Trying to understand removing +level from untrained proficiency


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

BryonD wrote:
I've honestly never considered "legal" fights with referees as remotely a basis for TTRPGs. I mean, certain cool tropes might show up, but nothing that aligns with your point here. The fights are no rules and to the death. There might, on occasion be a gladiator type thing. But that is not what I presume. I doubt anyone goes to that as the default. Real world honest fights are very short. And, seriously, watch some olympic fencing. Even if I concede to "legal" you put weapons into it and the fight will be VERY short.

You might want to consider that once lethal weaponry is involved people are much less inclined to neglect defense. Caution is going to make fights last longer, between two reasonably matched opponents. Of course if one completely outclasses the other - as for instance a 15th level fighter would outclass a 15th level wizard - then the inferior party barely has any idea of how to defend against the other's attacks and the fight will be over quickly with none of the messing around attrition of hit points. You can see that in for instance the recent circus with Mayweather winning in the first round, as an example of how even non-lethal fighting between two people who aren't a good match in skill can end quickly.


Coming back after several months, I'm genuinely surprised to see the level of change that has occurred, and by what I perceive to be a pretty seismic shift back in the direction of 1E.

Genuinely curious if they end up able to walk the "too much/not enough" tightrope successfully, but I have my doubts. PF1E didn't exactly leave a legacy of great design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this has taken a hefty derailing.

I get why people started talking about whether AC should a numerical bonus based upon proficiency and whether that proficiency bonus should or should not be level dependent, but that is probably a better subject for a different thread.

The main purpose of this thread is to acknowledge (within the new PF2 system):

that level bonus to proficiency still exists.

that proficiency is a universal concept (all things related to the roll of a D20 to determine success or failure).

and as such, it is a little difficult to understand why the best solution for understanding what "untrained" in a proficiency means, is to gain no level bonus to that proficiency.

The reasons why this is difficult for me are:

For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?
Personally, I would much rather see a new extra category lower than untrained, something like "incompetent", that would be have the no level bonus to proficiency, so that we can retain more levels of distinction between proficiency levels. This is an issue, because it appears one of reasons that the numbers between proficiencies have been stretched, and the untrained bar was set so low is because there is going to be more automatic proficiency progression in PF2 than there was in the playtest (Jason talks about Wizards automatically gaining expert proficiency in the weapons they are trained in as they level up in the Twitch interview).
Presumably there will be an increasing number of archetype options that will let characters trade out which of these proficiencies auto level up, eventually, but that is a presumption, and even if it happens it will be controlled by narrative choices more than player choice. Again, that might be ok, but we already had the situation in the playtest where maximum heavy armor proficiency was restricted to a fairly narrow set of narrative character choices (Paladins and Grey Maidens) and if the top level of proficiency in character defining things is going to remain tightly controlled by class, and minimum proficiency is going to be a non-starter, then trained, Expert and Master are the only 3 options for 90% of the proficiencies that characters will be using regularly in play. That feels very limiting to me, although it was mostly already the case in the playtest. The decision to remove +level from untrained proficiency only shifts the paradigm so that untrained proficiency use is something characters use a little at low levels with very little penalty, and then eventually phase out at higher levels the penalty becomes exceedingly staggering.

I like it when characters try knocking over statues on enemies and swinging a torch at a ghost to do some energy damage, or the Energy resistant PC attempting to throw lava balls at the summoned ice elemental. As a GM, I often try to include environmental features that can play into either the party or their adversaries advantage, but I don't see 10th level characters every trying anything like that if it means making an untrained attack roll, especially against ACs and Touch ACs that will be scaling with level. I guess that maybe the solution will be that all characters eventually become trained in improvised weapons? And probably all armors as well, to avoid having a situation where wearing armor radically lowers your AC, but that really clashes with my idea of what "training" means and how one acquires it.

I think the general understanding of what a proficiency is and how one gets training in them is not very well understood as a universal concept by players, and maybe even developers, at this point. I would like to see explanations for these terms much better defined in the PF2 core rulebook, so that players understand what getting training in Reflex saves or Arcane lore means and whether it is something that players can gain overnight when they level or it requires narrative engagement. If retraining is possible with down time, why is training automatic? Or if it is automatic based upon the PCs active adventuring, should the PC be limited to choices that fit within the experiences their characters have been having? I.e: can a player who has only lived in an urban environment, and just leveled up, choose to become trained in the survival skill, or even pick a wilderness survival skill feat, because they expect to be heading out into the wilds, without dedicating down time to learning the skill or feat? If so, fine, but then the desert nomad who has never seen water should be just fine transferring their Athletic experience into the ability to stay afloat and survive in the water, even if their swimming form is terrible, and the Barbarian singing off-key, but from the heart, using rhythms and cadences they have learned stalking big game through dangerous environments, might still be entertaining and awe-inspiring, even if the song isn't particularly good. The arguments on these boards have largely arisen from people either not reading the sections of the playtest book that talk about what proficiency levels mean for different skills, or the book being vague and unclear about what they mean.

It still feels like a mistake to me to unhinge the proficiency system by turning the current untrained proficiency into a dead water category, instead of bringing in a new level for things people want to be able to be really terrible at (and that can be the base one for select complex skill proficiencies that make no sense for people to be able to attempt without some training). IMO, it feels like the developers could still use some time working out a better system on this than to accept a half-hitched compromise that addresses the legitimate issue that a lot of players want to be able to be truly bad at some things. I know time is running short, and they need to get to work filling in the framework that has been developed through all this play testing, but if the end result is a proficiency system that looks like it is 5 tiers, but is essentially only 3, it is hard to see the final product having the kind of player choice and diversity that makes so many people love PF1 despite the many issues that system inherited from 3rd edition, and created for itself through option bloat.


