| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much like one can't build an offense that takes out a non-minion in one blow, one can't build a tank (or "wall" if lacking offense) that lasts indefinitely against viable enemies.
The existence of such builds would be a flaw in game design IMO.It's curious why so many gamers just take it for granted that D&D can't support the WoW trinity.
Of course it can.
It would absolutely be possible to create classes that can withstand the brunt of the monster attacks for several rounds, have abilities that force monsters away from squishier party members, but cannot actually defeat the monsters nearly fast enough.
It would absolutely be possible to create classes that can provide a sustained very high rate of healing, and make that healing actually necessary to prolong the time before the monsters can kill the tank, giving the damage dealers enough time to first kill the monsters.
And it would absolutely be possible to create classes with strong offensive power, but with absolute crap staying power. Even a potent healer would have trouble saving such a character, so the best tactic would be for the tank to aggro the monsters off of the damage dealer. This would then allow the healer to switch to healing the tank, which in turn frees the damage dealer from having to fear for her life, instead being able to focus on what she does best: killing monsters.
The real curiosity is: why has no iteration of D&D ever tried this?
Not even the two Warcraft d20 modules changed the old D&D approach...
At a basic level? Because we don't want to pigeonhole people at the higher levels. If you have the classic tank/heal/DPS combo from WoW, they're so overpowered at doing what they do in that configuration that balancing them with anyone who's not doing that trio is basically impossible. Either you cripple them so badly in other ways (nerfing the damage-dealing of tank and healer, nerfing the durability of healer and DPS) that they cannot function outside of the trio, or they're so overpowered while in the trio that they leave all the alternatives in the dust. WoW handles this by saying "yes. It's true. High-end raid combat requires variations on the trio" and generally expecting people to conform to it when grouping up. Tabletops are designed to allow a set of people to walk in the door with characters they've made without benefit of party optimization and have it basically work. The level of specialization necessary for tank/heal/DPS simply doesn't permit that.
4th ed did it to a degree, but even that was only to a degree. Any party that thought it could get its defender to soak *all* the hate in the room was generally in for a bad time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing you straight-up cannot build in PF2? A magic-primary character who isn't defined by daily powers.
Focus spells are about the best you are going to get here. I now they aren't perfect. But say a Storm Druid with Primal Focus level 12 - so he gets 2 focus points back per ten minute break. Its not ideal but it a couple of good repeatable blasts almost every encounter. Other classes with a decent attack spell as a focus option can do the same.
One thing you straight-up cannot build in PF2? A magic-primary character who isn't defined by daily powers.
Focus spells are about the best you are going to get here. I now they aren't perfect. But say a Storm Druid with Primal Focus level 12 - so he gets 2 focus points back per ten minute break. Its not ideal but it a couple of good repeatable blasts almost every encounter. Other classes with a decent attack spell as a focus option can do the same.
Oh, sure, you have focus powers, and you have cantrips, and it's better than the 3.x wizard who was strongly encouraged to go get himself a crossbow, but...
Basically, I hate juggling daily powers. Juggling a bunch of different levels of daily powers, where every meaningful thing you do reduces your options for the rest of the day is *even worse*. If I want to play a caster, then I *must* engage with the spell slots system, and do so deeply, or I am crippling myself. If I want to play a viable caster, and have them *not* be someone who has dramatically more power and more options available at the beginning of the adventuring day than at the end, I *cannot do that thing*. "Spellcaster who does not somehow carry a significant pool of power that refreshes daily" is a character concept that PF2 simply does not (currently) support.
Occult classes.
When will 2e Occult Adventures come out? I've resorted to Legendary Mesmerist and it's... okay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a character type, but rather a gamestyle type.
Given how much the math relies on everybody getting runes on level how can one run a low magic campaign without giving their players class features that essentially fill the role of runes? It feels like magic items are even more essential in PF2 than they were in PF1 and that's saying something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a character type, but rather a gamestyle type.
