What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[kyoryu]

The idea was to try to build a completely modular magic system. How a magic effect worked were broadly defined by "type" and "effect" values. What the spell did was defined by "element" (I may have called it something else though). Spells were all point based, with some cost that had to be paid when casting the effect. Resistances in the game system were all tied to the same "element" value (though some save/avoid type things might work against different effect types, like something like evasion). Spelll casters basically had a point buy kind of system for being able to do various things within each category. Said points determine how good you were at different effects (and how powerful the resulting effects actually were).

Sounds a lot like powers in Champions.

[gbaji]

Hearkening back to AD&D 2e, I like the idea of defining things by both Schools and Spheres... a School is HOW something is done, and a Sphere is WHAT is done. You also have Thaumaturgical specialties, which determine the tools used to do things (a spellcaster v. an alchemist v. a wild mage v. a song mage).

A wizard who is both a Fire Wizard and a Lightning Wizard might be an Evocation specialist, because Evocation is the creation of energy. However, a pure Fire Wizard might specialize in the Sphere of Fire, allowing not just Burning Hands (alteration) and Fireball (evocation), but also summoning fire elementals (conjuration). A Protection specialist would be good with Armor, and Shield, and Warding Winds, while an Abjuration specialist wouldn't, because that's not how Abjuration does things. Some schools would naturally mesh well with some spheres... a lot of Charms are going to be of the Enchantment school... but you'll also have outliers, like Rainbow Pattern.

This would require renaming a couple Schools, I think... you'd want the School to be just Conjuration, so it would be distinction from the Sphere of Summoning... but it creates a dichotomy that allows people to approach things from different ways.

Yeah. I think that having ways to make specializations work across a couple different axis would be interesting. Devil's always in the details though.


Sounds a lot like powers in Champions.

Yeah. I did play a heck of a lot of champions back in the 80s, and this was certainly my inspiration. And part of the idea was exactly that you'd use some kind of math and effects combining to create a spell, then learn the spell and use it (I'm sure I had some research skill involved in that too). And having the player define the "look and feel" of the spell was certainly part of it as well. I also very vaguely recall playing a CRPG that had some ability to custom create spells as well (I want to say something I played back in the mid 90s, maybe Elder Scrolls?). So I'm sure there were a few different sources of inspiration for this.

Someone mentioned Ars Magica. I did hear about, and knew some folks who played it, but actually never played it myself. Could have just been the descriptions of the few people I knew who played, but it felt like it was overly focused on magic users, and didn't have as much balance for the kind of more traditional "sword and sorcery" type game I was going for. Could have totally been wrong with that interpretation though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My personal preference is for game systems that don't pretend to be generic "build anything you want". Because that generally produces diluted, wimpy detail. If everything has to be generic, the system can't really support any particular "archetypes" very well at all. Or the amount of material explodes exponentially, which makes it really hard to get a handle on.

Pick a few (how many is up to you, but a small discrete set of) character "concepts" you want your system to support. Allow for some variation within those, but in a class-based system you don't have to actually give very much at the class level. Most of the variation between characters comes in the, well, characterization. The parts that aren't found in the class entry. And then build the game around those and make sure they work really really well. Anything else? Use at your own risk. They're not supported, so if they break, it's on you to fix/extend the system so they work. If you want to.

The same goes for "genres" to a large degree--a game that is designed around death-is-easy, combat-is-rare shouldn't have to have dials and levers to make it handle D&D-style "heroic fantasy" well. That's just out of scope. Saying "yeah, this game doesn't support that" is a good thing. Pick a few things you want to do, and do them well. And don't feel bad when people say "but what about <other concept here>."

At the same time, class-based games shouldn't be closed to/fragile under extension. You should be able to, as a content creator (DM, etc), fairly easily build a "conforming" new class. Or spell. Or "race". Or whatever. To me, PF2e fails this latter part--the system is so tightly wound and the pieces depend on each other tightly enough that unless you have the entire tooling to figure out exactly the right set of abilities, you'll either create something non-functional or beyond expectations (in a bad way). It's simple to take the existing pieces and build encounters for them. It's comparatively hard to create something unique or step outside the rigid guidelines. Although my understanding on this is superficial and I very well could be wrong.

[icefractal]

Pick a few (how many is up to you, but a small discrete set of) character "concepts" you want your system to support. Allow for some variation within those, but in a class-based system you don't have to actually give very much at the class level. Most of the variation between characters comes in the, well, characterization. The parts that aren't found in the class entry. And then build the game around those and make sure they work really really well. Anything else? Use at your own risk. They're not supported, so if they break, it's on you to fix/extend the system so they work. If you want to.I guess this comes down to preferences, but that sounds like a system I wouldn't enjoy much.

Sure, even mechanically identical characters can have different characterization - but that applies to everything, including classes. You don't "need" those either - and in fact some ultra-light systems do just that, leaving all differentiation to roleplaying. But in a crunchy system that's not what I'm looking for.

Because frankly it's going to be hit-or-miss whether the "concepts" the system designers chose to include are the same ones I want to play, and "just add a new class" is a big ask for most groups. IME, the majority of GMs don't often feel like building or reviewing a bunch of homebrew.

Also - and this is a personal preference admittedly - I see crunch as a vehicle for customization / invention. A mechanically heavy system where you just play one of 5-10 established character types, in mechanically the same way as anyone else playing that class? What's the point? What is the crunch even accomplishing then? It's like using a semi-truck to move a single bag of groceries around.

[Psyren]

Paizo nuking drow from their setting(s)* is another turn-off for me personally. With the new lore replacing them with Serpentfolk, I can port that over to 5e easily enough via Yuan-Ti or Sarrukhs or even some pretty enlightened Lizardfolk, but not so much the reverse.

*understandably so, but still

[RandomPeasant]

it's easy to homebrew stuff for, and it's broken enough by default that making new stuff is unlikely to unbalance it any further.

If this is what you want, I do not understand why you would pick 5e over 3e. 3e is all of those things but people have been working on the system for a literal decade more than 5e.


5e going "you either play a high-tier caster or a low-tier martial" and PF2e doubling down on making everyone play like a PF1 baseline Fighter would, except worse numerically.

The problem, I think, is that there is not actually a very large constituency for specifically "I want to play a martial character that gets to do cool things at high levels". The people who want to do cool things at high levels are largely okay with playing casters, and the people who specifically want to play martials mostly define their desired characters around examples like Conan or Aragorn or Arthur who are simply not very high level. So there's not a very strong incentive to make a game where the martials don't suck.


The biggest hurdle is probably 3.5 and PF1 still existing. You would not open a new niche, you would try to displace huge, established games.

I think this is true to a degree, but those systems do have a lot of cruft. If you could make something that offered a value proposition of "3.5 play patterns, but with all the stuff you want in one book", I think that would be enough to convince people to switch. The big issue is that I don't think game designers are competent to deliver that.


So I think a new system with similar leanings but somewhat better balance (not the PF2 kind, of course), designed along the lines of "everyone is capable, everyone is heroic, everyone gets to be fantastical but in different ways, and you get a decent amount of customization to boot" would find a niche pretty easily.

I think the problem there is network effects, though not quite in the way Satinavian is suggesting. I think you can get people to shift away from 3e/PF pretty easily. In fact, most tables currently playing 3.5/PF are doing some amount of that whether they realize it or not. The issue is getting your system to the point where it is more than "some guy's houserules", and I'm really skeptical of anyone coming in and doing that. The only reason PF was able to do it in the first place was that they had established brand legitimacy and that WotC had shot themselves right in the face with 4e.


Pretty much. I'd still steal the skill system for any d20 project I might have in the future, it is, thus far, the closest any d20 got to being good skill-wise.

Honestly I don't understand why people keep trying to fix the d20 skill system. The secret truth is that the d20 skill system is fine. It does the thing it is supposed to do: modeling the ~human end of capabilities. It doesn't need to do more than that. You don't get true seeing by having a really big Spot check, you get it by having an ability independent of the skill system that gives you true seeing. The only reason to fix the skill system is an insistence that there be non-overlapping magisteria between how casters get high level abilities and how non-casters get them.


One of the things that actually stops me from even trying to make an updated 3.5 hack is the fact that you can't have backwards compatibility if you want it to be simplified and still work well. Some spells would work differently, monster math would change, feats would change and drag even more changes to monster math, etc. The base mechanics and classes are pretty easy, but the rest of the content would be a back-breaking amount of work, and nobody's gonna play a system with no content for it.

You don't really need to change the monster math. You can actually get quite a long way with a "subset of a superset" approach to 3e. It's just that the things that are hard to do with that approach are really hard to do. There is just flatly no good approach to monster PCs that does not blow up the system one way or another, for instance. But 3e is honestly much closer to the perfect version of what it is trying to do that any other version of D&D, which is why I am content with an approach to expanding it that relies primarily on writing new homebrew content.


