessible rules and flexible flavor that enables people of very different life experiences to enjoy the game and feel welcome at the table, even if that isn't as profitable as catering to a wealthy but insular fanbase that views others playing as intruding upon "their" hobby or that feel that any changes made to accommodate others will "dumb the game down." Thankfully, I don't see many examples of that sort of gatekeeping in these forums, but I am very used to certain spaces treating a very particular kind of RPG player as the "default" and that anyone that isn't exactly like the existing audience has no money and doesn't actually care about RPG's.

It's very hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when you make posts like that. I think you can make your argument without that sort of post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, guys, I think it's best if we just stop humoring Bryon. Clearly there is no resolution to be had to this discussion.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a lot of problematic posts, as well as posts quoting or referencing deleted comments. Things have gone wildly off topic into unproductive arguments and hurling of insults. Tone it down. If you disagree with someone, do not respond aggressively, or at all. This thread does not need to be derailed any further. Consider how your comments will affect other posters, and stay in line with our community guidelines.


Gosh, I'm late to this party, but...

Edge93 wrote:

On the idea of "a good Fighter should be able to hit most of the time", I would say, shouldn't a good defender be able to dodge most of the time?

Theoretically a strongly offensive unit vs. a strongly defensive unit should have about a 50% chance to hit at equal level. If you are fighting an enemy of equal level and you are hitting them on a 4, they're failing their saves against your spells on a 15, etc., then I'm sorry but that's not a foe of equal level. That's a foe of lower level that has a higher level painted on it so you feel more accomplished fighting it (You here is used as a general term, this is by no means intended as a personal snipe).

ALERT! ALERT! MASSIVE LOGICAL FALLACY DETECTED!

You are correct in that there's a disconnect between "a good fighter should..." and "a good defender should..."

The fallacy you made was in assuming that a good fighter is also a good defender. And by extension that everyone is a good defender (or in the case of monsters, have good AC or just be immune to crits....).

PF2 (T)AC values are virtually identical across the board for all classes and their preferred armor! they're is no such thing as a "good defender" any more, just "bad defenders" who didn't max out their dex score for the armor they're wearing.

With +level on everyone, with dex+armor=7, that means that everyone's expected AC all the time is level+7+TEML (which is largely level dependent anyway and only a few classes ever see master status or better). Plus some magic, but that is level dependent too, and comes online at the same rate for everybody (as it probably should).

Oh, except Monk, because reasons. No one likes Monk, they're too powerful, gotta knock em down a peg. No armor, just dex. Fixed!

So worth the concept of "a good defender" rightfully and properly removed from the system because being bad sucks, now we can address the good fighter side of the equation...

The new crit rules means that a good fighter is going to be critting all the time, and that's no fun, so it gets removed too, because getting crit sucks, as that should be rare all the time for everyone.

Now everyone is mediocre at everything, system balanced, job done, publish it.

Liberty's Edge

Draco18s wrote:
Oh, except Monk, because reasons. No one likes Monk, they're too powerful, gotta knock em down a peg. No armor, just dex. Fixed!

Stop, my heart can only take so much!

"You mean to say that this Class can survive an equal level challenge completely naked, and with no chance to rest for spells?"

"Yeah, that's sorta their main thing"

"Too much, make them squishier. Oh and while you're opening the patient up, delete that part that allows their damage to scale without Magic Weapons."

"But... but boss...

"My coffee is cold ... *grumble*


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Draco, I don't think Edge actually said the things you are calling a fallacy.

He said that a really good attacker against a really good defender should be roughly a coin toss.

I don't see anything about how everyone should be a good defender or how the good attacker should also be a good defender... Really just an argument that it should be possible to defend yourself well enough that a good attacker has a hard time hitting you.

Which in PF1e it really wasn't, outside of weird twink builds.


MaxAstro wrote:

Draco, I don't think Edge actually said the things you are calling a fallacy.

He said that a really good attacker against a really good defender should be roughly a coin toss.

And I agreed.

Quote:
I don't see anything about how everyone should be a good defender or how the good attacker should also be a good defender... Really just an argument that it should be possible to defend yourself well enough that a good attacker has a hard time hitting you.

