Have they got rid of +level to everything yet?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Proficiency adds level +2/4/6/8. Untrained characters don't add any level bonus or proficiency modifier, per a Twitch stream in December.


The ship has sailed on getting the devs to change the rules to any other certain way of thinking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.

Then a level 20 fighter with a strength of 24 and a +5 weapon in Pathfinder 2 would have a +20 to hit, where as in PF1 the same fighter would have a 31.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

What you are looking for is bounded accuracy as 5ed, which is nice, but Pathfinder tells different stories. Like when you reach bigger levels you become a legend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Garfaulk, I would think with the possible new rules for PF2e, a 20th level fighter would have legendary prof bonus 28, plus Str 24 for a +7... throw in a +5 weapon and you would have a +40 hit.
Ah, you were responding to not using level bonus... my bad, I will still leave this post because +40 is such a wicked number. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dante Doom wrote:
What you are looking for is bounded accuracy as 5ed, which is nice, but Pathfinder tells different stories. Like when you reach bigger levels you become a legend.

I dont think the numbers of attack rolls, checks and saves really makes that determination. Just because the attack roll of a level 20 fighter is only 10 higher than that of a level 1 fighter, as opposed to being 35 higher, that doesnt mean the level 20 fighter isn't a nearly unassailable legend of a warrior hero.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

We've always added level to attacks, skills you invest in, and fractionally saves and DCs. Only thing that's changed is fractional math is gone and we add it to AC automatically now (instead of needing people to continually upgrade a half-dozen different defensive items).


Darkwynters wrote:

Garfaulk, I would think with the possible new rules for PF2e, a 20th level fighter would have legendary prof bonus 28, plus Str 24 for a +7... throw in a +5 weapon and you would have a +40 hit.

Ah, you were responding to not using level bonus... my bad, I will still leave this post because +40 is such a wicked number. :)

That i was-and holy crap, +40 to hit sounds amazing O.O 42 if you're using a bow and nothing is in the way


I doubt weapons will still go up to +5 in PF2. I'm guessing +3.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now that +40 depends on whether or not magic weapons still go to +5... PF2e might go the 5e route of +3 is legendary or maybe magic weapons just will have additional die instead of hit bonus. I feel this will not be the case on what I have heard about the magic weapon spell yesterday: +1 hit and +1 die damage.
Haha... Captain Morgan just bet me to the punch 😂

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
What you are looking for is bounded accuracy as 5ed, which is nice, but Pathfinder tells different stories. Like when you reach bigger levels you become a legend.
I dont think the numbers of attack rolls, checks and saves really makes that determination. Just because the attack roll of a level 20 fighter is only 10 higher than that of a level 1 fighter, as opposed to being 35 higher, that doesnt mean the level 20 fighter isn't a nearly unassailable legend of a warrior hero.

They kinda do. A 20th level fighter without a magic weapon against a 1st level paladin in plate armour with a shield is about double as accurate as a 1st level fighter in the same situation, without the +level to accuracy. That paladin is AC 20; to allow the fighter a reasonable accuracy the biggest threat they're facing shouldn't be above AC 30, so the paladin is halfway between a peasant and the Tarrasque. Masses of experienced down guards/veterans from a war with a bow would be able to take down a big dumb brute without too much issue - no need for a hero. The hero is certainly more impressive than the guards, but the minimal number differences necessitate that fundamentally the threats the hero is facing aren't insurmountable to a small collection of guards or veterans with a mediocre amount of experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To further extrapolate, we know item bonuses are being reduced some from the playtest, and some of the damage dice will now come from your character's natural progression. I'm guessing expert quality weapons (and other items add +1, master +2, and legendary +3 like they did in the playtest. Potency runes may or may not add an item bonus, but they wouldn't stack with the quality item bonus. And I suspect that outside of things like the Magic Weapon spell, you will need a an expert/master/legendary quality weapon to etch a +1/+2/+3 potency rune.

