MaxAstro wrote: 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 really can. Trust me.
Maybe not theoretical or corner case fights, but every AP fight I've seen in practice so far.
My whole point is that it's just your PF1 reflex kicking in.
Quote: Gorbacz wrote: Zapp wrote:
Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine
Got any source to back this up? 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.
This.
Zapp wrote: MaxAstro wrote: 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 really can. Trust me.
Maybe not theoretical or corner case fights, but every AP fight I've seen in practice so far.
My whole point is that it's just your PF1 reflex kicking in.
Quote: Gorbacz wrote: Zapp wrote:
Millions of D&D5 Dungeon Masters run adventures without level to proficiency just fine
Got any source to back this up? 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.
This. So what are the new xp values for enemies? What is the new xp value for each of the encounter ranks? Because if a level-4 creature reliably hurts you now they shouldn't be 1/4 of the xp of an on level creature. And now that higher level creatures aren't so deadly they probably should scale up xp so much.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zapp, I really don't know what your position is. You yourself said that removing level to proficiency would require the GM to adjust encounters, and now you are saying it wouldn't?
Zapp wrote: 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. Hahahha yeah right. 5e's encounter guidelines are designed around attrition of party resources, with an expected 6 encounters per day. Barely anyone actually sticks to those guidelines. You instead see DMs use one fight per day, which lets casters go nuts, while classes designed for long-term sustainability, such as the Warlock, are out of luck. This leads to constant complaints on the subreddit about how Warlocks are underpowered.
Since players and DMs can't be bothered to stick to the attrition model in the book, difficult fights get trounced, and the DM is left wondering why their super-powerful boss monster got killed so quickly. You can't easily fix this, however, because if the DM makes the enemies hit harder or have more HP, then the casters either go nuts and out-heal the monsters' damage round after round, or the monsters one-hit the players. Neither feels satisfying for players and DMs who want a challenge.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Strill wrote: ChibiNyan wrote: 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. What do you do about Fighters who invest heavily in action economy feats, or passive feats? Stuff like these:
Sudden Charge
Quick Reversal
Aggressive Block
Reflexive Shield
Shielded Stride
Quick Shield Block
Combat Reflexes
Paragon's Guard
Fearsome Brute
Flinging Shove
Spring Attack
Agile Grace
Can I ask you:
Which of these feats can be used at the same time?
(If all you can do each round is select between many cool and powerful action sequences and feat usages, that's not nearly as much of a power-up than if you can stack the benefits of "too many" feats together, in one and the same round.) Most of them can indeed be used at the same time. The following feats are passive, or give you extra actions:
* Combat Reflexes and Quick Shield Block give you extra reactions each round. Pure action economy. No choice necessary.
* Paragon's Guard makes the Raise Shield action free each turn. More action economy.
* Reflexive Shield is a passive buff to your Raise Shield action.
* Shielded Stride is a passive buff for when Stride with your shield raised.
* Aggressive Block is a free action whenever you use Shield Block, which you can do once per round for free with Quick Shield Block. Flinging Shove is a passive buff to Aggressive Block on top of that.
* Fearsome Brute is a passive buff to your damage, as long as the target is frightened.
* Agile Grace is a passive boost to-hit, as long as you're using an Agile weapon, and attacking at least twice a turn.
For the ones that can't be used at the same time:
* Sudden Charge gives you two strides and an attack for two actions
* Spring Attack gives you a stride or step and an attack for one action
* Quick Reversal gives you two strikes for one action
So in other words, you can benefit from all the passive feats each round, plus two out of three of the non-passive feats.
If you're using Dual Class, there's also plenty of feats in Rogue that you could stack onto this list, like Feats that make your target flat-footed in additional circumstances, a Feat to demoralize on a free action, and feats to apply extra conditions with each hit, on top of whichever ones you were already applying.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No one is saying it's difficult. Your very post saying you dont have to change much then immediately states that if that doesn't work you may have to change it next time!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Zapp wrote: Running without level to proficiency means a GM *could* adjust encounters, if she wants high-level solos to remain as difficult / mobs of mooks to remain as easy.
But she does not *have* to. So what if a BBEG went down easier than intended? Make the next one harder, yo!
...
"You don't have to adjust encounters. If your encounter is too easy, well, adjust your encounters."
Do you not see why we find statements like this a bit hard to take seriously?
Zapp wrote: And as for the adjustments themselves - they certainly aren't "drastic" or "radical", implying difficult or advanced. Shinigami02 wrote: drastic (adj; "likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect" I do wish you'd stop mis-representing a very simple term. That is why I literally defined it for you.
Zapp wrote: I can respect that while also telling you it isn't as "extremely different" as you might think. And just to rephrase one more time, none of us is saying it's unusual or advanced for tabletop in general. All we are saying is that it involves a drastic (again, please refer to above where I quite literally define drastic for you) change from default Pathfinder Second Edition encounter design.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote: So what if a BBEG went down easier than intended? Make the next one harder, yo! So if they don't adjust this encounter they should adjust the next one?
Zapp wrote: they certainly aren't "drastic" or "radical", implying difficult or advanced. "difficult" is a connotation to the words drastic and radical that you are adding. The definitions of the words don't support that read, and the writers who used those words have repeatedly told you that they aren't speaking to any level of difficulty.
Zapp wrote: And as for the adjustments themselves - they certainly aren't "drastic" or "radical" Really? Because this poster further up in the thread was suggesting that to balance the encounter with the final boss he recommended adding one dozen henchmen to the final fight. Who was that... oh right, that was you.
If I add twelve henchmen to a boss fight with level to proficiency - my players will die, if I add them to the boss fight without level to proficiency it will keep my boss alive long enough for my players to have a satisfying final encounter. The stark difference between these two encounters is what we are defining as drastic.
Zapp wrote: I get the impression that if you feel intimidated by this task, MaxAstro, it's likely because all you've ever experienced is D&D3 or PF1, and thus it feels very new to you. Well that's very condescending to presume that any of us are commenting the way we are because we're "intimidated" None of us are intimidated by the idea of proficiency without level, we're just all very aware that it requires a completely different encounter approach. You yourself put it in terms of dozens more monsters required in the without level approach.
Can you not see how prepping an encounter with 4 Monsters vs prepping an encounter with 16 Monsters results in vastly different encounters?
dirtypool wrote:
Zapp wrote:
And as for the adjustments themselves - they certainly aren't "drastic" or "radical"
Really? Because this poster further up in the thread was suggesting that to balance the encounter with the final boss he recommended adding one dozen henchmen to the final fight. Who was that... oh right, that was you.
Zapp wrote:
I guess my point is simply: running a game with the GMG variant of "proficiency without level" is likely* okay. 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.
Just including Zapp's original quote here for ease of reference.
I think it’s fine to let the players choose the ancestry feats so long as they understand that both the normal and bonus feats are expected to be used for ancestry abilities instead of constantly traded out. Even human has enough options to make this doable, though you might want to allow some flex(within limits) there so people don’t all have the exact same feats.
Giving feats every level seems much more powerful than bonus feats for archtypes to me. As in the example above you can end up chaining some classes feats together much more easily. And for others the class just doesn’t have enough feat options yet, and it’s no fun to get a bonus but have nothing to take with it that’s even a little exciting.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