Pick a few (how many is up to you, but a small discrete set of) character "concepts" you want your system to support. Allow for some variation within those, but in a class-based system you don't have to actually give very much at the class level. Most of the variation between characters comes in the, well, characterization. The parts that aren't found in the class entry. And then build the game around those and make sure they work really really well. Anything else? Use at your own risk. They're not supported, so if they break, it's on you to fix/extend the system so they work. If you want to.

This just seems like a pitch for not expecting game designers to work very hard. You actually can balance a large range of diverse concepts that are mechanically distinct and allow for real variation, you just have to be willing to test things extensively and revise things that don't work. Making every Barbarian a linear list of Barbarian abilities is just taking away the ability of people to build the characters they want so you do less work on the frontend. But that's an enormously inefficient distribution of resources, for the same reason that we generally sell cars prefabricated.


You should be able to, as a content creator (DM, etc), fairly easily build a "conforming" new class.

Fun fact: the way to do this is to do the same things you would do if you were writing a lot of classes yourself. If you have a set of well-defined benchmarks for character performance that you use to ensure classes are balanced, you can just expose those to DMs that want to make new classes.


Sure, even mechanically identical characters can have different characterization - but that applies to everything, including classes.

Also some class concepts just don't work without customization. The Binder, for instance, flat out does not function if you do not have a variety of Vestiges which you can bind. There is certainly room for some classes that are relatively "on rails", but it is also good to have classes that are customizable, because "customizability" is one of the things people want out of characters. Insofar as you should be limiting class-based customization, it's because you should be adding analogous non-class customization. No need to write an "Arcane Assassin" Wizard archetype and a "Panther Aspect" Druid archetype and a "Thug" Fighter archetype when you can just write a generalized "is a little bit a Rogue" ability that members of all three classes can pick.

[Ignimortis]

If this is what you want, I do not understand why you would pick 5e over 3e. 3e is all of those things but people have been working on the system for a literal decade more than 5e.
The cruft you mention a bit below in your post is the reason. The system's bloat is too high for the GM. He regards the idea that 3.5 works great when you make it work as laughable.



The problem, I think, is that there is not actually a very large constituency for specifically "I want to play a martial character that gets to do cool things at high levels". The people who want to do cool things at high levels are largely okay with playing casters, and the people who specifically want to play martials mostly define their desired characters around examples like Conan or Aragorn or Arthur who are simply not very high level. So there's not a very strong incentive to make a game where the martials don't suck.
I dunno. Online spaces might be showcasing a minority, but a lot of people here and on other forums do seem to want martials that match up to casters' shenanigans, and not in a "casters are now grounded and low-impact as well" way. I think that the age of people primarily seeking to play martials as Aragorn or toned-down Arthur is past, and there's a meaningful player base who would want martials to be more akin to shonen anime heroes.



Honestly I don't understand why people keep trying to fix the d20 skill system. The secret truth is that the d20 skill system is fine. It does the thing it is supposed to do: modeling the ~human end of capabilities. It doesn't need to do more than that. You don't get true seeing by having a really big Spot check, you get it by having an ability independent of the skill system that gives you true seeing. The only reason to fix the skill system is an insistence that there be non-overlapping magisteria between how casters get high level abilities and how non-casters get them.
Ehhh. The skill system is a decent way to give everyone abilities appropriate to their chosen class, which is why it's tempting to make it function for higher-level abilities too. It ties in with mechanics/fluff interplay, as well - for instance, if you want to have a 500-ft long jump, wouldn't it be natural for that to require you Athletics/Jump/what have you at a sufficiently high level, rather than as an arbitrary "you do a 500-ft long jump" button?



You don't really need to change the monster math. You can actually get quite a long way with a "subset of a superset" approach to 3e. It's just that the things that are hard to do with that approach are really hard to do. There is just flatly no good approach to monster PCs that does not blow up the system one way or another, for instance. But 3e is honestly much closer to the perfect version of what it is trying to do that any other version of D&D, which is why I am content with an approach to expanding it that relies primarily on writing new homebrew content.
I might have not expressed this correctly - monster math wouldn't as much change, but everything would have to be recalculated using the new baselines and feats and spells and so on, and then checked for similar performance. And that would probably be the hardest part to do even with just MM1, especially if you do want to play to 3e-style MM strengths and abstain from "Most of MM can fit on a business card" design of 4e or "monsters get arbitrary numbers because they're there to fight and die" of 5e.

[Kurald Galain]

I dunno. Online spaces might be showcasing a minority, but a lot of people here and on other forums do seem to want martials that match up to casters' shenanigans, and not in a "casters are now grounded and low-impact as well" way. I think that the age of people primarily seeking to play martials Aragorn or toned-down Arthur is past, and there's a meaningful player base who would want martials to be more akin to shonen anime heroes.

Yes, or for those that dislike anime, martials akin to Beowulf, Herakles, or Cuchulainn; or if you're into superhero sources, Hawkeye or Juggernaut. There are some seriously impressive martial feats found in the various mythologies (as well as certain other RPGs printed decades ago) that have somehow eluded D&D.

[RandomPeasant]

I dunno. Online spaces might be showcasing a minority, but a lot of people here and on other forums do seem to want martials that match up to casters' shenanigans, and not in a "casters are now grounded and low-impact as well" way.

See that's the opposite of my perception of online spaces, or at least this forum. There is a whole contingent of people here who insists that you should be able to play a totally mundane martial all the way to 20th level and that if you can't do that something terribly important has been removed from the game. There are people who would like martials to have cool abilities, but my perception of those people is that none of those people think that having to play Doctor Strange instead of Kaladin Stormblessed is a dealbreaker for the system in the way that the "no magic, mundane only, final destination" people seem to.


Ehhh. The skill system is a decent way to give everyone abilities appropriate to their chosen class, which is why it's tempting to make it function for higher-level abilities too. It ties in with mechanics/fluff interplay, as well - for instance, if you want to have a 500-ft long jump, wouldn't it be natural for that to require you Athletics/Jump/what have you at a sufficiently high level, rather than as an arbitrary "you do a 500-ft long jump" button?

But there's not always that neat correspondence between high level and low level abilities. Sure, "Leap to the Heavens" sounds like it makes sense as an outgrowth of Jump. But what is Use Rope supposed to grow up into? What's the skill that turns into teleport or scrying or speak with dead? And it creates a binding between "how many skills you get" and "how many high level abilities you get" which causes problems. On the one hand, it means that the Fighter needs some class-derived abilities to keep up with the Rogue unless you totally equalize class skills, and on the other hand it makes classes like Bard or Beguiler that do skills at low levels but get high level magic broken by default. And it means forcing continuity that people don't necessarily want. Maybe the guy playing the gruff woodsman wants to do the fabricate track at high levels, not the plane shift one you think is appropriate for Rangers (though a straightforwardly class-based approach has this issue as well).


I might have not expressed this correctly - monster math wouldn't as much change, but everything would have to be recalculated using the new baselines and feats and spells and so on, and then checked for similar performance. And that would probably be the hardest part to do even with just MM1, especially if you do want to play to 3e-style MM strengths and abstain from "Most of MM can fit on a business card" design of 4e or "monsters get arbitrary numbers because they're there to fight and die" of 5e.

I still don't really understand what you're thinking needs to change. I suppose if you changed feat progression (which you do probably want to do), you'd have to declare a certain level of non-transparency between PCs and monsters that doesn't exist currently, but you can get a long way before you stop being able to open up a MM, pull out a monster, and have it mechanically function in a fight. I don't really see what spells have to do with it at all, because the spells monsters use aren't the ones that need to change. There's no creature out there that relies on using planar binding.

[Rynjin]

Paizo nuking drow from their setting(s)*
*understandably so, but still

I also think it's understandable but probably for different reasons than you: Pathfinder NEVER really used Drow. Mind you they never really used Serpentfolk either, but they're kind of inherently more interesting and do have some fleshing out of their culture where Drow are just "evil elves". You have to backport stuff from 3.5 for them to be an actual race.

[Kurald Galain]

But what is Use Rope supposed to grow up into?
Throwing a lasso around Jormungand.


What's the skill that turns into teleport or scrying or speak with dead?
Respectively, a really high movement rate (in certain settings, "flash step" is not literally teleportation but actually moving ludicrously fast); perception (as in, fire an arrow at the horizon and hit your target; I'm pretty sure you can do that both in Exalted and Broken Worlds); and perform (as in, enter the underworld to speak with its master and charm him; that's straight from Greek mythology).

[Zuras]

Well, yes. "Gritty" is one of those terms that is super vague, and everybody has a slightly different definition of what it means. Much like "videogamey" in the other thread.

Gritty often means "characters can get one shot". It often means "high degree of PC mortality" (those two are related, but not always the same). It can mean lots of maintenance on gear. It can mean you get diseases from getting hit a lot.

For me, it means, basically, pain. It means that victories, as often as not, are won at a cost, even if that cost is just "we're not getting a victory over here".

For others, it's that people aren't flying around everywhere.