Given how much the math relies on everybody getting runes on level how can one run a low magic campaign without giving their players class features that essentially fill the role of runes? It feels like magic items are even more essential in PF2 than they were in PF1 and that's saying something.
You can do this with automatic bonus progression pretty effectively. This satisfies the math needs of the system, and allows you to include only magic items that fit your theme, rather than giving everyone runes and whatnot.
the super hero/ Lone Wolf/ Anime/Manga OP MCInhales sharply
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" b#~#@&%& that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon) 1d12 Damage 19-20 x4 Crit +2 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon) 2d10 Damage 17-20 x4 Crit +5 to hit and damage Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.Exhales
Katanas are pretty weak in PF. Then again a lot of weapons are. But it would have been nice to see one of the most well made and iconic swords ever with better stats. It's pretty sad.
You’re describing 4e.No I'm not.
I played 4e. It was kinda different from 3E or Pathfinder, but it sure was nowhere close to what I just described.
Have a nice day!
I don't want the WoW trinity in my RPGs. I'm not even sure I want the WoW trinity or EQ roles (though they added crowd controller which I miss) in my RPGs. There is no role-playing in WoW. I play RPGs like D&D and PF to have far more flexibility than what is offered in a video game in terms role-playing and character design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can do this with automatic bonus progression pretty effectively. This satisfies the math needs of the system, and allows you to include only magic items that fit your theme, rather than giving everyone runes and whatnot.
Yes, but I could run a low magic PF1 game without needing any special rules and it wouldn't be nearly so obvious when I'd given my players a hand or pulled a punch. Pf2 handles low magic with the subtlety of a brick to the face.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can do this with automatic bonus progression pretty effectively. This satisfies the math needs of the system, and allows you to include only magic items that fit your theme, rather than giving everyone runes and whatnot.Yes, but I could run a low magic PF1 game without needing any special rules and it wouldn't be nearly so obvious when I'd given my players a hand or pulled a punch. Pf2 handles low magic with the subtlety of a brick to the face.
Automatic Bonus progression was, in fact, a special subset of rules originally designed for Pathfinder 1 because it was so hard to run a low magic and no-magic-item game in that system.
3.5 and Pathfinder were well known for needing certain magic items and a certain amount of bonuses to be able to maintain character power. It was pretty openly talked about by both game designers and players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Automatic Bonus progression was, in fact, a special subset of rules originally designed for Pathfinder 1 because it was so hard to run a low magic and no-magic-item game in that system.
3.5 and Pathfinder were well known for needing certain magic items and a certain amount of bonuses to be able to maintain character power. It was pretty openly talked about by both game designers and players.
And yet many people did run low magic games without those items and without house rules. This is something that PF2 flatly doesn't support.
Yes, it does, as well as those other system did. Better, as proficiency does some of the work that the magic items used to.
3.5 and Pathfinder also had the same scaling numbers by CR that Pathfinder 2 has. They even told us what they were in the first Bestiary.
I'm really not sure what you're referring to right now, and it really sounds like you're not talking about pathfinder at all. Now, 5e and 4e, THOSE I would say handles no magic items better than PF or 3.x.
Edit: Like, give a concrete example of how it worked in PF1 but doesn't in PF2. PF and 3.x were quite hostile to no magic item games. Notoriously so.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 has two items that are expected to keep up with the math. PF1 had six. That's just a fact. If you were running your players through "low magic" games in PF1 you were sandbagging with weak monsters.
I suspect what's really going on is that he was using some variant ruleset from 3.0 or 3.5, or some overpowered splatbook options, but those somehow don't count as variants because reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect what's really going on is that he was using some variant ruleset from 3.0 or 3.5, or some overpowered splatbook options, but those somehow doesn't count as variants because reasons.
