Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Porridge]

I have to admit that one of the pain points for me in PF2 is certain race/class combinations (dwarf sorcerers for instance) starting with a 14 in the main stat unless I take “voluntary” penalties to two other stats.

I believe you should always be able to get a 16 in your main stat without taking voluntary penalties (since you can use your free racial boost to offset racial penalties).

One of the devs talked about intentionally setting things up this way to ensure that in PF2 every race/class combination can start with an 18 in their main stat (by taking the voluntary penalty to two other stats to boost the 16 to an 18).

Now, I get not liking racial stat modifiers. But I will say that I've found PF2 to be much more friendly to "off-brand" race/class combinations than PF1 or 5e. For example, I've found that in PF2 I can create a Gnome Barbarian that's pretty much just as good mechanically as a Half-Orc Barbarian. Whereas in PF1 or 5e, this is definitely not the case...

 

[kenada]

No, it’s a thread that began with “Why do people like to play weird (ie non-core 4) races?” and devolved into a conflict between more-GM centric and more-Player centric playstyles.

Ah. I skipped over that one. I hopped over and skimmed whatever page was current. It looks like an argument between old-school and modern sensibilities. I think I’ll pass on that discussion

 

[CapnZapp]

I’d say in that case Automatic Bonus Progression

That's the name - thanks!

 

[CapnZapp]

I’d say in that case Automatic Bonus Progression is probably a better remedy than Proficiency Without Level. However, I don’t think it’s a given that you have to exchange your treasure to receive XP. I know that’s what Arneson did, and that seems to be why it’s popular, but I know that’s not how B/X worked (not familiar with OD&D or AD&D, so not sure about those). B/X gave you XP just for bringing back treasure from an adventure, and treasure was defined not to include magic items.

Maybe I should clarify?

I'm speaking of my experiences where the heroes quickly concluded they would sell any loot they found, since 500 gold to spend towards leveling is better than keeping the 1000 gp wand (or whatever) around.

Items are clearly intended as nice perks adding to a character of a certain level. Apart from the obviously much more powerful fundamental weapon and armor runes, no item comes even close to providing the benefit of a single level.

In other games (notably every version of D&D except 4th Edition) you can easily find* a magic item that's more desirable than a level, at least once you're off the very lowest levels. In most iterations of D&D, the game finishes its transformation from snuff movie to hero saga at level 5 or thereabouts...

*) easy for the DM to find in the treasure lists, I mean. Not necessarily easy for the heroes to find inside the game

Seeing your players adopt a default assumption that everything you find should be sold makes for an unsatisfying experience in my view. I find it fun to come up with and place cool loot that the players are overjoyed to find and keep and use. However, PF2 magic items are too close to 4E items in my opinion, and that's even before we contemplate using xp for gold (when the idea falls apart completely in my experience).

This is why I suggest you need proficiency without level to tone down the benefits of levelling a notch (or five). Of course, you could also remove the magic item economy (so that you're given the choice of using an item or just throwing it away) but as you might know, I quite like having an utility-based magic item economy of the 3E and PF2 kind, and I would considering shutting it down a considerable drawback.

That’s how I plan to handle it in PF2 (like B/X). Doing it that way seems quite compatible with the system’s expectations, which includes an expected amount of currency per level. It’s easy enough to track how much treasure the party brings back and award the XP once they do. The only tweak I’m making is to use a different conversion rate (1.6:1) to fit it in better with the XP curve I use (which was already non-standard).

In my experience, heroes do fine even if they find zero currency and zero items, with the notable exception of fundamental runes. (Talking about PF2)

And really, even then, it's only the weapon striking runes that make or break the game.

In other words, a high level hero doesn't need +3 to armor, saves or attacks. The game is already tilted to make heroes stronger relative to enemies of their own level as they level up. (If you don't offer any way to gain potency or resilience runes that just makes high-level play feel more like... low-level play. It doesn't mean the game breaks. At least not harder than some consider the game breaking at low level... )

But the extra weapon dice is such a stupendously large bonus it's not funny. You really can't expect a warrior to select any other magic item before the next upgrade to her striking rune.