...except that its the system itself which doesn't have a "good defender" archetype. Everyone is equally good, except when they failed to be equal. There's no "ahead of the curve" on AC, only "behind" when before it was possible to be both. Its the system that precludes a "good defender" which is why a "good attacker" doesn't exist.

There is nothing wrong with good attacker his a good defender 50% of the time!

The problem is that the new system precludes both from existing by making every one equal. And that feels wrong. That's what Edge didn't address and in failing to address it, he commits the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion as proof of argument.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are definitely good attackers and good defenders in PF2. Everyone is not equal. Its just the raw numbers aren't that different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:
BryonD wrote:

You fixated on an offhanded comment to the exclusion of the rest my post with some extremely bad takes about a topic you don't seem to be very well versed on, in an attempt to imply I'm a Stalinist authoritarian looking to control RPG's. Because I was critical of the wealth worship and endless speculation about a market share you can't possibly speak for with any authority. Not everyone who takes issue with some facet of the free market is a Stalinist, and there is in fact an extreme variety of possible positions running the gamut from left to right about how to handle those criticisms.

Never mind that the tiny segment you quoted directly contradicts what you implied about me, as I said there that I want to share a hobby I enjoy. More generally I've been insistent on having accessible rules and flexible flavor that enables people of very different life experiences to enjoy the game and feel welcome at the table, even if that isn't as profitable as catering to a wealthy but insular fanbase that views others playing as intruding upon "their" hobby or that feel that any changes made to accommodate others will "dumb the game down." Thankfully, I don't see many examples of that sort of gatekeeping in these forums, but I am very used to certain spaces treating a very particular kind of RPG player as the "default" and that anyone that isn't exactly like the existing audience has no money and doesn't actually care about RPG's.

It's very hard to believe you're arguing in good faith when you make posts like that. I think you can make your argument without that sort of post.

Heh

You are the one who brought up the topic you are now calling bad faith.
Though in fairness (to both of us) two others strongly embraced your point and ran with it before I ever saw it. (one that you quoted and another who followed.

Further, I said "market appeal". You put the idea of "wealth worship" into this. And now you are trying to double back and say that you DO support the game bringing fun to a lot of people. Well that is the very definition of market appeal. They can give the game away. And remember, with the OGL and SRD thay *DO* give it away. 1E is FREE now. And yet, clearly it has lost a ton of "market appeal".

So it seems you are simply attacking your own knee jerk reaction.

But, since we now agree that getting as many fans as possible is a GOOD thing, looking for ways to move in that direction should be welcome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:


Fixating on offhanded comments to the exclusion of other things is a key part of Byron's MO though! You can't expect him to pass up such easy opportunities to arrogantly condescend you in his so-well-practiced pretentious tone, can you?

Wow This is completely asinine. There is literally zero truth to this claim.

And, I think it is ENTIRELY on point to draw attention to people taking a position and, as a group, proclaiming that they are rejecting the overall popularity of the game in favor of their own personal interests. And that was flat out stated in multiple posts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:


With +level on everyone, with dex+armor=7, that means that everyone's expected AC all the time is level+7+TEML (which is largely level dependent anyway and only a few classes ever see master status or better). Plus some magic, but that is level dependent too, and comes online at the same rate for everybody (as it probably should).

This isn't true, by the way. Level 1 optimal ACs by class:

Wiz/sorc unarmored: 14
Monk: 16
Light: 17
Medium: 18
Heavy: 18
Medium/Heavy+Shield: 20

Remember, you can only get +4 dex on until 10th level, and you can only get even that at level 1 if you have dex as a key stat. So no wizards or sorcerers A 4 point swing (6 with a heavy shield) between the extremes feels rather significant with the crit math.

Unarmored (wiz/sorc) and monks move up one point when they get their bracers. Technically the arcane casters can get an extra point of AC at level 1 using mage armor, but that costs them a third of their spell slots. By comparison PF1 mage armor closed the gap way more.