Why don't the options from rulebooks outside of the Core count? They're official 3.5 material and unlike the ABP don't require messing with core game rules to use. I used a lot of non-core material in my games and so did my players, so using it in a low magic game was natural for us.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine thinking that using broken 3.5 material in a Pathfinder game involves less "messing with core game rules" than ABP
I suspect what's really going on is that he was using some variant ruleset from 3.0 or 3.5, or some overpowered splatbook options, but those somehow doesn't count as variants because reasons.Why don't the options from rulebooks outside of the Core count? They're official 3.5 material and unlike the ABP don't require messing with core game rules to use. I used a lot of non-core material in my games and so did my players, so using it in a low magic game was natural for us.
You misunderstood me. I meant that I was assuming that you don't count broken splatbook options, and the management thereof, as variant rules. I do.
And it would appear I was correct in that assumption.
Edit: Heck, using any 3.5 and 3.0 material in pathfinder is a pretty big ruleset variant right there. Neither system operated under the same rules or assumptions as Pathfinder. Close enough to mesh, as you found, but not the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine thinking that using broken 3.5 material in a Pathfinder game involves less "messing with core game rules" than ABP
Except that I ran games of 3.x well before PF1 ever launched so didn't have to mess with anything. Then when PF1 launched we always blended it with 3.x as it was so natural and easy to do. Thus it never felt like changing anything when we kept doing it.
As for broken, we never touched the really busted stuff. Most of my players didn't much like casters and a core-only full caster would wipe the floor with even a fairly high-powered martial character. What we did do was play around with a lot of nonstandard races and brew builds that abused certain rules, like a Large and In Charge character who loved bashing enemies into walls for bonus damage.
You misunderstood me. I meant that I was assuming that you don't count broken splatbook options, and the management thereof, as variant rules. I do.
And it would appear I was correct in that assumption.
I don't see how extra spells, classes, feats, etc. count as variant rules. They're just more rules and more options and as the DM I had more range to make use of them than my players ever did so they never felt like they changed overall balance that much. If you don't get into a twist over perfect balance and always challenging your PCs you can have a lot of fun just letting the party murder hobo their way around a sandbox.
Imagine thinking that using broken 3.5 material in a Pathfinder game involves less "messing with core game rules" than ABPExcept that I ran games of 3.x well before PF1 ever launched so didn't have to mess with anything. Then when PF1 launched we always blended it with 3.x as it was so natural and easy to do. Thus it never felt like changing anything when we kept doing it.
As for broken, we never touched the really busted stuff. Most of my players didn't much like casters and a core-only full caster would wipe the floor with even a fairly high-powered martial character. What we did do was play around with a lot of nonstandard races and brew builds that abused certain rules, like a Large and In Charge character who loved bashing enemies into walls for bonus damage.
I don't see how extra spells, classes, feats, etc. count as variant rules. They're just more rules and more options and as the DM I had more range to make use of them than my players ever did so they never felt like they changed overall balance that much. If you don't get into a twist over perfect balance and always challenging your PCs you can have a lot of fun just letting the party murder hobo their way around a sandbox.You misunderstood me. I meant that I was assuming that you don't count broken splatbook options, and the management thereof, as variant rules. I do.
And it would appear I was correct in that assumption.
I don't see what’s wrong with rule variants. They're just more rules and more options and as the DM I had more range to make use of them than my players ever did so they never felt like they changed overall balance that much.
A little tongue in cheek, so apologies but I hope you see my point. I don’t see how using a ton of extra content from different sources is anymore bookkeeping than a single variant rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how extra spells, classes, feats, etc. count as variant rules.
You are welcome to that opinion. But I think you can understand how using material written for a different system inside of a Pathfinder game, the system written in part to get away from those very options, is a variant ruleset. One that felt natural to you, sure, but still a variant. Someone that hadn't had your experience with PF and 3.x blending might find your table rules just as daunting as ABP, which is after all a single table and able to be added onto a character sheet spreadsheet pretty easily.
