Have they got rid of +level to everything yet?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 279 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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

+12 to all proficiencies (the base skeleton is level 0 rather than level 1) is just the first step. Next, I would increase its hit points and the damage from its attacks. I would give the 12th-level skeleton extra attacks that fit its skeletal theme, such as the bone shards ranged attack of the Bone Devil. I would probably need to invent some new abilities from scratch; for example, as two actions it could collapse into a pile of bones and pull itself back together into the shape of an animal and gain abilities of the skeletal animal, such as flying or a bite attack.

And in the end, I might have a 11th level skeleton, a 12th level skeleton, or a 13th level skeleton. Judging the impact of the extra abilities is hard and I doubt I would take time to playtest and finetune the power level before using it.

But would a 12th level skeleton be the same creature as a 0th level skeleton? If I created a 12th level tiger, then I would consider it a different large cat species than the 4th-level tiger in the Playtest Bestiary, such as a dire tiger or a saber-toothed tiger or some mystic-sounding name such as umbral tiger.

I had a qualm about creatures leveling out during my Iron Gods campaign. In the 1st module, the party encountered repair drone robots and collector robots. In the second module, junkyard robots. In the third module, laser-toting gearsmen. Etc. Supposedly, they encountered random robots scattered haphazardly around Numeria. In practice, the low-level robots mysteriously vanished from the landscape to make room for the now-plentiful mid-level robots.

Going deeper and deeper into a cave system, starting with kobolds and then skulks and then drow elves can be justified as gradually switching from a surface ecosystem to a Darklands ecosystem. But when the party is running around across the same ecosystem as they did at low levels, I expect them to encounter the same creatures and laugh that they are no longer a threat. Thus, I occassionally added a low-level robot to the later Iron Gods campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For those who do have a problem with adding your level to attacks or skills, I am curious- did you have a problem with Full BAB classes? Or an issue with people putting a rank in a certain skill every level? Doing both of these are just adding your level + profiecency (aka class skill) to what you're rolling. They've basically just streamlined that. Now every character who was doing that anyway doesnt have to make sure they don't miss something and fall behind on things they're supposed to be good at.

Sure, they run the risk of things getting too samey. But proficiency will add the variety, and critical successes will make the differences felt.

All pf2 really does with +level is expand upon what we were already using that worked pretty well before.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the +level discussion has been more than adequately hashed out in the playtest forums. All the arguments for and against are still over there for everyone to peruse.

Frankly, I would appreciate it if we didn't have bad faith threads like this where people passive aggressively complain about their pet issue that didn't go their way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.

A lot of PF1 melee characters, such as cleric, rogue, and magus, had +3/4 level to BAB. CMD is based on BAB. A character with only 5 skill points per level maybe kept 3 skills maxed out at +1 per level and the rest fell behind. Keeping AC going up +1 per level was very expensive. My players usually settled for +1/2 per level. Many spells had only their duration affected by caster level, not their effects.

Due to the Pareto principle, which says that 80% of the time a person uses only 20% of the features, the roughly 20% of the cases where the character had +1 per level mattered 80% of the time. Nevertheless, +1 per level in PF2 matters 100% of the time, which is more than 80%.

The struggle to use that 20% maxed out features as often as possible hid the treadmill in PF1. Every opponent had a weakness where they were not maxed out and one style of combat especially common among wizards who targeted saving throws was to figure out and exploit those weaknesses.

In PF2 the designers will have to hide the treadmill by giving the creatures unique abilities or combat styles. Paizo said that that was their goal, because it also makes those opponents more colorful, too. They had used the more average monsters for the playtest, because those were more standardized for measurements.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
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.

I feel like proficiency being a scalar is a much better way to model this than bringing back fractional math, however. Not only is "no fractional math" quite a bit simpler but the problem with fractional math is that the gulf between, say, one character with a good will save and one character with a bad one widens as characters level up. I think it's better to say "this person has great reflexes" by having their proficiency with reflex saves to be expert or higher at higher levels.

In general "the modifier we add to this one is bigger" is a preferable solution to "this number grows faster than this other one."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
BryonD wrote:

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.

They obviously took into account the surveys' results as a major input when designing the final version of the game.

It might not end up with dropping +lvl to everything though. That will depend on whether it was popular or not at all.

If people liked it, it stays. Simple as that


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

For those who do have a problem with adding your level to attacks or skills, I am curious- did you have a problem with Full BAB classes? Or an issue with people putting a rank in a certain skill every level? Doing both of these are just adding your level + profiecency (aka class skill) to what you're rolling. They've basically just streamlined that. Now every character who was doing that anyway doesnt have to make sure they don't miss something and fall behind on things they're supposed to be good at.

Sure, they run the risk of things getting too samey. But proficiency will add the variety, and critical successes will make the differences felt.

All pf2 really does with +level is expand upon what we were already using that worked pretty well before.

I shall be brief - I have accepted the +level ship has sailed, but I wanted to briefly comment here. As someone who hates +level to everything, I have no problem with full BAB or max rank skills in PF1. What I dislike in PF2 is *everyone* being full BAB, max ranks, maxed AC, good saves. I would much rather we had fractions of level to hit, anything fromm 400% to 0% of level yo skills, different fractions of level to saves and nothing to AC. Its personal choice I know and that's fine. I'm just trying to be clear that +level is nothing.like what we had in PF1, which is why some of us dislike it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:
Except that in 5e a level 1 can hit a lvl 20 enemy with AC 20 a good 25 percent of the time

A level 1 5e PC that is able to attack a Challenge 20 enemy has about a 25% chance of removing about 3% of its hit point. The enemy will have about a 90% chance of reducing that PC to 0 hit points in a single attack, and can attack multiple times per round.

Biztak wrote:
in pathfinder a level 1 pc hitting a cr 20 enemy is Unthinkable

It's a 5% chance. But I suppose DR might reduce the damage to zero.

Biztak wrote:
and that is good for those who like that more epic level narrative

Maybe.

I find 5e is actually perfectly good for that kind of thing. High level enemies/PCs are terrifyingly powerful from the viewpoint of low level PCs/enemies, but the difference isn't so great that the battle is completely pointless to play out. The same PCs can fight a Challenge 20 lich, then fight fifty Challenge 1/2 orcs in the next battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Geosharp wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

For those who do have a problem with adding your level to attacks or skills, I am curious- did you have a problem with Full BAB classes? Or an issue with people putting a rank in a certain skill every level? Doing both of these are just adding your level + profiecency (aka class skill) to what you're rolling. They've basically just streamlined that. Now every character who was doing that anyway doesnt have to make sure they don't miss something and fall behind on things they're supposed to be good at.

Sure, they run the risk of things getting too samey. But proficiency will add the variety, and critical successes will make the differences felt.

All pf2 really does with +level is expand upon what we were already using that worked pretty well before.