Quote:
I like it when characters try knocking over statues on enemies and swinging a torch at a ghost to do some energy damage, or the Energy resistant PC attempting to throw lava balls at the summoned ice elemental. As a GM, I often try to include environmental features that can play into either the party or their adversaries advantage, but I don't see 10th level characters every trying anything like that if it means making an untrained attack roll, especially against ACs and Touch ACs that will be scaling with level. I guess that maybe the solution will be that all characters eventually become trained in improvised weapons? And probably all armors as well, to avoid having a situation where wearing armor radically lowers your AC, but that really clashes with my idea of what "training" means and how one acquires it.

They could also just treat improvised weapons like they updated doing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon to work (or vice versa.) A flat-2 to your attack rolls. Or lots of other things, really. They could do the same thing with weapons you are untrained in. Or a different thing with weapons you are untrained in.

The point I'm trying to make is they have already built some exceptions to how proficiency works into the system, so I wouldn't assume it will all wind up being the same.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Quote:
I like it when characters try knocking over statues on enemies and swinging a torch at a ghost to do some energy damage, or the Energy resistant PC attempting to throw lava balls at the summoned ice elemental. As a GM, I often try to include environmental features that can play into either the party or their adversaries advantage, but I don't see 10th level characters every trying anything like that if it means making an untrained attack roll, especially against ACs and Touch ACs that will be scaling with level. I guess that maybe the solution will be that all characters eventually become trained in improvised weapons? And probably all armors as well, to avoid having a situation where wearing armor radically lowers your AC, but that really clashes with my idea of what "training" means and how one acquires it.

They could also just treat improvised weapons like they updated doing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon to work (or vice versa.) A flat-2 to your attack rolls. Or lots of other things, really. They could do the same thing with weapons you are untrained in. Or a different thing with weapons you are untrained in.

The point I'm trying to make is they have already built some exceptions to how proficiency works into the system, so I wouldn't assume it will all wind up being the same.

But which proficiency would you use? I don't think an argument could be made that you get to use your highest, so we would be essentially giving all characters a new weapon proficiency, (improvised) that remains always at trained, but with a -2 to penalty (or maybe a -4). This proficiency would then translate into all attempts to use a weapon (or armor) that you are not already proficient in.

What would be better about that system than having all untrained proficency remain the same as trained but at a -4, and then having a 6th proficency "incompetent" that could be applied to the specific kinds of things that people have a problem with characters gaining a level bonus to? (basically some non-essential skills). The advantage of the "incompetent" proficiency being that the entire system remains unified, except for the lowest possible exceptions, rather than flooring Untrained and having to make exceptions for everything that doesn't work without the +level bonus?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore said wrote:


What would be better about that system than having all untrained proficency remain the same as trained but at a -4, and then having a 6th proficency "incompetent" that could be applied to the specific kinds of things that people have a problem with characters gaining a level bonus to? (basically some non-essential skills). The advantage of the "incompetent" proficiency being that the entire system remains unified, except for the lowest possible exceptions, rather than flooring Untrained and having to make exceptions for everything that doesn't work without the +level bonus?

Count me in in favor of untrained being level -2 (4 less than trained is) and getting a new "rank" called incompetent that doesn't scale with level and starts out with -4 or so.

This also seems to be the better solution for peoples complaining that the system doesn't support their characters that can't swim, because if untrained is just +0, then they will be able to do some basic swimming without much of an issue, especially if they have above average str. (or at least I would think so, otherwise even trained characters might fail quite often at the first few levels).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
Unicore said wrote:


What would be better about that system than having all untrained proficency remain the same as trained but at a -4, and then having a 6th proficency "incompetent" that could be applied to the specific kinds of things that people have a problem with characters gaining a level bonus to? (basically some non-essential skills). The advantage of the "incompetent" proficiency being that the entire system remains unified, except for the lowest possible exceptions, rather than flooring Untrained and having to make exceptions for everything that doesn't work without the +level bonus?

Count me in in favor of untrained being level -2 (4 less than trained is) and getting a new "rank" called incompetent that doesn't scale with level and starts out with -4 or so.

This also seems to be the better solution for peoples complaining that the system doesn't support their characters that can't swim, because if untrained is just +0, then they will be able to do some basic swimming without much of an issue, especially if they have above average str. (or at least I would think so, otherwise even trained characters might fail quite often at the first few levels).

I like your numbers.

Perhaps "incompetent" wouldn't even need to be situated within the proficiency system, so that it could be used to apply to specific things as necessary. So a character with a mortal fear of swimming wouldn't need to be incompetent at all athletics checks. They just have "Swimming" listed as an incompetency, and then make all swim checks with no level bonus, and a -4 penalty. The proficiency system would still exist, so some skills could be gated to prevent impossible checks for whatever level is necessary, such as picking locks, fixing a laser gun with an untrained craft check. GMs that want to operate where some skills are attemptable untrained, but extremely limited, can tag the skills of their choosing with the "incompetent" tag if untrained. So if Barbarians making perform or arcane checks with a level bonus bugs the GM, they have a codified tool for limiting it.


I have been defending the +level to everything, but I have to acknowledge that Paizo decided to take it away from Untrained, and they surely had their reasons. I don't think that it's a thing that will be reversed again.
Also, I don't think they they will add another special tier; a "character flaw" mechanic could be made with more specific rules, but I can't see that coming in the CRB.