As for broken, we never touched the really busted stuff. Most of my players didn't much like casters and a core-only full caster would wipe the floor with even a fairly high-powered martial character. What we did do was play around with a lot of nonstandard races and brew builds that abused certain rules, like a Large and In Charge character who loved bashing enemies into walls for bonus damage.
Also, I want to highlight this part. "Broken" doesn't just mean the high end stuff. By your own admission, the variants you did play with were sufficient to literally break the core game's assumptions about what items you had access to at what levels. That is almost definitionally broken.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how extra spells, classes, feats, etc. count as variant rules.You are welcome to that opinion. But I think you can understand how using material written for a different system inside of a Pathfinder game, the system written in part to get away from those very options, is a variant ruleset. One that felt natural to you, sure, but still a variant. Someone that hadn't had your experience with PF and 3.x blending might find your table rules just as daunting as ABP, which is after all a single table and able to be added onto a character sheet spreadsheet pretty easily.
I can definitely confirm this - as someone who started with ttRPGs in 2015 with PF1, I got to know the system very well, but had next to no knowledge of 3.0/3.5. I used ABP in all my home games, because I'd much rather not deal with handing out items that everyone knows are just expected, and it was next to no work; when we started a new session after level-up, I'd ask "has everyone accounted for the +1 Deflection to AC we got this level?", and half the table would quickly note their increased AC. On the other hand, every time I heard anyone mention 3.5-era PrCs that mean you count as essentially a max-level druid and cleric, or combine the powers of an animal companion with the abilities of a familiar, or applying templates to PCs as a game rule rather than a very-much optional thing a GM can do if they wish, or trying to systematise playing monsters as PCs with HD penalties, I wanted nothing to do with it. Because it seems like a mess, what PF1 was created to get away from, and way more work for the table to figure out than ABP, which again was just reminding everyone of one or two boosts every ~3 sessions or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what’s wrong with rule variants. They're just more rules and more options and as the DM I had more range to make use of them than my players ever did so they never felt like they changed overall balance that much.
A little tongue in cheek, so apologies but I hope you see my point. I don’t see how using a ton of extra content from different sources is anymore bookkeeping than a single variant rule.
Because with the extra sourcebooks I was giving my players options, they had the choice to take them or leave them. With a rules variant, I'm forcing something onto them and killing the idea that they're succeeding with their build, especially with something as intrusive as a rule the essentially gives them 'free' magic weapons in a low magic game.
You are welcome to that opinion. But I think you can understand how using material written for a different system inside of a Pathfinder game, the system written in part to get away from those very options, is a variant ruleset. One that felt natural to you, sure, but still a variant. Someone that hadn't had your experience with PF and 3.x blending might find your table rules just as daunting as ABP, which is after all a single table and able to be added onto a character sheet spreadsheet pretty easily.
I played a lot more 3.x than I ever did PF1. 3.x ran through my high school and early 20's. By the time PF1 came out we were all working more and gaming less. So don't assume that I'm always talking about PF1 because chances are any given game was run in pure 3.x as it's where I spent most of my gaming time.
Also, I want to highlight this part. "Broken" doesn't just mean the high end stuff. By your own admission, the variants you did play with were sufficient to literally break the core game's assumptions about what items you had access to at what levels. That is almost definitionally broken.
That was half the point to 3.x though. It was the character builders edition, if you weren't doing better than the assumed party of a basic sword and board fighter, dagger rogue, healer cleric, and blaster wizard you weren't trying very hard. The great thing was that the DM used the exact same rules for monsters so it always felt fair because I didn't have to fudge things to challenge the group, I just had to build within the rules.
|
|
Because with the extra sourcebooks I was giving my players options, they had the choice to take them or leave them. With a rules variant, I'm forcing something onto them and killing the idea that they're succeeding with their build, especially with something as intrusive as a rule the essentially gives them 'free' magic weapons in a low magic game.I don't see what’s wrong with rule variants. They're just more rules and more options and as the DM I had more range to make use of them than my players ever did so they never felt like they changed overall balance that much.
