| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it's not straight from the GMG, I have so far given the players in my current campaign (they are level 10 presently) a bonus skill increase and two bonus feats as quest rewards and it hasn't seemed to make a notable difference in their power; I still have no trouble challenging them and they came within a couple lucky rolls of a TPK recently.
There's very little bonus feats can do to alter the core math of the system; I suspect that even giving characters a class feat every level instead of every odd level would only result in a slight increase in overall power.
I plan to use automatic bonus progression in my next campaign, and looking at the rules I don't expect it will change the overall power level much either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven’t used them yet but I also like the way some of the optionals work. It’s worth remembering that versatility is also power, but I don’t really think they’ll add too much so long as a little care is taken. The ancestral paragon does seem more powerful, because several of the race feats are very strong, but that still seems like it’ll be something that can be managed. The MC option will probably work best for preventing a flood of power if you limit it in some way. Maybe asking no one doubles down on their classes focus, or asking everyone to pick an archtype. Or depending on setting just giving everyone a specific archtype like Pathfinder or Hellknight. But however you do it I don’t think you’re going to end up with more power than a plus 1 or 2 equivalent, the math in the system is tight and they seem to have been watching out for combinations of things much more carefully this edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been giving people a class feat every level and in one game some bonus skill increases and general feats from in game accomplishments. It does mean characters have more tools to respond to threats with but I have had about the same experience as MaxAstro. I can still challenge them and often have them concerned they are going to lose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ancestry feats are more powerful than I think people realize, though frequently more situational. I think even the GMG mentions this when talking about the variant. And unfortunately if you’re ancestry is human most of their feats just let you trade out the potential flavor for something else that’s generic.
What I meant was your idea about not allowing multiclass archtypes being a good one. While I find that PF2 is better about preventing multi class shenanigans the MC archtypes are I think one of the spots where the balance is most likely to fail. And I just meant that some combinations are more powerful than others, particularly when martials grab things that add together. Like a fighter or ranger grabbing Barbarian rage just to hit harder, or a cleric taking the angelic sorcerer bloodline spell to get more juice from their free heals.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently running in a game where GM decided to use this, and my experience is the opposite so far. I actually think this will become a gold-standard in many/most home games, especially as more Ancestry feats see print in future books.
Does a lot to bridge the gap for those that feel that, in the transition from 1E to 2E, a lot of the Race/Ancestry was "lost".
Plus, it simply puts that character choice front and center.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
variant rules like the extra ancestry featsI haven't used the Ancestry Paragon rule specifically, but I have given out two extra ancestry feats for free at character generation.
The results were... mixed.
My aim was to make a Dwarf (say) more Dwarfy already from the start.
But I underestimated the ways you can exchange ancestry feats for more generally useful things (a general feat through General Training, a cantrip through Adapted Cantrip, an uncommon weapon through Unconventional Weaponry, and another ancestry's best feats through Adopted Ancestry). I was taken by surprise how Paizo allows a player to basically not take anything from the selected ancestry itself.
Basically, everyone minmaxed to create characters they wanted, just with extra powerful options (such as Darkvision, Halfling Luck and the like).
Personally, I would let the players still choose their ancestry feats, but limit what they can get with the extra bonus feats. If the intent is to add more of the ancestry flavor only, then forbid feats that pull from other feat lists or general feats and such.
Alternatively, if the intent is to make sure that the characters fit a story of post-apocalyptic survival and combat, require that the bonus feat somehow gives weapon training. Whether that is from an ancestry favored weapon, or by using a general training swap in.
Things like that. It still lets the players have the choice.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In our game, we had only 3 players show up to the 1st game, including myself: A Cleric, a Champion, and my Ranger. After the 1st game, the GM decided that we needed a few more options/abilities, so he said we could redo our characters using the Dual-class rules in the GM Guide. So I turned my Elven Ranger into a Elven Ranger/Wizard Dual-classed character.