 

[CapnZapp]

(cont'd)

This is why I can totally see a version of automatic bonus progression (ABP) that only hands out "devastating attacks". And leaves all other forms of bonuses as-is (=you apply item bonuses the regular way, most notably by finding or purchasing magic items).



Somewhat off-topic, but it's worth mentioning:

Automatic bonus progression confers a HUGE bonus to warrior-type heroes (i.e. weapon users). The variant helps martials MUCH MORE than spellcasters, since it saves warriors the obvious and non-negotiable cost of striking runes.

Compared to the standard game, ABP leaves warriors with considerably more cash to spend on skill bonus items or whatnot (relative to casters).

I would say it's a drawback of the variant that Paizo does not discuss or even acknowledge this issue. In my opinion, warriors don't need this help. It would have been useful to see a version of this variant that attempts to be "class neutral".

Let me use a hypothetical ruleset to illustrate. If "devastating attacks" applied also to magic* that would be more neutral. (It would deviate from how the game usually run, but it would mean you could apply the variant without so clearly** benefiting warriors more than casters) That is, if the default game allowed casters to purchase striking runes that somehow applied to spellcasting, that would leave casters with as little money as warriors for other stuff, and assuming this would apply even to ABP's "devastating attacks", you could then use ABP without worrying about martial-caster balance.

*) obviously only to a single target per casting - even when you cast an area spell where I guess randomizing the main target would make sense
**) since most attacks are one action and most spells are two actions, it still benefits warriors more. But the gap is less noticeable

 

[CapnZapp]

The usual problem in OD&D was always what to do with all the gold if you weren't on board the whole saving-up-for-a-stronghold wagon or equivalent.

It is really unwelcome that 5E players struggle with this exact same issue even forty(?) years later...

 

[CapnZapp]

I believe you should always be able to get a 16 in your main stat without taking voluntary penalties (since you can use your free racial boost to offset racial penalties).

One of the devs talked about intentionally setting things up this way to ensure that in PF2 every race/class combination can start with an 18 in their main stat (by taking the voluntary penalty to two other stats to boost the 16 to an 18).

Now, I get not liking racial stat modifiers. But I will say that I've found PF2 to be much more friendly to "off-brand" race/class combinations than PF1 or 5e. For example, I've found that in PF2 I can create a Gnome Barbarian that's pretty much just as good mechanically as a Half-Orc Barbarian. Whereas in PF1 or 5e, this is definitely not the case...

Since a +1 means so much in Pathfinder 2, it's almost a newbie trap to make it so easy to end up with only a 16 in your main stat at chargen.

Myself, I'm not against ability penalties (in fact I'm actively for them, since I consider them to be an essential building block of verisimilitude, explaining why few Dwarves become Bards and why so many Elves weave magic into their fighting styles etc etc...)

...but that's a different discussion - in the context of Pathfinder 2, the issue boils down to:

If you believe any race should be combinable with every class (a totally reasonable idea, btw, just one I personally don't consider a must) you totally must be able to get a 18 in your main stat despite the ability flaw. As long as this is achievable (regardless of the effects on your other stats) I would consider the resulting ruleset as fine.

If you can't reach a 18 no matter how much your mangle your secondary stats, however, then I concede PF2 is in the category of games any gamer with the opinion every class-race combo must be attainable need best avoid.

Z

PS. I hope I made managed to phrase myself in a way that makes it clear I do not wish to prevent anyone from playing the game their preferred way here

 

[kenada]

Maybe I should clarify?

I'm speaking of my experiences where the heroes quickly concluded they would sell any loot they found, since 500 gold to spend towards leveling is better than keeping the 1000 gp wand (or whatever) around.

Items are clearly intended as nice perks adding to a character of a certain level. Apart from the obviously much more powerful fundamental weapon and armor runes, no item comes even close to providing the benefit of a single level.

