|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you use the normal proficiency with level rules, by level 10, a character might have a +23 in a skill they really cared about (level 10, master +6, ability +5, +2 skill item).
In proficiency without level, that drops by 10. If you use both automatic bonus progression, you might go up again by a net 2. So all in all, the PCs would be rolling against the usual DCs, with a -8 penalty.
Since normal on-level DCs are set to actually be challenging, just better than even chances, you're now flipping that to basically any roll under about 18 being a failure and every 8 or lower being a critical failure.
That's not gritty, that's stillborn.
To put it differently: the DC system in the standard game is already at a gritty high DC.
I wouldn't really want to touch the proficiency without level system. If you look at the table with sample DCs here you can see that to hit a legendary DC you need to get 20 higher than for an untrained DC, while being legendary yourself at the ability only gives you a +8. Item bonuses almost never go above +3 and even those are endgame items. So I don't think this really works at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if you use the normal proficiency with level rules, by level 10, a character might have a +23 in a skill they really cared about (level 10, master +6, ability +5, +2 skill item).
In proficiency without level, that drops by 10. If you use both automatic bonus progression, you might go up again by a net 2. So all in all, the PCs would be rolling against the usual DCs, with a -8 penalty.
.
You have to be misreading the variant rule. Level comes off almost all DCs. AFAICT the only things that are effectively different, apart from level difference, are the fixed DCs that you see in a few places like say Aid.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be misreading the variant rule. Level comes off all DCs.So if you use the normal proficiency with level rules, by level 10, a character might have a +23 in a skill they really cared about (level 10, master +6, ability +5, +2 skill item).
In proficiency without level, that drops by 10. If you use both automatic bonus progression, you might go up again by a net 2. So all in all, the PCs would be rolling against the usual DCs, with a -8 penalty.
.
Yes, but the OP said:
However, as I am giving the PCs the ability to stack ABP with High-Quality Items, I thought that by not adjusting the DCs I could basically give them the boni they would normally get via Level Proficiency in the form of items.
And I don't think that will work well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to be misreading the variant rule. Level comes off all DCs.So if you use the normal proficiency with level rules, by level 10, a character might have a +23 in a skill they really cared about (level 10, master +6, ability +5, +2 skill item).
In proficiency without level, that drops by 10. If you use both automatic bonus progression, you might go up again by a net 2. So all in all, the PCs would be rolling against the usual DCs, with a -8 penalty.
.Yes, but the OP said:
However, as I am giving the PCs the ability to stack ABP with High-Quality Items, I thought that by not adjusting the DCs I could basically give them the boni they would normally get via Level Proficiency in the form of items.And I don't think that will work well.
My apologies.
Agreed. This will break the numbers pretty fast. You have to adjust the DCs of the monsters or it will become insanely difficult.
The game normally progress by +1.5 per level. Getting rid of +1.0 per level is a big change, but even so 4-6 levels difference is going to be crushing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the others have said, that's not gritty, it's even worse than grimdark or Lovecraftian. Or I suppose it's just non-progressive, where the PCs would be locked into the same degree of danger no matter what level they've achieved. That'd grow stale IMO.
--
If you subtract level from proficiency & DCs, you don't get so much grimdark as you do a flattening of level differences. Minions will remain dangerous longer because their attacks & DCs will consistently pose a risk, albeit a gradually shrinking one. That also nixes the bosses, which might be what you want if "little guys save the world" is the theme. Lord of the Rings is often like this, with common soldiers both a threat, yet not a threat; in Conan too, where archers will always remain a danger, even to big bad sorcerers, so one needs armies (et al).
Such flattening suits campaigns where you want group numbers to matter, like war campaigns where you don't want squads or solo bosses clearing the field easily. Grittier action-adventure could work this way too, where 1v1 fights are much easier than 2v1, even with level differences.
(On the flip side, one can reach anime & superhero levels of dominance by doubling proficiency for level, where even heroes w/o powers aren't threatened by thugs unless those thugs have catchy names and odd clothing choices.)
I think for gritty, other tweaks would be necessary, mostly regarding resiliency & healing, especially Medicine & perhaps Wounds. (Not to mention tone of NPCs re: loyalty, greed, etc.)
Also, one could subtract level from proficiency & DCs maxing out at subtracting the PCs level. So if the PCs are 5th level, their 3rd level enemies would subtract 3, 5th level 5, and 7th level also 5, which keeps bosses bosses while keeping minions threatening. Essentially the PCs will never be bosses, at least not until WAY higher level, yet they might face legit solo enemies who wouldn't in turn have to be WAY higher level. That'd be pretty gritty IMO, yet players could still feel a sense of accomplishment as they level past known enemies (likely types rather than individuals since those have short lifespans).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the answers guys. I think I understand now why I will have to substract the Level of the Monsters from the DCs if I run with "Proficiency Without Level".
