Pathfinder 1E a real pathfinder fix thread... PF2e

[Ahnehnois]

You can't put too much spread on ST. If you do, then if you want to challenge a PC with a good ST, you will screw PCs for whom the same ST is bad and who won't have a chance to make it (save for a 20).

True, but at the moment, a 20th level character's worst possible base save is only 6 worse than his best, which is not enough to cause that phenomenon. Bring it any closer and they wouldn't be much different (let alone would there be room for a distinct middle ground).

In practice, the difference may be significantly larger due to factors besides the base save; a fighter almost certainly has not only good fort but high Con the best Con item and resistance item he can afford and possibly a few other bonuses. OTOH, your feeble wizard likely has skimped in those areas.

The point is that if limiting the difference is important, but it isn't being caused by base saves to begin with, than other factors have to be considered.

People don't like feat chains because they want to have their super-combo-feat right now to pwn. But they don't realize that if they have their combo too fast, their character will always do the same trick for 20 levels, and then they will get bored of it.

True, perhaps, but a hard issue to address. After all, there has to be some reward for advancement. Maybe it's a question of changing feat chains to reduce this kind of play, but that's a very nuanced design issue.

 

[billd91]

True, but at the moment, a 20th level character's worst possible base save is only 6 worse than his best, which is not enough to cause that phenomenon. Bring it any closer and they wouldn't be much different (let alone would there be room for a distinct middle ground).

The 6 point difference is actually pretty big, moreover, it's been getting worse throughout the PC's career. From a conceptual standpoint, it may look psychologically satisfying to see that, when looking at spells, a 20th level PC's strong save is 3 points higher than a 9th level spell's contribution to the equation while his weak save is 3 points lower than that 9th level spell's contribution. That looks like a nice balance point.

But it's instructive to note that the PC started out with his good saves only 2 points higher than his weak save against level-appropriate challenges - now they're 6 points higher. Despite being a much higher level, he's more vulnerable to his peers than he was when they were all 1st level neophytes. And that's with his peer enemies probably pumping their stat boost to raise their save DCs to compete with the strong saves - making the weak save en more paltry by comparison. And on top of that, a monster's HD-based contribution (the analog of the spell-based DC component) is, unlike spells, unbounded, despite the fact that it often takes multiple HD to raise the CR of monsters without a lot of special abilities. That can lead some pretty lopsided save DC vs base save match-ups, particularly against weak saves.

The point is that if limiting the difference is important, but it isn't being caused by base saves to begin with, than other factors have to be considered.

There are certainly other factors, as I've included above, but the difference between strong and weak is, I think, something that's worth addressing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But it's instructive to note that the PC started out with his good saves only 2 points higher than his weak save against level-appropriate challenges - now they're 6 points higher. Despite being a much higher level, he's more vulnerable to his peers than he was when they were all 1st level neophytes.

Well, to an extent that's where the whole Christmas tree thing comes in. High level characters in the existing game will realize that a cloak of resistance is the most cost-effective item out there (while no comparable DC-boosting items exist). So the actual dynamic is not that the weak character is more vulnerable compared to his opposition, it's that he may only be slightly less vulnerable, where as really optimized characters rarely fail saves against anything at high levels.

That is, if you simply take the average of all saving throw bonuses versus all typical DCs, the bonuses typically rise relative to the DCs with level. (Adding in more of a magic MAD element would make this even more true).

If we were reimagining the math to where save bonuses and ability boosters aren't assumed, then I'm not sure what saving throws would/should look like. However, I do think we would want any difference between characters to scale with level to some extent; if your 20th level fighter only has the same advantage over his wizard pal that he had at level 1, something's not right.

And on top of that, a monster's HD-based contribution (the analog of the spell-based DC component) is, unlike spells, unbounded, despite the fact that it often takes multiple HD to raise the CR of monsters without a lot of special abilities. That can lead some pretty lopsided save DC vs base save match-ups, particularly against weak saves.

That can be an issue. I try not to build monsters that way, but these sorts of mathematical aberrations are remnants of the idea of treating monsters and characters differently. Squelching that idea, and making it so monster levels are as meaningful as PC levels and one doesn't just throw 10 HD on for the heck of it would stop this kind of situation from happening.

There are certainly other factors, as I've included above, but the difference between strong and weak is, I think, something that's worth addressing.

Part of my in-depth PF 2e approach was to combine all numerical advancement and put it under one roof. That way there would be none of this business where you have a base save but you also potentially have feats, traits or other bonuses. Your save is your save, it scales the way it scales.

I also think nonlinear advancement (the ability to reroll saves, for example) has different implications, and might allow for making characters different while keeping the raw numbers close.

 

[Steely Dan]

Ability Scores: Cap at 40.

AC: Remove touch, and flat-footed, all natural armour bonuses are halved.

Attacks: All characters/monsters have a BAB = to 1/2 level/HD.

Saves: All characters/monsters have Saves = to 1/2 level/HD + modifier (but may use Str or Con for Fort, Dex or Int for Ref, Wis or Cha for Will).

Spell DCs: 10 + 1/2 level/HD + modifier.


Redo Skills, Grappling, and CMB/CMD.

 

[billd91]

Well, to an extent that's where the whole Christmas tree thing comes in. High level characters in the existing game will realize that a cloak of resistance is the most cost-effective item out there (while no comparable DC-boosting items exist). So the actual dynamic is not that the weak character is more vulnerable compared to his opposition, it's that he may only be slightly less vulnerable, where as really optimized characters rarely fail saves against anything at high levels.