What I guess is that there will be something like a General Feat called Basic Competence, saying: "Choose up to X (2? 3? 4?) skills you are Untrained in. You add your level to your proficiency when making checks with those skills, but still count as Untrained to determine their possible uses. If your proficiency level in one of those skills becomes Trained or better, you may choose another skill you are Untrained with and apply this Feat to that skill, too."


Megistone wrote:

I have been defending the +level to everything, but I have to acknowledge that Paizo decided to take it away from Untrained, and they surely had their reasons. I don't think that it's a thing that will be reversed again.

Also, I don't think they they will add another special tier; a "character flaw" mechanic could be made with more specific rules, but I can't see that coming in the CRB.

What I guess is that there will be something like a General Feat called Basic Competence, saying: "Choose up to X (2? 3? 4?) skills you are Untrained in. You add your level to your proficiency when making checks with those skills, but still count as Untrained to determine their possible uses. If your proficiency level in one of those skills becomes Trained or better, you may choose another skill you are Untrained with and apply this Feat to that skill, too."

I think it is far more likely that there will just be level gated super feats that give you access to multiple trained skill proficiencies, because it would be cleaner and less convoluted. The issue that remains unfixed by this solution is that the 5 tier proficiency system is essentially a 3 tier proficiency system, with a couple of class and feat gated exceptions at the highest levels of the game.


Megistone wrote:

I have been defending the +level to everything, but I have to acknowledge that Paizo decided to take it away from Untrained, and they surely had their reasons. I don't think that it's a thing that will be reversed again.

Also, I don't think they they will add another special tier; a "character flaw" mechanic could be made with more specific rules, but I can't see that coming in the CRB.

What I guess is that there will be something like a General Feat called Basic Competence, saying: "Choose up to X (2? 3? 4?) skills you are Untrained in. You add your level to your proficiency when making checks with those skills, but still count as Untrained to determine their possible uses. If your proficiency level in one of those skills becomes Trained or better, you may choose another skill you are Untrained with and apply this Feat to that skill, too."

Oh I have no doubt that you are right about Paizo not doing a 180 again and implementing the system I said, it was more a statement about what my preferred method would likely be (and maybe some inspiration for a house-rule in the pro +level to untrained faction).

However I am still curious about the change to proficiency Paizo announced and I think something along the lines your suggestion + more skill increases (at least to trained) is going to be a thing. I am optimistic that in the end it will be a system I will like as well, just maybe not as much as I would have liked the +level to untrained.

Oh and off-topic do someone know whether Paizo will still be doing pathfinder friday on twitch tonight and going forward? and if so whether it will be about pathfinder 2.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
heretic wrote:

Look folks.

You are missing the point.

You can have different flavours of pulp adventures, you can have different flavours of super hero adventures.

When you do pulp superhero stories ala old school superman/batman and the afore mentioned Doc Savage you are dealing with something outwith traditional heroic fantasy even relatively high fantasy.

High jinks and craziness are all par for the course. Being homo superior by level 1 or 6 or 20 isn't.

Anyway as I keep saying we'll see what the final product is like but the fundamental break with tradition that the +1 per level to every thing for every member of the adventurer super species with addition of the UTMEL to differentiate between the supers who have left base humanity so far behind is noticeable and deeply felt.

No, we get the point. We disagree with it. Those are not the same thing.

Right now I'm playing a Cleric who can literally walk on air, conjure enough food for 324 people a day with only a single level's spell slots, banish relatively strong demons to their own plane by uttering a few magic words, imprison a champion of a big bad wielding an artifact sword into my scimitar (true story, was great), bring the dead back to life, and call down literal Miracles. I can do all those things at more or less the same time in one day, and still have enough power left over to wield fire and lightning, heal impossibly grievous injuries, cure nearly any disease, engage in diplomacy with nearly anyone successfully, sing a pretty great aria...

I mean, this isn't an exhaustive list. This is stuff on my spell list from two game sessions ago and a couple of skills that are jacked right up (although I haven't had to feed an entire town lately). And that's not even a particularly powerful character, I built a healer because they're fun. :)

So I mean, if you're trying to say that +1 somehow breaks tradition because PCs aren't world altering forces at high level... my not so optimized Cleric wants...

My feeling that people are missing my point is rather backed up by the sheer number of words you have used without actually addressing it!

You are admirably addressing someone else’s assertion that PCs are not world altering forces at high level. That is not my assertion.

So thanks for sharing some of the heroic high fantasy adventures you’ve had and taking time to tell me what a cleric can do in game currently.

I knew this by the way. High level characters are very powerful though currently and traditionally have some significant flaws too. Reaching the 40th anniversary of my first game this year in fact. So not my first rodeo.

Wanting mechanics for an adventure where things can play out in a fashion according to heroic high fantasy standards does not require that every PC is a magically enhanced pulp superhero akin to Doc Savage.

+1/lvl is a significant power up for PCs compared almost all of the rest the world in which they live in.

Allowing for a narrative where there is magic is no reason for a narrative based on magical thinking.

W


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
heretic wrote:
+1/lvl is a significant power up for PCs compared almost all of the rest the world in which they live in.

The rest of the world that... also gets +1/lvl?


I feel like I would be satisfied if they printed a "for untrained skill rolls, use your level -4 as your proficiency modifier" as a general feat with a prerequisite of 5th level (you couldn't take it until 7th normally, but 5th would be when it starts functioning.) Or maybe make it Level-2 so it can come online at level 3 so it's worth a feat. Call it "Polymath" or something.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like I would be satisfied if they printed a "for untrained skill rolls, use your level -4 as your proficiency modifier" as a general feat with a prerequisite of 5th level (you couldn't take it until 7th normally, but 5th would be when it starts functioning.) Or maybe make it Level-2 so it can come online at level 3 so it's worth a feat. Call it "Polymath" or something.

