Pathfinder 2 Playtest 2nd Edition: If it ain't broke, still fix it.

[Faily]

13th Age's Background system is nice and easy, but it does require more GM adjudication than skills normally do. At character creation, you get 8 points to spend on things called Backgrounds, with a maximum of 5 in any one of them. What these backgrounds can be is up to the players. Oftentimes they're jobs, like Guardsman, Diplomat, or Alchemist. Other times they can be more generally indicative of a character's history - Slum-dweller, Disaster Survivor, or Reformed Cultist. Even personality traits, like Compulsive Liar, Vigilant Paranoia or Constant Skepticism would be acceptable.

When making a skill roll with this system, you roll D20+(level)+(number of points in the relevant background)+(ability modifier). Of course, there's a degree of negotiation involved in whether a background is relevant, but in 13th Age generally you just say which ability is being used and the player chooses the background that best fits. Maybe their Farm-raised background is most relevant on this strength check for climbing, because on their farm they had to climb up and down ladders in their orchard. Maybe their Diplomat background is most appropriate for this intelligence check for working out a foreign language because they once met a traveller from that land and had to work out an agreement. In this way, players add more details to their backstory in an organic way that actually ties into the current events at the table, which appeals to me.

I admit, I think my fondness for this system comes largely from my DMing style, where once the basic constraints are set down - i.e. "this will be a low magic game" or "there are no humans in this part of the setting" - I try to say yes to my players ideas as much as possible. In fact, in my next PF1e game, I will actually be using backgrounds instead of the normal skill system, I love it that much.

Huh. That is pretty interesting, and I like the idea of it. Not sure if I would like it in my D&D/PF as I like those games to be a bit more solid with the rules (as I don't like 5E's "mother may I"-logic for some stuff), but it sounds infinitely more interesting and better than flat +1/Level to everything.

Something along those lines could be pretty neat though.

[BWR]

What alternatives would people prefer to blanket +1/level? I do know there are people who would prefer it to go to fully bound accuracy¹ - to the point where that was even an option on the big survey. I personally wouldn't mind a system where you can tag skills that matter and they get +level, with skills not tagged staying at untrained. That and some actual differentiation between expert+ in terms of what you can do beyond "you meet the prereqs for skill feats". In fact, a lot of the skill feats themselves could be folded into proficiency levels. Heck, even just give a free skill feat when your proficiency in a skill improves. Something, anything, to make it at least feel more impactful than just a 5% extra chance of success.

Mind you, I'd love it if they just ripped out skills entirely and copied word-for-word the backgrounds from 13th Age. Balancing by number of skills available never really appealed to me anyway, as it makes any class with low skill points rather narrow outside of combat.

¹Which I think would be atrocious, given that legendary is only 15% more of a d20 than trained

Technically +1/level as P2 handles it encompasses a lot of things, not just skills. Focusing on skills:

I don't have a problem with the 3.x skill system in general. Details need fixing, of course: more skill points for certain classes, some reduction of number of skills, some increased options for highly proficient characters, etc. I'm not entirely against the idea of skill feats as such, but I strongly feel that the main utility of skills should be a result of one's proficiency in the skill itself, not a host of feats that key off it.
Skill feats for really exceptional abilities are an OK idea, but most options should be handled by DCs.
Also, the choice in where to put skill ranks appeals to me. Being able to be really good at something, OK at others, barely trained in some more and sucking at everything else is actually part of the fun of making characters, IMO.

One thing I would like to see is using a related skill at a penalty to stand in for another. For instance, I house rule overlap between certain Knowledge skills.
Say you have Knowledge (local: the City); why shouldn't it be able to tell you general history of the city (K. history), major religions and beliefs (K. religion), the general type of landscape and inhabitants in the area as well as neighboring settlements (K. geography), rulers and powerful people (K. nobility)?
If you want to know about a major religious war long ago, why can't both K. religion and K. history work?

[BWR]

Is there a general consensus that the Pathfinder 1 skill system is broken and needs fixing, or is this a "new edition, they had to change it somehow" thing?

Because I'm looking at things like, "In the [Level=Expertise] case, I would expect the great sage to be a higher level and the +Level system makes sense (except the great sage is also a better swimmer)" and reflecting that that looks like a great argument to revert to the Pathfinder 1 system, where each sage has +level to a handful of skills, which don't have to match, and no one has +level to everything.

There are a lot of folks who like +1/level over how things were done previously but it's nothing like a general consensus. As far as Paizo is concerned, enough people like it that they are going forward with it, and my impression from the Paizo boards is that more people like it than dislike it. However it applies to more than just skills, it also applies to attacks (replacing BAB), saving throws and AC. It makes doing the math for the game a lot easier, but it also restricts freedom and makes characters more similar than what P1 does.

[exelsisxax]

Does 13th age give you level to all skills? because that sounds like the same problem, just with less bookeeping and chargen time. I'd say it's even worse than PF1 for making any damn sense at all. Think about 3 people: a random peasant, a sage, and a wise old sage.

If you just add level to everything, the sage and random peasant are barely going to be different, and the wise old sage won't be any better unless he has a bunch of levels(probably making him or her more dangerous in combat than local militia).
PF1 is better because the sages also have a class skill bonus, so the small investment to make the character work(rank in K(whatever)) makes them both significantly better than the random peasant, the wise old sage doesn't have to be so many levels higher to be great and isn't 10 times as good as the normal sage. Still probably too overleveled for sanity, but there's a less significant problem. Even easier if you use an age category adjustment for this particular example.