And nobody is going to agree on the definition, so the best you can really do, I think, is get specific about what you mean by "gritty" in a given conversation, and measure it against those specific things.


Gritty clearly exists in opposition to “heroic”, but how individual games get labeled is much fuzzier. For D&D style games gritty usually means more sword and sorcery elements and fewer epic fantasy elements. I’d have a hard time calling PF2 gritty when it lets mid level PCs cut a swathe through dozens of orcs or other low level foes without breaking a sweat as “gritty”, though.

[RandomPeasant]

Throwing a lasso around Jormungand.

That's an attack action. If you're making skills drive combat abilities, you might as well have a skill-based system rather than a class-based one.


Respectively, a really high movement rate (in certain settings, "flash step" is not literally teleportation but actually moving ludicrously fast); perception (as in, fire an arrow at the horizon and hit your target; I'm pretty sure you can do that both in Exalted and Broken Worlds); and perform (as in, enter the underworld to speak with its master and charm him; that's straight from Greek mythology).

Of these, only Perception even kinda works. "Speedster" and "teleporter" are different characters, making one turn into the other is going to satisfy neither's fans. Perform doesn't have anything to do with what speak with dead actually does (get a specific corpse you have personally found to answer questions), making it so that it does makes extremely strong setting assumptions and frankly generalizes Perform into a "do anything" skill. If you can speak with the dead by playing a lyre at the god of the dead, presumably you can equally fly by playing the piano for the god of the skies or replicate the effects of fabricate by playing the bongos for the god of craftsmen. It's a character who is mechanically a Wizard and flavorfully halfway between a Cleric and a Bard, and all of those characters have high level abilities that work just fine without being connected to the skill system.

[Psyren]

I also think it's understandable but probably for different reasons than you: Pathfinder NEVER really used Drow. Mind you they never really used Serpentfolk either, but they're kind of inherently more interesting and do have some fleshing out of their culture where Drow are just "evil elves". You have to backport stuff from 3.5 for them to be an actual race.

One of the big draws of Golarion and Paizo's monomyth setting approach back in PF1, at least for me, was that it was the ultimate kitchen sink - I could do standard FR / Sword Coast stuff around the Inner Sea, or Rokugan stuff over in Tian Xia, or Mournland stuff over in Arkenstar, or Chult/Xen'drik stuff in Mwangi, or Barovia stuff in Geb... or Underdark stuff in the Darklands. It made repurposing D&D modules for PF easy.

And sure, I can still do most of that, but the further canonical Golarion drifts from its roots, the more adjustments I'll end up having to make. It started with not really having a good analogue for Beholders and Mindflayers, now we're losing Drow and Duergar, and I can easily see the gap widening. It's not a dealbreaker, but it is a loss of a selling point (again, for me.)

[kyoryu]

Gritty clearly exists in opposition to “heroic”, but how individual games get labeled is much fuzzier. For D&D style games gritty usually means more sword and sorcery elements and fewer epic fantasy elements. I’d have a hard time calling PF2 gritty when it lets mid level PCs cut a swathe through dozens of orcs or other low level foes without breaking a sweat as “gritty”, though.

Is it? I'd argue it's superheroic vs. heroic.

I've seen the definition between those two basically defined as (simplified), superheroes win because they're awesome. Heroes win because they're determined.

You'll notice that the definition of "heroic" in that view matches pretty closely to my view of "gritty".

So, to me, still, gritty is about pain. It is about sacrifice. It's about winning despite being outclassed, and winning despite the cost.

Most RPGs are bad at gritty because most don't really have a way for meaningful costs to carry forward. By my definition of "gritty".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't have a strong personal definition of "gritty". But I do contrast it with "heroic" at least to some degree.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/fictional-characters/gritty/ says


Its [gritty] metaphorical sense, for something “coarse,” emerges in the late 19th century. One early example comes from a 1888 New York collection of literary criticism that uses gritty to describe the book Annie Kilburn. A critic describes the book as “perfectly real, if rather grim and gritty, in its portrayal of characters and manners.”

Gritty spread in the 20th century as a common term critics and viewers would use to describe films and TV shows (and later, comic books and video games) that were especially realistic, raw, harsh, or cynical–such as film noir or Westerns.


So in this context, it feels like a "gritty" setting/game to me is one where some or all of the following are true
1. The expectation is that you'll have lots of Sophie's Choices (lose lose, all choices suck in different ways). Even if you act perfectly...you'll still not pull off many "clean victories". You may actually do some good, but it will almost always involve losses and sacrifices (including trolley-type sacrifices of innocents).
2. There isn't a strong Good vs Evil vibe, more Grey-on-Grey.
3. Violence isn't pretty. Death is easy and cheap, fighting fair is frowned on, and even a single hit can seriously injure/kill someone. And recovery isn't fast and easy either.
4. Cynicism is rampant. Fewer Knights in Shining Armor and many more Heroes in Sour Armor. And anti-heros.
5. There is an emphasis on realism, both philosophically, metaphysically, and at the game level.

Contrast these with two other similar things (for me)--
Grimdark takes all of the gritty aspects and turns them up to Ugly. At the extreme--
1. Even when you win, you lose. Nothing you do for good will really matter, and often it was a trick and you were working for the bad guys (see #2) all along.
2. More Black on ludicrously Blacker. No good guys here at all, only differently nasty.
3. Violence is almost comically gruesome. Death isn't just cheap, it's shoved down your throat.
4. Cynical people aren't able to keep up with the necessary cynicism of the setting. Despair is much more appropriate. Generally no heroes at all, only various flavors of villains
5. Realism is out the window in favor of whatever makes things grimmer and darker. 1:1000000 bad chances happen more frequently than they should.

Heroic takes the other tack. Again once you move far enough away,
1. You can often (if not always) get a golden ending. Sacrifices of heroes are ok, but generally you can save most, if not all, of the innocents.
2. Good triumphs over Evil (unless Good screws up badly). But in either case, Good and Evil are at least fairly clearly distinguishable.
3. Violence of heroes against villains is somewhat stylized. Villains and their mooks die (sometimes in droves) and the heroes take a beating, but they recover by the next time there's a big fight. Death (for heroes) is harder and often only happens with heroic sacrifices.
4. There is actual hope. And isn't punished. Good deeds are rewarded (possibly differently than evil ones). There can be happily ever afters.
5. Realism is also out the window to some degree, but on the other side. People survive things they shouldn't, 1:1000000 good chances happen more frequently than they should.

[Psyren]

I think both D&D and PF are capable of leaning into or rejecting gritty play. I don't see either of them as more or less capable of that feel than the other, gritty is largely a matter of difficulty which is purely in the DM's control.

[Kurald Galain]

I think both D&D and PF are capable of leaning into or rejecting gritty play. I don't see either of them as more or less capable of that feel than the other, gritty is largely a matter of difficulty which is purely in the DM's control.

More specifically, if the DM follows the "Combat As Sport" school of thought (which is the default, but not the only way to play, for 3.5 / PF / 4E / 5E) then the game becomes more heroic; whereas if the DM uses the "Combat As War" methodology (the default, but again not the only way, for 1E / 2E / 3.0) then the game becomes more gritty.

However, I feel I need to make an exception for "Combat As Sport But It's Stacked Against The Players" (because e.g. enemies commonly crit on a 15+ and the PCs often crit-fail on a 5 or less) as that doesn't strike me as particularly heroic.

[Zuras]

Is it? I'd argue it's superheroic vs. heroic.

I've seen the definition between those two basically defined as (simplified), superheroes win because they're awesome. Heroes win because they're determined.

You'll notice that the definition of "heroic" in that view matches pretty closely to my view of "gritty".

So, to me, still, gritty is about pain. It is about sacrifice. It's about winning despite being outclassed, and winning despite the cost.

Most RPGs are bad at gritty because most don't really have a way for meaningful costs to carry forward. By my definition of "gritty".

I just don’t see sacrifice or the lack thereof as key to grittiness. There is madness, death and sacrifice in The Lord of the Rings, but it clearly has a different character than Game of Thrones.

Take Low Fantasy Gaming as a specific example: the game is working hard to be more grounded than 5e, and “gritty” in terms of low magic setting and significant consequences to hitting 0 hp, but it also has an explicit Martial Exploit system to encourage and reward players doing heroic stuff. That’s nowhere near as gritty as something like Warhammer Fantasy.

Maybe we need a better term for it, but part of a gritty RPG for me means the universe and the rules don’t care about the narrative logic of the story, so any gritty RPG has to inherently lean more simulationist than narrativist.

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can point me to a “gritty” PbtA or Fate game, though.

[Kurald Galain]

I just don’t see sacrifice or the lack thereof as key to grittiness. There is madness, death and sacrifice in The Lord of the Rings, but it clearly has a different character than Game of Thrones.
The difference is in the amount. Sure, LOTR has bits of sacrifice, but overall it has very clear "good guys" and "bad guys", and the good guys are heroic and succeed at pretty much everything. Contrast with GOT which has sacrifice all over the place, and most of the story is about "morally gray guys" vs "other morally gray guys", none of which are particularly heroic, and several of them suddenly and spectacularly die in a way that they couldn't really prevent.