A little tongue in cheek, so apologies but I hope you see my point. I don’t see how using a ton of extra content from different sources is anymore bookkeeping than a single variant rule.
This seems to me like it comes down to the point of a low-magic game. If the intent is to challenge the PCs by intentionally removing some of their power, then ABP is 'cheating' and is going to feel as if it's working against the premise (incidentally, it also makes something like 5e terrible for a low magic game, because the game assumes almost no magic items, so it can't be a challenge not to have them). If the point of a low-magic game is to build an atmosphere of relying on oneself, or not having to go back to cities (or maybe there aren't many cities in the setting), or magic is new in the setting and you don't want magic items to be wide-spread, or if you just want magic items to feel rare and special, then ABP giving you 'free' magic items isn't working against the premise, it's substantially helping it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can definitely confirm this - as someone who started with ttRPGs in 2015 with PF1, I got to know the system very well, but had next to no knowledge of 3.0/3.5. I used ABP in all my home games, because I'd much rather not deal with handing out items that everyone knows are just expected, and it was next to no work; when we started a new session after level-up, I'd ask "has everyone accounted for the +1 Deflection to AC we got this level?", and half the table would quickly note their increased AC. On the other hand, every time I heard anyone mention 3.5-era PrCs that mean you count as essentially a max-level druid and cleric, or combine the powers of an animal companion with the abilities of a familiar, or applying templates to PCs as a game rule rather than a very-much optional thing a GM can do if they wish, or trying to systematise playing monsters as PCs with HD penalties, I wanted nothing to do with it. Because it seems like a mess, what PF1 was created to get away from, and way more work for the table to figure out than ABP, which again was just reminding everyone of one or two boosts every ~3 sessions or so.
I was reading Dragon and building second edition characters in 2000. I got the 3.0 core set around 2003 when the books were cheap as people we upgrading to 3.5. There was nothing else so you learned the system you had and look forward to what each new book would bring to your table. My high school friends and I pooled money to get the books that interested us and it wasn't uncommon for them to want to run an entirely new character the week after a new book dropped so they could test a build.
We weren't RPers and ran very hack and slash games but it worked for our needs. As GM if I wanted deep RP I had that on any of the half dozen RP forums I was a regular on. In terms of what I was looking for 3.x was amazing and even PF1 could feel constricting if you didn't just steal the best bits and ditch the rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to me like it comes down to the point of a low-magic game. If the intent is to challenge the PCs by intentionally removing some of their power, then ABP is 'cheating' and is going to feel as if it's working against the premise (incidentally, it also makes something like 5e terrible for a low magic game, because the game assumes almost no magic items, so it can't be a challenge not to have them). If the point of a low-magic game is to build an atmosphere of relying on oneself, or not having to go back to cities (or maybe there aren't many cities in the setting), or magic is new in the setting and you don't want magic items to be wide-spread, or if you just want magic items to feel rare and special, then ABP giving you 'free' magic items isn't working against the premise, it's substantially helping it.
There doesn't need to be a point to running low magic, any more than there needs to be a point to running a group through Red Hand of Doom for the dozenth time because they want to see how much this new party can break things compared to the last one. Low magic was just something to do for a few weekends before moving on to the next thing we were excited to try.
Not every game needs to span years and generate binders full of backstory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wherever could I have gotten the idea you were talking about Pathfinder? Quite curious.
If you continue with the faux outrage, I’m going to call you “NN995.5”
I automatically equate the two systems as by the time PF1 launched I was so used to 3.x that I just blended them. I'm biased to assume this as a default even though I'm sure that most games were far less liberal with the mixing of the systems than my own.
Also, I don't get the reference so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care.
I can sort of see Verdyn's point re: magic items.