If you consolidated skills significantly(to work more like 13th age skills even), cut down on skill point inflation at higher levels(total INT once instead of bonus per level?), and increased skill caps you could resolve every issue except still having some bookeeping.

[OgresAreCute]

Could do a mix of both, with skills getting +level/2 to represent baseline competence of high level guys and then you use skill points to actually pump up the skills you care about.

[Lord_Gareth]

Is there a general consensus that the Pathfinder 1 skill system is broken and needs fixing, or is this a "new edition, they had to change it somehow" thing?

Ish?

It's got most of the same systemic and narrative flaws as 3.5's system (which, y'know, no surprise there) while also not doing everything Paizo seems to want it to do; in particular, skills lack the narrative power they're often assumed or supposed to have, and most of the attempts to shore this up are either sloppy patch jobs (I will die angry about Profession: Soldier) or very late-run innovations that were not supported further (skill unlocks).

[TiaC]

I will die angry about Profession: Soldier

Storytime?

[Lord_Gareth]

Storytime?

I mean, there's not much of a story to tell. The skill system is not good at representing human people living functional lives, it's just that Prof (Soldier) is an especially egregious case. Soldiers in the real world, even as far back as the Bronze Age (let alone PF's vague Enlightenment era placement) were expected to be able to perform a dizzying array of tasks that are scattered all over PF's skill system. Prof (Soldier) as a fill-in both cannot take the place of those skills, but is narratively supposed to (see the description of Profession). To add further insult to the whole thing is its interactions with the mass combat rules, themselves not exactly great, which makes it a required investment but one that the classes most expected to have it can't use as proficiently as, say, clerics.

[Recherché]

Could do a mix of both, with skills getting +level/2 to represent baseline competence of high level guys and then you use skill points to actually pump up the skills you care about.

I'd be happier about a lot of things if everything was +.5 level and then you could make up the difference with more impact full character building choices of some variety or another. It wouldn't fix everything I dislike about PF2 by a long shot but it would make some things better.

[Beckett]

Is there a general consensus that the Pathfinder 1 skill system is broken and needs fixing, or is this a "new edition, they had to change it somehow" thing?

The only two things about PF skills that I have really ever heard of being an issue was the small number some Classes get, (should be 4+Int min), and that because it is Int Based, Wizards (and Witches) wind up about as good as Bard and Togue, if not better, which kind of sucks.

Two secondary complaints I have heard are that some skills are a bit too strong (Diplomacy, Know Arcana) and some either too vague or too weak most of the time.

[Deadkitten]

Honestly, I kinda want somewhere in the middle in regards to 2e's skill system.
I want the ammount of math, numbers,and modifiers to be low for easy calculation, say something like ability mod +1-5 points. But I also want the levels of proficiency to matter more. Like, I really want their expertise levels to have more dramatic effects on what you CAN do with a skill. A soldier who learns woodcarving to pass the time isnt gonna have a whole host of craft abilities but he could be really good at something basic.

Maybe do some kind of blend, where you have skill points, and those determine how many of your skills actually scale. Like you get Int +3 that scale with your level or something and then you get to buy skill feats for more effects. That way you can be really good at some basic skill stuff with one thing, be able to do amazing stuff with another, and be terrible at another skill within the same system.

Basically I'm for them lessining the numbers involved but I want them to have WAAAAY more effects.

[Rhedyn]

I'd rather PF2e be a Pathfinder for Pathfinder.

You could make a game that is even 3.5 compatible but plays better. Much of the general rules could be streamlined without drastically changing the system.

For skills, I think something like GURPS 4E would be better. A 3d6 core with layered crunch. You wouldn't even have to lose skill points.
GURPS has general difficulty mods, which you could use as the skill rules for every skill for GMs that want to get things done quickly. GURPS then has more rules for extra detail. That construction would appease both people who want a lighter system and those that like the detailed crunch while tying skills to a way less swinging mechanic.
You wouldn't want some of the other GURPS rules because D&D skills aren't nearly so overlapping.

[exelsisxax]

I'd rather PF2e be a Pathfinder for Pathfinder.

You could make a game that is even 3.5 compatible but plays better. Much of the general rules could be streamlined without drastically changing the system.

For skills, I think something like GURPS 4E would be better. A 3d6 core with layered crunch. You wouldn't even have to lose skill points.
GURPS has general difficulty mods, which you could use as the skill rules for every skill for GMs that want to get things done quickly. GURPS then has more rules for extra detail. That construction would appease both people who want a lighter system and those that like the detailed crunch while tying skills to a way less swinging mechanic.
You wouldn't want some of the other GURPS rules because D&D skills aren't nearly so overlapping.

How is GURPS better? Other than changing the dice to be slower and confuse people more, what are the benefits for us that haven't read new GURPS rules?

[Minion #6]

Honestly, I kinda want somewhere in the middle in regards to 2e's skill system.
I want the ammount of math, numbers,and modifiers to be low for easy calculation, say something like ability mod +1-5 points. But I also want the levels of proficiency to matter more. Like, I really want their expertise levels to have more dramatic effects on what you CAN do with a skill. A soldier who learns woodcarving to pass the time isnt gonna have a whole host of craft abilities but he could be really good at something basic.