It's pretty obvious that GOT is grittier than LOTR.

[Tanarii]

I’m willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can point me to a “gritty” PbtA or Fate game, though.
Wait, wut? AW and BitD are the epitome of gritty. High likelihood of failure including death, success usually comes at a serious cost, survival is a grind ... plus plenty of dark narrative themes.

[kyoryu]

The difference is in the amount. Sure, LOTR has bits of sacrifice, but overall it has very clear "good guys" and "bad guys", and the good guys are heroic and succeed at pretty much everything. Contrast with GOT which has sacrifice all over the place, and most of the story is about "morally gray guys" vs "other morally gray guys", none of which are particularly heroic, and several of them suddenly and spectacularly die in a way that they couldn't really prevent.

It's pretty obvious that GOT is grittier than LOTR.

I think there can be good guys and bad guys. While GoT may be "grittier", I still think LotR is generally in that category.


Wait, wut? AW and BitD are the epitome of gritty. High likelihood of failure including death, success usually comes at a serious cost, survival is a grind ... plus plenty of dark narrative themes.

I'd agree (and Fate pretty directly mechanizes "choose what you want to succeed at, but you can't have everything" as well as there being long-term consequences to things in teh Consequences system). But, again, it depends on "define gritty".

[gbaji]

My personal preference is for game systems that don't pretend to be generic "build anything you want". Because that generally produces diluted, wimpy detail. If everything has to be generic, the system can't really support any particular "archetypes" very well at all. Or the amount of material explodes exponentially, which makes it really hard to get a handle on.

But if the material "explodes" in a consistent and balanced manner, then that's not a problem. That just increases diversity and options. This does critically depend on very well balanced "core rules" that must be followed. But to be fair, the same can be said about class/race construction as well. Except IME there is often less consideration for long term balance impact when creating those (except maybe in core rules).


Pick a few (how many is up to you, but a small discrete set of) character "concepts" you want your system to support. Allow for some variation within those, but in a class-based system you don't have to actually give very much at the class level. Most of the variation between characters comes in the, well, characterization. The parts that aren't found in the class entry. And then build the game around those and make sure they work really really well. Anything else? Use at your own risk. They're not supported, so if they break, it's on you to fix/extend the system so they work. If you want to.

Yeah. This is a simpler system. And it generally tends to work well in core rule systems. The problem is that since you are starting "small and basic", as the game system expands, the players want more variation, so additional content is added. But since the original game design didn't incorporate core balanced "atoms" of the game concepts, future variation (new and sub classes typically), may vary wildly in terms of actual game play balance.

This ties into what I talked about above. Failing to build some sort of core rule concept "balance" system at the start is kinda like building a building one floor at a time. And I mean literally building just enough foundation to build one floor. Then saying "we need another floor", so you just build another one on top of that. And if things sag a bit here and there, you just prop things, put in additional supports, etc. Then, you add a third, and a fourth, and so on. Eventually, you will end up with a horrific mess of a building.

The alternative is design the entire building from scratch. Every floor. Every load bearing structure. Stairs. Elevator shafts, etc. Build a foundation to support this, then build the building. The building will be great and will be stable. But it can't be expanded. Which, if we're pushing this back to being an analogy for a game, may be a problem and become limiting.

A second alternative is to create a modular "rule for buillding" buildings. So you design pieces that are specific shapes and sizes and that interlock, and can be combined in a number of ways, but are all designed to be components of a larger coherent whole. And yeah, you build a foundation that can support a large number of these components in any configuation they can be arranged in. Then you just go to town. You can then create a small building, and then add on to it. You may not even know what the final result will look like, but at all points, you have a balanced stable structure (ok, the analogy may be a bit thin here, but whatever).

I guess that point here is that if you don't at least put some thought into the meta-balance concepts of your game *before* you start building classe and races and spells/items/whatever, and the incorporate those balance concepts into the construction of your "core game", you are guaranteed to run into problems later if/when you choose to add additional content. I've more or less watched over the last 45 years as game after game fell into the same pothole over and over. But then again, it's often a balance of "time/cost to build a game" versus "projected sales, numbers of players" and "how much do we really care about this?".

It's unfortunately a very winning business model to just use option 1 above. Build a core game. Spackle stuff onto it as demand for such things grows (and honestly, that means you were successful in phase 1 anyway). And if the game becomes unweildly and unbalanced over time? Eh. Just call stuff "optional" or "settng specific". And eventually, just write a new revision/edition/whatever and start over (and sell more games). There's a life cycle to these things anyway. I mean, we could all play GURPS forever if we really wanted. So yeah, there's actualy a lot of buisness reasons to *not* create the "perfect balanced game system" (uh. Not suggesting GURPS is that though of course).

And then you get folks on interweb formums railing about why this, or that, or the other thing. It's the circle of life!



The problem, I think, is that there is not actually a very large constituency for specifically "I want to play a martial character that gets to do cool things at high levels". The people who want to do cool things at high levels are largely okay with playing casters, and the people who specifically want to play martials mostly define their desired characters around examples like Conan or Aragorn or Arthur who are simply not very high level. So there's not a very strong incentive to make a game where the martials don't suck.

I don't know if I agree with that at all. I think there is a lot of interest in playing games where martials don't suck relative to casters. I think that many players have just been stuck with this reality in most games, so just go along with it. The problem is that pretty much the only way to avoid this (just due to the nature of spells versus martial abilities) is to either massively flatten the power curve of magic *or* basically turn martials into magic casters themselves (give them super abilities that act just like magic as they level basically).

And there are some problems (and complaints!) with both approaches. And even then, there's still always going to be some issues anyway. The moment we use terms like "martial" and "spell caster" (and have those labels actually mean anything at all), we're generally talking about a difference between "people who use their hands/feet/weapons to do stuff" and "people who use magic to do stuff". Without changing the character archtypes such that there's no meaningful differnence, we're always going to be left with the "spell casters" operating on a larger scope and scale than "martials". Just because those things are somewhat baked into the very concepts we're using to differentiate these types of characters.

You can balance that for a range of power to some degree. The age old concept that the martial will be able to manage direct melee better, take more damage, do more damage, operate longer without assistance/rest/whatever, etc. Having spell casters be "twiggy robe wearers" is their balance point (for a while). But when you get to higher levels, that negative stops really being relevant (again, unless you seriously flatten the spell power progression, or contrive scenarios somehow). High level casters tend to have the ability to leave/escape just about any direct confrontation easily, while also being able to control and win just about any confrontation if they are the ones initiating the attack. Which is a pretty difficult combination to deal with. Martials can't force the confrontation that plays to their strengths, but wizards can always do so in reverse.

And even in a cooperative party adventure environment (where you are somewhat contriving a reason for why the wizard is "with the party" and has to encounter the same stuff the martial folks are), the wizard tend to dominate the scene. They are overpowered when they have spell slots available, and underpowered when they don't. But, that means that parties will always adjust their activities to match that wizards cycle if at all possible, which often eliminates that negative entirely. Leaving them just "more powerful" relative to everyone else in the party. GMs can force the issue, but don't blame me for the crying that will result.

Eh. There are other ways to do this though. One approach is to make everyone a "spell caster", just with different types of magic, and with different types of melee stuff too. That can work, to a degree, but can also become quite "generic" if you aren't really careful. And to any degree hat you try to make it "not generic" you still will always run into the issue of "folks who win by swinging a sword" versus "folks who win by waggling their fingers", even in such systems. With the latter group tending to ramp up in power over time some degree faster than the former.

[Ignimortis]

See that's the opposite of my perception of online spaces, or at least this forum. There is a whole contingent of people here who insists that you should be able to play a totally mundane martial all the way to 20th level and that if you can't do that something terribly important has been removed from the game. There are people who would like martials to have cool abilities, but my perception of those people is that none of those people think that having to play Doctor Strange instead of Kaladin Stormblessed is a dealbreaker for the system in the way that the "no magic, mundane only, final destination" people seem to.
Dunno. Seems like there are plenty of people like the latter, except most of them just...kind of left D&D behind because it doesn't do that, whereas the fans of "fully mundane fighter kills dragon by the dint of HP and damage" have stayed, since D&D does do that a lot.



But there's not always that neat correspondence between high level and low level abilities. Sure, "Leap to the Heavens" sounds like it makes sense as an outgrowth of Jump. But what is Use Rope supposed to grow up into? What's the skill that turns into teleport or scrying or speak with dead? And it creates a binding between "how many skills you get" and "how many high level abilities you get" which causes problems. On the one hand, it means that the Fighter needs some class-derived abilities to keep up with the Rogue unless you totally equalize class skills, and on the other hand it makes classes like Bard or Beguiler that do skills at low levels but get high level magic broken by default.
I think it depends on how the skill system is structured. If Bards or Beguilers get much fewer skill feats and can only spend them on particular skills, whereas in other skills they can achieve a high modifier but not the outright "skill tricks", I figure it would be somewhat fair. Or, for instance, if Bard actually was a 6-th level caster again that did have to pay for being good at skills and spells both with, say, abysmal BAB. Want to be a Dashing Swordsman? Gotta lose some of your edge in other vocations, then, we can make it an ACF/archetype thingy.