Which is close enough to "potency only adds to damage, not accuracy" for me to be a happy camper. ^_^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Did they confirm that some damage dice will actually come from your character's progression, not confined to magic weapons? They better be...! (super-anxious)


Lucas Yew wrote:
Did they confirm that some damage dice will actually come from your character's progression, not confined to magic weapons? They better be...! (super-anxious)

I think they said something about this in a previous preview, but I don't remember when I heard that.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Verily no, the treadmill, fortunately, still there is, yes.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Did they confirm that some damage dice will actually come from your character's progression, not confined to magic weapons? They better be...! (super-anxious)

They've made some noises indicating that this is probably true, yes.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
... However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

That's actually a really good idea! I just checked the Beastiary and it gives the level of the monster in the description. For example, Banshee are Uncommon Monster 13, so it's easy enough to just minus 13 from everything. Nice!


ClanPsi wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
... However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.
That's actually a really good idea! I just checked the Beastiary and it gives the level of the monster in the description. For example, Banshee are Uncommon Monster 13, so it's easy enough to just minus 13 from everything. Nice!

Easy to do mechanically, but will require rebalancing if you're converting modules.

The existing Banshee might be good fight for a level 10 party, but one without the +level would likely be a walkover. Similarly in the other direction, when you're using multiple lower level enemies against a party. Without +level, they'll likely be overwhelmed by numbers they could handle with that advantage.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
ClanPsi wrote:
I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.
Then a level 20 fighter with a strength of 24 and a +5 weapon in Pathfinder 2 would have a +20 to hit, where as in PF1 the same fighter would have a 31.

Comparing the number in PF1 to the number in PF2 is meaningless because they're different systems.


If they did, nobody would play casters.

There is no point in using spell slots on lower level enemies if you can’t crit them.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Rycke wrote:
Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
ClanPsi wrote:
I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.
Then a level 20 fighter with a strength of 24 and a +5 weapon in Pathfinder 2 would have a +20 to hit, where as in PF1 the same fighter would have a 31.
Comparing the number in PF1 to the number in PF2 is meaningless because they're different systems.

That isn't entirely true. The math of level is fundamentally a part of the narrative of Lost Omens, which is staying consistent across editions. And +level has always been a big part of that. Almost every book in Rise of the Runelords, for example, features a high level creature showing up, kicking the crap out of a bunch of a lower level creatures, and making them into their own personal army. And the reason is PCs are asked to deal with these threats, rather than an army of low level guards, is because high level PCs are much, much stronger than low level characters.

A scenario like Arcaian describes where the math gets bounded suddenly makes these stories much harder to tell, because that boss stone giant who shows up to take over the ogres could very much get taken down by enough of them. It also makes it harder to justify not sending the town militia to back up the PCs when they go into the dungeon.

Therefore, the math needs to look somewhat reminiscent between editions so that the stories of the old system can be told in the new.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lucas Yew wrote:
Did they confirm that some damage dice will actually come from your character's progression, not confined to magic weapons? They better be...! (super-anxious)
They've made some noises indicating that this is probably true, yes.

At least some of those noises can be found HERE (timestamped link):

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Is there any way for characters to do damage without magic weapons? Yes.

We actually looked at scaling the damage dice back a little bit and giving a bit more of it on inherent character abilities that add damage.

Of course, no telling what "looked at" actually means in terms of final rules.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Therefore, the math needs to look somewhat reminiscent between editions so that the stories of the old system can be told in the new.

This. High level characters being virtual demigods compared to low level ones is a specific gaming style, but it's one the entire world of Golarion is predicated on.

Removing level is a fine and easy house rule, but it is not something the base game can, or should, really do.

Joe M. wrote:
At least some of those noises can be found HERE (timestamped link):

That's what I was thinking of, yes. Listening to it again, I suspect that those bonuses will not take the form of extra dice, based on phrasing, but that matters little in the grand scheme of things.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Therefore, the math needs to look somewhat reminiscent between editions so that the stories of the old system can be told in the new.
This. High level characters being virtual demigods compared to low level ones is a specific gaming style, but it's one the entire world of Golarion is predicated on.