PF2's math makes its big four items incredibly important, in some ways much moreso than their PF1 equivalents (especially weapons, where runes can sometimes end up being a majority of your damage for certain classes). I had an Oracle who could inflate her stats so much it almost didn't matter what magic items she had... an Occultist I used in another game basically provided their own magic items via class features.
I imagine that gets even more exacerbated if you're including 3.5 material too.
Like I'm not saying magic items weren't a big deal in PF1, they objectively are, but PF2 definitely doubled down on that.
the super hero/ Lone Wolf/ Anime/Manga OP MCInhales sharply
Ironic copypasta aside, tbh I'm not really a fan of the katana/wakizashi stat blocks in PF2. d6/d4 with deadly is kinda weird and mechanically meh. Feel like it would have just been better to take the 5e approach of "just use a longsword and refluff"
You're describing 4e.
I’m quite a fan!
Eh, even in 4e the emphasis is more on soft tanking and battlefield control. MMOs tend to make bosses immune to those kinds of mechanics by contrast.
You know if you don't want to use ABP, you can do two things:
Figure out when the lack of items make the characters about a level behind curve, and just start treating them as one level lower for encounter design (this makes spellcasters who don't rely on items progressively more powerful).
Or at the same point, give all the martial characters +1 level straight up.
Striking is the hardest to account for, but then again you can just give people energy runes early and the game will work fine for the first 10 levels I'm pretty sure.
Okay, I ran some numbers.
I think the game balance would stay more or less the same from levels 1-10, if:
Characters receive half as much gold.
There are no fundamental armor or weapon runes; but you can get an expert-made weapon at level 5 for 50 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d4 damage of the weapon damage type, and a masterwork weapon at level 9 for 200 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d8 damage of the weapon damage type. (You can't get both).
When you would become level 4, you become level 5. You should be 1 level ahead of expectations from now on.
Low-magic and high levels barely makes sense, so I'm not too worried that this wouldn't work over 10/11th level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I ran some numbers.
I think the game balance would stay more or less the same from levels 1-10, if:
Characters receive half as much gold.
There are no fundamental armor or weapon runes; but you can get an expert-made weapon at level 5 for 50 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d4 damage of the weapon damage type, and a masterwork weapon at level 9 for 200 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d8 damage of the weapon damage type. (You can't get both).
When you would become level 4, you become level 5. You should be 1 level ahead of expectations from now on.
Low-magic and high levels barely makes sense, so I'm not too worried that this wouldn't work over 10/11th level.
Basic problem with this: losing damage runes does bad, bad things to the damage profile of standard martials. It does *nothing* to the damage profile of casters (or bomb-throwing alchemists). You cannot maintain balance in a way that works for both without having either damage runes or some sort of direct replacement.
I can sort of see Verdyn's point re: magic items.
PF2's math makes its big four items incredibly important, in some ways much moreso than their PF1 equivalents (especially weapons, where runes can sometimes end up being a majority of your damage for certain classes). I had an Oracle who could inflate her stats so much it almost didn't matter what magic items she had... an Occultist I used in another game basically provided their own magic items via class features.
I imagine that gets even more exacerbated if you're including 3.5 material too.
Like I'm not saying magic items weren't a big deal in PF1, they objectively are, but PF2 definitely doubled down on that.
Sure, but the ways in which it was doubled down on were what the community chose, if I understand correctly how the playtest went down.
I doubt the oracle stat inflation is coming back, but I could see an Occultist equivalent (or even just a standard Arcane spell) coming up that lessens the need for specific magic items. We had an example of that in the Magus playtest.
So, again, the problem existed in both versions of pathfinder, and will undoubtedly be addressed in similar ways (stat inflation excepted) in both versions.
Although, actually, I suppose I can't say for sure that there won't be stat inflating options at some point. I doubt it'll be soon, but I could see an optional system that relies on that. It could be something that Mythic rules, for example, keys off of. More likely though, I would wager that proficiency bumps are more likely; with an optional "Mythic" tier above legendary and the ability to access it via Mythic rules.