At the end of the day TEML+7 is only achievable by medium or heavy armor wearers out the gate. At level 5, the wiz/sorc can have TEML+5, the rogue and monk can have TEML+6, and the medium and heavies are still the only ones with TEML+7. Except that becomes TEML+8 soon after for the Paladin.

By level 10, the monks and lights have caught up to the mediums at TEML+7, but the heavy fighter is about to pull ahead at TEML+8.

Just looking at the armor table really doesn't tell the whole story. The gaps are there. They aren't huge, but then again in PF1 the dex/armor caps without magic, class features, or special materials were:

Light: 18
Medium: 19
Heavy: 20

With monks and wizards being harder to predict because they are only really limited by stat array and "do I have mage armor on."


And also what Captain Morgan said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Draco, I don't think Edge actually said the things you are calling a fallacy.

He said that a really good attacker against a really good defender should be roughly a coin toss.

And I agreed.

Quote:
I don't see anything about how everyone should be a good defender or how the good attacker should also be a good defender... Really just an argument that it should be possible to defend yourself well enough that a good attacker has a hard time hitting you.

...except that its the system itself which doesn't have a "good defender" archetype. Everyone is equally good, except when they failed to be equal. There's no "ahead of the curve" on AC, only "behind" when before it was possible to be both. Its the system that precludes a "good defender" which is why a "good attacker" doesn't exist.

There is nothing wrong with good attacker his a good defender 50% of the time!

The problem is that the new system precludes both from existing by making every one equal. And that feels wrong. That's what Edge didn't address and in failing to address it, he commits the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion as proof of argument.

I mean, Fighters get Master in heavy armor, Paladins get Legendary in heavy, and Monks get Legendary in unarmored with Dex Monks eventually able to actually break the Dex+armor=7 limit (Well, at level 20). So good defenders absolutely are a thing. It's just that there are less classes with improved armor proficiency than with improved weapon proficiency.

Though admittedly there are some bugs in accuracy vs. AC in PC vs. PC because you can get Dex+armor to 7 faster than you can get Str/Dex to 7. However classes also get weapon proficiencies faster than they get armor proficiencies so that evens it out some.

A good defender vs. good attacker IS a 50-50-ish in this system. Str +7 Legendary weapon attack vs. Dex+Armor=7 Legendary armor is a hit-on-10 situation. Same with master weapon vs. master armor.

Legendary weapon and +7 Str vs. Trained armor and Dex+armor=7 is a hit on 7 situation, which I think is pretty reasonable.

If there's a problem it's the odd dynamic where armor+Dex is usually higher than Str/Dex until high levels (Which again is balanced partly by weapon proficiency being earlier than armor proficiency), or that not many classes get improved armor proficiency. Not the assertion that all are equal when that is not the case. Yes, the cap for all Trained armor at a given level is technically equal, but not all classes get there the same way (Some like Wizard may not get there at all), and classes above trained pass it entirely.

I'm not quite sure I understand the assertions of everyone being equal or of there being no good defenders.

So, yeah, pretty much what MaxAstro said.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Alternative option 1:

PF1 approach: Some things go up by 1 per level, like BAB for martial characters. Other things go up at different rates, like saving throws.

IMO

Untrained: +0
Trained: 2+1/5 level
Expert: 3+1/4 level
Master: 4+1/3 level
Legendary: 4+1/2 level
(Or similar on a single chart)

Now you have a variety, AND a smaller difference between low and high level, but still significant.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The gaps are there. They aren't huge.

That's...kinda my point.


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

Alternative option 1:

PF1 approach: Some things go up by 1 per level, like BAB for martial characters. Other things go up at different rates, like saving throws.

IMO

Untrained: +0
Trained: 2+1/5 level
Expert: 3+1/4 level
Master: 4+1/3 level
Legendary: 4+1/2 level
(Or similar on a single chart)

Now you have a variety, AND a smaller difference between low and high level, but still significant.

People have been suggesting this since before the playtest, but IMO "I use a chart until level 3, then switch to a different one, then a third one at level 7, and a 4th chart at level 13" is just a non-starter since it's significantly more complex than anything in PF1.

401 to 450 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.