That's true, but it was also true of the various D&D worlds and they changed it for 5E, so it's certainly something Paizo could change if they wanted to.

The style changes, but it's not that completely different.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
That's true, but it was also true of the various D&D worlds and they changed it for 5E, so it's certainly something Paizo could change if they wanted to.

I'm not sure most of them were, in fact, as predicated on this as Golarion. But that's almost secondary, Paizo certainly could do so. I just don't think doing so is good or necessary.

thejeff wrote:
The style changes, but it's not that completely different.

The world implications are pretty different, and in ways that have (in many cases) necessitated time skips and the like in D&D worlds to justify the changes. I'm a big fan of Paizo not doing those.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I doubt weapons will still go up to +5 in PF2. I'm guessing +3.

Maybe, but the playtest had both weapons and armor up to +5.


Rycke wrote:
Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
ClanPsi wrote:
I haven't heard anything, but I sure hope so. Proficiency is more than enough. Just have UTEML at 0-2-4-6-8 and leave it at that. It'd be so clean and nice.
Then a level 20 fighter with a strength of 24 and a +5 weapon in Pathfinder 2 would have a +20 to hit, where as in PF1 the same fighter would have a 31.
Comparing the number in PF1 to the number in PF2 is meaningless because they're different systems.

Well no. In a system where crits are achieved by getting 10 or higher than an AC, you need big numbers. And in converting things from pf1 to pf2, you don't want to significantly weaken every creature to put them into the new game. If you bring the Tarasque over, you'd have to severely cut its AC or that fighter would need a natural 20 to actually meet the armor class.

Plus, everything numberwise compared to 1e. From fireball to hp, from saving throws to bonus to hit, everything will be compared between the games to see which system they like better, as this is the successor to that game. How else can we try to get an idea of what the game is like?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
I doubt weapons will still go up to +5 in PF2. I'm guessing +3.
Maybe, but the playtest had both weapons and armor up to +5.

The playtest also had much lower proficiency bonuses, though, and no bonus damage dice from level.


TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
In a system where crits are achieved by getting 10 or higher than an AC, you need big numbers.

Do you? If I get +6 to hit and an enemy has an AC of 13, then I crit on 17+. Whether they go up +1 per level or +1 per five levels, they can stay balanced.


What time does Pathfinder Friday stream on Twitch?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
What time does Pathfinder Friday stream on Twitch?

4PM Pacific time.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
In a system where crits are achieved by getting 10 or higher than an AC, you need big numbers.
Do you? If I get +6 to hit and an enemy has an AC of 13, then I crit on 17+. Whether they go up +1 per level or +1 per five levels, they can stay balanced.

Well, I was referring to the post that said they wanted just the trained bonuses with non other advancement.

But there's another aspect that's pretty cool about the crit and advancement where the +level works much better than anything else, and that's fighting mooks. Lets say at low levels, you fight some kobolds. It's a rough fight, but you take them down.

Then, 5 levels later, you fight 2 trolls and the same number of kobolds. It makes total sense that you can blow through those kobolds, while still having the trolls be tough. If you only advanced 1 every 5 levels, the kobolds would be only a little easier to hit vs the faster advancement, meaning your no more likely to crit them now than in your first fight, and you're odds of critting the trolls is about the same, if only a little higher.

Now with the constant advancement, ypu have a +5 vs those kobolds. Now ypure much more likely to lob their puny snarling heads off, while the trolls are still tough. Let's you feel like you have advanced much more than the much slower track of 1 every 5

-------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:: Some math to throw at it! Let's say you're the party Bard. You get in that fight, and the Kobolds follow PC rules and have a trained AC(+3 dex) of 16. You're Trained in weapons, 14 dex, let's say level 1. You're swinging at a +5. You miss on an 10 or less, and need a natural 20 to crit.

Cut to 5 levels later. Sure, the Troll has AC 20. But his kobold lackeys? you have +10 now! 5 or less misses, you crit on a 16. Much more likely to finish off the kobold minions while the barbarian tanks against the troll and the sorcerer burns it with fire.

