Remember how they snuck some extra ability boosts in as a boon from an artifact in Doomsday Dawn? I thought that was neat, but I wasn't sure if we would be seeing that in the longterm this addition. PF1 APs occasionally gave additional boosts from particular potent magical events, and they had those manuals of gainful exercise and what have you. (I'm thinking about this partially because there are several such books in the AP I'm converting.
Adding extra boosts seems like it would be a very exciting award, but if they became common place they'd basically become required math enhancers. And PF2 math is too finely calibrated to use them Willy nilly. Still, I find myself wishing I had something for that role. Especially because there aren't a lot of book based magic items right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember how they snuck some extra ability boosts in as a boon from an artifact in Doomsday Dawn? I thought that was neat, but I wasn't sure if we would be seeing that in the longterm this addition. PF1 APs occasionally gave additional boosts from particular potent magical events, and they had those manuals of gainful exercise and what have you. (I'm thinking about this partially because there are several such books in the AP I'm converting.
Adding extra boosts seems like it would be a very exciting award, but if they became common place they'd basically become required math enhancers. And PF2 math is too finely calibrated to use them Willy nilly. Still, I find myself wishing I had something for that role. Especially because there aren't a lot of book based magic items right now.
As part of an AP, sure: it wouldn't be much different from some variant rules like dual-class, free archetype, ect. as long as the whole party gets something and the AP if built with it in mind I don't see why it's couldn't happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Age of Ashes spoilers
The PCs gain an ability boost by cleaning a node in the final dungeon and other small bonuses as well.
I would say it's much more likely that free skill proficiency bumps or a free feat would come along, but there is no reason why you CAN'T have an ability boost, since the AP is balanced around a slightly stronger party.
I would say it's much more likely that free skill proficiency bumps or a free feat would come along, but there is no reason why you CAN'T have an ability boost, since the AP is balanced around a slightly stronger party.
I've been using skill increases and feats as rewards for plot things already, yeah, but I have also been playing with double class feats.
So here's a question for folks. If you were trying to run a converted PF1 AP that had Manuals of Excercise and Tomes of Clear Thought and such, would you try keeping them as items that give ability boosts to those skills? Or would you throw that out in much the same way as lower level Belts of Incredible Dexterity and Headband of Alluring Charisma? They'd only work on one party member, so it wouldn't raise the group's power curve too much. But it would also create some intra-party imbalance.
I would say it's much more likely that free skill proficiency bumps or a free feat would come along, but there is no reason why you CAN'T have an ability boost, since the AP is balanced around a slightly stronger party.I've been using skill increases and feats as rewards for plot things already, yeah, but I have also been playing with double class feats.
So here's a question for folks. If you were trying to run a converted PF1 AP that had Manuals of Excercise and Tomes of Clear Thought and such, would you try keeping them as items that give ability boosts to those skills? Or would you throw that out in much the same way as lower level Belts of Incredible Dexterity and Headband of Alluring Charisma? They'd only work on one party member, so it wouldn't raise the group's power curve too much. But it would also create some intra-party imbalance.
In PF1, you were able to get +6 items and +5 from books. In PF2, you can only have a +2 from item. So, maybe a +1 from books is acceptable. It would not change the maximum attribute bonus you can get, it would just allow you to have it at level 15 instead of level 20. So, in my opinion, it would not be so much of a big deal.
But anything above a +1 would clearly change the power level. PF2 is a lot about small bonuses, and a +2 to your main attribute is far from being a small bonus.
If you were trying to run a converted PF1 AP that had Manuals of Excercise and Tomes of Clear Thought and such, would you try keeping them as items that give ability boosts to those skills?
I think they'd be ok. Just have it so they don't stack with Apex items and you should be fine. You could even bring back those lower level stat belts if you use something like the new point buy variant from gamemastery and had the belt give a +1 stat [or a 16 stat].
I feel like the effect of one stat bonus is minimal, since it won't let you get your highest stat past 22, it will just let you hit 22 five levels early or hit 22 if you start with a 16.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's a question for folks. If you were trying to run a converted PF1 AP that had Manuals of Excercise and Tomes of Clear Thought and such, would you try keeping them as items that give ability boosts to those skills? Or would you throw that out in much the same way as lower level Belts of Incredible Dexterity and Headband of Alluring Charisma? They'd only work on one party member, so it wouldn't raise the group's power curve too much. But it would also create some intra-party imbalance.