As for Use Rope, I think it's a silly skill to have separate from either a raw DEX check or Sleight of Hand for the most part. Teleport, you can get through Survival (track down a portal that goes vaguely where you want to go). Scrying is Perception or Diplomacy (inhumanly quickly gather information about a place by having just the right connections). Or, you know, just a ritual spell that you don't need to be a spellcaster to access. Speak with Dead is either Knowledge: Religion (duh) or Medicine (hey, if you get Revivify through Medicine at some point, maybe you can do that in a different way). Or yet another ritual. I don't propose to make skills do all the same things spells do, that's the thing - more like let skills have capabilities that are either not exactly matched by spells, or can sometimes replace spells in a particular niche.


And it means forcing continuity that people don't necessarily want. Maybe the guy playing the gruff woodsman wants to do the fabricate track at high levels, not the plane shift one you think is appropriate for Rangers (though a straightforwardly class-based approach has this issue as well).
Fabricate is very obviously a Craft thing.



I still don't really understand what you're thinking needs to change. I suppose if you changed feat progression (which you do probably want to do), you'd have to declare a certain level of non-transparency between PCs and monsters that doesn't exist currently, but you can get a long way before you stop being able to open up a MM, pull out a monster, and have it mechanically function in a fight. I don't really see what spells have to do with it at all, because the spells monsters use aren't the ones that need to change. There's no creature out there that relies on using planar binding.
The numbers themselves. Now, sure, if you drop the PC/NPC transparency angle, then monsters can be tuned-up 5e monsters that have features because they need those features, not because everything about their stats and feats and skill points adds up to the complete statblock. That's a potential solution for sure, and one that would make things much easier. I might even consider just doing that once I'm done with other projects.

[RandomPeasant]

This does critically depend on very well balanced "core rules" that must be followed.

Specifically it depends on some kind of framework for balancing things that is more than just "think about it". You need actual balance guidelines, which no edition of D&D has really had. 3e came closest with CR, but even that wasn't explicit, and it didn't have anything at all for non-combat balancing.


I guess that point here is that if you don't at least put some thought into the meta-balance concepts of your game *before* you start building classe and races and spells/items/whatever, and the incorporate those balance concepts into the construction of your "core game", you are guaranteed to run into problems later if/when you choose to add additional content.

You're likely to run into them before you even finish writing your initial material. That's what happened with the 3e Monk, which was written a priori in a way that simply happened to line up very badly into the problems it ended up being asked to solve.


I don't know if I agree with that at all. I think there is a lot of interest in playing games where martials don't suck relative to casters. I think that many players have just been stuck with this reality in most games, so just go along with it.

I dunno. Perhaps I am jaded by arguing with the "mundane only" contingent, but it seems to me that the people who want high-powered characters aren't really broken up about the fact that the martial classes aren't good. I guess the question I would put to you is how many people you think there are who's issue with 3e is that they really like what the Wizard is doing at high levels, but wish that the martial-ish characters they could play in that environment were Fighters rather than Clerics who buff themselves up a bunch.


basically turn martials into magic casters themselves (give them super abilities that act just like magic as they level basically).

I will say that I really dislike this framing. It's effectively just equating "level appropriate" and "magic". You don't really have to give martials abilities that are "like magic". They don't have to involve runes or chanting or material components. They don't have to use daily spell slots, or fail when you wear heavy armor. They just have to do things that, when you discover that your enemy is a Demon Prince or an Abomination, do not result in the rest of the table wondering aloud why they bother to keep you around. There are lots of ways to do that without "magic", and to the degree that we describe doing that as "giving the martials magic", we are essentially acceding to the view of the people who believe that "Fighter" only ever means "mundane" (which in turn means "low level", though they will object at length to being told that their demand that their character's power be capped results in a cap to the power of their character).


The moment we use terms like "martial" and "spell caster" (and have those labels actually mean anything at all), we're generally talking about a difference between "people who use their hands/feet/weapons to do stuff" and "people who use magic to do stuff".

See I don't agree with that at all. MCU Thor is a classical example of a character who uses a weapon to do stuff, and he is fully capable of throwing down with the top-tier characters of the MCU. He even gets his own version of plane shift. The issue is not "martial". I could spend an entire post talking about high level characters who are "martial". The issue is "mundane".


But when you get to higher levels, that negative stops really being relevant (again, unless you seriously flatten the spell power progression, or contrive scenarios somehow).

It's not even just that. By trying to carve out "melee warrior who takes hits" as the role for mundanes, you end up removing a bunch of caster concepts that are completely legitimate from the game. Just as there are plenty of high level martials, there are plenty of magical characters who mix it up at close range. Gandalf fought with a sword as much as he did magic, and Gish is probably the single multi-class concept the most words have been spent trying to support in D&D.


I think it depends on how the skill system is structured. If Bards or Beguilers get much fewer skill feats and can only spend them on particular skills, whereas in other skills they can achieve a high modifier but not the outright "skill tricks", I figure it would be somewhat fair.

How is this different from just having class abilities that do things and also skill checks and the Bards and Beguilers of the world having class abilities that are a mix of spells and something else? What you're describing to me sounds like the 3e Bard which ~basically does not use the skill system for its high level abilities.


As for Use Rope, I think it's a silly skill to have separate from either a raw DEX check or Sleight of Hand for the most part. Teleport, you can get through Survival (track down a portal that goes vaguely where you want to go). Scrying is Perception or Diplomacy (inhumanly quickly gather information about a place by having just the right connections).

I mean, what is the high level application of Sleight of Hand? More than that, think about the associations by making these abilities derive from these skills. Is the guy who spies on his enemies from afar really conceptually someone who also is good at talking to people? If you have a linkage like this, it goes in both directions. Maybe it does make sense for the guy who navigates through the woods at low level to navigate between planes at high levels. But does it make sense for the guy who navigates between planes at high levels to be the guy who was navigating through the woods at low levels? Maybe that guy could also have been the guy who understood the ritual the demon cultists were trying to pull off.


Or, you know, just a ritual spell that you don't need to be a spellcaster to access.

Sure. You could do that. That's a very good (though not perfect) solution to this problem. But if that's the solution we go with, why do we need the skill system doing stuff? What benefit do we get from linking our "high level utility abilities" system to our "broad range of human capabilities" system?


Now, sure, if you drop the PC/NPC transparency angle, then monsters can be tuned-up 5e monsters that have features because they need those features, not because everything about their stats and feats and skill points adds up to the complete statblock.

For all that 3e has a relatively high degree of PC/NPC transparency, it's not all that transparent when it comes to the stuff you really care about for balancing. Yes, a Mind Flayer has skills that are derived from skill points and stat bonuses and cross-class synergies and whatnot, but ultimately you don't really care what the Mind Flayer's Diplomacy modifier is when you fight a Mind Flayer and the pack of Ogres it has as thralls. You care about what its mind blast does, and that is essentially completely arbitrary. There's no "Mind Flayer progression" it has followed to get the amount of mind blasting and brain eating it has (or do the degree that there is it's an ex post creation), it just has those abilities and uses them. And the numbers there are fine, in the sense that you can build a balanced game where character classes are diverse and interesting around a set of assumptions where it is appropriate to fight unmodified MM Mind Flayers at 8th level.

[Zuras]

Wait, wut? AW and BitD are the epitome of gritty. High likelihood of failure including death, success usually comes at a serious cost, survival is a grind ... plus plenty of dark narrative themes.

I don’t really feel like games that give players significant control over the narrative qualify as gritty, though. It’s not really a brutal, uncaring world when you’re actually making the choices for what terrible thing happens to you.

Consistent tone required effort in a dark narrative game from the other direction, to make sure it doesn’t devolve into a Four Yorkshiremen skit.

[icefractal]

If there's one thing that's apparent, it's that neither "gritty" or "video-gamey" really has a common definition.

I mean personally, I'd say that one aspect many gritty games have in common is attrition / starvation. Not necessarily literal starvation, but lack of resources. You're often coming into situations tired, already wounded, with low ammo (spell slots count as ammo), trying to deal with them quickly because you also have low supplies, wincing every time you take even a minor hit because healing is also limited, etc. And while you can come out ahead in the end, it's not a guarantee - bad tactics or simply bad luck can make an expedition into a net negative.

So by that definition, Blades in the Dark very much qualifies, more than most D&D campaigns (including old-school ones) do. And probably the most gritty game I can think of is Torchbearer, where things often feel like desperately treading water.

Lack of heroes, endings tending toward mixed or pyrrhic rather than clean victories, the world being an unpleasant place that you can't fix more than a small chunk of ... those are more "dark" than "gritty" to me. Not necessarily grimdark, but regular dark at least.