Whereas increasing on the once per 5 levels, you'd only be a little better at hitting it, and the Troll would likely have a much lower AC-and you wont be critting him either.

Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun


TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun

My problem with this is I've personally experienced having a super OP character who just destroys everything (Thanks, Bloodrager. You broke PF1) and it isn't fun. Like, at all. It's extremely boring when there's no challenge or threat, so the kobolds existing at all in the second part of your example is stupid and pointless. With +level to everything, every single enemy in the game is a single-use paper plate. You use it once, then throw it away. It's awful game design.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun
My problem with this is I've personally experienced having a super OP character who just destroys everything (Thanks, Bloodrager. You broke PF1) and it isn't fun. Like, at all. It's extremely boring when there's no challenge or threat, so the kobolds existing at all in the second part of your example is stupid and pointless. With +level to everything, every single enemy in the game is a single-use paper plate. You use it once, then throw it away. It's awful game design.

It's awful game design that was the basis of D&D and Pathfinder for at least the entire span of D&D 3.x and arguably essentially true for AD&D and 4E as well. At least as far as the basic attack bonus goes. PF2E just brings everything else in line with that basic mechanic. That kind of character power growth has been a defining trope of D&D up until 5E introduced Bounded Accuracy. (Less so in AD&D in many ways, but still there.)

They're also far from single use monsters. I'd guess most have a roughly a 5 level useful span, which is a quarter of the design space. First as solo opponents for a whole party (or with lesser minions), then in groups of roughly equal numbers and finally as minions supporting a stronger leader. Kobolds, not so much, since they're intended to start as weak opponents for low level PCs.

Beyond that, the game's got plenty of monsters and ways to keep them viable longer through templates or adding class levels. Why obsess over keeping the same ones around over the whole course of the game? There are plenty of different things to fight.

Individual characters who destroy everything are game breaking - because they break party balance and the assumptions of what will make a good challenge for PCs. Characters getting more powerful as they go up levels isn't the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun
My problem with this is I've personally experienced having a super OP character who just destroys everything (Thanks, Bloodrager. You broke PF1) and it isn't fun. Like, at all. It's extremely boring when there's no challenge or threat, so the kobolds existing at all in the second part of your example is stupid and pointless. With +level to everything, every single enemy in the game is a single-use paper plate. You use it once, then throw it away. It's awful game design.

The situation isn't quite as bad as each type of opponent usable only at one level. They can be used at five levels. Thus, TheGoofyGE3K's example is still feasible, except that it happens 2 levels later rather than 5 levels later.

I have not yet made precise measurements of how quickly creatures increased in power by level during the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Playtest, but my rough estimates put it between 60% and 70% more powerful per level. The rate for Pathfinder 1st Edition is 41% more powerful per level.

41% more powerful per level is the assumption of TABLE 4: CREATURE XP AND ROLE on page 21 of the Playtest Bestiary. Adjusting the table to more precision, it would be:
Creature 3 levels below party is 15 xp,
Creature 2 levels below party is 20 xp,
Creature 1 level below parry is 30 xp,
Creature equal in level to party is 40 xp,
Creature 1 level above party is 55 xp,
Creature 2 levels above party is 80 xp,
Creature 3 levels above party is 110 xp.
Thus, the GM could use creatures 2 levels later than before simply by using twice as many of them, because 20 xp + 20 xp = 40 xp. We can use the same creature for 7 different levels. Alas, the improvement rate in this table appears to be wrong.

If the rate of power increase is 61.8% (the golden ratio), then the table would be:
Creature 2 levels below party is 15 xp,
Creature 1 level below party is 25 xp,
Creature equal in level to party is 40 xp,
Creature 1 level above party is 65 xp,
Creature 2 levels above party is 105 xp.
The GM could use creatures 2 levels later than before by adding them to the creatures from 1 level later, because 15 xp + 25 xp = 40 xp. We can use the same creature for 5 different levels.