I shall be brief - I have accepted the +level ship has sailed, but I wanted to briefly comment here. As someone who hates +level to everything, I have no problem with full BAB or max rank skills in PF1. What I dislike in PF2 is *everyone* being full BAB, max ranks, maxe

But that isn't the case? What "max ranks" means is different in this edition. Unless you are rogue in fact everyone has less stuff at max ranks than they could have in PF1, because the max ranks analogue is now Legendary proficiency. A Wizard is not full bab just because he ends up with +20 in a limited selection or weapons. Full BaB is the Fighter with +28. So yeah new Wizard isn't quite as bad with weapons compared to the best in this edition (0.7 effective rather than 0.5) but he is worse.

They've also removed +level from Untrained, so everyone who didn't want to be able to swim now can, but we've lost being able to use skills as combat DCs (or if they've kept it in provided mandatory skill requirements for anyone who doesn't want to be repeatedly knocked down and disarmed.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Biztak wrote:
Except that in 5e a level 1 can hit a lvl 20 enemy with AC 20 a good 25 percent of the time

A level 1 5e PC that is able to attack a Challenge 20 enemy has about a 25% chance of removing about 3% of its hit point. The enemy will have about a 90% chance of reducing that PC to 0 hit points in a single attack, and can attack multiple times per round.

Biztak wrote:
in pathfinder a level 1 pc hitting a cr 20 enemy is Unthinkable

It's a 5% chance. But I suppose DR might reduce the damage to zero.

Biztak wrote:
and that is good for those who like that more epic level narrative

Maybe.

I find 5e is actually perfectly good for that kind of thing. High level enemies/PCs are terrifyingly powerful from the viewpoint of low level PCs/enemies, but the difference isn't so great that the battle is completely pointless to play out. The same PCs can fight a Challenge 20 lich, then fight fifty Challenge 1/2 orcs in the next battle.

The big difference is that about 150 poorly trained militia men can take out the CR 20 enemy in 1 round. That creates a big shift in narrative which makes heroes less required from a world building point of view.


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

I feel like proficiency being a scalar is a much better way to model this than bringing back fractional math, however. Not only is "no fractional math" quite a bit simpler but the problem with fractional math is that the gulf between, say, one character with a good will save and one character with a bad one widens as characters level up. I think it's better to say "this person has great reflexes" by having their proficiency with reflex saves to be expert or higher at higher levels.

In general "the modifier we add to this one is bigger" is a preferable solution to "this number grows faster than this other one."

You made two points here: simpler and PC talent gap. Both of these points have been done to death and you have not refuted the issues presented for either.

Frankly, "simpler" is just a nice way of saying they dumbed it down. Open-ended narrative driven TTRPGs are *very* complex. If someone can't handle the basic level fractions that PF1E contains, then they also can't handle the demands of modeling a story in a way that truly attempts to capture the nuances of what is happening. I have the ability to enjoy a game that meets my standards and I have the luxury of rejecting games which fail to match that standard. The playtest failed that test badly.

They are way more complex games than 1E. Some I like and some I don't. When someone says that they like a more complex game than me, then I'm very much cool with that. But history shows that this model hit a sweet spot and was a huge success. There is no need to give away depth. And the playtest gave away a ton of depth.

The character difference thing isn't even covered by "bug not feature". It is simply choosing to model characters wrong to make it easier to balance. As I said, we have had that debate before and unless you are suddenly going to say something new to honestly address that flaw, then there is not point in repeating that issues. Just go google it.

I don't know where the final 2E will land. We know that for skills they have made a change that moves nicely in an improved direction. But we don't know anything about saves and combat. For saves, I do not see it as a big deal. There is plenty of abstraction there anyway. But for combat it is a deal breaker. Again, not going to re-debate that here, go hit google if you need the conversation. I am not optimistic they can salvage the +10/-10 mechanic for crits. Hopefully I am wrong. I am still on the sidelines waiting to see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
BryonD wrote:

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.

They obviously took into account the surveys' results as a major input when designing the final version of the game.

It might not end up with dropping +lvl to everything though. That will depend on whether it was popular or not at all.

If people liked it, it stays. Simple as that

Well, I think the meaningful "as simple as that" statement comes later. Three years from now 2E will either be a hugely popular game or not. And either they made a game that appeals to a large audience or they didn't. Simple as that.

To me there is an obvious glaring flaw in their playtest methodology. They preached to the choir. People who didn't like it dropped out very quickly and many of them didn't even bother to complete the surveys. A great majority of them walked away. If you take a poll of people who like something and conclude that everyone likes it based the results of the poll, then you better be nervous about your accuracy.

Look at how few people are engaged on this forum.
Look at Paizo's own facebook page where they can't start a post about 2E without the complaints taking over.
Look at the vast silence everywhere.

Yes, there are people who LOVE it. I get that. But "simple as that" is coming.

I was told (over and over) that everyone was upset "about change" but the complaints about 4E were bogus, WotC were professionals, they knew what they were doing. And then, don't forget, 4E made Mearls a "New York Times Bestselling Author". It was a smash success. And then it wasn't. And yet, today, there are still holdout who LOVE 4E. And when you talk to them they don't say "gee, we should have listened and compromised" They blame h4ters. I don't expect that pattern to change.

But there is hope. 4E was a controversial issue, to put it mildly. But it sold like gangbusters Day 1 because it was still the new D&D. ("bestseller") I believe that 2E will sell like gangbusters Day 1. I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy it. So, if they really made big changes and those changes really capture the issues then they get a complete second chance. If it is good game then people will completely come around, and quickly. The playtest mis-steps will be ancient history.

But if they have not really made changes that truly attract the people they have turned off, then history will repeat itself. Simple as that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

For those who do have a problem with adding your level to attacks or skills, I am curious- did you have a problem with Full BAB classes? Or an issue with people putting a rank in a certain skill every level? Doing both of these are just adding your level + profiecency (aka class skill) to what you're rolling. They've basically just streamlined that. Now every character who was doing that anyway doesnt have to make sure they don't miss something and fall behind on things they're supposed to be good at.

Of course not.

The mechanics must have some baseline. The whole D20 system is arbitrary. There are good % based systems and GURPS is a pretty solid 3d6 system.

The idea that attack scales at +level modified by a d20 roll is the foundation of the mechanical structure. That is the definition of "maximum progression". And that same progress was embraced for skills, if you are "the best" you improve at that pace.

You said "supposed to be good at". It is absurd to say that everyone is supposed to be good at everything at the same numerical level.

(And yes, I get the 4 tiers, I like the four tiers. If you bring up the four tiers in response here you are just admitting that you can't wrap your brain around the point and I'm going to let the knowledge of that be its own response.)

Having characters that are the best at things alongside character who are less good at those things is a critical non-optional element of narrative storytelling.

Quote:

Sure, they run the risk of things getting too samey. But proficiency will add the variety, and critical successes will make the differences felt.

All pf2 really does with +level is expand upon what we were already using that worked pretty well before.

If you take a system that work well in one place and you apply it to everything, then yes, that is an "expansion" of the mechanic.

If clanky dwarves can now sneak despite their narrative idea and nerdy wizards can dodge orc greatswords while naked and standing in an antimagic zone, then the results are regressive with regard to modeling the story correctly.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BryonD wrote:

.

Frankly, "simpler" is just a nice way of saying they dumbed it down. Open-ended narrative driven TTRPGs are *very* complex. If someone can't handle the basic level fractions that PF1E contains, then they also can't handle the demands of modeling a story in a way that truly attempts to capture the nuances of what is happening.