Deadly - as in, dying is a serious possibility in most fights, even "non-important" ones? I think that's separate from being gritty. High-op 3.x is pretty deadly (uberchargers, mailmen, people spamming lots of SoD in one turn, etc), but I wouldn't call it gritty.

[RandomPeasant]

Deadly - as in, dying is a serious possibility in most fights, even "non-important" ones? I think that's separate from being gritty. High-op 3.x is pretty deadly (uberchargers, mailmen, people spamming lots of SoD in one turn, etc), but I wouldn't call it gritty.

To be fair, I think what a lot of people mean when they say "deadly" is less "you get the Dead status condition" and more "you don't get to play that character anymore", which is something that is much less common in 3e, even high-op 3e.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, I think what a lot of people mean when they say "deadly" is less "you get the Dead status condition" and more "you don't get to play that character anymore", which is something that is much less common in 3e, even high-op 3e.

Yeah. Death is cheap if resurrection-type spells are (relative to income/consequences) cheap. If being raised from the dead requires a long quest and may not even work (or is impossible), that's one thing (holding absolute lethality the same). But if it's just 300 gp of diamonds you were probably carrying and a low-level spell slot? Meh.

There's also cultural expectations--I'd say that old-style D&D dungeon crawl meatgrinders (aka "pull up with a sheaf of characters and expect to burn through a bunch") are more gritty than games where your character is lovingly crafted and intricately woven into the story-line. There's a certain mindset that attends not having any plot armor, not even just the benefit of the doubt when there are things that could be ruled either way.

[icefractal]

Yeah. Death is cheap if resurrection-type spells are (relative to income/consequences) cheap.

...

There's also cultural expectations--I'd say that old-style D&D dungeon crawl meatgrinders (aka "pull up with a sheaf of characters and expect to burn through a bunch") are more gritty than games where your character is lovingly crafted and intricately woven into the story-line.I find this kind of a contradiction, because having a sheaf of characters you expect to burn through makes death very cheap, IMO. Makes death merely an inconvenience - much like abundant resurrection does.

I mean yes, death is permanent for that character. But if "that character" is just one of the many who you haven't invested at all in and are ready to immediately replace, then who cares? It's not a big deal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find this kind of a contradiction, because having a sheaf of characters you expect to burn through makes death very cheap, IMO. Makes death merely an inconvenience - much like abundant resurrection does.

I mean yes, death is permanent for that character. But if "that character" is just one of the many who you haven't invested at all in and are ready to immediately replace, then who cares? It's not a big deal.

I don't really disagree... But I think it's a matter of point of view. From outside, death in a meat grinder is cheap, true. But in the fiction... Not so much. So gritty here is more about the underlying fiction, not the OOC experience.

But I can see both points of view.

[Kurald Galain]

I think there can be good guys and bad guys. While GoT may be "grittier", I still think LotR is generally in that category.

Sure, I'd say that gritty-to-heroic is a sliding scale and not a cutoff point. And LOTR is reasonably gritty because of the relatively low power of (most) individual characters, and the fact that overland travel and starvation and such are major concerns.

That's another aspect of grittiness, i.e. how hard is it for characters to have sufficient food, drink, and/or sleep during the campaign (with the added complication that some settings claim that it's a big deal but in practice it's actually not).

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: As this has migrated into discussing Pathfinder, I'm moving it to the d20 section, where it belongs.

[Ignimortis]

Yes, or for those that dislike anime, martials akin to Beowulf, Herakles, or Cuchulainn; or if you're into superhero sources, Hawkeye or Juggernaut. There are some seriously impressive martial feats found in the various mythologies (as well as certain other RPGs printed decades ago) that have somehow eluded D&D.
Honestly, I have no idea how that even happened, aside from the fact that up to 3e, the developers had a pretty specific inferred setting in mind, and 3e onwards it was just inertia and a sort of autoregurgitation.



I dunno. Perhaps I am jaded by arguing with the "mundane only" contingent, but it seems to me that the people who want high-powered characters aren't really broken up about the fact that the martial classes aren't good. I guess the question I would put to you is how many people you think there are who's issue with 3e is that they really like what the Wizard is doing at high levels, but wish that the martial-ish characters they could play in that environment were Fighters rather than Clerics who buff themselves up a bunch.
Well, for starters, there's me. There is something extremely attractive about the idea of someone who doesn't use magic to do high-level things, to me. Now, I personally think that Wizards get up to way too many things at high levels - but that's an issue with Wizards, not with high-level magic as a concept. A high-level Ranger-analogue should be able to at least replicate the net effect of Shadow Walk pretty much at-will, for instance.



How is this different from just having class abilities that do things and also skill checks and the Bards and Beguilers of the world having class abilities that are a mix of spells and something else? What you're describing to me sounds like the 3e Bard which ~basically does not use the skill system for its high level abilities.
Because it's not exactly bound up in class abilities fully - it might be represented by a few levels of access to the skill subsystem, in the same way classes get different levels of access to the spells subsystem. So it's more flexible, up to a point. As for the 3e Bard, well, of course it doesn't use the skill system for high level abilities, there aren't any baked into the skill system (aside from arguably broken Diplomatic Mind Control).



I mean, what is the high level application of Sleight of Hand?
Can be anything as "grounded" as stealing stuff from the target despite the target actively using it (deprive a wizard-type enemy of its' spellbook, or a fighter-type enemy of its' weapon), for instance. Or, for more high-flying takes on it, literally stealing things like status effects or properties from the target - steal a template from the enemy and apply it to yourself for a while, for instance.



More than that, think about the associations by making these abilities derive from these skills. Is the guy who spies on his enemies from afar really conceptually someone who also is good at talking to people? If you have a linkage like this, it goes in both directions. Maybe it does make sense for the guy who navigates through the woods at low level to navigate between planes at high levels. But does it make sense for the guy who navigates between planes at high levels to be the guy who was navigating through the woods at low levels? Maybe that guy could also have been the guy who understood the ritual the demon cultists were trying to pull off.
I think that one of 3e's strengths was the fact that you could arrive at "level-appropriate" checkpoints in various means. Although I don't think that the guy who navigates between planes should be unable to navigate in a forest well - that just doesn't make much sense to me, considering how much more hostile planes usually are.



Sure. You could do that. That's a very good (though not perfect) solution to this problem. But if that's the solution we go with, why do we need the skill system doing stuff? What benefit do we get from linking our "high level utility abilities" system to our "broad range of human capabilities" system?
Because that system arguably goes beyond human capabilities, but only in some ways. Even without epic uses (which aren't well thought-out), some skill abilities just scale much better than even peak humans could. Granted, those are usually mostly physical abilities like Climb, Swim, Jump, Open Lock. But I think that that direction has some promise, and that many skills have feasible and useful high-level utility if such was applied to them. Again, it's about being able to arrive at the same end by various means - high-level 3e often treats magic as the only thing that does stuff you need, which is why classes without innate magic are not as great.



For all that 3e has a relatively high degree of PC/NPC transparency, it's not all that transparent when it comes to the stuff you really care about for balancing. Yes, a Mind Flayer has skills that are derived from skill points and stat bonuses and cross-class synergies and whatnot, but ultimately you don't really care what the Mind Flayer's Diplomacy modifier is when you fight a Mind Flayer and the pack of Ogres it has as thralls. You care about what its mind blast does, and that is essentially completely arbitrary. There's no "Mind Flayer progression" it has followed to get the amount of mind blasting and brain eating it has (or do the degree that there is it's an ex post creation), it just has those abilities and uses them. And the numbers there are fine, in the sense that you can build a balanced game where character classes are diverse and interesting around a set of assumptions where it is appropriate to fight unmodified MM Mind Flayers at 8th level.
Well, yes, that's the 5e approach. Like I said, this is entirely more feasible than recalculating how the mindflayer has to be built from 0HD to be a reasonable CR8 fight.

[kyoryu]

I find this kind of a contradiction, because having a sheaf of characters you expect to burn through makes death very cheap, IMO. Makes death merely an inconvenience - much like abundant resurrection does.

I mean yes, death is permanent for that character. But if "that character" is just one of the many who you haven't invested at all in and are ready to immediately replace, then who cares? It's not a big deal.

It was less "burn through them", and more "play different ones at different times, depending on who showed up".

So losing a character was like losing a squad member in XCom - at low levels, kinda whatever, but someone that had developed a bunch was more painful. Either way, painful, but not the end of the world. I really think the XCom analogy is the best one for looking at character death in those games.

In most modern games with one character, losing a character is more like deleting your Skyrim save or a WoW character, and that's a ton worse.

[Zuras]

It was less "burn through them", and more "play different ones at different times, depending on who showed up".

So losing a character was like losing a squad member in XCom - at low levels, kinda whatever, but someone that had developed a bunch was more painful. Either way, painful, but not the end of the world. I really think the XCom analogy is the best one for looking at character death in those games.