I'm not sure that optimized characters rarely fail weak saves against opponents meant to challenge their level and degree of optimization. I'd agree that would be the case with strong saves, but I'm not convinced that's true with weak saves. Rather, I think the tendency is toward finding immunities to specifically avoid having to make a save. That too drives part of the christmas tree effect as you need to have devices (or wands) to provide death ward, immunities to poison, immunity or other resistance to fire or cold, mind-affecting spells, free action, and so on.

If we were reimagining the math to where save bonuses and ability boosters aren't assumed, then I'm not sure what saving throws would/should look like. However, I do think we would want any difference between characters to scale with level to some extent; if your 20th level fighter only has the same advantage over his wizard pal that he had at level 1, something's not right.

I don't think I agree with that because it doesn't work if you look at it from both directions. Should a character's advantage (or disadvantage) against one of his same-level peers grow as the character's develop toward 20th level? With respect to their specialties, that may be true. The ability of a fighter to fight should grow significantly past a wizard's ability to do the same thing, same with a wizard's manipulation of magical power compared to a fighter's ability to do the same. But when it comes to saving throws, I'm not sure we should expect a difference to grow. A 20th level spellcaster should be able to overpower a target's defenses better than a 1st level spellcaster - and against lower level opponents, this is certainly true. But against a peer, shouldn't that really remain about constant and not change that much with level - barring additional doohickeys or other specializing development choices? Wouldn't it be unnecessarily unbalancing if one gained ground against the other? Should the wizard have an easier time against his peers than at 1st level, or conversely, should he have a harder time? I would think balance suggests he should have about the same difficulty (again, barring a few development choices along the way).

 

[MoonSong]

But you've removed the ability for a wizard to devote more to Intelligence in order to gain more skill points. Every other class, from barbarian to sorcerer, can choose to put a 14 in Intelligence and get +2 skill points per level; with a base of 0, wizards don't have this anymore, and are instead penalized even more than a commoner​ for taking low Int.

Even worse, though, it violates the internal consistency of the Pathfinder laws of nature. I'm confident that much of the popularity of Pathfinder comes from the way it treats everything without bias, and trusts the math to sort everything out. If you change that, by allowing anyone to start with less than (2 + Int mod) skills per level - the minimum amount, guaranteed even to plants and vermin - then it sets bad precedent for other inconsistencies in the system.

Wizards already lack that ability, they are expected to have that high int just to work. But yeah, it was a change in isolation, if wizards becomes sad and everybody else gets extra skill points, there is no need for it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]
I don't really agree with that, and here's why. The way d20 math is, you don't have penalties. In a different system, a wizard would start out with a fort save of -2 (or some penalty), and perhaps even get worse over time.

To me, the more you establish yourself in a niche with a weak save, the further behind the status quo you are falling. A 1st level wizard is probably not that different than a level 1 fighter, but as they grow, the fighter's body gets better, and the wizard's actually gets worse in a sense. Because that's what happens with people. An active, athletic youth who becomes overly bookish actually loses some of his physical resilience.

If we were doing a "realistic" rpg; saves and everything else wouldn't really get better with age, and some people's would get worse. In the game-y level-based structure of PF/D&D, this instead manifests as everyone advancing over time, but some people really not advancing enough. To me, that's okay.

 

[Stormonu]

While I wouldn't mind an update, clean up or consolidation of Pathfinder rules, whatever is done needs to allow me to continue to use my Rise of the Runelord AP books without having to spend more than a half-dozen minutes making alterations to run the adventures. I still think there could be a lot of player-side changes/clean-up that could be done. For sure, i think some of the advanced classes need tweaks, such as the summoner (fun for my 13-year-old pokemon loving son, but easily broken by the power gamers/rules lawyer type I've also played with).

 

[Elf Witch]

Possible changes for a Pathfinder 2nd Edition :

- First of all, take the guy writing the Pf FAQ, lock him the deepest dungeon on Earth, throw away the key ...
- reduce the gap between good & bad saves (like in 4th edition)
- MAD for casters : one stat to gain access to spells, another one (charisma like for SLA) to calculate DC
- Eliminate any archetype that make a base class useless (I'm looking at you archeologist)
- change the spells that bypass a skill (like Knock) so that they just give you a bonus to that skill (like Find Traps)
- cap the feat chains at 3 or 4 feats max
- change some feats (weapon finesse/power attack) into combat options
- I really like the idea to tone down spells with feats to get them better for one school

While I like some of these I think turning knock into a skill plus makes it worthless and hurts parties without rogues. To successfully use the spell you would have to pour ranks into the skill plus have a decent dex. Why not instead make it take longer and have it make noise that change makes the rogues ability better and rogue can pick llocks until the cows come home spells should be a limited resource.

I do like the idea of combat feats being changed into combat options.

 

[Starfox]

The reason some combat options require feats is actually to simplify the game. If everyone had Power Attack for free, every NPC the GM ever plays would have to take this into consideration. Making it only available to select creatures means only those creatures have to consider the option.

It also makes the fighter's bonus feats more relevant; if everyone could do these things, you'd have to invent new feats for the fighter to spend his bonus feats on. This might not be all bad, but it becomes a greater change, one that makes old materials written for 3E/Pathfinder 1 less useful.