This is just gate keeping nonsense. And frankly its quite insulting that you claim many of the people I have played with over the years can't handle the narrative aspects of the game just because they find the fractional levelling confusing. And it isn't just a maths thing, its a conceptual idea where you have to know more rules to multiclass because the details given out in the class tables no longer hold any relevance once you start mixing them.

Liberty's Edge

25 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
You made two points here: simpler and PC talent gap. Both of these points have been done to death and you have not refuted the issues presented for either.

What issues?

BryonD wrote:
Frankly, "simpler" is just a nice way of saying they dumbed it down. Open-ended narrative driven TTRPGs are *very* complex. If someone can't handle the basic level fractions that PF1E contains, then they also can't handle the demands of modeling a story in a way that truly attempts to capture the nuances of what is happening. I have the ability to enjoy a game that meets my standards and I have the luxury of rejecting games which fail to match that standard. The playtest failed that test badly.

This is, to be frank, completely and utterly untrue. The kinds of intelligence required for doing math vs. those required for complex social interactions and storytelling are almost entirely unrelated, and acting like they're the same thing demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how people actually work. And saying 'people who are bad at math are too stupid to play this game' is thus both unpleasant gatekeeping behavior, and factually incorrect.

There's also the matter of time. Even if you assume everyone playing can do the math, many people take a little while to do math. The longer it takes them, the more time is eaten up with individual people counting up boring numbers and the less is spent actually engaging in play.

But neither of those is actually not the biggest problem with this statement. The biggest problem with this statement is that it assumes an ability to do something means that people want to do it or have fun doing it. I'm really good at basic math, like, really good. The only person I've run into who does it better became an accountant so he could do a job where he didn't have to think too hard. I can easily do the math in just about any game you'd care to name. I receive no enjoyment from the kind of math you do while playing Pathfinder or creating characters, it is simply a necessary chore. Indeed, beyond a certain point, the more I have to do such math the more it distracts from the story and the less fun I have.

I find reductions in the mathematical weirdness of the game ala PF2 to be immensely beneficial to my enjoyment of the game. I am not alone in this, even among those who are more than capable of doing the math. The simpler the math, the quicker and more seamless the play experience is.

As an aside, math of this sort was also at least partially not for the benefit of 'simplicity'. It is for the benefit of actually making it possible to balance the game. Keeping math within certain bounds as opposed to wildly varying fractional amounts lets designers actually accurately measure ranges of power within specific levels and thus calibrate threats appropriately, but you know this and clearly disagree with it, so I'll leave it there.

BryonD wrote:
They are way more complex games than 1E. Some I like and some I don't. When someone says that they like a more complex game than me, then I'm very much cool with that. But history shows that this model hit a sweet spot and was a huge success. There is no need to give away depth. And the playtest gave away a ton of depth.

I'm perfectly happy when people like more complex games than me as well. I'm also fine when they like simpler ones. Of course, I don't call simpler games 'dumbed down' and imply that only stupid people would want a game with less math than the ones I play. I don't do that because it's kind of a dick move.

As for depth, I'm not clear at all what depth is lost. The Skill List is shorter, but beyond that customization seems to take different forms rather than being reduced. I mean, there's an inevitable lack of all the options there were by the end of PF1, but I think (especially with added content, which there will be in the actual book) it compares fairly favorably with the core rulebook alone.

BryonD wrote:
The character difference thing isn't even covered by "bug not feature". It is simply choosing to model characters wrong to make it easier to balance. As I said, we have had that debate before and unless you are suddenly going to say something new to honestly address that flaw, then there is not point in repeating that issues. Just go google it.

How is it 'modeling characters wrong'? Are we back to you thinking Wizards can't learn how to dodge? Because I've basically never read a book or seen a movie where experienced and dangerous spellcasters couldn't dodge pretty well, since people who fail at dodging tend to die.

I think it models the characters it's trying to model fine, but sure, if you don't want to argue this particular point again, let's not.

BryonD wrote:
I don't know where the final 2E will land. We know that for skills they have made a change that moves nicely in an improved direction. But we don't know anything about saves and combat. For saves, I do not see it as a big deal. There is plenty of abstraction there anyway. But for combat it is a deal breaker. Again, not going to re-debate that here, go hit google if you need the conversation. I am not optimistic they can salvage the +10/-10 mechanic for crits. Hopefully I am wrong. I am still on the sidelines waiting to see.

See, I think this paragraph is fine. I disagree, but it's also purely a statement of your personal preferences rather than a weird argument that your preferences are objectively correct and people who don't share them must be stupid.

BryonD wrote:
]Well, I think the meaningful "as simple as that" statement comes later. Three years from now 2E will either be a hugely popular game or not. And either they made a game that appeals to a large audience or they didn't. Simple as that.

Well, yes. Inevitably. If people do not like the game, it will do badly, and if people like it, it will do well. However, I think you're conflating what you want from a game with what the public in aggregate want from a game (ie: you complain about dumbing down, ut 5E, which is simpler than PF2, does very well), and are making unwarranted assumptions about certain issues not having been fixed.

BryonD wrote:
]To me there is an obvious glaring flaw in their playtest methodology. They preached to the choir. People who didn't like it dropped out very quickly and many of them didn't even bother to complete the surveys. A great majority of them walked away. If you take a poll of people who like something and conclude that everyone likes it based the results of the poll, then you better be nervous about your accuracy.

This is not necessarily the case. In many ways, I disliked the playtest as a game in its own right, and indeed said so at the time. Loudly and repeatedly, as a matter of fact. There were certainly elements I approved of, but the net effect? Not so much.

I completed the whole playtest. I doubt I'm alone in doing so despite reservations. Indeed, based on the little they've revealed about playtest data on later chapters (ie: they based dropping Level from untrained skills on people having legitimate issues with it in high level play), evidence is quite good that many people with at least some issues completed the playtest.

I'm not saying it was a majority by any means, but it's almost certainly enough for them to get good data if they analyze properly, which seems likely.

I'm very optimistic about the final game, but that's because almost every single change made during the playtest, or announced since, either solved one of my initial problems, or at least pushed the game in that direction, not because the basic playtest rulebok was a game I'd enjoy long term.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:

For those who do have a problem with adding your level to attacks or skills, I am curious- did you have a problem with Full BAB classes? Or an issue with people putting a rank in a certain skill every level? Doing both of these are just adding your level + profiecency (aka class skill) to what you're rolling. They've basically just streamlined that. Now every character who was doing that anyway doesnt have to make sure they don't miss something and fall behind on things they're supposed to be good at.

Of course not.

The mechanics must have some baseline. The whole D20 system is arbitrary. There are good % based systems and GURPS is a pretty solid 3d6 system.

The idea that attack scales at +level modified by a d20 roll is the foundation of the mechanical structure. That is the definition of "maximum progression". And that same progress was embraced for skills, if you are "the best" you improve at that pace.

You said "supposed to be good at". It is absurd to say that everyone is supposed to be good at everything at the same numerical level.