A spell or feat that temporarily boosts your proficiency to the next tier under certain circumstances seems reasonable for a high powered game, in addition to new fortune/misfortune effects and action economy efficiencies. Heck, I homebrewed such a spell myself for my medium conversion (technically it boosted your Multiclass class dc or spell dc to your Medium class DC or Occult spell DC, but similar concept). And we do have feats and class features that allow you take a low proficiency to a higher one linked to your other class features.
Basic problem with this: losing damage runes does bad, bad things to the damage profile of standard martials. It does *nothing* to the damage profile of casters (or bomb-throwing alchemists). You cannot maintain balance in a way that works for both without having either damage runes or some sort of direct replacement.Okay, I ran some numbers.
I think the game balance would stay more or less the same from levels 1-10, if:
Characters receive half as much gold.
There are no fundamental armor or weapon runes; but you can get an expert-made weapon at level 5 for 50 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d4 damage of the weapon damage type, and a masterwork weapon at level 9 for 200 additional gp over the weapon's cost, which adds 1d8 damage of the weapon damage type. (You can't get both).
When you would become level 4, you become level 5. You should be 1 level ahead of expectations from now on.
Low-magic and high levels barely makes sense, so I'm not too worried that this wouldn't work over 10/11th level.
That's what the expert-made and masterwork weapons are intended to do. Though regardless, spellcaster benefit from this more, while martials stay more or less level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that I doubt anybody will come to an agreement about an entire low magic campaign anytime soon, how about we narrow our focus to a character who's taken a vow of poverty, how do you give them meaningful bonuses without just giving them ABP? The 3.5 version gave a wide variety of bonuses, often a bit later and weaker than what a magic item would give with a few unique things tossed in for flavor, but it was still highly suboptimal for most characters. What would a PF2 version of the VoP feat have to look like in order to be both balanced, meaning it brings the character to par and adds a feat's worth of bonus on top of that, and not exactly equal to progression via items?
If for whatever reason APB did not work, probably either gestalt or free archetype.
I'd also give access to the battle spells from the Magus playtest somehow, costing a class feat each, with the possibility of making "Magus Potency" a Focus cantrip instead of a Focus spell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
APB is fine for low magic campaigns. Just flavor it as their martial prowess increasing. If casters can learn new tiers of reality bending spells as they level up then martials learning to hit slightly harder as they level isn't beyond the pale.... seriously
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but the ways in which it was doubled down on were what the community chose, if I understand correctly how the playtest went down.
I know that's ostensibly true (though anecdotally I've met literally zero people who are happy with the state of magic items in PF2 so far) I just understand why it might frustrate someone, ironically particularly people who like numeric bonuses from their magic items, but find PF2's current magic items too heavy handed or limiting.
Though I agree ABP is a reasonable solution for most people.
That or the High Quality variant. Property runes are still an issue, though they're not strictly necessary. More feats would probably cover that lack (more feats solves quite a few problems, really). TBH I would find High Quality less satisfying, as they're basically magic items either way, just coming from a different angle, so it would be the same for me.
I won't state definitively what went down during the playtest, as I did not participate, but that was what I was given to understand.
Beyond the fact that Vow of Poverty wasn't pathfinder material, and pathfinder isn't under any particular obligation to replicate it, there's... not actually that much difference between the 1st edition ABP table and the Vow of Poverty bonuses. You get a little bit less, a little bit later, in exchange for miscellaneous resistances and immunities and up to eleven bonus feats.