Humans basically have that with the Clever Improviser feats so that's a pretty reasonable idea.


Bluenose wrote:
BryonD wrote:
I've honestly never considered "legal" fights with referees as remotely a basis for TTRPGs. I mean, certain cool tropes might show up, but nothing that aligns with your point here. The fights are no rules and to the death. There might, on occasion be a gladiator type thing. But that is not what I presume. I doubt anyone goes to that as the default. Real world honest fights are very short. And, seriously, watch some olympic fencing. Even if I concede to "legal" you put weapons into it and the fight will be VERY short.
You might want to consider that once lethal weaponry is involved people are much less inclined to neglect defense. Caution is going to make fights last longer, between two reasonably matched opponents. Of course if one completely outclasses the other - as for instance a 15th level fighter would outclass a 15th level wizard - then the inferior party barely has any idea of how to defend against the other's attacks and the fight will be over quickly with none of the messing around attrition of hit points. You can see that in for instance the recent circus with Mayweather winning in the first round, as an example of how even non-lethal fighting between two people who aren't a good match in skill can end quickly.

Not sure how you have disputed me here. I certainly agree that "legal" fights can still end quickly. And, I suppose, if you have two combatants in a fight that involves a lot of space and cat-and-mouse type play, then, yeah, *that* could drag out. But "real" fights that are throw down and go in a manner similar to typical D&D fights are almost always really really short.

[not that it really ends up making a difference]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

Quote:


Personally, I would much rather see a new extra category lower than untrained, something like "incompetent", that would be have the no level bonus to proficiency, so that we can retain more levels of distinction between proficiency levels.

a new level, or just a renaming? Because I could agree with a renaming.

Incompetent -4 / novice +level / adept 1+level / master 2+level / legendary 3+level.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nettah wrote:
Oh and off-topic do someone know whether Paizo will still be doing pathfinder friday on twitch tonight and going forward? and if so whether it will be about pathfinder 2.

I think they’re focusing on Golarion lore stuff for a while.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.


Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.

You present this statement as a truth. Do you mean it that way, or do you mean it as a point of view which is reasonable to not agree with?


Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.
The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.

At 1st level, the difference between trained and untrained is only +3. A 1st-level Str 18 fighter untrained in Athletics will be better at Athletics than his 1st-level Str 10 rogue teammate who trained in Athletics. At 3rd level, the fighter can correct his oversight and train in Athletics.

Two neglected vital skills could be a problem, because the character can't train the second neglected skill until 5th level. Thus, at 4th level he would have had to put up with a difference of +6 between trained and untrained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mathmuse wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.
The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.

At 1st level, the difference between trained and untrained is only +3. A 1st-level Str 18 fighter untrained in Athletics will be better at Athletics than his 1st-level Str 10 rogue teammate who trained in Athletics. At 3rd level, the fighter can correct his oversight and train in Athletics.

Two neglected vital skills could be a problem, because the character can't train the second neglected skill until 5th level. Thus, at 4th level he would have had to put up with a difference of +6 between trained and untrained.

I mean it is easy to grab yes. That doesn't make it not a tax. If everyone is going to have a certain skill trained by 5th because the system makes not doing so absolutely terrible then they should either get it for free (see Perception) or you've made a bad system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.
You present this statement as a truth. Do you mean it that way, or do you mean it as a point of view which is reasonable to not agree with?

For future reference Byron just assume I preface anything not involving quotes from the developers, sourced market data or raw mathematics as having the words "In my opinion" in front of them. Just like how everyone else assumes. If you have an actual counter point then make it.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I'm skeptical about not adding anything on untrained skills, but this attitude that Athletics is essential is odd and confusing to me.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I'm skeptical about not adding anything on untrained skills, but this attitude that Athletics is essential is odd and confusing to me.

I guess I consider "must always spend (and have someone in the party able to do so for you) a medium to high level spell (depending on what level you are)" to cross any common terrain obstacle to be as much a tax. I was also misremembering what the manouvres targetted DC wise so that isn't so bad. I will say that I would never leave a character untrained in Athletics or Acrobatics if every single 15ft high wall would require a spell or potential lead to death by repeated tiny falls to bypass even into medium/high levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.

Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

It does kind of make sense though that the magical creature who hasn't left the library in centuries can be effectively grappled forever. I just figure that all Wizards were going to have to take acrobatics or athletics to avoid being that person.

But it does make sense that no defenses are untrained, even if grappling does need to be better.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

It does kind of make sense though that the magical creature who hasn't left the library in centuries can be effectively grappled forever. I just figure that all Wizards were going to have to take acrobatics or athletics to avoid being that person.

But it does make sense that no defenses are untrained, even if grappling does need to be better.

Oh, yeah, people untrained in athletics or acrobatics being bad at escaping grapples certainly makes sense. I just wouldn't assume it will work like it did in the Playtest yet since this is specifically something they mentioned needing to avoid.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.

Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

Doesn't this basically make the universal appeal of proficiencies moot? I thought being able to pit skills against defenses and use skills for defenses was a selling point of a universalized +level to proficiency system.

There has to be a better way to accomplish letting characters be bad at things then destroying the elegance and value of adopting a universal proficiency system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.

probably just make escaping grapple it's own thing.

But my level 20 wizard should not be a master rock climber or swimmer.


Mellored wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Mellored wrote:
Unicore wrote:


For important things, this makes "untrained" a completely dead category of proficiency past level 5 for most things but completely so by level 10. So why bother having it?

I think that IS the point.