Except no it isn't? If you're a level 10 barbarian who is traveling with a classic and you never bother learning about the arcane, if course you stay ignorant. But, if you decide after killing the umpteenth undead creature you decide to look into them, maybe pay attention, and train yourself to remember, you should get a bonus. Sure, you may go from -1 to plus 13 (assuming it happens when you go to 11) which sounds extreme, but you're a powerful person and have spent the effort training. Plus, over the course of ten levels, you picked up on things. Is only sitem you train that it all makes sense and clicks. Though of course the cleric still outshines with his +20/22.

Quote:

(And yes, I get the 4 tiers, I like the four tiers. If you bring up the four tiers in response here you are just admitting that you can't wrap your brain around the point and I'm going to let the knowledge of that be its own response.)

Having characters that are the best at things alongside character who are less good at those things is a critical non-optional element of narrative storytelling.

Or youre missing what I'm trying to say. Perhaps we disagree on this, but the bonus to level isn't to be better than your allies, it's to be better than you were before, and to be competent enough to succeed. It's give the feeling of progression, make things that were once difficult much easier, and make critical successes happen. The actual stat and level of proficiency are where you get the differences in numbers between players instead of ranks invested. May not be the answer you want, but I think I made my point- andif I'm still missing your point it's because it's not clear.

Quote:
Quote:

Sure, they run the risk of things getting too samey. But proficiency will add the variety, and critical successes will make the differences felt.

All pf2 really does with +level is expand upon what we were already using that worked pretty well before.

If you take a system that work well in one place and you apply it to everything, then yes, that is an "expansion" of the mechanic.

If clanky dwarves can now sneak despite their narrative idea and nerdy wizards can dodge orc greatswords while naked and...

Like in the Hobbit? Maybe I'm misremembering, but those dwarves snuck around the place relatively well (though not as well as Bilbo) and the franchise is well known for a wizard dodging attacks with a sword in robes. That's kind of the trope. If a character wants to spend their limited supply of skill ability on a skill, they should be good at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.

Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t say level didn’t matter then, isn’t it? PF1 doesn’t use the same treadmill as 4e does and PF2 is tapping into. It’s an aspect of the redesign that I am not at all happy with and have definitely preferred 5e’s design. I’ll give PF2 a try, but it’s already got one significant factor riding against it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BryonD wrote:

.

Frankly, "simpler" is just a nice way of saying they dumbed it down. Open-ended narrative driven TTRPGs are *very* complex. If someone can't handle the basic level fractions that PF1E contains, then they also can't handle the demands of modeling a story in a way that truly attempts to capture the nuances of what is happening. I have the ability to enjoy a game that meets my standards and I have the luxury of rejecting games which fail to match that standard. The playtest failed that test badly.
...

More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think of factional progress as mathematically difficult (okay, I don't think of algebra as difficult, either). The calculation comes up only once per level and in PF1 each class provides a table to look up the value for people who don't want to do the calculation.

However, fractional increases do have their flaws. Jason Bulmahn explained how classes falling further and further behind due to a low fraction made an irreconcilable imbalance in class design. The natural armor of high-level monsters was ridiculous just to create the proper difference between AC and touch AC so that a wizard could hit with a ray but a fighter did not hit with every swing.

And +1/2 per level does not actually mean +1/2, because bonuses are integers. It means +1 at even levels and +0 at odd levels. +3/4 means +0 at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels and +1 at all other levels. On the 3/4 BAB classes in PF1, the designers had to give the class a major perk to make up for the lack of BAB increase: alchemists gained a bomb-damage increase at all odd levels, bards' Inspire Courage increased to +2 at 5th level, full spellcasters including the 3/4 BAB cleric and druid learned new spell levels at odd levels, etc. These patterns were not consistent; for example, 13th and 17th level were often dead levels. The end result is that the classes' strength did not increase smoothly. Some levels gave more power than other levels.

+1 per level, without fractions, stablizes the mathematics. And stable mathematics makes class balance more reliable.

I dislike that the raw power of +1 per level to all proficiencies overshadows the effects of feats and changes the numbers of the 41.4% Challenge-Rating curve from PF1. The Paizo designers decided that balance, stability, and simplicity were important than the old Challenge-Rating system. They know more about the market than I do. They dropped the +1 per level to untrained proficiencies, so we roleplayers can put characteristic weaknesses on our characters if we want. And I can adapt to a new challenge-rating curve.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Well, it’s a good thing I didn’t say level didn’t matter then, isn’t it? PF1 doesn’t use the same treadmill as 4e does and PF2 is tapping into. It’s an aspect of the redesign that I am not at all happy with and have definitely preferred 5e’s design. I’ll give PF2 a try, but it’s already got one significant factor riding against it.

The treadmill is an effort to contain the power of +1 per level to all proficiencies. The stability of PF2 makes it obvious, while the instability of PF1 obscured the less significant treadmill in PF1. Ever notice that in an adventure path the town guards were 2nd level in the starting city, but 4th level in the next module and 7th level in the module after that? That was PF1's version of the treadmill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The other nice thing about the math being tighter is you're less likely to have two characters optimize while others struggle. Had a game where the druid and alchemist could kill anything I threw at them, while the rest of the party struggled to keep up, and wouldn't let me help them make sure their characters were properly equipped. Ended one of my games. Glad to have that issue lessened


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
The other nice thing about the math being tighter is you're less likely to have two characters optimize while others struggle. Had a game where the druid and alchemist could kill anything I threw at them, while the rest of the party struggled to keep up, and wouldn't let me help them make sure their characters were properly equipped. Ended one of my games. Glad to have that issue lessened

Yup. New players being able to have fun and be useful in combat without you as GM having to either create their character for them or scale down encounters is a huge plus for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

I don't think of factional progress as mathematically difficult (okay, I don't think of algebra as difficult, either). The calculation comes up only once per level and in PF1 each class provides a table to look up the value for people who don't want to do the calculation.

However, fractional increases do have their flaws. Jason Bulmahn explained how classes falling further and further behind due to a low fraction made an irreconcilable imbalance in class design. The natural armor of high-level monsters was ridiculous just to create the proper difference between AC and touch AC so that a wizard could hit with a ray but a fighter did not hit with every swing.

And +1/2 per level does not actually mean +1/2, because bonuses are integers. It means +1 at even levels and +0 at odd levels. +3/4 means +0 at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels and +1 at all other levels. On the 3/4 BAB classes in PF1, the designers had to give the class a major perk to make up for the lack of BAB increase: alchemists gained a bomb-damage increase at all odd levels, bards' Inspire Courage increased to +2 at 5th level, full spellcasters including the 3/4 BAB cleric and druid learned new spell levels at odd levels, etc. These patterns were not consistent; for example, 13th and 17th level were often dead levels. The end result is that the classes' strength did not increase smoothly. Some levels gave more power than other levels.

+1 per level, without fractions, stablizes the mathematics. And stable mathematics makes class balance more reliable.

I dislike that the raw power of +1 per level to all proficiencies overshadows the effects of feats and changes the numbers of the 41.4% Challenge-Rating curve from PF1. The Paizo designers decided that balance, stability, and simplicity were important than the old Challenge-Rating system. They know more about the market than I do. They dropped the +1 per level to untrained proficiencies, so we roleplayers can put characteristic weaknesses on our characters if we want. And I can adapt to...