So to replicate that in 2e, just, do that, if you really want? Push ABP back a couple levels and hand out some extra feats. The character will probably be bad, but they'd probably have been bad with Vow of Poverty anyway, so that's just being authentic really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread isn't about which PF1 character concepts are hard to recreate, but which ones are hard to recreate period. Thus any concept is fair game. I could say that PF2 doesn't emulate DC-style superheroes well and it would be true and on topic in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that I doubt anybody will come to an agreement about an entire low magic campaign anytime soon, how about we narrow our focus to a character who's taken a vow of poverty, how do you give them meaningful bonuses without just giving them ABP? The 3.5 version gave a wide variety of bonuses, often a bit later and weaker than what a magic item would give with a few unique things tossed in for flavor, but it was still highly suboptimal for most characters. What would a PF2 version of the VoP feat have to look like in order to be both balanced, meaning it brings the character to par and adds a feat's worth of bonus on top of that, and not exactly equal to progression via items?
Simple solution is money given away, counts towards a Karma Pool which basically replaces the typical magical market and you can have them 'buy' rune effects with their Karma. You are reskinning purchasing magic items that have to be available at a shop, to equivalent inherent bonuses that are worked out with your GM/player cooperation.
If you remember back far enough, originally the +1 to hit was going to be quality of the weapon, and the striking and other runes were going to be the 'magic' part. I got the impression they got feedback that confused people with +1 not being magic, so they eventually just lopped it all back into magic. However, the rules allow for fine-quality weapons to grant either/or/and bonuses to hit, and devastating (non-magical striking equivalent damage boosts).
There is a degree to which I'd be inclined to tie some of the bonus striking damage from APB to their proficiency in the weapon, not just raw level. [I don't have a problem with a 20th level wizard doing less dice of damage with a rusty dagger than a ranger or fighter, for example. But there is no reason you can't view the bonus damage from level as being due to skill/experience, as opposed to magic infusion. (although yes, that would be yet another alternate explanation for it, if that suited your campaign universe better)
If there is something specific you don't like about the ABP, don't use it as is, and tweak it to make it work for you.
If you don't want to use ABP for characters in general, but you want your player who wants to take a vow of Poverty to not be substandard. Give that player a feat that allows them to, as I mentioned above, count money donated to a pool that lets them get credit to get what bonuses would come from ABP by spending their Karma Gold for them. Using existing rules as the framework to keep things fair, but allowing the flavor of the game to be overall, how your players and you like it.
Rule 0: Make the game fun for those playing it. (otherwise people won't continue to play long)
---------
Trying to jump back to the original question. Concepts that are hard to create using current rules.
Low level 'entry level' adventurers whom the Bulk of their differences seems to come from their Ancestry rather than Class.
It isn't too hard to house-rule it to grant an additional ancestry feat, and/or heritage (or way to trade multiple ancestry feats for a dual heritage.)
Alternately:
A first level hero whom is competent in say Society but really good in Arcana. First edition allowed a wider range of 'starting investment' in various skills. Between where you put your skill points, how your class skills fell, and use of traits to get an extra class skill, or bonus to a particular skill, there was a great deal more options for investment. Now there is simply an almost binary choice, trained or untrained. There is a slight 'sub-option' for trained which is Trained + an associated skill feat. In some cases you might be able to get away with a Lore skill if you have a high INT and choose a Lore that the potential overlapping skill might have had another attribute with a lower plus (or plan on trying to target the lower DC of lore specific knowledge)
This ability to have variance gets much broader once you hit level two, where a variety of Archetypes would allow access to Expert in certain skills, and it widens even further at third level. But that is carving off one or two levels you might 'lose' play in to achieve the 'starting' feel for them. [not unlike how my first impression of 5th edition honestly made me think, 'Ok, 3rd level is now the new 1st level']
So strictly speaking there may be a built in solution for those concepts... basically having to bump the lower level up to a new starting spot on the level spectrum.
Actually, if you include Pathfinder Society rules, you might be able to leverage Boons, to feel like you have a greater investment in a particular skill via a boon granting you a bonus under certain circumstances (or number of times). Not sure if we are using the Society (home/society-brew) rules in this particular discussion however.