In most modern games with one character, losing a character is more like deleting your Skyrim save or a WoW character, and that's a ton worse.

The XCom analogy is especially apt because it’s important whether their gear survived as well. Losing an experienced squaddie *and* their special powered armor due to some especially bad fiasco was twice as bad as just losing the trooper.

[RandomPeasant]

Because it's not exactly bound up in class abilities fully - it might be represented by a few levels of access to the skill subsystem, in the same way classes get different levels of access to the spells subsystem.

But classes already have different levels of access to the skills subsystem. The Beguiler gets more of it than the Fighter and less of it than the Rogue. So, what, we're going to have a second sort of access to skills people have that is connected to how skills currently work... how exactly? By using ranks as level gates? In what sense is this supposed to be a "skills system" at that point?


I think that one of 3e's strengths was the fact that you could arrive at "level-appropriate" checkpoints in various means. Although I don't think that the guy who navigates between planes should be unable to navigate in a forest well - that just doesn't make much sense to me, considering how much more hostile planes usually are.

There's a distinction between "navigate to the planes" and "navigate through hostile high-level environments". Certainly you could imagine characters who would have both sets of abilities (like a Ranger), but you could also imagine characters who had only one set. Like a Summoner who has "go to the outer planes" and "bring over creatures from the outer planes" abilities. Or another Ranger who spec'd a combination of "track stuff down" abilities that finds portals and people but doesn't have particularly strong wilderness survival.

And I think this points to the issue with "it should come from skills" for high-level abilities. You have multiple skills that might lead to any particular ability. You could get plane shift from Survival (finding freestanding portals to other planes), Knowledge (the planes) (that would seem to be obvious), or even something weirder like Decipher Script (figuring out how to activate some weird planar travel runic array). And you have multiple abilities that could arise from any particular skill. Maybe Survival gives you plane shift. But equally, maybe it gives you some high-level version of goodberry because you're really good at foraging. Or maybe it gives you locate creature/locate object-type stuff because you're good at tracking. Or maybe it gives you animal powers because it's the wilderness skill. So the question is what the linkage to Survival is really getting us. How does it simplify the system compared to just having a "Travel Between Planes" ability track and a "Finding Stuff Track" and so on and letting people pick the ones they want?


Because that system arguably goes beyond human capabilities, but only in some ways. Even without epic uses (which aren't well thought-out), some skill abilities just scale much better than even peak humans could. Granted, those are usually mostly physical abilities like Climb, Swim, Jump, Open Lock.

I think "you can jump a bit higher than a regular guy" and "you can jump to another plane" don't really qualify as the same sort of "superhuman". Like, yeah, you can push the regression of "strongness" a bit. Why that needs to connect over to a qualitatively different ability is just not clear to me.


Again, it's about being able to arrive at the same end by various means - high-level 3e often treats magic as the only thing that does stuff you need, which is why classes without innate magic are not as great.

But "various means" doesn't have to mean "a completely different subsystem". Druids and Warblades have "different means" of doing melee combat, but they come from class levels at bottom.


Well, yes, that's the 5e approach. Like I said, this is entirely more feasible than recalculating how the mindflayer has to be built from 0HD to be a reasonable CR8 fight.

I just don't understand what alternative approach you're advocating for. To the degree that the way the Mind Flayer works is the "5e approach" it is also the "3e approach", as far as I can tell.

[Pex]

But classes already have different levels of access to the skills subsystem. The Beguiler gets more of it than the Fighter and less of it than the Rogue. So, what, we're going to have a second sort of access to skills people have that is connected to how skills currently work... how exactly? By using ranks as level gates? In what sense is this supposed to be a "skills system" at that point?



There's a distinction between "navigate to the planes" and "navigate through hostile high-level environments". Certainly you could imagine characters who would have both sets of abilities (like a Ranger), but you could also imagine characters who had only one set. Like a Summoner who has "go to the outer planes" and "bring over creatures from the outer planes" abilities. Or another Ranger who spec'd a combination of "track stuff down" abilities that finds portals and people but doesn't have particularly strong wilderness survival.

And I think this points to the issue with "it should come from skills" for high-level abilities. You have multiple skills that might lead to any particular ability. You could get plane shift from Survival (finding freestanding portals to other planes), Knowledge (the planes) (that would seem to be obvious), or even something weirder like Decipher Script (figuring out how to activate some weird planar travel runic array). And you have multiple abilities that could arise from any particular skill. Maybe Survival gives you plane shift. But equally, maybe it gives you some high-level version of goodberry because you're really good at foraging. Or maybe it gives you locate creature/locate object-type stuff because you're good at tracking. Or maybe it gives you animal powers because it's the wilderness skill. So the question is what the linkage to Survival is really getting us. How does it simplify the system compared to just having a "Travel Between Planes" ability track and a "Finding Stuff Track" and so on and letting people pick the ones they want?



Wonderful ideas, but it requires ink on paper rules to define how they work, when each ability comes online, and who gets them. We both know some people will complain it gives warriors magic, others don't like rules existing at all for skill use because it interferes with DM agency, and the naysayers who just don't like heavy crunch at all and dismiss it for being rules heavy and are bothered having to take 10 seconds of game time to look up a rule because they want everything memorized so as not to break immersion.

[Satinavian]

And I think this points to the issue with "it should come from skills" for high-level abilities. You have multiple skills that might lead to any particular ability. You could get plane shift from Survival (finding freestanding portals to other planes), Knowledge (the planes) (that would seem to be obvious), or even something weirder like Decipher Script (figuring out how to activate some weird planar travel runic array). And you have multiple abilities that could arise from any particular skill. Maybe Survival gives you plane shift. But equally, maybe it gives you some high-level version of goodberry because you're really good at foraging. Or maybe it gives you locate creature/locate object-type stuff because you're good at tracking. Or maybe it gives you animal powers because it's the wilderness skill. So the question is what the linkage to Survival is really getting us. How does it simplify the system compared to just having a "Travel Between Planes" ability track and a "Finding Stuff Track" and so on and letting people pick the ones they want?
Going back to pathfinder 2, stuff like this is totally what could have been done within the skill feat framework.

[Kurald Galain]

Going back to pathfinder 2, stuff like this is totally what could have been done within the skill feat framework.

Yep. Take your cue from Exalted and take high-ranking skill feats from there. But instead, we get "epic" stuff like "you can ask your enemies to stop fighting but they may choose not to", or "you can read a religious book and get cryptic information from it", or "you can perform and make slightly more money than other performers" :smallamused:

[Beni-Kujaku]

Going back to pathfinder 2, stuff like this is totally what could have been done within the skill feat framework.

Not even going into skill feats, I feel like the Trained-Expert-Master-Legendary system should allow you to try making checks for new things, more than just as prerequisites and to give +2 to the check. We already have Untrained and Trained actions, why wouldn't we have Expert actions, Master actions or Legendary actions?

For example:
Athletics:
U: Climb, Force Open, Grapple, High Jump, Long Jump, Shove, Swim, Trip
T: Disarm, Block* (try to immobilize an enemy weapon when they attack, reaction, get a penalty to AC if check fails)
E: Sunder (basically force open in combat, or break walls with no clear opening), Long Throw (throw improvised weapons twice as far with a skill check), Pin (when an enemy is grabbed, you can use another action to make them Restrained and unable to talk)
M: Break bones (with your bare hands, you can incapacitate (permanently Immobilized/Enfeebled/slowed) an opponent that cannot defend themselves), Extraordinary Effort (can raise or move items much above your carrying capacity, like a boulder or drawbridge, but get Enfeebled afterwards depending on your roll), Sculpt (for three actions, you can roughly break an item in the approximate wanted shape, such as creating climbing holds in a flat wall, punching a small hole in a door, or bending a sword to make a hook)
L: Earthquake Stomp (your stomp can trip creatures around you), Impale (you can throw something hard enough that it either shatters on impact or gets pinned in the surface it hits), Backhand Wind (by moving a large plate-like object, like a door or a shield or simply your hand if you're size Large or larger, as you would a fan, you can create a wind akin to a Gust of Wind), Unroot (you can raise items that are rooted to the ground, like trees, or stones and either pull them out or push them over)

Medicine:
U: First Aid
T: Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Wounds
E: Assess Affliction (find the source of a disease or wound, including magical curses if at least Master), Surgical Removal (can remove a creature's limb or body part without damaging it, for sale or grafting)
M: Acupuncture (using pressure points and drugs, can increase Str and reduce Dex, or the opposite, for an hour. Only useable 1/week on a given character), Heal Lost Limbs, Grafts (can graft monster parts to other creatures. Not sure how that would work, but that seems cool), Heal Mind (can attempt to remove Charm, Confused or Controlled, through precise non-invasive brain massages)
L: Increase Lifespan (Add 5% lifespan, 10 on a crit. Can only be attempted once per character, and only when they are already of old age), Bring Back the Dead (can reanimate a person who died last round, but they are unconscious for a day)

[Psyren]

Yes, or for those that dislike anime, martials akin to Beowulf, Herakles, or Cuchulainn; or if you're into superhero sources, Hawkeye or Juggernaut. There are some seriously impressive martial feats found in the various mythologies (as well as certain other RPGs printed decades ago) that have somehow eluded D&D.