I agree that getting rid of Fractional growth allows the differences between chars to remain consistent throughout the game and at a manageable level. Well, the last part would be true in PF1... But I have a feeling that these differences are going to be more dramatic this game. The new crit system makes every point of difference matter a lot more than before.

Lv1 Valeros has a +9 to hit, lv1 Ezren with 12 Str (above average) has +4. It's not that far-off the gap in PF1, but in this system it means a lot more and it's still gonna grow even wider as they level up (Mostly from magic weapons and improved proficiency) and enemies are gonna grow according to the Fighter numbers. The same can be said for saves (Which I assume you get +level even when untrained). Right off the bat we're playing with some gaps that will never be closed, have a huge impact and make the weaker character say "why bother?".

So I wonder, in practical terms, if this is really allowing these characters to "keep up" or "prevent the gap from growing" as levels go up. In PF1 the differences get very ridiculous if someone invests, but it does take until mid/high levels before it gets silly. Does the new system alleviate this enough to counteract the +10/-10 system?


ChibiNyan wrote:
I agree that getting rid of Fractional growth allows the differences between chars to remain consistent throughout the game and at a manageable level. Well, the last part would be true in PF1... But I have a feeling that these differences are going to be more dramatic this game. The new crit system makes every point of difference matter a lot more than before.

That is correct. In PF1 if a character hits on a roll of 8 or higher, then a +1 to hit changes a 13/20 chance to hit to a 14/20 chance to hit, a 7.7% improvement. In contrast, in PF2 if a character hits on a roll of 8 or higher, then a +1 to hit changes a 10/20 chance at a hit and a 3/20 chance at a critical hit into a 10/20 chance at a hit and a 4/20 chance at a critical hit. Since critical hits deal double damage, they are twice as valuable as regular hits, so that is a 12.5% improvement.

A +1 in PF2 has 50% more effect than a +1 in PF2.

ChibiNyan wrote:

Lv1 Valeros has a +9 to hit, lv1 Ezren with 12 Str (above average) has +4. It's not that far-off the gap in PF1, but in this system it means a lot more and it's still gonna grow even wider as they level up (Mostly from magic weapons and improved proficiency) and enemies are gonna grow according to the Fighter numbers. The same can be said for saves (Which I assume you get +level even when untrained). Right off the bat we're playing with some gaps that will never be closed, have a huge impact and make the weaker character say "why bother?".

So I wonder, in practical terms, if this is really allowing these characters to "keep up" or "prevent the gap from growing" as levels go up. In PF1 the differences get very ridiculous if someone invests, but it does take until mid/high levels before it gets silly. Does the new system alleviate this enough to counteract the +10/-10 system?

I don't see how ChibiNyan got such large bonuses for 1st-level characters, but I can make some comparisons of my own. A wizard's chance to hit in melee seldom matters for games, so let me instead use a Wild Order druid who wants to hit with his wild claws (1d6 slashing, agile, finesse) focus power. A high-Strength druid can manage only Str 16, since druid class gives its ability score bonus to Wisdom. And its weapon proficiency with claws is only trained and stays trained, level+2, while the fighter's weapon proficiency goes up to legendary, level+8. Wild claws scales up as a magic weapon, so those bonuses don't make a difference. Thus, at 20th level the fighter has +7 to hit above the druid.

In Pf1, the difference between the fighter's full BAB and the druid's 3/4 BAB was +5 at 20th level. The fighter would have a +5 weapon giving another +5 advantage, for a total of +10 to hit above the druid.

Given that +7 in PF2 is equivalent to +11 in PF1, that seems about the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly feel like a very significant portion of the problems of PF1 were the players, not the game. I understand all of it. I remember which bonus types stack and which don't. I can make characters. I can design monsters and design encounters. It all makes sense to me.
But a lot of new players (and not-so-new) players didn't get it. And, unfortunately, if the GM wasn't on top of things, players who love the munchkin style of play could roll all over him with illegal combos (and sometimes legal ones).
I love PF1. But if this new game helps new players understand the game faster and easier, and helps keep things even longer, I'm all for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
I don't see how ChibiNyan got such large bonuses for 1st-level characters

+4 STR, +4 Expert Proficiency, +1 level make it 9.

----

What you concluded at the end is what I was talking about. Despite the new system, the difference is the same as PF1 so it's not fixing that problem (which this system supposedly helped mitigate).

And that was at the unrealistic level 20. How about the more common levels 1-5, where in PF1 the Druid focused in combat was almost equal to the Fighter? The difference in capabilities is actually bigger for the majority of the game, not less.

I believe a character who is focusing 100% on combat by getting the best strength and equipment should be able to stay rather close in combat ability. Maybe like a -2 to-hit in comparison (consistently throughout) in this system . It was one thing I was enjoying about the new system in the playtest.

But maybe the fighter is a crazy edge case. I would like to see how Barbarian and Ranger fare and if those are more comparable to this Druid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
I agree that getting rid of Fractional growth allows the differences between chars to remain consistent throughout the game and at a manageable level. Well, the last part would be true in PF1... But I have a feeling that these differences are going to be more dramatic this game. The new crit system makes every point of difference matter a lot more than before.

That is correct. In PF1 if a character hits on a roll of 8 or higher, then a +1 to hit changes a 13/20 chance to hit to a 14/20 chance to hit, a 7.7% improvement. In contrast, in PF2 if a character hits on a roll of 8 or higher, then a +1 to hit changes a 10/20 chance at a hit and a 3/20 chance at a critical hit into a 10/20 chance at a hit and a 4/20 chance at a critical hit. Since critical hits deal double damage, they are twice as valuable as regular hits, so that is a 12.5% improvement.

A +1 in PF2 has 50% more effect than a +1 in PF2.

ChibiNyan wrote:

Lv1 Valeros has a +9 to hit, lv1 Ezren with 12 Str (above average) has +4. It's not that far-off the gap in PF1, but in this system it means a lot more and it's still gonna grow even wider as they level up (Mostly from magic weapons and improved proficiency) and enemies are gonna grow according to the Fighter numbers. The same can be said for saves (Which I assume you get +level even when untrained). Right off the bat we're playing with some gaps that will never be closed, have a huge impact and make the weaker character say "why bother?".

So I wonder, in practical terms, if this is really allowing these characters to "keep up" or "prevent the gap from growing" as levels go up. In PF1 the differences get very ridiculous if someone invests, but it does take until mid/high levels before it gets silly. Does the new system alleviate this enough to counteract the +10/-10 system?

I don't see how ChibiNyan got such large bonuses for 1st-level characters, but I can make some comparisons of my own. A wizard's chance to hit in melee seldom matters for games,...

Mathmuse, thanks for always being willing to really look closely at the numbers. Your contributions here are always so thoughtful and thought provoking.

Also, PF2 proficiencies are going to look different than the playtest because of the boost. We already know wizards get bumped to expert in their trained first level weapons at some point. I can't imagine that the druid is not going to get at least the same treatment, with the potential for more boosts if fighting with natural weapons is the characters primary focus. We don't want to jump the gun yet with some of the higher level extrapolations of numbers because it is very likely that the floor for high level characters, for necessary but not primary proficiencies will be expert and not trained.