Unfortunately, the only ways ways to reduce the improvement per level to less than 60% are to eliminate some of the +1 per level or greatly reduce rate of growth of hit points.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
ClanPsi wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Sure, these numbers are rough and only based on what little i know about the system, but you can see which feels more epic and fun
My problem with this is I've personally experienced having a super OP character who just destroys everything (Thanks, Bloodrager. You broke PF1) and it isn't fun. Like, at all. It's extremely boring when there's no challenge or threat, so the kobolds existing at all in the second part of your example is stupid and pointless. With +level to everything, every single enemy in the game is a single-use paper plate. You use it once, then throw it away. It's awful game design.

This isn't remotely true. There's a 9 level spread where the game suggests any given enemy can be used for an appropriate encounter. That's almost half the game. AP-4 through APL+4. Well, I suppose level 0 enemies don't really have this this luxury, only lasting until 3rd level, but once you start hitting level 5 enemies this is consistently the case.

The key thing is that the enemy is used in different ways at different levels. A troll is an extreme encounter for a 1st level party. They are looking at a 50/50 shot of a TPK, but the GM can give them an edge so they have a chance-- say, a crate of alchemist's fires in the previous room, or an environmental advantage that lets them attack the thing at range.

For the second level party, the troll remains a severe encounter-- that's like a major boss difficulty. They should be able to win, even without edges like we had above, but its gonna be rough.

At third, the encounter becomes merely "High." It will drain resources, but it should be consistently winnable.

By fourth, a single troll is dropping to a low difficulty encounter. Which is OK-- not every fight needs to be hard, sometimes your PCs should get an easy fight to feel badass in. But you could also give the troll a couple minions and make it feel appropriately difficult.

At 5, 2 trolls are needed to make a high difficulty encounter. And as you go up beyond that, the trolls themselves start to become minions-- you might throw 8 trolls at a 9th level party, or you might use a couple to back up a higher level monster. The fact that the troll is treated differently as you level up does not make it "single use." It just means your party can use their performance against trolls as a measure of their progress.

And if you want to use trolls at higher levels, or have a particularly badass troll that goes above his peers, you can just make him stronger. In PF1 this was often done by giving the troll class levels, and Mark Seifter has indicated we should still be able to do that even easier in PF2. Or don't even bother with that and just adjust his stats-- several members of the community have hacked monster adjusting sheets together that do the work for you, and that's without Paizo giving us monster creation rules.

This idea that +level makes monsters useless beyond a single level is poppycock, if you'll excuse my language.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And I will say, speaking as someone who has ran a lot of playtest encounters: enemies at APL-4 can still be a threat in sufficient numbers or as backup for other creatures. When you have 8 monsters making 3 attacks a round, some nat 20s are going to pop up. These suckers don't last long once the PCs turn the firepower on them, but they aren't supposed to. They can keep PCs busy enough for your boss monster to get some big moves off, for example.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I don't want to be fighting/using the same monsters over and over again for very long. Being able to graduate the party from fighting low level monsters to fighting more impressive monsters which they could not have handled before is one of the strengths of a game like this. Plus, the PCs knowing "Okay, I'm level x, so this kind of thing can't possibly be a threat to me" lets you use various kinds of things for more interesting purposes than "this is a thing which you fight."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Open-ended campaigns are generally a bad idea IMO. Have a clear beginning, middle, and end planned for your saga, map out the types of enemies you want the PCs to fight at each stage, and design your adventures accordingly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Threeshades wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
What you are looking for is bounded accuracy as 5ed, which is nice, but Pathfinder tells different stories. Like when you reach bigger levels you become a legend.
I dont think the numbers of attack rolls, checks and saves really makes that determination. Just because the attack roll of a level 20 fighter is only 10 higher than that of a level 1 fighter, as opposed to being 35 higher, that doesnt mean the level 20 fighter isn't a nearly unassailable legend of a warrior hero.

