Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and the two dichotomies

[The-Magic-Sword]

You don't have to?

Oh well, carry on then I suppose.

 

[kenada]

I disagree with Thompson's definition of bounded accuracy (and had other sources discussing this in more detail that I've misplaced, oops) in that it conflates two interrelated concepts, both of which 5e explores-- the influence of level in causing bonuses to go up, and the influence of bonuses capable of overwhelming the D20. To his mind they were probably the same thing, but they can be separated, which is what Pathfinder 2e does, so we have to understand it from both dimensions.

The first is what he discusses in the article, they don't assume the numbers go up (accuracy wise) from the DM's perspective so a low level player can swing, and potentially hit a high level foe or vice versa. This is also what Pathfinder 2e doesn't have, as you guys mention, a sufficiently higher level foe is effectively invincible.

But Bounded Accuracy is also the limitation of bonuses to keep the math within a certain range, when you see people discussing how character optimization in Pathfinder 1st edition often made rolling a d20 formality? That's what I'm discussing as another aspect of Bounded Accuracy, that 5e introduces to prevent that, accuracy bonuses are literally bounded. Pathfinder 2e and 5e both do this in order to prevent the players from optimizing away the d20 in order to keep variance relatively important. Its a big part of why 5e moved to Advantage + Disadvantage, and Pathfinder 2e is so finicky about preventing your from stacking bonuses.

In 5e terms that's the same thing, after all if you're already avoiding level scaling, then keeping the rest of the system's bonuses in line is the flipside-- a low level has a chance to win, a high level has a chance to lose, and you can't optimize that away either. But you can also go the Pathfinder 2e route, keep the variance similar but keep the upper and lower boundaries moving to emulate that feeling of level making you directly more powerful.

This is also why Pathfinder 2e's definition of Mook and Boss are contingent on their level position relative to the party, a +3 monster is a roughly the same amount of hard to hit regardless of what level it actually is, so you could actually drop level from prof for players (you'd have to eliminate item bonuses from both sides too though, those were hard coded back in after playtest data suggested people liked item upgrades being a requirement) but give monsters level variation in a +4/-4 range, and the balance would be maintained almost perfectly, with feats and stuff resulting in only minor increases and decreases in accuracy.

Which is the material variance in the PF2e system, level just serving to let different monsters play different roles to create a sense of power progression (struggling against adult dragons, and then being able to bat them aside with ease later, because they've gone from being +4 monsters to -4 monsters) on a math engine that polices variances to keep the d20 important and to stop character optimization from getting out of control.

I can’t agree with this. “Bounded accuracy” is a term coined by WotC for the approach 5e took to progression. You can claim that what PF2 does is “bounded accuracy”, but it’s just not the same thing. None of the benefits that Rodney Thompson cites are present in PF2. Trying to say they both have “bounded accuracy” just doesn’t feel like an honest comparison. It’s really stretching things.

I don’t think it follows that just because PF2 came out differently that Paizo failed to learn from their peers. Nothing says doing so means you have to come to the same conclusion. Look at the OSR. Are they wrong for eschewing certain design truisms? No, and not having those things is often the point. I’d say the same goes for PF2. Paizo had certain things they wanted to do (tell super-heroic stories, and provide character customization that can’t “win” the game), and they did it. Balance is a means to that end, and not having “bounded accuracy” like 5e does the point.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I can’t agree with this. “Bounded accuracy” is a term coined by WotC for the approach 5e took to progression. You can claim that what PF2 does is “bounded accuracy”, but it’s just not the same thing. None of the benefits that Rodney Thompson cites are present in PF2. Trying to say they both have “bounded accuracy” just doesn’t feel like an honest comparison. It’s really stretching things.

I don’t think it follows that just because PF2 came out differently that Paizo failed to learn from their peers. Nothing says doing so means you have to come to the same conclusion. Look at the OSR. Are they wrong for eschewing certain design truisms? No, and not having those things is often the point. I’d say the same goes for PF2. Paizo had certain things they wanted to do (tell super-heroic stories, and provide character customization that can’t “win” the game), and they did it. Balance is a means to that end, and not having “bounded accuracy” like 5e does the point.

TBF, I had this article in my head when I was using the term, whether or not that thing is properly called 'bounded accuracy' by it's creators prescriptive definition (and descriptively, it is often used to refer to the way 5e contains mathematical variation) is immaterial to my point that both Pathfinder 2e and Dungeons and Dragons 5e 'contain' their bonuses in a way that some Pathfinder 1e players find deal breakingly similar, we can use a different term for that if necessary to facilitate the discussion?

 

[transmission89]

TBF, I had this article in my head when I was using the term, whether or not that thing is properly called 'bounded accuracy' by it's creators prescriptive definition (and descriptively, it is often used to refer to the way 5e contains mathematical variation) is immaterial to my point that both Pathfinder 2e and Dungeons and Dragons 5e 'contain' their bonuses in a way that some Pathfinder 1e players find deal breakingly similar, we can use a different term for that if necessary to facilitate the discussion?