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


I find 5e is actually perfectly good for that kind of thing. High level enemies/PCs are terrifyingly powerful from the viewpoint of low level PCs/enemies, but the difference isn't so great that the battle is completely pointless to play out. The same PCs can fight a Challenge 20 lich, then fight fifty Challenge 1/2 orcs in the next battle.

I love 5e math from a more believable world building side of things. But I have had to accept that pathfinder 2e will be silly levels of fantasy marvel superheroes type stuff. But hey, I didn't have any system that could compete with that niche so I will probably end up buying and running it a heck of a lot as a result -laughs- as my players enjoy that a bit more than my penchant for gritty and oppressive games.

I am hope pf2e continues down the path of tactics over hinging near everything on character build. I have been playing/running 3.x games since near the beginning and my biggest frustration has been how static non tier 1 characters end up being (and even those tbh). Really haply with the changes to feat chains in the playtest.

I really should get myself the last four pathfinder hardcovers before they become hard to get though, be nice to have a full set.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.

I like the way Seifter (I think) phrased it, something like "Complexity is the currency with which you buy depth." Complexity for its own sake is like "spending for the sake of spending" and complexity which buys you comparatively little depth is poor allocation of resources.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lv1 Valeros has a +9 to hit, lv1 Ezren with 12 Str (above average) has +4. It's not that far-off the gap in PF1, but in this system it means a lot more and it's still gonna grow even wider as they level up (Mostly from magic weapons and improved proficiency) and enemies are gonna grow according to the Fighter numbers. The same can be said for saves (Which I assume you get +level even when untrained). Right off the bat we're playing with some gaps that will never be closed, have a huge impact and make the weaker character say "why bother?".

There are a few important facts about this long term:

#1: Fighters are actually predicated upon being more accurate than normal, per Jason Bulmahn, so monsters are probably based on more like the +7 other dedicated combatants have. That certainly seems true based on the two examples we have.

#2: Evidence strongly suggests that when attacking with spells, spellcasters in the final version of PF2 will use their Spell Roll as an attack...so an easy +7 at 1st level, with their Proficiency eventually hitting Legendary and every incentive to increase it.

#3: But let's say a caster does want to engage in physical combat and starts off behind. Frankly, due to the way leveling Ability Scores works that gap narrows, since raising scores to 18 is way cheaper than raising them past it. Someone starting with Str 14 winds up only 1 point behind the accuracy of someone starting with an 18 with the same Proficiency by 10th level.

#4: Everyone starts at Trained in all Saves. They've said as much. This makes the swing between Trained and Legendary 6 points at most, and they've specified that the math assumes most boosts past Trained don't happen to make those who do go past that feel competent as their chances actually rise. They've also noted there are now more ways to get to Expert or higher in things, so a particular weakness like this seems very much something that can be overcome.

But yes, some characters will be better at some things than others. Inevitably. But that doesn't mean they're useless or incapable...just focused in other areas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I definitely want certain characters to be better at certain things. I want the fighter to physically manhandle monsters the wizard wouldn't dare try. But, at the same time, I don't want the gap in Saves at level 20 between a good Fort and a poor Will to be so big that one character always makes it while another always fails.
Plus, I hope this opens it up for easier designed Epic level content (fingers crossed).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I definitely want certain characters to be better at certain things. I want the fighter to physically manhandle monsters the wizard wouldn't dare try. But, at the same time, I don't want the gap in Saves at level 20 between a good Fort and a poor Will to be so big that one character always makes it while another always fails.

Plus, I hope this opens it up for easier designed Epic level content (fingers crossed).

4 degrees of success are a thing worth saves though. So one may save while the other critically saved. And the barbarian likely will crit the fort save with the wizard scraping by, with the Will saves being the opposite. Or the rogue vs the paladin in fort vs reflex. Or cleric vs rogue in reflex vs will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I don't see how ChibiNyan got such large bonuses for 1st-level characters
+4 STR, +4 Expert Proficiency, +1 level make it 9.

Silly me. I have trouble switching from the playtest numbers of +1 for expert to the final correction of +4 for expert, even though I managed to use the final numbers in my later calculation.

ChibiNyan wrote:
But maybe the fighter is a crazy edge case. I would like to see how Barbarian and Ranger fare and if those are more comparable to this Druid.

I have participated in discussions of the playtest ranger and most people feel that the playtest ranger underperforms. I hope the final Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules provide a better ranger. The ranger does receive higher proficiency in one weapon group.

My wife played a barbarian in the 2nd chapter of Doomsday Dawn and her greatest strength was being an outstanding athlete. The barbarian does not receive the fighter's high weapon proficiency. Instead, the class gains a bonus to damage from raging and additional rage powers from feats.


Mathmuse wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
I don't see how ChibiNyan got such large bonuses for 1st-level characters
+4 STR, +4 Expert Proficiency, +1 level make it 9.

Silly me. I have trouble switching from the playtest numbers of +1 for expert to the final correction of +4 for expert, even though I managed to use the final numbers in my later calculation.

ChibiNyan wrote:
But maybe the fighter is a crazy edge case. I would like to see how Barbarian and Ranger fare and if those are more comparable to this Druid.

I have participated in discussions of the playtest ranger and most people feel that the playtest ranger underperforms. I hope the final Pathfinder 2nd Edition rules provide a better ranger. The ranger does receive higher proficiency in one weapon group.

My wife played a barbarian in the 2nd chapter of Doomsday Dawn and her greatest strength was being an outstanding athlete. The barbarian does not receive the fighter's high weapon proficiency. Instead, the class gains a bonus to damage from raging and additional rage powers from feats.

I'm interested in seeing what these classes can offer in combat in 2E. I remember that thread and it was evident the fighter was a lot better than them! However now the same thing that made him better has been increased so it's a much steeper hill to catch up compared to back then.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
People who didn't like it dropped out very quickly and many of them didn't even bother to complete the surveys. A great majority of them walked away.

Emphasis mine. Unless you are a multimillionaire who spent copious resources to do your own polling, you have literally no way to know this. You make claims that you have no ability to support, which makes your arguments not credible and shows your bias. You need to either argue solely from a stance of your opinion or you need to back up your claims.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I definitely want certain characters to be better at certain things. I want the fighter to physically manhandle monsters the wizard wouldn't dare try. But, at the same time, I don't want the gap in Saves at level 20 between a good Fort and a poor Will to be so big that one character always makes it while another always fails.

Plus, I hope this opens it up for easier designed Epic level content (fingers crossed).
4 degrees of success are a thing worth saves though. So one may save while the other critically saved. And the barbarian likely will crit the fort save with the wizard scraping by, with the Will saves being the opposite. Or the rogue vs the paladin in fort vs reflex. Or cleric vs rogue in reflex vs will.

I will say that, while anecdotal, the Rogue and Paladin in my group's party both got more crit saves on Fort and Reflex respectively due to their class-specific abilities. The Rogue actually managed to 1v1 a Shoggoth for a few turns in Part 7, since she kept crit-saving and completely avoiding its Engulf attempts while using her mobility to kite. Critical saves due to high rolls didn't seem to happen very often in comparison.

