Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 7925746" data-attributes="member: 70468">I got the PDF for my subscription last week. We’re evaluating whether to adopt the “proficiency without level” variant for my hexcrawl sandbox campaign. We’ll know for sure in a few weeks at our next session when we roll up characters and go adventuring. (We’ll also be using point buy ability score variant with 25 instead of 15 flexible points, but that only has a slight impact on your starting scores and shouldn’t matter for seeing how “proficiency without level” feels at the table.)Before suggesting to my group we switch, I looked at the numbers. Using the expected rate of progression for skill increases, you stay right around 50~60% (for the most part) chance of success assuming a +3 in the associated skill. The same goes for attack rolls against the AC guidelines from the monster creation chapter. I didn’t look at save DCs, but them to follow the same trend. I ran a mock combat using the <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/pathfinder-2e-actual-play-experience.667587/post-7845251" target="_blank">party that TPK’d against the monster that TPK’d it</a>, and it felt like it was more solidly a moderate encounter (versus the nearly severe encounter it was before).Surely that’s working as intended rather than game-breaking? Paizo provides a replacement table (4-18: Creature XP [No Level]) for encounter budgeting. It’s absolutely expected that you need higher-level monsters to provide an equivalent challenge. That’s the point. You adopt this variant because you want lower-level creatures to be more dangerous to higher level ones (both lower-level ones to PCs and PCs to higher-level ones). If you don’t want that, then it doesn’t make any sense to use this variant.</blockquote>

Verification