Maybe do some kind of blend, where you have skill points, and those determine how many of your skills actually scale. Like you get Int +3 that scale with your level or something and then you get to buy skill feats for more effects. That way you can be really good at some basic skill stuff with one thing, be able to do amazing stuff with another, and be terrible at another skill within the same system.

Basically I'm for them lessining the numbers involved but I want them to have WAAAAY more effects.

Note: this isn't specifically about you per-se, Deadkitten, but I want to use this as a springboard to talk about something I've noticed.

I keep seeing this idea that 3.PF numbers are "hard to calculate." Am I the only one who doesn't find these numbers hard? Now, if you were talking about the magnitude of the number of modifiers, I could understand, as that's tracking multiple variables and whether they apply or not to a given situation. But just the magnitude of the numbers themselves? You should have your full bonus already added together before the session, so it's just double digit addition. Maybe triple digits under some very specific and unlikely conditions. And one of the numbers you are adding will be 20 or below too. We've all been doing maths that's about that hard since our early school years, surely.

Also, as I'll say forever, low numbers on a flat RNG gives too much swinginess and not enough differentiation between levels of skill. As d20 games use a 20 point scale RNG that has a flat distribution, each +1 is only 5%, which is only visible across the very long term.

[137beth]

Is there a general consensus that the Pathfinder 1 skill system is broken and needs fixing, or is this a "new edition, they had to change it somehow" thing?

Because I'm looking at things like, "In the [Level=Expertise] case, I would expect the great sage to be a higher level and the +Level system makes sense (except the great sage is also a better swimmer)" and reflecting that that looks like a great argument to revert to the Pathfinder 1 system, where each sage has +level to a handful of skills, which don't have to match, and no one has +level to everything.

Well, speaking only for myself, one thing that has always bothered me is that increasing a skill that you are already an expert in costs the same amount as increasing a skill that you previously knew nothing about. I think it should cost more to raise a skill from rank 7 to rank 8 than it does to raise a skill from rank 0 to 1.

I adjusted this in my own campaign with a house rule that raising a skill from rank (n-1) to rank n costs n skill points for a class skill, or 2n skill points for a cross-class skill (note: I play 3.5, I would probably want to rework this rule if I were playing pathfinder). To compensate, everyone gets more skill points as you level. I give everyone enough so that if you concentrate all of your skill points into as few skills as possible, you will end up maxing the same number of skills under my rule as you would under the default 3.5 rules. On the other hand, someone who wants to spread their skill points out, and maybe take 1 or 2 ranks in something as a "hobby skill," will end up gaining a lot more skill ranks under my system.

The whole +level thing that PF2 is doing doesn't really address my complaint about the PF1 skill system, but it doesn't make it worse, either (at least not at first glance...maybe my opinion would be different if I tried playing with +Level for a few years).

[AtS]

Note: this isn't specifically about you per-se, Deadkitten, but I want to use this as a springboard to talk about something I've noticed.

I keep seeing this idea that 3.PF numbers are "hard to calculate." Am I the only one who doesn't find these numbers hard? Now, if you were talking about the magnitude of the number of modifiers, I could understand, as that's tracking multiple variables and whether they apply or not to a given situation. But just the magnitude of the numbers themselves? You should have your full bonus already added together before the session, so it's just double digit addition. Maybe triple digits under some very specific and unlikely conditions. And one of the numbers you are adding will be 20 or below too. We've all been doing maths that's about that hard since our early school years, surely.

Also, as I'll say forever, low numbers on a flat RNG gives too much swinginess and not enough differentiation between levels of skill. As d20 games use a 20 point scale RNG that has a flat distribution, each +1 is only 5%, which is only visible across the very long term.

Here's a quick disclaimer - I still play/run PF1e, and enjoy it, especially when playing with a group that understands the system. I've also been participating in the PF2e playtest, in my home games and in several PBP games on various forums across the internet. My overall outlook for PF2e is positive.

I hate the rules for calculating modifiers in PF1e. There are too many different categories (twenty, including untyped), and the rules for stacking are inconsistent across categories in ways that are opaque. Why can Dodge bonuses and Circumstance bonuses stack with themselves? Why do some effects add a characters ability modifier directly, while others add typed bonuses equal to an ability modifier (which then allows them to stack with each other)?

This math to calculate your total modifier is not difficult. The difficulty comes from synthesizing all of the different ways to stack bonuses from various sources, and not making mistakes during gameplay like "I have a magic item that gives me a morale bonus, so this buff spell that the cleric just used on me that also gives a morale bonus does not stack". As a GM, I prefer to not have to micromanage this part of the game, and yet I constantly have to remind my players about which bonuses can and cannot stack with each other. It also puts a huge focus on system mastery for players to know which options to take to stack these bonuses as high as possible. Rewarding system mastery is a good thing, but PF1e over-emphasizes this aspect of the game too much for my liking.

I think that it is a good thing that PF2e has condensed this list. Now, I also think that they have over-corrected on this front, because having only Ability, Item, Proficiency, Circumstance, and Conditional types heavily limits the design space and makes many combinations of options lose synergy because almost none of them stack with each other. But the reduction of the number of types, and the removal of stacking bonuses (Dodge, Circumstance, Untyped) are both good ways to contribute to the system's ease of use and teachability; the exact number of types just needs to be adjusted slightly. (Also, like many people have mentioned, the use of Circumstance and Conditional for two of the five types is unfortunate because of the similarity between those two words in both spelling and meaning.)