Paizo Employee Designer

16 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.
I like the way Seifter (I think) phrased it, something like "Complexity is the currency with which you buy depth." Complexity for its own sake is like "spending for the sake of spending" and complexity which buys you comparatively little depth is poor allocation of resources.

I think I did say that, in a venue talking about how it's possible to increase depth while lowering complexity if you're careful how you spend it. If you think of it like a graph with two axes, x for complexity, y for depth, you want to include pieces that are relatively tall but slender while removing pieces that were long and short.

As to the surveys, obviously you can never know anything about the people who didn't take any of them, that's the risk of any survey, period, even ones performed by professional survey scientists and with high stakes surveying the entire populace on an issue. But we do know that the people who proportionately dropped the surveys after their first survey were those who liked the game and were very positive about it. People who disliked it were most likely to keep answering the most surveys, followed by people who really really liked it (extremely positive). But the interesting and really cool thing? There were a lot of areas where you could find major agreement among the people who disliked the game and people who really liked it. It was easy to see that people had varied and nuanced opinions. For instance, it's not like there were people disliking the game and just rating everything as bad or loving the game and just rating everything as good. Even the people who disliked the game, as a whole, overall rated a lot of aspects positively, which shows that the amount of negativity they picked up from just a few areas they really didn't like were enough to change their overall rating dramatically. That doesn't really surprise me; it's really easy for all of us, me included, to get caught up in that one thing that bugs us. I'm definitely guilty of this. In the playtest, we told you guys to run it straight without houseruling and I'm grateful you guys listened and had our backs with playtest data on that, but it definitely led to having to deal with rules we didn't like, when as gamers we were used to houseruling. By designing the game carefully to make it easier to create new content and houserule, I'm hoping we were able to help out people even when they were one of the 10% who wanted a particular change and we went the other way and changed towards the 90%, since that design should make it easier for each of us to get what we want from PF2! Especially if it's just a matter of wanting to be higher or lower power than the baseline, or more or fewer character choices per level, that's extremely easy compared to before, and something we're going to get to you guys pretty soon after the launch products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
But we do know that the people who proportionately dropped the surveys after their first survey were those who liked the game and were very positive about it. People who disliked it were most likely to keep answering the most surveys, followed by people who really really liked it (extremely positive).

Thanks for sharing this. I hated the mood of the playtest and ended up closing the forum and just not listening but waiting to see the end result. It cheers me up to hear positive facts like this.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
More like “dumbed it down” is an asshat way of saying something has been simplified, because it expresses contempt of people who prefer the simpler model.
I like the way Seifter (I think) phrased it, something like "Complexity is the currency with which you buy depth." Complexity for its own sake is like "spending for the sake of spending" and complexity which buys you comparatively little depth is poor allocation of resources.

I think I did say that, in a venue talking about how it's possible to increase depth while lowering complexity if you're careful how you spend it. If you think of it like a graph with two axes, x for complexity, y for depth, you want to include pieces that are relatively tall but slender while removing pieces that were long and short.

As to the surveys, obviously you can never know anything about the people who didn't take any of them, that's the risk of any survey, period, even ones performed by professional survey scientists and with high stakes surveying the entire populace on an issue. But we do know that the people who proportionately dropped the surveys after their first survey were those who liked the game and were very positive about it. People who disliked it were most likely to keep answering the most surveys, followed by people who really really liked it (extremely positive). But the interesting adn really cool thing? There were a lot of areas where you could find major agreement among the people who disliked the game and people who really liked it. It was easy to see that people had varied and nuanced opinions. For instance, it's not like there were people disliking the game and just rating everything as bad or loving the game and just rating everything as good. Even the people who disliked the game, as a whole, overall rated a lot of aspects positively, which shows that the amount of negativity they picked up from just a few areas they really didn't like were enough to change their overall...

Sadly, in my case I can think of only one thing I like about pf2e, and that is champions being per alignment ( don't like the extremely passive mechanics of the class, but at least that one aspect is good), everything else I dislike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
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.

Level mattered less, it still mattered, but it wasn't the character defining, story crushing monolith it is now, with the horrendous monster system (don't get me wrong, PF1 suffered from forcing a monster to fit a CR as well, but it was a bug that should have been resolved, not a feature to double down on, if a monster needs a 'bonus from nowhere' to be a CR...then it isn't that CR, lower the CR to a rating that reflects the 'actual' creature, not give it random bonuses to fit a math requirement) making matters even worse, the 'stay in lane,no quirks, no fun, no escape' class feat system chaining you to an endless mind numbing treadmill, and the dedication system just spitting in your face, with the feats that you actually need to make an idea work blocked off behind a feat tax (not being awful at two weapons or swinging really hard being fighter only for instance) which throws on even more chains, and seems to scream 'badwrongfun' at any idea to be actually good at something.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Especially if it's just a matter of wanting to be higher or lower power than the baseline, or more or fewer character choices per level, that's extremely easy compared to before, and something we're going to get to you guys pretty soon after the launch products.

I'm curious to see this one, for sure.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
Quote:
Especially if it's just a matter of wanting to be higher or lower power than the baseline, or more or fewer character choices per level, that's extremely easy compared to before, and something we're going to get to you guys pretty soon after the launch products.
I'm curious to see this one, for sure.

PF2 GM Guide hopefully.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Cut for brevity.

For CR: I'm not sure I can envision a functional system that allows monsters to be "naturally" a certain CR without some number padding (if thats what you want to call + level.) I mean past a certain level thats just going to mean all monsters have massive attributes, which is just padding of another kind. The only way this is avoidable is to go for a 5e style game, and even that has arbitrary padding of HP just because something is of x level.

For feats: Still not seeing the functional difference between "this concept takes several feats to work in a chain but classes we want to do it get bonus feats" and "this concept requires taking a dedication feat before getting a second feat." Or even the fact that many class feats are the functionally equivalent of class features that you would have had to multiclass for in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
But we do know that the people who proportionately dropped the surveys after their first survey were those who liked the game and were very positive about it. People who disliked it were most likely to keep answering the most surveys, followed by people who really really liked it (extremely positive).
Thanks for sharing this. I hated the mood of the playtest and ended up closing the forum and just not listening but waiting to see the end result. It cheers me up to hear positive facts like this.

I put a chrome extension on that lets just not see posts from specific people. It has been great for my blood pressure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Cut for brevity.

For CR: I'm not sure I can envision a functional system that allows monsters to be "naturally" a certain CR without some number padding (if thats what you want to call + level.) I mean past a certain level thats just going to mean all monsters have massive attributes, which is just padding of another kind. The only way this is avoidable is to go for a 5e style game, and even that has arbitrary padding of HP just because something is of x level.

For feats: Still not seeing the functional difference between "this concept takes several feats to work in a chain but classes we want to do it get bonus feats" and "this concept requires taking a dedication feat before getting a second feat." Or even the fact that many class feats are the functionally equivalent of class features that you would have had to multiclass for in the first place.