I wouldn't allow them, just as I wouldn't allow a +5 weapon. Gaining a bonus to one stat for story reasons is one thing, but the items on the other hand are a hold over from an old system. It's no different then removing Weapon Focus as the feat no longer works for the system, or eliminating references to BAB or monster HD.
Big range of opinions on this one. Interesting.
|
I think perhaps we will continue to see these granted as Adventure Awards of one kind or another, and possibly even in the form of Unique Artifacts that are at the GMs disposal, I don't think these will ever be made part of the pool of Character Options which are normally available as a baseline through Feats, Archetypes, Spell Effect (I'm looking at you Permenancey), or Ancestry Options.
A general Ability Score boost to even one Ability Score is just too competitive for ANY given "Silo" you might consider placing it in, let alone a full suite of 4 boosts from the normal method.
During the playtest, we got a single Boost (+2 unless it's already at 18) when we killed the dragon in part 4, and our GM said he'd do that again in our full game when we get to a dragon big enough (it comes from the tale of Siegfried, who ate a dragon's heart to gain it's strength. It's pretty metal) so it's not that insane if done sparsely. Because that net +1 to a roll mattered... Twice, across our whole table, I didn't get hit because mine went to dex, and our Druid landed a spell because his DC was 1 higher
|
You guys are WAY more optimistic than I am that Paizo will contain power creep this edition. They certainly didn't seem to even CARE in first edition.
Personally, I expect Advanced Players Guide to more or less toe the line on power creep (ie, a few slightly powerful things but nothing too egregious except for one or two clearly broken things that eventually get errata'd/nerfed into oblivion).
But then I expect Power Creep to become a thing. Whether from lack of attention by Paizo or from a need to sell books, I expect splat books to steadily raise the bar, slowly at first and then at an ever increasing pace.
Somewhere in there (hopefully post Advanced Players Guide) will be items that totally screw up the math. Very, very likely including stat boost items that come early, stack, etc.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are WAY more optimistic than I am that Paizo will contain power creep this edition. They certainly didn't seem to even CARE in first edition.
Personally, I expect Advanced Players Guide to more or less toe the line on power creep (ie, a few slightly powerful things but nothing too egregious except for one or two clearly broken things that eventually get errata'd/nerfed into oblivion).
But then I expect Power Creep to become a thing. Whether from lack of attention by Paizo or from a need to sell books, I expect splat books to steadily raise the bar, slowly at first and then at an ever increasing pace.
Somewhere in there (hopefully post Advanced Players Guide) will be items that totally screw up the math. Very, very likely including stat boost items that come early, stack, etc.
I think PF2 has a couple of things going for it to contain the creep.
1) Paizo seems to be slowing their release schedule and keeping closer tabs on what they release. See the player's companion line no longer being a thing.
2) The math chassis of 2e is so much easier to grok, which in turn means it is easier to create content that doesn't break it. I've done my own fair share of it, and it isn't that hard to do right.
|
|
I think PF2 has a couple of things going for it to contain the creep.
1) Paizo seems to be slowing their release schedule and keeping closer tabs on what they release. See the player's companion line no longer being a thing.
2) The math chassis of 2e is so much easier to grok, which in turn means it is easier to create content that doesn't break it. I've done my own fair share of it, and it isn't that hard to do right.
I (very sincerely) hope that you're right and that I'm wrong.
But
1) Sure. But in PF1 the significant creep didn't come until AFTER the Advanced Players Guide. Time will tell
2) I don't think the chassis of PF1 was THAT hard to grok. It certainly did NOT take massive insight to realize that a gunslinger (especially when using hundreds of pistols was a thing) was too powerful when compared to other martials, it didn't take massive insight to realize that Exploiter Wizards were more powerful than even the normal overpowered wizard, etc.
It really wasn't at all clear to an outsider like myself if Paizo didn't believe there was power creep (which I think to be tunnel vision at least bordering on incompetence), just didn't care, or if they embraced it because they needed to sell splat books.
Their constant denials that martial/caster disparity was a thing (right up until they announced PF2 as, amongst other things, fixing martial/caster disparity) made it clear that either their view of balance was VERY different from mine, they were targetting the game for a very different audience than me or they were being at best disingenuous.