Not every player in my group is great at math, nor do they have the system mastery - or, the desire to gain the system mastery - needed to recognize the underlying patterns behind PF1e's math that make the system more intuitive. To them, concepts like "full, three-fourths, and half BAB", and poor vs good save progression don't exist, they are just a bunch of numbers they have to look up on a table. They don't have all twenty bonus types and their interactions with stacking memorized. This makes character creation and advancement slower and more difficult.

I do have some problems with PF2e's +1/level system in terms of verisimilitude, especially when considering the interaction with untrained skills, but I appreciate how easy it is to explain to my players. Everyone understands how it works. Everyone understands how it applies to every proficiency on their sheet. It is consistent and easily understandable. It's also very easy to calculate without consulting a chart - the underlying pattern in the progression is explicit, while PF1e's patterns for BAB, AC, and Saves was very implicit. I hope that any revisions to the proficiency system can maintain this explicit, easy-to-understand-and-calculate paradigm, because it is an undeniable benefit for PF2e. I love that I can explain how proficiency works one time, and now my players know how to calculate their attack rolls, AC, skills, saves, spell rolls, and senses.

[T.G. Oskar]

My opinion comes from someone who likes Skill points, and similar variants in other systems.

I like the part of sitting down to think "what has my character learned in their life so far (or career)", and from there distribute points (build points, skill points, experience points, take your pick depending on the system). It gives me a way to flesh out the character.

So what would I like? Here are some suggestions I would like to see:

1. Skill points in style of 3.5/PF1 (more PF1 than 3.5 though). I would like to see it improved by increasing the base skill points available (4 being the minimum instead of 2), and make it easier to customize Class Skills a bit (similarly to Traits granting certain skills as Class Skills). Maybe instead of Traits, have a skill of your choice become Class Skill?

I was thinking of an...interesting skill system, akin to 3.5/PF, but with a bit more OOMPH!, if you were.

The basis is simple: start with the PF Skill System, where you get a 1:1 ratio in skill point cost/skill rank. Backport the "4x skill points at level 1" aspect from 3.5. Group actions on favorable skills, but define their actions in case you find ways to specialize (i.e., Listen, Search and Spot become Perception, but define the actions as Listen, Search and Spot, in case a racial feature or class feature has to grant a bonus of some sort to that specific action).

Then, kick it up a notch. Instead of Class Skills, use the PF2e concept of Favored Skills, but for an entirely different aspect. Have... 7 tiers of skill progression (Untrained, Trained, Skilled, Expert, Master, Grand Master/Legendary). Tie that to your actual skill rank (say, Untrained is having 0 skill ranks, Trained is having 1 rank, Skilled is having 4 ranks, Expert is having 8 ranks, Master is having 14 ranks, and Grand Master/Legendary is having 20 ranks on the skill). Then, have certain actions be locked behind those tiers of skill progression; however, make everything beyond Skilled progression be outlandish. Say, have a Master at Acrobatics be able to walk over water. Have a Master at Deception be able to actually charm someone. You could also have some Untrained/Trained functions have an upgrade as you increase those skill ranks: for example, you could have someone Untrained in Animal Handling be able to get the emotions of an animal (Animal Empathy), but once you upgrade to Skilled or Expert, you actually get the equivalent of Wild Empathy (Animal Whispering).

The catch? Well, to reach Expert and above, you need to have that skill be a Favored Skill. Classes give you a handful of Favored Skills, and Backgrounds (using the 5e term for it, but working a bit more like Occupations from d20 Modern) grant a few more. Races could grant Favored Skills as well, and you could have Skill Focus grant the skill as a Favored Skill as well.

However, those rules apply only for players. As I continue below...

I would just make skills level-agnostic. There's no reason a great sage needs to be higher level than a mediocre one, and if you're not willing to figure out how to design a setting in a way that makes such a result not stupid (which is doable, but I doubt Paizo wants to do it), you need to let skills scale without levels scaling. Which means that skills should mostly just be fluff things, and that you need some other way of adjudicating high level non-combat abilities. Which means that non-casters need to get more and nicer things.

NPCs don't have to play by those same rules. Skills are level-dependent for players because their progression demands it; your level progression doesn't (or shouldn't necessarily) have to depend on combat, but on a d20 system, combat is a big deal. NPCs don't have to be level 17 to be Grand Masters (or Legendary) in a specific skill that represents them; their skill mastery comes from a different way of progression than players do.

That said, the level restraint for players is a necessity for the system. If you want to play a great sage without having to fight, where adventures are less combat-reliant and more roleplaying-focused, the XP system as presented on the 3.5/PF edition of the d20 rules won't help you, because the level and experience system is heavily skewed towards combat. Divorcing skill progression from levels, considering how the 3.5/PF skill system is point-based, is one step closer to a full point-buy based system. M&M has done it, and...it's not my cup of tea, even with the "Power Level" restriction that effectively makes it level-based.