The GM's world is a post-apocalyptic Golarion over-run by undead, and the dead started rising just as the fictional-change-over from 1st edition to 2e happened, and he said that at that point all magic stopped working for about 10 years, which left most people defenseless against many of the undead. My backstory is that I used to be a powerful Wizard, but when magic failed. she had to chose a non-magic class and took Ranger.
People had to flee the cities to save their lives, she helped to guide the city-folk to relative safety in the woods. Since then, as a sliver of magic returns to Golarion, some of her magic is working again too, but she has to start over at level 1 to learn it all again. Meanwhile, she is still a Ranger too.
I really like the Dual-class system, it allows for a lot of flexibility. Most of the time I just use my Ranger abilities, skills, and attack with precision arrows, but it's nice to have some magic spells to use as well if they are helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently running in a game where GM decided to use this, and my experience is the opposite so far. I actually think this will become a gold-standard in many/most home games, especially as more Ancestry feats see print in future books.
Does a lot to bridge the gap for those that feel that, in the transition from 1E to 2E, a lot of the Race/Ancestry was "lost".
Plus, it simply puts that character choice front and center.
Just to ask, because this hasn’t been my experience and I’m curious. Why do you and players around you feel that PF2 lost some of the ancestry? The exact opposite has been my experience as you now make choices and have it be relevant beyond level one.
I know that some of the things that were fairly standard have been paired off into feats, but I can’t think of a single instance in over 2 decades of play in various systems where a dwarf actually used a stone cunning style abilities. And a lot of us were already changing up what we got from a race with alternate traits in an almost exact parallel.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently running in a game where GM decided to use this, and my experience is the opposite so far. I actually think this will become a gold-standard in many/most home games, especially as more Ancestry feats see print in future books.
Does a lot to bridge the gap for those that feel that, in the transition from 1E to 2E, a lot of the Race/Ancestry was "lost".
Plus, it simply puts that character choice front and center.
Just to ask, because this hasn’t been my experience and I’m curious. Why do you and players around you feel that PF2 lost some of the ancestry? The exact opposite has been my experience as you now make choices and have it be relevant beyond level one.
I know that some of the things that were fairly standard have been paired off into feats, but I can’t think of a single instance in over 2 decades of play in various systems where a dwarf actually used a stone cunning style abilities. And a lot of us were already changing up what we got from a race with alternate traits in an almost exact parallel.
I can speak to my experience, which is: yes at lower levels.
Half-orc has choose between Darkvision and Ferocity. Dwarves from between Ancient Blooded and Strong Blooded. Elves from between Immunities and Ancestral Weapons. Fact is, that can't be refuted!
Why do you ask?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running Class Feats every single level and it has made basically no difference in power level yet. Action economy and the very careful wording of these feats prevents them from being used in powerful combinations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really a powerup, given the assumption the GM and the world changes to match: instead of the dungeon consisting of an anteroom with four fairly high-level bodyguards, followed by the main cave where the BBEG takes on the heroes all by himself... you might have the bodyguards supplanted by four squires, and then have the BBEG surround himself with a dozen low-level grunts.
Or just one or two low-level grunts, because much as the PCs are now more of a match for the few-levels-higher boss, those low-level grunts are now more of a match for the PCs. You throw a dozen grunts at the PCs that aren't much lower level than the PCs, you're liable to have a TPK. Removing Level-to-Proficiency doesn't really "power up" anyone, it just squishes the power levels together. Which is fine if that's what you're into, while the "I can dominate dozens/hundreds/a-literally-infinite-amount of lower-level mooks" power variance of PF2e-default is also fine if that's what you (like myself) are into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True in practice it probably won't actually come up. That said, I just find something fun about knowing that if a high-level character did for some reason need to fight a literal army she could probably do it without breaking a sweat. It's the kind of feeling that even though it won't be used it still just feels better (to me, this is all subjective of course) than knowing that the same level 3 Lion I might have been fighting at level 1 or 2 could team up with a couple of his buddies and kick my butt at level 10.