In other games (notably every version of D&D except 4th Edition) you can easily find* a magic item that's more desirable than a level, at least once you're off the very lowest levels. In most iterations of D&D, the game finishes its transformation from snuff movie to hero saga at level 5 or thereabouts...

*) easy for the DM to find in the treasure lists, I mean. Not necessarily easy for the heroes to find inside the game

Seeing your players adopt a default assumption that everything you find should be sold makes for an unsatisfying experience in my view. I find it fun to come up with and place cool loot that the players are overjoyed to find and keep and use. However, PF2 magic items are too close to 4E items in my opinion, and that's even before we contemplate using xp for gold (when the idea falls apart completely in my experience).

This is why I suggest you need proficiency without level to tone down the benefits of levelling a notch (or five).

Right, that’s why I started talking about B/X versus what Arneson did. The latter method seems to be rather popular, but old-school D&D didn’t didn’t force the players to make that choice. You brought back the treasure, and you kept it after getting XP. Magic items in B/X were also explicitly not worth XP. If you brought back an item and sold it, then you just deprived yourself of something fun or useful.

Of course, you could also remove the magic item economy (so that you're given the choice of using an item or just throwing it away) but as you might know, I quite like having an utility-based magic item economy of the 3E and PF2 kind, and I would considering shutting it down a considerable drawback.

I like that too. I think it helps contribute to a believable fantasy world where magic is pervasive

In my experience, heroes do fine even if they find zero currency and zero items, with the notable exception of fundamental runes. (Talking about PF2)

And really, even then, it's only the weapon striking runes that make or break the game.

In other words, a high level hero doesn't need +3 to armor, saves or attacks. The game is already tilted to make heroes stronger relative to enemies of their own level as they level up. (If you don't offer any way to gain potency or resilience runes that just makes high-level play feel more like... low-level play. It doesn't mean the game breaks. At least not harder than some consider the game breaking at low level... )

But the extra weapon dice is such a stupendously large bonus it's not funny. You really can't expect a warrior to select any other magic item before the next upgrade to her striking rune.

I feel like that’s the more fun approach. In PF1, static bonuses were really important, but rolling lots of dice is more fun.

 

[kenada]

(cont'd)

This is why I can totally see a version of automatic bonus progression (ABP) that only hands out "devastating attacks". And leaves all other forms of bonuses as-is (=you apply item bonuses the regular way, most notably by finding or purchasing magic items).



Somewhat off-topic, but it's worth mentioning:

Automatic bonus progression confers a HUGE bonus to warrior-type heroes (i.e. weapon users). The variant helps martials MUCH MORE than spellcasters, since it saves warriors the obvious and non-negotiable cost of striking runes.

Compared to the standard game, ABP leaves warriors with considerably more cash to spend on skill bonus items or whatnot (relative to casters).

I would say it's a drawback of the variant that Paizo does not discuss or even acknowledge this issue. In my opinion, warriors don't need this help. It would have been useful to see a version of this variant that attempts to be "class neutral".

Let me use a hypothetical ruleset to illustrate. If "devastating attacks" applied also to magic* that would be more neutral. (It would deviate from how the game usually run, but it would mean you could apply the variant without so clearly** benefiting warriors more than casters) That is, if the default game allowed casters to purchase striking runes that somehow applied to spellcasting, that would leave casters with as little money as warriors for other stuff, and assuming this would apply even to ABP's "devastating attacks", you could then use ABP without worrying about martial-caster balance.

*) obviously only to a single target per casting - even when you cast an area spell where I guess randomizing the main target would make sense
**) since most attacks are one action and most spells are two actions, it still benefits warriors more. But the gap is less noticeable

Wouldn’t only the variant with just devastating strikes have that problem (with skill-boosting items)? The one in the GMG gets rid of all items bonuses except for armor, which includes skill-boosting items.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wouldn’t only the variant with just devastating strikes have that problem (with skill-boosting items)? The one in the GMG gets rid of all items bonuses except for armor, which includes skill-boosting items.

Sorry what problem?