But true: non-casters need nicer things. That relies on a change in philosophy: by the time a "mundane" character is level 11 or higher, they're more supers than baseline (if you catch my drift). Maybe even lower. Something has to be powering them, whether supernatural prowess, a cocktail of chemicals from the many potions they drank, outright magic potential manifesting on a different way, mutations...anything, but expecting a Fighter to play by the same rules just because they're "mundane" won't work. That said...that's the realm of templates, though class features can help on that. Superman's powers are from his race (Kryptonian); Captain America is at the top of baselines, has some outright non-baseline abilities (fast healing and outright immunity to exhaustion), and that's because of the Vita Rays/Super Soldier serum; Batman and Iron Man are decked in gadgets and tech up the wazoo (which means Magic Items, for the most part); Wonder Woman and Thor are essentially demigods (as well as Achilles, Herakles, Perseus and most of the Heroes of Hellenic myth, which are what 20th level Fighters should be). As long as the mentality is "mundanes remain mundanes, wizards get magic so they can finger the laws of physics", things won't really change.

But all in all, I'd like to see more options for using skills as part of a group or cooperatively, outside of just Aid Another-actions. I'm not familiar with 13th Age's system, so I wouldn't mind hearing a bit about that?

13th Age, IIRC, doesn't have an actual skill system. It's more abstract. Basically, you define some aspects about yourself, plus you have your OUT (One Unique Thing) which outright makes you...well, you. Not sure if there's a rolling aspect, but the idea is, rather than say "I'm good at Perception", you can say, "I can spot a fly at 200 ft. and tell what kind of fly it is". You can then apply that to certain situations; if there's something very minute (just like a fly), you could claim you can see it because "it's just like spotting a fly". Think a lot as how Luke Skywalker in Star Wars gauged the difficulty of hitting the exhaust port on the first Death Star ("I used to bull's-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.") Someone more experienced can call me on that, though.

As for cooperative skill use, there's Rituals (at least as presented on 3.5 and d20 Modern), but that's mostly a way to handle some trouble spells (Gate, Teleport, Teleportation Circle, Planar Ally/Planar Binding) and some spells that aren't meant to use spell slots (Hallow, Guards & Wards). Making skills "extended checks" (akin to skill systems on games where successes are used, like WoD), where certain checks need a lot of successes, but don't need to be made all at once, could allow for allies to make checks on their own to add to the success pool, or reduce the chances of a failure, could also work. Making Aid Another more interesting would also go a long way. And then there's just "some skills need to be made by more than one people". Teamwork benefits from 3.5 worked this in an interesting way (it also deals with the concept of how people with different levels of skill mastery can make a Stealth check; the most experienced one becomes a team leader, and helps the others by letting them use their skill ranks, but using their own modifiers).

[Rhedyn]

How is GURPS better? Other than changing the dice to be slower and confuse people more, what are the benefits for us that haven't read new GURPS rules?

I find it pretty simple. Roll 3d6 under your score for the skill, bonuses and penalties change that score (subtract penalties, add bonuses).

With the general difficulty mods, you can run every skill quickly, which is a big issue at some tables, many tables do not actually appreciate the detail provided in 3.5. But for the people that do, you can have detailed skill tables with a list of mods for each skill (though it's not like GURPS has this, it instead just has tons of skills that default to each other at various rates, which are rules not applicable here).

3d6 is less swinging, which I feel that skills should be more reliable, it creates less of a need to stack tons of bonuses on a skill roll so that you feel like you can do things with that skill. For example, if I want to pass a DC 10 in 3.P, I won't feel confident without a +9 to the skill. Meanwhile in GURPS, I feel like I have a good shot with a score of 14 (90.74%).

[Dexter156]

But true: non-casters need nicer things. That relies on a change in philosophy: by the time a "mundane" character is level 11 or higher, they're more supers than baseline (if you catch my drift). Maybe even lower. Something has to be powering them, whether supernatural prowess, a cocktail of chemicals from the many potions they drank, outright magic potential manifesting on a different way, mutations...anything, but expecting a Fighter to play by the same rules just because they're "mundane" won't work.

I've been advocating for a change of philosophy in regards to this well. Though my request has been for developers to depower casters rather than turn non casters into anime super heroes. I'm more interested in ritual magic than hand waving bibbidi babbidy boo standard action meteor swarms.

I don't like that casters set the tone so much that because they're given overpowered abilities that everyone has to play catch up to match them.

I'm not going to sit here and hold my breath though. I'm probably in the minority on that one.

In my games I tried to explain away the ridiculousness of super powered mundanes by saying that everyone had magic inside them. It was just different kinds. A high level fighter had a strong fighting spirit that was channeling something akin to transmutation magic in order to move and hit so fast. He also had a thick layer of abjuration magic around him that absorbed damage on a consistent basis. The fighter wouldn't describe it that way - but an analytical observer versed in a multitude of knowledges might assure him that's the "science" of it.

A rogue with a high enough stealth modifier was tapping into "the void" something more powerful than even illusion magic. Same with high bluff and Diplomacy checks has traces of enchantment.

When and if magic left the world, it would affect more than just the mages. It would leave everyone depowered.

Pf2e is starting to remind me of 4th edition. It just feels so sterile.

[Rhedyn]

I've been advocating for a change of philosophy in regards to this well. Though my request has been for developers to depower casters rather than turn non casters into anime super heroes. I'm more interested in ritual magic than hand waving bibbidi babbidy boo standard action meteor swarms.

I don't like that casters set the tone so much that because they're given overpowered abilities that everyone has to play catch up to match them.

I'm not going to sit here and hold my breath though. I'm probably in the minority on that one.