Of course there is the inverse. Without level to proficiency a level 13 Fighter with a +2 weapon can hit a level 20 Pit Fiend on an 11 without any buffs or debuffs applied. Which admittedly might have its own levels of awesome, but to me it's just not quite worth the lion being able to hit you in your +2 Full-Plate on a 14.
Age of Ashes features an encounter with about a dozen level-6 creatures at one point, if I remember correctly.
The level as proficiency bonus is perhaps the best stat to alter the feel of the game, the sub-genre. I appreciate that there's such a knob.
Want Wheel of Time, Shannara high fantasy? Keep it as is.
Want Thieves' World, Nehwon, gritty fantasy? Cut it to half.
Warhammer RPG or Deadlands, grimdark fantasy? Remove it.
Anime, Exalted, cosmic fantasy? Double it!
Also note the effect this has on other bonuses & the importance of h.p. + healing. And by removing level, that level-3 creature is getting an effective +50% damage (DPR), just like the party's getting vs. the level+3 creature. And that doesn't include that successive attacks may become viable.
the shift in encounter design can be quite drastic.Or... it can be not drastic all.
It comes down to your experience with other games than PF1 :)
If you've played D&D5, for instance, or Runequest, or Warhammer FRP, you have all the skills needed to make encounters in a level-without-proficiency game work already!
Cheers
...Just because someone might have experience in working with games without level bonus doesn't mean that the difference between an encounter designed for full-level-to-proficiency and an encounter designed for no-level-to-proficiency isn't drastic. A fight that might be easy for the former could be devastating in the latter and vice versa, and it is something to keep in mind when designing encounters. Experience just means that you have a better idea what you're doing when you are designing said encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or... it can be not drastic all.
It comes down to your experience with other games than PF1 :)
If you've played D&D5, for instance, or Runequest, or Warhammer FRP, you have all the skills needed to make encounters in a level-without-proficiency game work already!
Cheers
There is nothing at all wrong with the use of the word drastic to describe the difference between an encounter designed for level with proficiency and level without. You yourself spent many posts above this describing the things one needs to add to an encounter without level proficiency to make it viable.
If, as you advise, the difference is between having four guards outside the boss fight area and the boss alone (with proficiency), or surrounding your boss with twelve henchmen (without proficiency) you have described two approaches to encounter design that are radically and extremely different from each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I maintain that the difficulty in making PF2 work without level to proficiency is greatly overstated if you use words like "drastic" "radical" and "extremely different".
That only serves to make level-without-proficiency something exotic, strange and odd. Something only experienced GMs who know what they're doing should even attempt.
And that just ain't true. Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine. There's zero reason to think you can't do the same with PF2.
Literally all you need to do is subtract level from "everything"... and boom, you're done. :)
It is not drastic.
It is not radical.
It is not extremely different.Only people firmly embedded in the PF1 mindset could argue otherwise.
Cheers
Zapp, I see what you are trying to say, but I think you are missing what other people are trying to say.
You really can't run the same kinds of encounters without level as you can with. You have to take the difference into account when designing adventures. And yeah, if someone has only played PF1e and PF2e, it's likely to trip them up and take some getting used to.
You can take offense to words like "radical" if you like, but it's not an easy, mindless change either.
Got any source to back this up?
Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine
D&D5e doesn't have level to proficiency; quite the opposite, since its own bounded accuracy system is very similar to not adding level to proficiency.
I maintain that the difficulty in making PF2 work without level to proficiency is greatly overstated if you use words like "drastic" "radical" and "extremely different".
That only serves to make level-without-proficiency something exotic, strange and odd. Something only experienced GMs who know what they're doing should even attempt.
And that just ain't true. Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine. There's zero reason to think you can't do the same with PF2.
Literally all you need to do is subtract level from "everything"... and boom, you're done. :)
It is not drastic.
It is not radical.
It is not extremely different.Only people firmly embedded in the PF1 mindset could argue otherwise.