But you're very right in a couple of respects. The tighter math is VERY visible in PF2 and any significant power creep will be FAR more obvious and undeniable. And they ARE now very obviously trying to cater to power gamers AND complete novices.
Hopefully that WILL be enough to keep Power Creep in check and hopefully in 2 or 3 years I'll be eating my words. But I'm cynical enough to doubt it.
Edit: While I don't own it myself, it certainly sounds like the game mastery guide is filled with options that very significantly affect the power balance and raise the power level. I'm more than a little surprised that this book came out so early in the PF2 life cycle (when we're all still learning how the base game works, especially at higher levels). Maybe its a good sign (higher powered games will be supported by options and so power creep will be held in check in the base game) but maybe its a bad sign (they see higher powered gamers as a significant part of their market and want to cater to them).
Note - At the moment, ALL my PF2 play is in PFS so what I personally care about is what makes it into PF2. That was largely true in PF1 as well. That also strongly affects my opinion on balance. Many of the problems in PF1 were fine in a home group but extremely problematic in PFS
Edit: While I don't own it myself, it certainly sounds like the game mastery guide is filled with options that very significantly affect the power balance and raise the power level. I'm more than a little surprised that this book came out so early in the PF2 life cycle (when we're all still learning how the base game works, especially at higher levels). Maybe its a good sign (higher powered games will be supported by options and so power creep will be held in check in the base game) but maybe its a bad sign (they see higher powered gamers as a significant part of their market and want to cater to them).
They also added rules that lower the power level, they've done both, so that means they're probably keep making rules that do both (The Mythic rules come to mind for higher level, and Unt Intrigue's "hit it harder isn't the answer all the time guys..." for lower level), so I'm sure there will be rules where you can rival literal divine beings. And rules where even a party of lvl20s might die fighting a few lvl3 goblins making a mess in some podunk town in the boonies
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also think there will be power creep. By definition, the bigger the choice, the higher the chance to find something better than what you had before.
But the tight math of PF2 will, in my opinion, contain the power creep. While in PF1, an optimized character was humiliating both encounters and non-optimized characters, in PF2, I expect the gain to be too low to be really disruptive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the effect of one stat bonus is minimal, since it won't let you get your highest stat past 22, it will just let you hit 22 five levels early or hit 22 if you start with a 16.Why can't you get a stat past 22? Is there a cap spelled out somewhere in the CRB?
I believe Possible Cabbage means that a +1 to a stat would let you max out at 23, which is no different than a 22 (+6 bonus).
I believe Possible Cabbage means that a +1 to a stat would let you max out at 23, which is no different than a 22 (+6 bonus).
Correct. I suspect that if you were to give out a free stat boost as a narrative reward, most players would probably use it to help bump some of their lower scores, and not the thing they started with at 18, depending on what level this happens.
But power creep is both inevitable, and fine.
|
|
Power creep has 2 negative impacts IMO : wrecking the balance within the party and forcing the GM to adjust published adventures.
First one does not happen if everyone benefits. And the second one falls squarely on the GM who decides to allow more power to the party.
So everything within these parameters should be fine.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power Creep is sort of inevitable because the more options there are, the more inevitable it becomes that specific combos will synchronize in unexpectedly powerful ways.
That said, it's gonna almost inevitably be a lot less severe than in PF1 for several reasons:
#1: The aforementioned slower release schedule with more editing and oversight.
#2: The different nature of options in PF2. In PF1, many added direct math bonuses (like +X AC or +X damage), which is almost unheard of in PF2. The kind of options given in PF2 usually grant additional new actions and the like, and those are harder to stack.
#3: Rarity. In PF2, unlike PF1, most non-core options are Uncommon or rarer, which makes them, in practice, difficult to assemble into an unbeatable combo, since the GM must specifically and actively allow it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep needs to happen because some things that people might want to play are weak or unfun with just the currently existing options. So we're going to give options to make whatever reasonable thing more workable and fun. This has knock-on effects, but it's a good thing overall.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep needs to happen because some things that people might want to play are weak or unfun with just the currently existing options. So we're going to give options to make whatever reasonable thing more workable and fun. This has knock-on effects, but it's a good thing overall.