In my games I tried to explain away the ridiculousness of super powered mundanes by saying that everyone had magic inside them. It was just different kinds. A high level fighter had a strong fighting spirit that was channeling something akin to transmutation magic in order to move and hit so fast. He also had a thick layer of abjuration magic around him that absorbed damage on a consistent basis. The fighter wouldn't describe it that way - but an analytical observer versed in a multitude of knowledges might assure him that's the "science" of it.

A rogue with a high enough stealth modifier was tapping into "the void" something more powerful than even illusion magic. Same with high bluff and Diplomacy checks has traces of enchantment.

When and if magic left the world, it would affect more than just the mages. It would leave everyone depowered.

Pf2e is starting to remind me of 4th edition. It just feels so sterile.

The problem with depowering casters is that the depth and breath of D&D magic is what makes the RPG system worth a damn. It's the one thing D&D does better than basically any other system. Sure some systems claim to have more comprehensive magic, but most/all of them lean heavily on GM interpretation and rulings. It's what creates the zero-to-hero curve that D&D is also known for.

PF2e has mutilated magic so terribly that they have removed any point of playing that system. Even though D&D 4e lacked much of the magic systems of previous editions, most of the magic eventually came back via rituals and was gated by cost and any hero could have access to rituals. D&D 4e took every design philosophy of PF2e except for "keep vancian magic" and did it better. Now, why is 4e dead if it is just a better PF2e? It's very likely that Paizo is about to find out. Balance isn't that important. D&D 5e is one of the worst balanced editions of D&D and it is the most popular. Balance is a tool/illusion. It's not why people play RPG systems.

[SimonMoon6]

and seeing someone flat out kill someone, motives don't matter, its still killing someone!

That's why murder, man-slaughter, and killing in self defense are all treated equally under the law.

[Storyteller_Arc]

That's why murder, man-slaughter, and killing in self defense are all treated equally under the law.

... That wasn't my point and you know it.

Yes, there's a difference between them. But it still means you killed someone.

[FatR]

Smite Evil is just, such an iconic ability of the Paladin, that having a Paladin that doesn't have Smite Evil makes the Paladin feel like a non-Paladin character.

Iconic abilities of a Paladin are a companion warhorse, a magic circle of protection from evil, and a holy sword, maybe. Not only those are the ones actually taken from the book which inspired the class (Three Hearts and Three Lions), those also were present in older editions. Smite evil only arrived in 3.0 as a ****ty attempt to patch character concept taken from the book where a DnD troll (inspired by the same source) was the absolute, legendary peak of physical threats so that it may work in high-powered fantasy.

Like. How different would the Rogue feel if you had NO sneak attack at all? Or a bard without any musicial abilities? Or a druid without any shape shifting?

Fine enough, all of those (unless you count backstab for sneak attack) only became key parts of those classes in 3.0 as well. There also are reasons to question very existence of these classes in their 3.X/PF1 forms.

I'm drawing attention to this because, as I've already mentioned, self-referencing and seeking inspiration nowhere but in itself, going on and on in recursive cycles, is a bane on DnD/PF, and the paladin's case illustrates why. As I've said, the paladin class was inspired by a particular book. It so happens, that the actual focus of that book was on the main character dealing with various minions of evil through cleverness, modern knowledge of physics and moral fortitude, while his boons and abilities that one could actually turn into mechanical class features were more like crutches that allowed him not to perish immediately in the hostile world. It also happens, that the author used "Law" as a stand-in for "Good" (and was one of the two authors who majorly influenced DnD and used "Chaos" as a stand-in for "Evil"), which was kept initially in DnD, until writers of the latter supplements missed the memo, which resulted in a lot of neurons wasted on the question what exactly "Lawful Good" means, because depending on the answer to that question a paladin could be suddenly rendered unplayable, even specific clarifications in PF2's rulebook are still pretty stupid. For many editions now DnD is struggling to justify existence of a class that does not even accurately reflect the character it was based on, and in any case fits a world without Christianity like a square peg fits a round hole. Even though the class is mostly famous for the tradition of causing problems at the gaming table.

And now to the point to which I'm leading here: I'm not inclined to care about any edition of DnD which is so petty as to consider preserving specific creatures of a class a substantial goal. A class that frankly needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (for example as a generalized protector of mortals from the otherworldly and supernatural evils arrayed against them, who can pursue several different paths, from a classic mounted knight to monster-purging gunslinger, depending on his selected martial school, but will get access to pretty crazy powers at mid-to-high levels whatever he chooses; as I did in my own personal heartbreaker), if it has to be included at all, no less.

And PF2 does not demonstrate any sort of mechanical brilliance to compensate for its conceptual faults. So far it is yet another attempt to make a new DnD, that has an objectively worse base engine than 3.X. While I was wrong to predict early on that Paizo will leave all of the old mechanical issues intact, they've replaced them with new and worse ones.

[Rhedyn]

Iconic abilities of a Paladin are a companion warhorse, a magic circle of protection from evil, and a holy sword, maybe. Not only those are the ones actually taken from the book which inspired the class (Three Hearts and Three Lions), those also were present in older editions. Smite evil only arrived in 3.0 as a ****ty attempt to patch character concept taken from the book where a DnD troll (inspired by the same source) was the absolute, legendary peak of physical threats so that it may work in high-powered fantasy.