A character isn't just about strength, but also weaknesses. You need to bad at something to contrast the good.
A category for being unable to so something seems fine by me.

The problem is that in actual play this just adds a Training tax to Athletics. Somethings are so crippling to be THAT bad at you have to take them.

probably just make escaping grapple it's own thing.

But my level 20 wizard should not be a master rock climber or swimmer.

Sure he can. He just needs to be 7th level or higher ;)


I mean, if your wizard takes training in athletics to be able to escape a grapple, then gains a bunch of levels that doesn't mean they are a world class swimmer or climber, just that they are adept at straightforward swimming and climbing tasks. Sure, they won't drown if they fall out of a boat and they can climb a rock face with handholds no problem, but freehand climbing a frozen waterfall on a warm day or swimming down the Braid into the Sightless Sea are beyond them even with a +20 modifier, since those are things that should require Master or higher.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.

Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

Doesn't this basically make the universal appeal of proficiencies moot? I thought being able to pit skills against defenses and use skills for defenses was a selling point of a universalized +level to proficiency system.

There has to be a better way to accomplish letting characters be bad at things then destroying the elegance and value of adopting a universal proficiency system.

It is, but they need not be the only option. For example, I can easily see using your choice of Reflex Save, Athletics, or Acrobatics to escape a grapple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Using skills as a defense was a neat idea, but people wanted greater differentiation between optimized, skill-focused characters and untrained characters while the system wants fairly tight differences between a party's best and worst defenses. It was always going to be a problem.

Also, if 15ft walls are constantly a problem for you, you could invest training, buy a permanent magic item (magic rope, boots of climbing, air walk boots, cloak of wings, etc), ask for help from a team member, carry relevant low level potions, or any other number of things that make a fantasy RPG game more interesting than assuming everyone can do anything they want without investment.

This was a big reason why I fought for no +level to untrained. It allows magic items to shine, even when you're many levels higher than when you got them. It also lets spells and items do things like grant you training rather than a meager +2 boost to a single check.

I just can't stand the whole "since we're high level and this is a low DC task, it shouldn't even exist for us."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why exactly is Athletics essential? I mean, yeah, climbing and swimming are relevant...but really only until Flight is available, and that becomes available right around when not getting level becomes an issue.

I would say one of Athletics or Acrobatics is going to be essential because at some point you might be grappled and you'd like to add more to your escape attempt (via "Escape" or "Break Grapple") than "your dex or strength mod."

Athletics is probably the more attractive of the two since it has more proactive uses.

Based on Jason's commentary, they aren't going to have you be untrained in anything used for defense. I'd probably assume you won't be rolling acrobatics or athletics to escape grapples until we hear otherwise.

Doesn't this basically make the universal appeal of proficiencies moot? I thought being able to pit skills against defenses and use skills for defenses was a selling point of a universalized +level to proficiency system.

There has to be a better way to accomplish letting characters be bad at things then destroying the elegance and value of adopting a universal proficiency system.

Elegant right up to skill gating and feats. Basically brought all the combat and combat feat problems of PF1 to PF2 skill system for us.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, I apologize in advance for going back to it, but we were talking about wizards learning to dodge.

Link


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Unicor Might I suggest moving relevant discussions to another thread. I really want to have this discussion and try to give Paizo as much research from Players here on the forum so they don't have to try to think of everything on their own.

My input from what I've read is that

A) people seem to want a middle ground OR something lower than untrained so that you're not completely incompetent when untrained. A "I've never focused on this, but I'm also not an idiot" rank.

B) We want additional understanding of what Proficiency actually means, and how much freedom a character will have when determining/choosing them, outside of class options.

C) What differentiates Skills / DC's / Saves / Weapon / Armor Proficiency. And what that means in terms of advancement and choices. [this sort of goes with B]

I've started a thread on Proficiency but think we could create additional threads for keeping discussions as specific as we can for Paizo.


Kaelizar wrote:

@Unicor Might I suggest moving relevant discussions to another thread. I really want to have this discussion and try to give Paizo as much research from Players here on the forum so they don't have to try to think of everything on their own.

My input from what I've read is that

A) people seem to want a middle ground OR something lower than untrained so that you're not completely incompetent when untrained. A "I've never focused on this, but I'm also not an idiot" rank.

B) We want additional understanding of what Proficiency actually means, and how much freedom a character will have when determining/choosing them, outside of class options.

C) What differentiates Skills / DC's / Saves / Weapon / Armor Proficiency. And what that means in terms of advancement and choices. [this sort of goes with B]

I've started a thread on Proficiency but think we could create additional threads for keeping discussions as specific as we can for Paizo.

This is a really concise summary of my concerns and issues. Thank you!

To Deadmanwalking's point: I agree that the likely course of action is for fortitude saves and reflex saves to become interchangeable with athletics checks and acrobatics checks for grappling, but that really muddies the water for what training in any of these things means. It feels like there is an excess of ways to accomplish the same task, which is one of the things that really undermined PF1, especially when one of those options is vastly superior to the others. Fortitude and Reflex saves are already incredibly valuable things to boost as much as possible. In fact, most classes will start out with expert in at least one of these, and many classes will be expert in both, that means that grappling most characters will be nearly impossible at levels 1 and 2 because you can't get to expert athletics until 3rd level. A lot of classes will hit master proficiency in one of those saves by level 7, which is the earliest that any character could get master proficiency in grappling.

This is a pretty big shift because it means a lot of characters that don't maximize athletics will be keeping up with those that do at getting out of it. Especially with the new shift upwards in proficiency value, and an assumed reduction in equipment bonuses to skills (to balance the lift from proficiency), letting saves stand in for CMD will give a big edge back to the defender.