Cheers
You are clearly misunderstanding our position (possibly intentionally? possibly accidentally? I don't know). We're not saying it's difficult or anything like that to run PF2e without level bonus to everything. ALL we are saying is that it does involve a different approach to encounter design. An approach that is different (NOT more difficult or anything like that, let me hammer that in a few more times, not more difficult just very different) than the default version.
In default PF2e assumptions you can throw a mob of low-level enemies at the PCs and have it be a balanced or even PC-favoring encounter because of the PC's power level. Likewise you can throw a single higher-level boss enemy at the PCs and it'll be a balanced or even Boss-favoring encounter again because of the PC's power level.
Contrast this the no-level-to-proficiency. You throw a single high-level boss at the party and they will probably wipe the floor with it unless the level differential is quite a bit higher (level+5 or 7 or so, compared to level+2 or 3 of default). In contrast the mob of low-levels will probably overpower the party easily. This leads to encounter design that more favors a strong boss and a couple of his henchmen for bosses or smaller groups for low-level mook encounters. It is a drastic (adj; "likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect", I'd consider affecting everything but equal-level or level+/-1, maybe 2, encounters pretty "far-reaching") change but that's not the same saying it's "exotic, strange, or odd" as you put it.
EDIT: Also this isn't even touching on the fact that you do have to adjust every DC in the game, not just the ones attached to monsters, not all of which necessarily have levels attached to make this an easy job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that just ain't true. Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine. There's zero reason to think you can't do the same with PF2.
Given that the difficulty of creating challenging encounters in 5e was one of my biggest reasons to switch to PF2, the fact that one of the most common questions I see on 5e forums and subreddits is "How do I challenge my players?", and that on the most visible 5e campaign in the world (Critical Role) the GM has difficulty challenging the players at high levels, I disagree.
Fairly anecdotal evidence, I know. But to say that millions are doing just fine feels off.
And that's not to say proficiency without level and bounded accuracy are bad things. But it is *very* different, and difficult to pull off effectively.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I maintain that the difficulty in making PF2 work without level to proficiency is greatly overstated if you use words like "drastic" "radical" and "extremely different".
That only serves to make level-without-proficiency something exotic, strange and odd. Something only experienced GMs who know what they're doing should even attempt.
And that just ain't true. Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine. There's zero reason to think you can't do the same with PF2.
Literally all you need to do is subtract level from "everything"... and boom, you're done. :)
It is not drastic.
It is not radical.
It is not extremely different.Only people firmly embedded in the PF1 mindset could argue otherwise.
Cheers
1. No one is saying that it is difficult, just that it is different. Your example alone shows the difference because you say to make it work a GM must prepare 12 additional Monsters. That is a drastically different design modality than simply using the encounter budget as written.
2. You use hyperbolic language ALL. THE. TIME. in every single screed you post about how rules as written are "broken." It is a tad much to now police others using similarly hyperbolic language.
3. In your threads if a rule doesn't work the way you think it should (which nearly always includes a reference to how it works in the other game) and someone else defends it, you typically accuse them of blindly following PF2 without really questioning it. You cajole them for being close minded and demand they see it your way. Yet here, with a rule that works the way you think it should you're defending the rule as written and no one is accusing you of being close minded, no one is demanding that you must see it their way, or stipulate to their issue and only address if from only their perspective. Just thought you might want to take note of how it works when the shoe is on the other foot.
Looking at the OP it seems to be referring to variant rules that add options to PCs
Not sure the level to proficiency thing really counts there so the back and forth over that isn’t really adding much...
Other parts are intriguing - like ancestry feats arguably being stronger than may be assumed
Looking at the OP it seems to be referring to variant rules that add options to PCs
Not sure the level to proficiency thing really counts there
It is one of the variant rules options in the GMG that adjusts the power level of player characters, so I don't really see how it wouldn't "count."
Because it much more fundamentally changes the system than a few extra feats ...