Fine enough, all of those (unless you count backstab for sneak attack) only became key parts of those classes in 3.0 as well. There also are reasons to question very existence of these classes in their 3.X/PF1 forms.

I'm drawing attention to this because, as I've already mentioned, self-referencing and seeking inspiration nowhere but in itself, going on and on in recursive cycles, is a bane on DnD/PF, and the paladin's case illustrates why. As I've said, the paladin class was inspired by a particular book. It so happens, that the actual focus of that book was on the main character dealing with various minions of evil through cleverness, modern knowledge of physics and moral fortitude, while his boons and abilities that one could actually turn into mechanical class features were more like crutches that allowed him not to perish immediately in the hostile world. It also happens, that the author used "Law" as a stand-in for "Good" (and was one of the two authors who majorly influenced DnD and used "Chaos" as a stand-in for "Evil"), which was kept initially in DnD, until writers of the latter supplements missed the memo, which resulted in a lot of neurons wasted on the question what exactly "Lawful Good" means, because depending on the answer to that question a paladin could be suddenly rendered unplayable, even specific clarifications in PF2's rulebook are still pretty stupid. For many editions now DnD is struggling to justify existence of a class that does not even accurately reflect the character it was based on, and in any case fits a world without Christianity like a square peg fits a round hole. Even though the class is mostly famous for the tradition of causing problems at the gaming table.

And now to the point to which I'm leading here: I'm not inclined to care about any edition of DnD which is so petty as to consider preserving specific creatures of a class a substantial goal. A class that frankly needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (for example as a generalized protector of mortals from the otherworldly and supernatural evils arrayed against them, who can pursue several different paths, from a classic mounted knight to monster-purging gunslinger, depending on his selected martial school, but will get access to pretty crazy powers at mid-to-high levels whatever he chooses; as I did in my own personal heartbreaker), if it has to be included at all, no less.

And PF2 does not demonstrate any sort of mechanical brilliance to compensate for its conceptual faults. So far it is yet another attempt to make a new DnD, that has an objectively worse base engine than 3.X. While I was wrong to predict early on that Paizo will leave all of the old mechanical issues intact, they've replaced them with new and worse ones.

Point of Order: BECMI or Basic D&D only had Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic alignments and they were the bedrock of the Mystara setting which was ruled by Immortals of spheres not Gods. Paladin's in BECMI were lawful while Avengers were chaotic and both were level 9 Fighters who met the requirements and didn't become Lords. Also, having an alignment gave you an alignment language that others or your alignment could speak, which was part of how Avengers could recruit monsters mid dungeon to fight for them.

The idea of a Paladin is a decent class concept, I think the PF Warpriest does an entirely better job at the idea for the standard D&D cosmology and the 5e Paladin's only real flaw is existing in a "bad" (IMO) system.

I can't disagree about PF2e being terrible at almost every level.

[BWR]

Mystara setting which was rules by Immortals of spheres not Gods.

They are gods in everything but name, and some of the modules refer to them as gods.

[Morty]

I've been advocating for a change of philosophy in regards to this well. Though my request has been for developers to depower casters rather than turn non casters into anime super heroes. I'm more interested in ritual magic than hand waving bibbidi babbidy boo standard action meteor swarms.

I don't like that casters set the tone so much that because they're given overpowered abilities that everyone has to play catch up to match them.

I'm not going to sit here and hold my breath though. I'm probably in the minority on that one.

In my games I tried to explain away the ridiculousness of super powered mundanes by saying that everyone had magic inside them. It was just different kinds. A high level fighter had a strong fighting spirit that was channeling something akin to transmutation magic in order to move and hit so fast. He also had a thick layer of abjuration magic around him that absorbed damage on a consistent basis. The fighter wouldn't describe it that way - but an analytical observer versed in a multitude of knowledges might assure him that's the "science" of it.

A rogue with a high enough stealth modifier was tapping into "the void" something more powerful than even illusion magic. Same with high bluff and Diplomacy checks has traces of enchantment.

When and if magic left the world, it would affect more than just the mages. It would leave everyone depowered.

Pf2e is starting to remind me of 4th edition. It just feels so sterile.

And for every player who shares your opinion you'll find one or two that don't. They want non-casters to compete while staying the way they are, or they just want them to be weaker because that makes playing them some sort of point of pride. Or they're emotionally invested in the spellcasters' superiority, particularly wizards - this one is pretty baked into the game. There's no consensus among players or designers or anyone else what high-level characters should be, and it's unlikely to ever be reached.

The problem with depowering casters is that the depth and breath of D&D magic is what makes the RPG system worth a damn. It's the one thing D&D does better than basically any other system. Sure some systems claim to have more comprehensive magic, but most/all of them lean heavily on GM interpretation and rulings. It's what creates the zero-to-hero curve that D&D is also known for.

I wouldn't say most/all other magic systems lean heavily on GM rulings, but other than that this is on point. Remove magic from D&D and there's little left.

PF2e has mutilated magic so terribly that they have removed any point of playing that system. Even though D&D 4e lacked much of the magic systems of previous editions, most of the magic eventually came back via rituals and was gated by cost and any hero could have access to rituals. D&D 4e took every design philosophy of PF2e except for "keep vancian magic" and did it better. Now, why is 4e dead if it is just a better PF2e? It's very likely that Paizo is about to find out. Balance isn't that important. D&D 5e is one of the worst balanced editions of D&D and it is the most popular. Balance is a tool/illusion. It's not why people play RPG systems.