I'd argue that, say, Alchemists getting better, but not better than Rogues or Fighter, isn't real power creep. It's only if the really good options get better (or are replaced with better ones), that I'd say is real power creep. Alchemists and Alchemists alone getting better would be a power balance correction.
But if we print stuff that makes like "alchemists" and "weapon monks" better than they currently are, then those things potentially have interactions with other classes via archetyping or the dual class variant. That's what I meant by knock on effects.
Like particularly some classes need some more oomph at low levels, which is precisely where they're going to get poached via archetyping.
I mean, one of the main issues they need to solve is "I bought proficiency in this thing with a general feat, but eventually my class options outclass it... how do I stay good with the thing I wanted to be good at".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF2 has a couple of things going for it to contain the creep.
1) Paizo seems to be slowing their release schedule and keeping closer tabs on what they release. See the player's companion line no longer being a thing.
2) The math chassis of 2e is so much easier to grok, which in turn means it is easier to create content that doesn't break it. I've done my own fair share of it, and it isn't that hard to do right.
I (very sincerely) hope that you're right and that I'm wrong.
But
1) Sure. But in PF1 the significant creep didn't come until AFTER the Advanced Players Guide. Time will tell2) I don't think the chassis of PF1 was THAT hard to grok. It certainly did NOT take massive insight to realize that a gunslinger (especially when using hundreds of pistols was a thing) was too powerful when compared to other martials, it didn't take massive insight to realize that Exploiter Wizards were more powerful than even the normal overpowered wizard, etc.
It really wasn't at all clear to an outsider like myself if Paizo didn't believe there was power creep (which I think to be tunnel vision at least bordering on incompetence), just didn't care, or if they embraced it because they needed to sell splat books.
Their constant denials that martial/caster disparity was a thing (right up until they announced PF2 as, amongst other things, fixing martial/caster disparity) made it clear that either their view of balance was VERY different from mine, they were targetting the game for a very different audience than me or they were being at best disingenuous.
But you're very right in a couple of respects. The tighter math is VERY visible in PF2 and any significant power creep will be FAR more obvious and undeniable. And they ARE now very obviously trying to cater to power gamers AND complete novices.
Hopefully that WILL be enough to keep Power Creep in check and hopefully in 2 or 3 years I'll be eating my words. But I'm cynical enough to doubt it.
Edit:...
Basically, you have to remember that the core chassis of Pathfinder First Edition is pretty much the core math of 3.5e, that core rule book came out 'power crept' in both the sense that it contained options that were far and away stronger than other options (Clerics, Wizards, Druids vs. lets say, rogues and monks for the most extreme differences) and in the sense that early in Pathfinder 1st edition the compatibility with 3.5 options and content was so important that it created a game that had ready made options that Paizo couldn't quality control at all.
Between those elements and the 3.5 framework being fundamentally broken, and not even something the designers who gave us pathfinder 1e had actually designed themselves and it's not hard to see that Pathfinder 1st edition was doomed to not be able to support balance as a core principle.
Now we have designers who created their own math and framework based off the foibles they discovered in their time working on First Edition, we have a game that was designed very much to support the kind of ongoing product lines Paizo wants to continue selling, the game isn't compromised to be compatible with a game Paizo has no control over...
Basically, I expect that a meta will develop as it always does (asymmetric balance on this scale is never perfect) but that the game will have a much healthier range of power than Pathfinder 1st edition, with much fewer trap options, feat taxes, and so forth.
As for the Gamemaster's Guide, it's worth considering that everything it provides are more or less variant rules a GM applies to their whole table, and providing some options for those who would like higher power games is perfectly fine, and some of the design intent might be to allow for that experience without disrupting the balance of the core game, which fits in with their design goals concerning modularity.
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
They already printed one source. Convince your GM to let you get Nocticula's greater boon.
This is pretty likely to be the only way you'll see us add more boosts to the game—as a completely, 100% GM-controlled reward to be given out as the individual GM feels is appropriate. A special boost as reward element in an adventure path might also happen, I suppose, since we'd tailor what came thereafter to assume that the boost took place, but not so much in a stand-alone adventure which makes no assumptions as to what might come next for the PCs who play it.