This is kind of what I am talking about when I say that the new system talked about by Jason looks a lot like a reduction in options, rather than an opening up of choices. Untrained, at level-2 or even level -4 is rough, but not auto-critical failure for most things at medium to higher level. But it probably will be for things with no level bonus. That means nothing important can ever be left at untrained, making it a dead proficiency level. Instead Trained will be the new floor for things that are important, and it sounds like even wizards will be getting boosted to expert for their weapons by a certain level because the big differences in proficiencies will still be too much for many checks. With a ceiling of Master for most characters (and legendary in the one or two things that are your characters absolute specialization, it seems like the early to mid game is going to be defined by Untrained, Trained and Expert proficiency, and the high level game by Expert and Master (with the occasional class restricted legendary).

In play, I don't think most characters will feel like there are really 5 tiers to the proficiency scale. They cant really, because the bonuses between them are too large.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
It is, but they need not be the only option. For example, I can easily see using your choice of Reflex Save, Athletics, or Acrobatics to escape a grapple.

Saves are used to model passive defense, not actions. Using Reflex for an escape attempt would contradict this paradigm and be rather confusing. Also, I agree with Unicore: it would make Reflex an abnormally important stat.

Generally, I think the use of skills in combat situations is one of the major improvements in PF2 vs PF1. Not just because it rids us of CMB and CMD, but because it makes combat mechanics and tactics more coherent and more interesting. I definitely hope the devs find a solution to keep it, even if they downgrade Untrained.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:


For future reference Byron just assume I preface anything not involving quotes from the developers, sourced market data or raw mathematics as having the words "In my opinion" in front of them. Just like how everyone else assumes. If you have an actual counter point then make it.

To be clear, a huge chunk of the conflict has resulted from people clearing inferring that their own experience is universal. And there was another "debate" over whether considering other's opinions was even reasonable. I think these issue are absurd and I'm glad to hear your clarification and I appreciate it. But, unfortunately, askign the question was well justified.

It is easy to say "just like everyone else assumes", but that position has been actively rejected. So it really isn't close to "just like everyone else".

But, again, I do appreciate that you see it that way. I don't presume that my opinion will sway you, but knowing that you accept that your statement is not universally true I will offer that some of the best fun times come when the players solve problems without simply using their big numbers as a sledgehammer. Yes, it is always great when the wizard gets that new big blast spell and uses it the first time. And a steady sprinkling over further sessions is nice. But it isn't the same every time. But finding a new clever way to change the playing field and create tactical advantage or something, even is nothing at all dies in the blast, is the kind of thing that gets talked about three years later.

And the situation where a character or group of character completely unable to swim are seriously challenged by a water obstacle that forces them to think outside the box is also the kind of "heroic" fun that is talked about years later.

I love playing and I have fun every session. But those "boom" events that get talked about for years to come are the gold. And they ALWAYS come when the party had some serious mechanical disadvantage. So having that "tax" be too high can truly ADD a lot of fun. And suddenly it isn't a tax at all. It becomes a source of more fun itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thinking more about Armor proficiency, I am pretty sure that everything about higher level proficiencies (with the exception of skills) is getting completely overhauled in PF2. I am not sure speculating about many of these issues based off of playtest math is even possible. With the new stretched out proficiency scale, it just doesn't make any sense for a "trained" proficiency to even be adequate for a defense that could come under attack by a legendary attacker. It would just be PF1 all over again, only with the added destructive power of a +/-10 crit system.

I am officially revising my concern for PF2 as being centered on a return to numerical bonus defining everything about proficiencies now. The lack of +level from Untrained is not going to matter because untrained proficiency is not going to mater past level 4. Trained is probably not going to mater much past level 13 either. It is just turning into a sliding scale of three levels for 90% of the proficiencies you use, with one dropping off every time a new one becomes accessible.

Personally I'd have preferred lower bonuses and more proficiency gates, including feats that key off of having different proficiency levels not just for skills, but for weapons, armor, saves, spells and everything else, so that the game could open up as far competitive levels of proficiency running into each other. But clearly that is not what happened. I am worried that things are going to feel pretty cookie-cutter in the core rulebook now, we'll see if the first AP captures my fancy or if I will be waiting 2-3 years to see if supplemental material opens the game up more or if it feels even more locked down than people were complaining about the playtest feeling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I really hate that they got rid of the level modifier on untrained skills. Proficiency Gates were a much better option to represent something that required a skill to be at least trained.

When you don't apply a Level Modifier you're effectively saying "You can't attempt this, but go ahead and roll so you fail." rather than just making it not something that they can attempt.

Just seems a bit.. clunky to me is all.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Pretty much every argument that I've seen with people praising this change has been some form of "If you have never spent any of your time training X then why should you even be able to attempt X?"

That's not really how it ends up playing out though. If you simply use ability score and other modifiers on the check and don't add a proficiency or level modifier you will be able to attempt and succeed at some low level checks to some degree of frequency.

The moment you start getting up to 5th level and higher challenges however you'll pretty much always fail. While I do not disagree that higher level and more difficult challenges should remain something that should not be attempted by people who are untrained in a skill they had a MUCH better method of representing this by requiring some degree of proficiency for more difficult challenges.

I'd much rather tell someone that in order to cross a river in a downpour, something that I've set as a hard level 8 athletics challenge they would need to be at least trained in the skill rather than just giving it a DC that makes it nigh impossible to succeed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Thinking more about Armor proficiency, I am pretty sure that everything about higher level proficiencies (with the exception of skills) is getting completely overhauled in PF2. I am not sure speculating about many of these issues based off of playtest math is even possible. With the new stretched out proficiency scale, it just doesn't make any sense for a "trained" proficiency to even be adequate for a defense that could come under attack by a legendary attacker.