I agree that balance isn't as important as people make it out to be, but I'd say 5E is better balanced than 3E, simply because it doesn't go out of its way to screw over certain characters. My crossbow-using rogue was dull like a bowl of oatmeal in combat, but she could at least get ranged sneak attacks reliably. I didn't feel like the game didn't want me to do anything, which is a constant feeling fora 3E rogue.

Iconic abilities of a Paladin are a companion warhorse, a magic circle of protection from evil, and a holy sword, maybe. Not only those are the ones actually taken from the book which inspired the class (Three Hearts and Three Lions), those also were present in older editions. Smite evil only arrived in 3.0 as a ****ty attempt to patch character concept taken from the book where a DnD troll (inspired by the same source) was the absolute, legendary peak of physical threats so that it may work in high-powered fantasy.

Fine enough, all of those (unless you count backstab for sneak attack) only became key parts of those classes in 3.0 as well. There also are reasons to question very existence of these classes in their 3.X/PF1 forms.

I'm drawing attention to this because, as I've already mentioned, self-referencing and seeking inspiration nowhere but in itself, going on and on in recursive cycles, is a bane on DnD/PF, and the paladin's case illustrates why. As I've said, the paladin class was inspired by a particular book. It so happens, that the actual focus of that book was on the main character dealing with various minions of evil through cleverness, modern knowledge of physics and moral fortitude, while his boons and abilities that one could actually turn into mechanical class features were more like crutches that allowed him not to perish immediately in the hostile world. It also happens, that the author used "Law" as a stand-in for "Good" (and was one of the two authors who majorly influenced DnD and used "Chaos" as a stand-in for "Evil"), which was kept initially in DnD, until writers of the latter supplements missed the memo, which resulted in a lot of neurons wasted on the question what exactly "Lawful Good" means, because depending on the answer to that question a paladin could be suddenly rendered unplayable, even specific clarifications in PF2's rulebook are still pretty stupid. For many editions now DnD is struggling to justify existence of a class that does not even accurately reflect the character it was based on, and in any case fits a world without Christianity like a square peg fits a round hole. Even though the class is mostly famous for the tradition of causing problems at the gaming table.

And now to the point to which I'm leading here: I'm not inclined to care about any edition of DnD which is so petty as to consider preserving specific creatures of a class a substantial goal. A class that frankly needs to be rebuilt from the ground up (for example as a generalized protector of mortals from the otherworldly and supernatural evils arrayed against them, who can pursue several different paths, from a classic mounted knight to monster-purging gunslinger, depending on his selected martial school, but will get access to pretty crazy powers at mid-to-high levels whatever he chooses; as I did in my own personal heartbreaker), if it has to be included at all, no less.

D&D being stuck in a self-referential loop of only drawing inspiration from itself expresses something I've felt for a while but couldn't quite phrase.

[exelsisxax]

I find it pretty simple. Roll 3d6 under your score for the skill, bonuses and penalties change that score (subtract penalties, add bonuses).

With the general difficulty mods, you can run every skill quickly, which is a big issue at some tables, many tables do not actually appreciate the detail provided in 3.5. But for the people that do, you can have detailed skill tables with a list of mods for each skill (though it's not like GURPS has this, it instead just has tons of skills that default to each other at various rates, which are rules not applicable here).

3d6 is less swinging, which I feel that skills should be more reliable, it creates less of a need to stack tons of bonuses on a skill roll so that you feel like you can do things with that skill. For example, if I want to pass a DC 10 in 3.P, I won't feel confident without a +9 to the skill. Meanwhile in GURPS, I feel like I have a good shot with a score of 14 (90.74%).

It's simple in GURPS because they use 3d6 all the time(for everything now?). It isn't simple in a D20 game, because you don't use 3d6 for anything. You use a D20. D20 are also roll-over systems, and it is objectively bad to mix the two like that.

All this does is curve the probability and slow the slow people down more.

[skaddix]

It doesn't matter when Paladins got Smite Evil...it is the defining ability of Paladins throughout Fantasy Fiction.

Smites Evil, Heals Others, and Wears Heavy Armor (High Defense). That is the stereotypical Paladin.

[exelsisxax]

It doesn't matter when Paladins got Smite Evil...it is the defining ability of Paladins throughout Fantasy Fiction.

Smites Evil, Heals Others, and Wears Heavy Armor (High Defense). That is the stereotypical Paladin.

But NOWHERE in fantasy fiction, excepting D&D and derivatives, is it ever described as a specific melee attack (inexplicably) only able to be used a limited number of times per day. It is usually that they do 'smiting' all the time, and are extra secret sauce super good at it against evil things all the time, or more rarely can do a specific smiting attack an effectively unlimited number of times.

[Rynjin]

But NOWHERE in fantasy fiction, excepting D&D and derivatives, is it ever described as a specific melee attack (inexplicably) only able to be used a limited number of times per day. It is usually that they do 'smiting' all the time, and are extra secret sauce super good at it against evil things all the time, or more rarely can do a specific smiting attack an effectively unlimited number of times.

Pathfinder Paladins aren't limited to melee, FYI, but I get your general point.

Still, I think everyone can agree that replacing the iconic Smite Evil, even if not a perfect representation of Paladins in most fantasy, with "can block with shield" is baffling.