I get what you meant. Paizo sought to rein in mods compared to PF1, even if it’s not Bounded AccuracyTM.

What about Rein In Mods. PF2 RIMs Better than PF1?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I get what you meant. Paizo sought to rein in mods compared to PF1, even if it’s not Bounded AccuracyTM.

What about Rein In Mods. PF2 RIMs Better than PF1?

I like that, it RIMs way better than PF1e indeed, 5e also strives to RIM as much as possible.

 

[kenada]

TBF, I had this article in my head when I was using the term, whether or not that thing is properly called 'bounded accuracy' by it's creators prescriptive definition (and descriptively, it is often used to refer to the way 5e contains mathematical variation) is immaterial to my point that both Pathfinder 2e and Dungeons and Dragons 5e 'contain' their bonuses in a way that some Pathfinder 1e players find deal breakingly similar, we can use a different term for that if necessary to facilitate the discussion?

We can give it a different name, but PF2 and 5e are still doing different things. PF2 still has the progression treadmill (including a table of level-based DCs). 5e dispensed with that, but PF2 did not. People will say you’re not supposed to set the DC based on the PCs, but what how does that get handled in practice? Just like DM David says: by describing obstacles of legendary proportions.

So, yes, it’s true that both systems opted to constrain their math, but the why and how they did that are completely different. It’s like saying that PF2 is similar to HERO because both systems are designed to let you pick options that are constrained within a given power level (ignoring for the sake of argument how well either of those systems succeeds in that regard). The comparison is superficial.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

We can give it a different name, but PF2 and 5e are still doing different things. PF2 still has the progression treadmill (including a table of level-based DCs). 5e dispensed with that, but PF2 did not. People will say you’re not supposed to set the DC based on the PCs, but what how does that get handled in practice? Just like DM David says: by describing obstacles of legendary proportions.

So, yes, it’s true that both systems opted to constrain their math, but the why and how they did that are completely different. It’s like saying that PF2 is similar to HERO because both systems are designed to let you pick options that are constrained within a given power level (ignoring for the sake of argument how well either of those systems succeeds in that regard). The comparison is superficial.

Nevertheless, the pf1e players we're discussing view it as similar, because both have the primary effect of limiting the kind of optimization inherent in 1e. The similarity is relative, and I would certainly see it as intertextuality between the two systems.

In practice, 5e DCs do often get scaled based off the talents of the party.

 

[transmission89]

We can give it a different name, but PF2 and 5e are still doing different things. PF2 still has the progression treadmill (including a table of level-based DCs). 5e dispensed with that, but PF2 did not. People will say you’re not supposed to set the DC based on the PCs, but what how does that get handled in practice? Just like DM David says: by describing obstacles of legendary proportions.

So, yes, it’s true that both systems opted to constrain their math, but the why and how they did that are completely different. It’s like saying that PF2 is similar to HERO because both systems are designed to let you pick options that are constrained within a given power level (ignoring for the sake of argument how well either of those systems succeeds in that regard). The comparison is superficial.

Indeed. Paizo wanted to keep that “heroic progress“ feeling, but wanted to cut back on d20+40 being rolled. I think it’s a smart move they took doing that to further differentiate. I remember during 5e play testing, a large number of people were unhappy that orcs and goblins could still pose a threat to a higher level character (of course, a large number liked that). So it offers something to those people.

 

[kenada]

Nevertheless, the pf1e players we're discussing view it as similar, because both have the primary effect of limiting the kind of optimization inherent in 1e. The similarity is relative, and I would certainly see it as intertextuality between the two systems.

I feel like this is selling PF2 short. It was claimed that Paizo didn’t learn from 5e, but you can look at where 5e has balance problems (like multiclassing or feat parity) and see how that wouldn’t address the issues you cite from PF1, so the only thing to learn would be what doesn’t work (for the presumed goal of preventing people from “winning” through character building). That’s not to say 5e is bad or wrong for doing what it did, but the designers prioritized different things and made different trade-offs.

In practice, 5e DCs do often get scaled based off the talents of the party.

I intimated that in the D&D forum here in a post on flat DCs and got pushback, so I decided to avoid controversy by not going there. However, I agree. That’s why I’m not a fan of non-flat DCs.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I don't view it as a bad thing, when I discuss their intertextuality I mean that they're approaching the same problems and solving them with solutions that are related. I prefer Pathfinder 2e's solution, in fact, and what you describe in terms of 5es problems are what eventually drove us into the arms of 2e.

My group pushed 5e way past its breaking point. Items as a bonus is all well and good, until you actually want to give them out without 'voiding the warranty' as it were and the system shattered.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure how hard my group pushed the system is the reason my perspective on 5e is so alien to Dave and Zapp. We tested that system's limits, the limits of its 'balance' the actual effects of BA, Magic Items, Feats, Multiclassing and etc.