It's good news for you in a way: the game already has the grit that you want, so you need to do less work to customize it. That goes both for using the proficiency with and without level. (I do think the standard rule is better balanced.)
Ways in which Pathfinder 2 is already pretty gritty:
- Enemies have high stats. A moderate threat monster will hit you often enough, a severe threat monster really feels like an uphill fight, an extreme monster is extreme enough to often lead to player complaints and TPKs. Even lower threat monsters stay relevant for a few levels (level -1, deeper than that they fade) when used in groups and if the PCs don't put effort into preventing the minions from focus-firing.
- Skill DCs are tough. The default difficulty is set so that someone specializing in that skill is challenged by it. Since PCs can't specialize in everything at once, stuff outside your focus actually feels too difficult at higher levels.
- Asymmetry in saving throws: when throwing spells against a boss they're going to shrug it off often, while their spells are going to crit you often. Conversely, your spells are going to hit mooks hard. But brutalizing mooks is also part of a gritty experience; most gritty games do let the hero dish out big damage too. It's just that the mooks will hit you pretty hard too so you really have to push to get them down first.
On a side note, if I were to do this, would me allowing the boni from ABP to stack with High-Quality Items (which essentially are magical potency runed items but reworded) break the game? In essence, as far as I can tell, the max. bonus a PC would get is a +3 at any time on top of the ABP.
Also keep in mind that when using these High-Quality Items I do not want to allow for the Devastating Weapons (aka. striking) or Resilient Armors.Thanks for your thoughts.
I think that would actually work well - while attack/defense balance is pretty good, I think skill DCs are a bit too steep, especially for skills you don't focus on. Being able to shore that up just a little bit would probably improve the balance of that part of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(On the flip side, one can reach anime & superhero levels of dominance by doubling proficiency for level, where even heroes w/o powers aren't threatened by thugs unless those thugs have catchy names and odd clothing choices.)Haha, that was funny.
Also, one could subtract level from proficiency & DCs maxing out at subtracting the PCs level. So if the PCs are 5th level, their 3rd level enemies would subtract 3, 5th level 5, and 7th level also 5, which keeps bosses bosses while keeping minions threatening. Essentially the PCs will never be bosses, at least not until WAY higher level, yet they might face legit solo enemies who wouldn't in turn have to be WAY higher level. That'd be pretty gritty IMO, yet players could still feel a sense of accomplishment as...I like this idea a lot! I am not sure if the villains will be too common if I substract their own level from the DCs. I mean essentially a level 10 guy would get -10 that's a major nerf.
If my PC was only level 1 the DC of the Monster would only be reduced by 1 and therefore a level 10 threat would still be incredibly tough rather than almost possible to overcome.
Thanks.
And -10 from a from a level 10 guy is only a nerf if their target numbers aren't also reduced by -10, which they should be. Proficiency also shows up in Armor Class & ability DCs, so instead of having a +20 to hit AC 31, they'll have a +10 to hit AC 21. Where it makes a difference is when facing opponents of different levels, in which case they're all moved closer to each other; their success rates become comparable (bosses get nerfed, minions get buffed); or when it's a static DC (like for terrain or Medicine, though one might want to tweak those since some level proficiency is assumed for rarer terrains/higher DCs).
It'd remain impossible in practical terms for a level 1 party to take on a level 10 threat even w/ level proficiency subtracted. Too many hit points, too much damage, special abilities the party doesn't have resources against, and so forth. But the flattening does make it more viable for an army of level 1 creatures to threaten a level 10 creature. That's something that in normal PF2 that army cannot do! Which is why Golarion armies (and villages, etc.) require PC help so much, or require their own leveled up PC-types. Flattening the playing field makes drafting peasants viable in the narrative (rather than just sowing undead).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the classics do use hordes of humanoids, and kind of have an expectation of larger parties than current RPG design stipulates and with larger breadth of PC levels. Ex. 6-9 players of levels 7th-10th, often with a "party's total levels should = X", as if all levels were created equal! Though to be fair, more hands on deck does give an action economy boost too, but that's a pretty loose way to judge difficulty, which is why of course there was ample instruction warning GMs to take ownership and adjust difficulty (or treasure, etc.), often through narrative trickery. And PCs were expected to have access to henchmen and hirelings, and to make use of them to plump up their numbers, as in lower level NPCs would remain viable.
W/ level disparity within a group (whether due to PCs w/ different XP or NPCs being hired on) then I'd subtract all proficiency based on level, otherwise bosses (even if only a few levels higher) would steamroll the weaker buddies. Since bosses have other higher base numbers, they'll remain a threat, yet you'd want lots of bodyguards.
If your players can handle running multiple characters (at least on the battlefield, not during RPing), this could be a fun way to revive some of the older modules which often leaned toward a wargame. As mentioned earlier, flat-proficiency could suit a war-themed campaign. PCs wouldn't need to resent rookie NPCs, since those NPCs have a legit chance of hitting (even if they should still keep away from the frontlines).