Except that in 5e a level 1 can hit a lvl 20 enemy with AC 20 a good 25 percent of the time, in pathfinder a level 1 pc hitting a cr 20 enemy is Unthinkable and that is good for those who like that more epic level narrative


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I doubt weapons will still go up to +5 in PF2. I'm guessing +3.

I wouldnt mind if magic weapons got rid of the to hit bonus even if they keep the damage bonus


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, one thing +Level lets you do, is if you want an especially badass version of a particular monster, you can just increase its level and thereby make it a lot more dangerous.

Like you can just make a level 12 skeleton. It's a lot more dangerous than a level 0 skeleton.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, one thing +Level lets you do, is if you want an especially badass version of a particular monster, you can just increase its level and thereby make it a lot more dangerous.

Like you can just make a level 12 skeleton. It's a lot more dangerous than a level 0 skeleton.

RIGHT?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.

Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, one thing +Level lets you do, is if you want an especially badass version of a particular monster, you can just increase its level and thereby make it a lot more dangerous.

Like you can just make a level 12 skeleton. It's a lot more dangerous than a level 0 skeleton.

So taking a monster and adding +11 to everything is exciting? Really?

I use advanced skeletons (and numerous other low level monsters) in my 1E (currently L14) all the time. The advancement includes, in part, some increasing of numbers. But the numbers increase in ways that fit the concept. A warrior increase his to hit much more than a spellcaster, an agile foe gets much better at Ref, but not necessarily at Fort. Every mechanic asks what the character is first.

+11 to everything is the height of anti-narrative and boring.

Now, hopefully, they have done more than ditch +level from untrained skills. So, hopefully, I'm just complaining about an obsolete playtest mechanic.

I'm eager to see a game that improves on 1E. There are certainly things that have been learned in the past two decades which show how that hugely successful game can be significantly improved. But we keep getting stuck in the broken logic that because some change could be an improvement that any change must be an improvement. History has shown us that this is very far from true and it is much easier to make things worse than it is to make it better.

They say they learned a great deal and the final product is substantially different than the playtest. Here is hoping.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'm saying is "if you want skeletons to be appropriate for both level 1 characters and level 12 characters, you can just present skeletons with extra math."

Personally I consider a skeleton to be a really dull monster for a level 12 party to fight, so I'd prefer to use more interesting and complicated monsters, but if the whole sine qua non of the campaign is "we fight nothing but skeletons" then you are covered even though the level 0 skeletons will stop being threatening somewhat quickly.

So the only time it's true that "we can't just fight the same monsters level after level after level" is if you don't want to increment some numbers.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It all boils down to the style of story you want the game to tell. Personally, I think +level helps differentiate this game from D&D, and I think everybody benefits if Pathfinder and D&D tell different kinds of stories. However, removing +level should be very easy to do for those who wish to do so.
Differentiate between D&D 5e and PF2, maybe. But there’s another version of D&D that incorporated that treadmill that I ditched for PF1.

PF1 used the same basic treadmill PF2 does. +level to attack, or a fraction of +level with an additional bonus that basically resulted in +level.+level to CMB. +level to CMD. +level to any skill you kept maxed. Caster level was almost always +level. AC was preeeetty close to +level if you actually kept up with all the big 6 boosting items the game assumed you got. Saving throws were a fraction of +level, though probably the most divergent example of it.

This notion that level didn't matter in PF1 doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

What I'm saying is "if you want skeletons to be appropriate for both level 1 characters and level 12 characters, you can just present skeletons with extra math."

Personally I consider a skeleton to be a really dull monster for a level 12 party to fight, so I'd prefer to use more interesting and complicated monsters, but if the whole sine qua non of the campaign is "we fight nothing but skeletons" then you are covered even though the level 0 skeletons will stop being threatening somewhat quickly.

So the only time it's true that "we can't just fight the same monsters level after level after level" is if you don't want to increment some numbers.

Much as you would do if you were running, say, Ironfang Invasion in PF1 or PF2.

1 to 50 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Have they got rid of +level to everything yet? All Messageboards