For what it's worth, I personally think that granting a boost as a reward for a significant accomplishment is a GREAT thing to hand out to PCs, as long as every player gets one. For example, in the office game I'm running, I've had each player pick their character's birthday, and then give them a boost based on where their birthday lands them in the Cosmic Caravan and what their astrological symbols are. This does mean that the PCs in my "Whispers in Ravounel" game are slightly tougher than the expected baseline, but I'm comfortable with that and have adjusted the gameplay slightly toward the tougher-than-expected side of things. We've been playing from 1st level up to 4th and this extra boost, with its associated adjustement to the difficulty of the game, hasn't felt imbalanced at all. In fact, the PCs did just spend half the session last week running away from monsters! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, as a GM giving players cool rewards for accomplishing things feels great.
Having a player come to you with an option from a book and ask where they can get it (or just assume they can) feels much less great.
Like the Kineticist wild talents from Occult Realms that requires attuning via great stress with a point of elemental saturation were a thing that the GM can give you as a reward, not something that involves a player asking "so, I need to get to Mount Kumijinja so I can impress a fire Kami..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The power range being the same is kinda the goal of the new system.
If you're wanting to get a major variance in numbers this really isn't the game for it.
Well given the variant rules, the game seems fine with across the board increases in power: everyone dual classes, everyone get free multiclass, ect: so if the overall power level rises, I don't see how it's against the goal. It's only against the goal if it's only power creep in a narrow area. A rising tide lifts all boats...
I thought dual classes and free archetypes usually only helps with horizontal growth, not vertical (except obvious combo stuff like Barb // Fighter), am I right?
I thought dual classes and free archetypes usually only helps with horizontal growth, not vertical (except obvious combo stuff like Barb // Fighter), am I right?
Not as far as I can see: both give you extra class feats that can get you spells, focus points, dual spell lists/slots, ect... Heck, from the wording it looks like dual classing gets you 2 key stats and that'd get you 2 +2's from class. It's true that number of actions is a limiter but a lot can be done without it being an action.
From the section: "Nonetheless, this sort of dual-classing is more likely to increase the party’s longevity than it is to drastically adjust the level of opponents a dual-class character should be fighting." : note it doesn't say the level of opponents shouldn't increase but that it shouldn't "drastically" increase.
"Free-archetype characters are a bit more versatile and powerful than normal, but usually not so much that they unbalance your game.": It comes out and says they are more powerful.
"but usually not so much that they unbalance your game"
Ah... How does that not prove my point that it DOES raise the bar? By how much wasn't in question... :P
If the bar is maybe raised barely across the board, then it's not power creep.
We went past a maybe to "are": "Free-archetype characters are a bit more versatile and powerful than normal". If you wish to quibble over a bit, have at it. ANY increase is power creep and the rules itself say it's more powerful: power creep isn't defined by it's being unbalancing but it's increasing the power level: the amount it increases in meaningless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, power creep seems like a misnomer when talking about campaign-specific bonuses. Any such bonus will only affect the module in question, after all.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the effect of one stat bonus is minimal, since it won't let you get your highest stat past 22, it will just let you hit 22 five levels early or hit 22 if you start with a 16.Why can't you get a stat past 22? Is there a cap spelled out somewhere in the CRB?
I believe 22 is the maximum one can get in Core, without magical help.
If I'm not mistaken, there are very high level magic items that can boost an ability by +2, making the maximum 24.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the effect of one stat bonus is minimal, since it won't let you get your highest stat past 22, it will just let you hit 22 five levels early or hit 22 if you start with a 16.Why can't you get a stat past 22? Is there a cap spelled out somewhere in the CRB?I believe 22 is the maximum one can get in Core, without magical help.
If I'm not mistaken, there are very high level magic items that can boost an ability by +2, making the maximum 24.
Interestingly Apex Items are accounted for in the Automatic Bonus variant. So I think you might be intended to get them along with your +whatever weapons and armor, and your striking.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is only when Paizo releases content that lets players worldwide collect many such bonuses and combine them it is appropriate to talk about power creep.
And that's the crux of the whole common/uncommon/rare/unique system—we want to empower GMs to make the right choices for their game rather than let players drive those decisions, so as long as we stick to our guns on this commonality system, the hope and theory is that GMs will have the tools and textual rules support to make calls for their own game without feeling pressured by players.
That said, we're still doing our best to keep all the "power creep" elements in line, of course.