Because the dedications lock you in. You can have one, be it archetype or class, and to have another you HAVE to take 3 feats in that archetype/dedication (so no pirates with double slice, til really late game, for instance), and the merging of what were universal feats and class features into class feats means that you have to have multiple versions of a feat chain (so we shall keep using twf, just for brevity) so you have rogue twf, ranger twf, fighter twf, and one will clearly be the best (in this case fighter), so you waste pages making sub-standard versions of a feat that could have easily been done as a single feat that anyone meeting the stat pre-requisites could take.

On monsters: My point was: if your sand worm analogue needs a str of 50 to be CR 8...it should not be CR 8, make the creature with stats dictated by a logical, consistent system, and see what CR that makes it, if that is cr5, then it's cr5, don't mess with numbers to buff it to 8, it bugs me in pf1 when I catch it, and PF2 makes it a core design philosophy.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:

Cut for brevity.

For CR: I'm not sure I can envision a functional system that allows monsters to be "naturally" a certain CR without some number padding (if thats what you want to call + level.) I mean past a certain level thats just going to mean all monsters have massive attributes, which is just padding of another kind. The only way this is avoidable is to go for a 5e style game, and even that has arbitrary padding of HP just because something is of x level.

For feats: Still not seeing the functional difference between "this concept takes several feats to work in a chain but classes we want to do it get bonus feats" and "this concept requires taking a dedication feat before getting a second feat." Or even the fact that many class feats are the functionally equivalent of class features that you would have had to multiclass for in the first place.

Because the dedications lock you in. You can have one, be it archetype or class, and to have another you HAVE to take 3 feats in that archetype/dedication (so no pirates with double slice, til really late game, for instance), and the merging of what were universal feats and class features into class feats means that you have to have multiple versions of a feat chain (so we shall keep using twf, just for brevity) so you have rogue twf, ranger twf, fighter twf, and one will clearly be the best (in this case fighter), so you waste pages making sub-standard versions of a feat that could have easily been done as a single feat that anyone meeting the stat pre-requisites could take.

On monsters: My point was: if your sand worm analogue needs a str of 50 to be CR 8...it should not be CR 8, make the creature with stats dictated by a logical, consistent system, and see what CR that makes it, if that is cr5, then it's cr5, don't mess with numbers to buff it to 8, it bugs me in pf1 when I catch it, and PF2 makes it a core design philosophy.

You absolutely can play a pirate with Double Slice early game. You just can't play a Pirate with Double Slice, Boarding Action, Rope Whatsit etc. IF the Pirate dedication didn't exist you'd be happily playing a pirate conceptually without it. The dedication just makes it more so. Likewise my big heavy hitting character who gives it their all with a Greatsword work just fine in PF2 without needing Power Attack. This was as much a problem in PF1 if you think specific mechanics are needed for you concept (or in any game with any kind of level gating) if that specific mechanic is not available at the level you are playing.

And my point on CR is if that is what you want then you either have incredibly constrained PCs (5e style) or if you let PCs be powerful then all your CR 8+ monsters are going to have ridiculous stats that then have knock on effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:


(don't get me wrong, PF1 suffered from forcing a monster to fit a CR as well, but it was a bug that should have been resolved, not a feature to double down on, if a monster needs a 'bonus from nowhere' to be a CR...then it isn't that CR, lower the CR to a rating that reflects the 'actual' creature, not give it random bonuses to fit a math requirement)

But that's not actually what they did. Or at least not what people complained about.

The problem was overwhelmingly the natural armor bonuses from nowhere, but those weren't to make the monster a particular CR, but to keep it's AC inline with the CR the rest of its abilities suggested it should be. Monsters that have a ton of hit points and do massive damage, but are trivial to hit aren't balanced at any CR. You can't lower the CR to account for the low AC, because then they'll do too much damage for enemies at that level.
Monsters had Hit Dice and most of their basic abilities derived from that: hp, BAB, saves, etc. All that generally scaled together - though it did run into the broader problem of strong vs weak saves at high levels. Special abilities could be added as appropriate without much complaint - it would be easy to mess up here and give too powerful abilities to a weak creature, but the easy fix is just to ramp up the HD until appropriate. Armor class in the overall system didn't scale with level, but with equipment and equipment didn't make sense for many monsters. That's why that was the broken part.

You can't actually get away from the math requirements. The monsters have to actually work in fights. They have to scale. We don't want glass cannons. We don't want tanks that can't hurt anything.

The way to resolve the bug was to make AC scale with level, like everything else did, one way or another. Whether everything needed to scale linearly with level is another question. I suppose they could have paralleled the BAB approach and had full AC, 2/3 AC and half AC classes and monster types. Or good and bad AC types, like saves.


Eh, half AC wouldnmt work for he same reason half BaB doesn’t work - the d20.
Regardless ofwhat sort of fractional progression you want to use, your variance is static. Either everything progresses at a similar rate, or the longer you go the more you screw things up. Even a 30% difference would add up eventually. The only reasonable pick is to remove fractions and narrow down the bonuses - several subsystems in PF1 do that already, like verbal duels. The whole setup says “Skim the b$@#+#+$ and bring things in line”, because that’s the only way to make it work.


Ediwir wrote:

Eh, half AC wouldnmt work for he same reason half BaB doesn’t work - the d20.

Regardless ofwhat sort of fractional progression you want to use, your variance is static. Either everything progresses at a similar rate, or the longer you go the more you screw things up. Even a 30% difference would add up eventually. The only reasonable pick is to remove fractions and narrow down the bonuses - several subsystems in PF1 do that already, like verbal duels. The whole setup says “Skim the b&+*##!+ and bring things in line”, because that’s the only way to make it work.

Agreed. Though it kind of might work, for the same reasons half BAB worked fairly well.

Those that get half BAB & might get half AC aren't really relying on it. They've got other defenses or avoid front line combat.

But the existing paradigm was "no AC" so something had to be thrown in to compensate for anything that didn't wear armor.


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

I think that one reason for not doing fractional math is that the higher the level the worse you got certain things weather it be BAB or saves. The higher the level the wider the gap. The varying progression rates were challenging and allot rules had to be developed to work around the fractional math. As far as the level plus thing the highest BAB was level plus. I like the proficiency model and the 2/4/6/8 tract. As far as the fighter being the best at hitting thins with weapons. To me they should be. It is also fine that no other class is as good at it.

As far as there being not allot of change from playtest to the finale game, that may be true. The fundamentals of the game may not change as far as the action economy and adding levels. However, there can be a bunch of fine tuning goes on. The playtest of Pathfinder 1 and the finale version had undergone allot of fine tuning. I believe this will be the case with Pathfinder 2


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think to further expand on the fractional math was that with a 4 tier system the gap of a good tier progression versus a poor one widened quite a bit as the level increases. Thus, the comment of the higher level the character was the worse they got at a bad tier of progression versus a character that had good tier in the area you were bad in. This was what developers said they had to have extra rules for. I think a way to compromise might be 2 tier system instead of 4. But, I might say with the 2/4/6/8 progression it could be a two tier tract.

As, far as being better at things the class feats will separate the classes as far as things you can do.

51 to 100 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