Absolutely

Quote:
It would just be PF1 all over again, only with the added destructive power of a +/-10 crit system.

It would be more weird than that.

Quote:
I am officially revising my concern for PF2 as being centered on a return to numerical bonus defining everything about proficiencies now. The lack of +level from Untrained is not going to matter because untrained proficiency is not going to mater past level 4. Trained is probably not going to mater much past level 13 either. It is just turning into a sliding scale of three levels for 90% of the proficiencies you use, with one dropping off every time a new one becomes accessible.

At this point I certainly have no idea what they are thinking.

But I really doubt this is the scenario.
They were pretty firm that they would not move away from +level. Then they did. If they then turn around and make that change moot then they will have done nothing but work up the slice of fanbase that like +level while doubling down on alienating everyone else. I'm pretty sure their goal is to widen the net.

Further, when this was announced Jason specifically referenced things getting odd at high levels. They can't exactly fix high level with a change that is only meaningful up to level 4.

Quote:
Personally I'd have preferred lower bonuses and more proficiency gates, including feats that key off of having different proficiency levels not just for skills, but for weapons, armor, saves, spells and everything else, so that the game could open up as far competitive levels of proficiency running into each other. But clearly that is not what happened. I am worried that things are going to feel pretty cookie-cutter in the core rulebook now, we'll see if the first AP captures my fancy or if I will be waiting 2-3 years to see if supplemental material opens the game up more or if it feels even more locked down than people were complaining about the playtest feeling.

I was certainly disappointed that gating was so minimally significant. There is still room to improve that. But who knows


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

Pretty much every argument that I've seen with people praising this change has been some form of "If you have never spent any of your time training X then why should you even be able to attempt X?"

That's not really how it ends up playing out though. If you simply use ability score and other modifiers on the check and don't add a proficiency or level modifier you will be able to attempt and succeed at some low level checks to some degree of frequency.

The moment you start getting up to 5th level and higher challenges however you'll pretty much always fail. While I do not disagree that higher level and more difficult challenges should remain something that should not be attempted by people who are untrained in a skill they had a MUCH better method of representing this by requiring some degree of proficiency for more difficult challenges.

I'd much rather tell someone that in order to cross a river in a downpour, something that I've set as a hard level 8 athletics challenge they would need to be at least trained in the skill rather than just giving it a DC that makes it nigh impossible to succeed.

But + level forces the world to be filled with things that have DCs which are impossible to succeed. That is supposed to be part of the goodness of it.

Lets say a river exists in Golarian an it is in an AP intended to be encountered by 12th level characters. Well, that river exists in the world. And if 4th level characters go there then it will be nigh impossible for them to swim across.

To be clear, I have no problem with this. I like it. I'm just pointing out that the 2E original draft still had this issue. And I fully suspect some will argue that you adjust the world to fit the characters. The debate over that approach is well covered elsewhere.


BryonD wrote:
Gloom wrote:

Pretty much every argument that I've seen with people praising this change has been some form of "If you have never spent any of your time training X then why should you even be able to attempt X?"

That's not really how it ends up playing out though. If you simply use ability score and other modifiers on the check and don't add a proficiency or level modifier you will be able to attempt and succeed at some low level checks to some degree of frequency.

The moment you start getting up to 5th level and higher challenges however you'll pretty much always fail. While I do not disagree that higher level and more difficult challenges should remain something that should not be attempted by people who are untrained in a skill they had a MUCH better method of representing this by requiring some degree of proficiency for more difficult challenges.

I'd much rather tell someone that in order to cross a river in a downpour, something that I've set as a hard level 8 athletics challenge they would need to be at least trained in the skill rather than just giving it a DC that makes it nigh impossible to succeed.

But + level forces the world to be filled with things that have DCs which are impossible to succeed. That is supposed to be part of the goodness of it.

Lets say a river exists in Golarian an it is in an AP intended to be encountered by 12th level characters. Well, that river exists in the world. And if 4th level characters go there then it will be nigh impossible for them to swim across.

To be clear, I have no problem with this. I like it. I'm just pointing out that the 2E original draft still had this issue. And I fully suspect some will argue that you adjust the world to fit the characters. The debate over that approach is well covered elsewhere.

No. You just don't go there. Or it's treated as an impassible barrier by low level characters.

It's not like there aren't essentially unswimmable rivers in the real world. Or sections of rivers, more accurately.

That's not something forced by a "+ level" system. It's just the world.


BronD said wrote:

But + level forces the world to be filled with things that have DCs which are impossible to succeed. That is supposed to be part of the goodness of it.

Lets say a river exists in Golarian an it is in an AP intended to be encountered by 12th level characters. Well, that river exists in the world. And if 4th level characters go there then it will be nigh impossible for them to swim across.

To be clear, I have no problem with this. I like it. I'm just pointing out that the 2E original draft still had this issue. And I fully suspect some will argue that you adjust the world to fit the characters. The debate over that approach is well covered elsewhere.

Well the river exists regardless of characters level. It might be a small challenge for the level 12 party, quite impossible for most low-levels and a cakewalk for any well trained high-level. That seems pretty reasonable to me since that is the case in the real world as well.

All +level did was allow you as a GM to make "basic" challenges like crossing a river cooler by making it occur in a storm or while the water was disturbed by some spell and still have the PC's able to succeed, now any untrained character would need to find another way to cross the river (which can be a fun game element as well). The main issue I can imagine is that unless you want to split the party everyone will use the same way as the untrained to cross the river, thus taking away a moment of cool for the one character that otherwise could have excelled in the situation and helped once one of the other characters started to falter in the water after a bad roll.

I'm still personally on the side that wanted the characters to progress to the extend that "basic" challenges was always easy for them, and if I wanted to have a character that couldn't swim etc I would role-play him as having a fear of water or something similar instead. I am starting to feel quite good about the increased distance between the ranks otherwise though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

No. You just don't go there. Or it's treated as an impassible barrier by low level characters.

It's not like there aren't essentially unswimmable rivers in the real world. Or sections of rivers, more accurately.

That's not something forced by a "+ level" system. It's just the world.

Right.

I did say it "forced" it. But I think I didn't express that quite clearly enough.

To be clear again, I completely agree with you that it is just part of the world. I said I like that fact.

Mechanically "+level" very much *does* force it. But it is only a side effect of scaling challenges.

He said that the 2E approach was better than a DC which makes it "nigh impossible". I pointed out that you can easily still have impossible DCs in 2E and declared this ok. You are taking issue with me and proclaiming that I'm wrong because instead it is "impassible" or "essentially unswimmable". Which is exactly the point I was making, "impossible" DCs still exist.

I believe this is known as violent agreement.

Paizo Employee

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:

But + level forces the world to be filled with things that have DCs which are impossible to succeed. That is supposed to be part of the goodness of it.

Lets say a river exists in Golarian an it is in an AP intended to be encountered by 12th level characters. Well, that river exists in the world. And if 4th level characters go there then it will be nigh impossible for them to swim across.

To be clear, I have no problem with this. I like it. I'm just pointing out that the 2E original draft still had this issue. And I fully suspect some will argue that you adjust the world to fit the characters. The debate over that approach is well covered elsewhere.

This seems like a fundamental misrepresentation of the + level system. Pathfinder isn't a video game where you level-gate parts of the world with arbitrary level requirements, and that's not how you'd design an adventure. If crossing a river was legitimately expected to be a 12th level challenge, it would probably be a roiling cascade of elemental ice with magic-disrupting properties encircling a keep protected by storm clouds that lash out with deadly lightning bolts that strike down anything attempting to fly over the river.

The world doesn't and shouldn't level with the PCs; rather the PCs should level out of certain types of challenges, and likely certain areas of the world as a result. There will be things that simply don't threaten or challenge the PCs in any way meaningful way, and that should be one of many things spurring them to seek out new and greater challenges. PCs who don't would plateau, because they're no longer facing challenges that are meaningful and gaining experience. + level scaling creates an arc and growth whereby the characters fundamentally grow beyond things that pose a risk to lower level characters and gain the power to challenge foes that otherwise wouldn't challenge them. If a challenge such as a river wouldn't be a challenge for the PCs, you don't make it a level 12 river, you come up with a better adventure that's actually appropriate for 12th level PCs.

The DCs are very specifically to tell you how hard things are, not how hard you should make them based on the party level. A river that meets a given set of criteria and poses a level 1 challenge should always pose a a level 1 challenge unless something meaningfully acts upon it to change that; if higher level PCs reach the river it simply isn't a challenge.


Ssalarn wrote:
This seems like a fundamental misrepresentation of the + level system.

No. It really is not.

Quote:
Pathfinder isn't a video game where you level-gate parts of the world with arbitrary level requirements, and that's not how you'd design an adventure.

Agreed. I never said it was. That is kinda the point. (though thejeff *did* say "you just don't go there", so I guess he thinks there are level gates to some degree)

Quote:
If crossing a river was legitimately expected to be a 12th level challenge, it would probably be a roiling cascade of elemental ice with magic-disrupting properties encircling a keep protected by storm clouds that lash out with deadly lightning bolts that strike down anything attempting to fly over the river.

Well, in 2E as presented in the original draft (which is what I specified) there is also a table which tells you the appropriate DC. There is no need for ice elementals or anything like that. Now, I prefer your approach. But these elements ignore the context of the post to which I replied. That isn't really at all fair.

Quote:
The world doesn't and shouldn't level with the PCs; rather the PCs should level out of certain types of challenges, and likely certain areas of the world as a result. There will be things that simply don't threaten or challenge the PCs in any way meaningful way, and that should be one of many things spurring them to seek out new and greater challenges. PCs who don't would plateau, because they're no longer facing challenges that are meaningful and gaining experience.

Where did I dispute this in any way?

Quote:
+ level scaling creates an arc and growth whereby the characters fundamentally grow beyond things that pose a risk to lower level characters and gain the power to challenge foes that otherwise wouldn't challenge them. If a challenge such as a river wouldn't be a challenge for the PCs, you don't make it a level 12 river, you come up with a better adventure that's actually appropriate for 12th level PCs.

OK, again I like it. This is good DMing and I'm a fan. But you are ignoring both the matter-of-fact on how 2E original draft works and you are ignoring the context of the post to which I replied.

Ultimately if there is a chunk of river *somewhere* that is just really freaking hard to swim across, so hard that the options are either it is tier gated out or it has a "nigh impossible" DC unless you are high enough level, then that chunk of river exists and works out the same, regardless of system being played. And in the original 2E draft the answer would be the nigh impossible DC. And exactly because the world doesn't change with the characters that DC exists for lower level characters.

I totally agree there are much better ways to do this. (And, to be clear, you can just slap high DCs on stuff in 1E as well. This REALLY isn't even a slam against 2E. It is simply a correction of a factually incorrect statement)

201 to 250 of 444 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Trying to understand removing +level from untrained proficiency All Messageboards