I'm guessing they eluded D&D because it's hard to credibly translate those characters into a class-based system. Heracles, Beowulf, Cuchulainn and even Juggernaut didn't become what they are through class/training, they're literal divine scions in their respective fiction. That's wholly incompatible with D&D's squire-to-dragonslayer martial idiom.

The one exception to that may be Beowulf himself - largely because his origins are extremely vague rather than divinity being wholly ruled out - but I'm really confused why he keeps getting brought up in these discussions. When you consider his fictional feats they're really not impressive in D&D terms. He fights a troll(?) that can't regenerate unarmed and wins, is gifted an almost-certainly magic sword that fails to kill its mother until he spots a different one in her lair and uses that instead... then he fights a dragon (without either magic sword? I guess?), gets mortally wounded in the process, and succumbs to his injuries. Three big fights and the third one kills him, even Caramon or Conan can pull off that much.

Hawkeye's abilities by contrast definitely come from training, but he relies on what in D&D terms would be magic items. Sure he can make a lot of them, but he's dependent on external resources (i.e. outsize wealth courtesy of whichever agency he works for) to do so. The bulk of his power comes from magic-mart.

[RandomPeasant]

Going back to pathfinder 2, stuff like this is totally what could have been done within the skill feat framework.

Sure but why are we using that framework to begin with? We already have a mechanism to spend feats to get abilities. It's called feats. If you want "you can find a portal to whatever plane this week's adventure is on" to be an ability some people have, that can just be a feat. I still don't see what need or benefit there is to tying this into skills when it manifestly has nothing to do with the rest of the skill system. In what sense is a system that consists of "you have a bonus that scales with level that you can roll against different tasks" and "you have some arbitrary abilities that do things with some notional thematic relationship" one system?


I'm guessing they eluded D&D because it's hard to credibly translate those characters into a class-based system. Heracles, Beowulf, Cuchulainn and even Juggernaut didn't become what they are through class/training, they're literal divine scions in their respective fiction. That's wholly incompatible with D&D's squire-to-dragonslayer martial idiom.

I would love to know where you think Sorcerers get their power, or what sort of character you think they are supposed to represent. Because my copy of the PHB says "inborn talent honed with practice", which sounds to me exactly like someone like Heracles who, while born with immense strength, certainly was not born with all the skill he applies to the use of that strength (indeed, the Disney movie has a whole training montage for him). It is simply not weird to have a class which progresses something that is an innate part of you rather than purely a learned skill, and indeed the only version of D&D since the year 2000 not to put that class in its core book has been the least popular version.

Or what about the Warlock? Warlocks make deals with dark powers to wield their magic. In the rest of the genre, that's the sort of thing that typically manifests as a one-off big powerup. But they gain XP and levels the way everyone else in D&D does. And if you look at non-D&D material, it's also often the case that their wizards don't progress in the way D&D Wizards do. Gandalf is a secret angel rather than a trained expert, but that doesn't mean we can't have Wizards. It just means that most fantasy fiction does not involve the same sort of progression D&D does, and that most characters (outside of some specific genres) are better understood as existing at a particular level or small level range, rather than being the result of progressions that map one-to-one to D&D.


Hawkeye's abilities by contrast definitely come from training, but he relies on what in D&D terms would be magic items. Sure he can make a lot of them, but he's dependent on external resources (i.e. outsize wealth courtesy of whichever agency he works for) to do so. The bulk of his power comes from magic-mart.

Hawkeye is functionally a re-fluffed Wizard. He prepares -- sorry, builds -- spells -- sorry, arrows -- which have arbitrary magical effects. By far the easiest way to represent that character in D&D terms is some kind of Arcane Archer.

[Psyren]

I would love to know where you think Sorcerers get their power, or what sort of character you think they are supposed to represent. Because my copy of the PHB says "inborn talent honed with practice", which sounds to me exactly like someone like Heracles who, while born with immense strength, certainly was not born with all the skill he applies to the use of that strength (indeed, the Disney movie has a whole training montage for him). It is simply not weird to have a class which progresses something that is an innate part of you rather than purely a learned skill, and indeed the only version of D&D since the year 2000 not to put that class in its core book has been the least popular version.

Or what about the Warlock? Warlocks make deals with dark powers to wield their magic. In the rest of the genre, that's the sort of thing that typically manifests as a one-off big powerup. But they gain XP and levels the way everyone else in D&D does. And if you look at non-D&D material, it's also often the case that their wizards don't progress in the way D&D Wizards do. Gandalf is a secret angel rather than a trained expert, but that doesn't mean we can't have Wizards. It just means that most fantasy fiction does not involve the same sort of progression D&D does, and that most characters (outside of some specific genres) are better understood as existing at a particular level or small level range, rather than being the result of progressions that map one-to-one to D&D.


You misunderstand me, I'm not saying a martial who gets their power the same way a sorcerer or warlock does is somehow a bad thing or not possible in the fiction. That would be a fun class too! The problem is that not every Fighter player wants their power to come from a magical bloodline (divine, draconic etc) or otherworldly pact; they want to truly be a talented soldier of no special origin. And you can't square "no special origin" with Hercules or Achilles or Thor; you just can't.


Hawkeye is functionally a re-fluffed Wizard. He prepares -- sorry, builds -- spells -- sorry, arrows -- which have arbitrary magical effects. By far the easiest way to represent that character in D&D terms is some kind of Arcane Archer.

Yes, some form of archer with magical arrows is the best way to represent Hawkeye. Should every archer be that though?

[RandomPeasant]

The problem is that not every Fighter player wants their power to come from a magical bloodline (divine, draconic etc) or otherworldly pact; they want to truly be a talented soldier of no special origin. And you can't square "no special origin" with Hercules or Achilles or Thor; you just can't.

You can square it with Catherine Foundling or Kaladin Stormblessed or Dassem Ultor.


Yes, some form of archer with magical arrows is the best way to represent Hawkeye. Should every archer be that though?

Some form of wizard with long-distance teleportation and extremely powerful offensive magic is the best way to represent Doctor Strange. Should every wizard be that though?

[Kurald Galain]

you can't square "no special origin" with Hercules or Achilles or Thor; you just can't.
True, but one could want a "no special origin" fighter to perform deeds comparable to Hercules's weightlifting or Achilles's weapon prowess. Maybe it shouldn't be based on a demigod but instead on, say, Saitama or Solomon David; but the martial feats the character should perform can be the same.

[Pex]

Hawkeye's abilities by contrast definitely come from training, but he relies on what in D&D terms would be magic items. Sure he can make a lot of them, but he's dependent on external resources (i.e. outsize wealth courtesy of whichever agency he works for) to do so. The bulk of his power comes from magic-mart.

Hawkeye is a Gadgeteer Superhero, which is a legitimate accepted thing in the superhero RPG genre such as Iron Man and Batman but with less invested character build points in Gadgeteering. It does not translate well in D&D/Fantasy because that means magic items. In D&D 5E Hawkeye's best bet is Artillerist Artificer, choosing his Infusions and spells carefully and flavor text them as arrows.

[Psyren]

It does not translate well in D&D/Fantasy because that means magic items.

That's the point I was making, yeah.


You can square it with Catherine Foundling or Kaladin Stormblessed or Dassem Ultor.

Not familiar with the first, what has she done of note?
The second appears to be a gish in-universe while the third... made a pact with a greater deity? Not seeing how they help your point?


Some form of wizard with long-distance teleportation and extremely powerful offensive magic is the best way to represent Doctor Strange. Should every wizard be that though?

Of course not - some can be Milamber, Elminster, Moiraine, Prospero...


Maybe it shouldn't be based on a demigod but instead on, say, Saitama or Solomon David; but the martial feats the character should perform can be the same.

So a joke character even within the realm of anime and an Exalted expy?

[Kurald Galain]

So a joke character even within the realm of anime and an Exalted expy?
Sure. My whole point is that high-level D&D characters should have more access to the kind of stunts one can pull in Exalted.

Kaladin is probably a spren-pact warlock, TBH.

[RandomPeasant]

Not familiar with the first, what has she done of note?

Catherine, from A Practical Guide to Evil, starts off as an orphan (and, no, not the "secretly the daughter of the dead king" kind, the "genuinely unexceptional with no secret heritage" kind). She then gains various superhuman powers, including your basic basket of physical upgrades, the ability to steal other people's magic, the ability to open fae gates (not exactly analogous to a D&D ability, but it's a travel power that lets her take an army with her, which is important to her as the protagonist of a military fantasy story -- also it allows her to drop lakes on people), various shadow powers, and a vaguely divination-ish suite of abilities (basically the ability to understand stories, which have a metaphysical importance to the setting).


Not seeing how they help your point?

Can you explain how "being a gish" and "making a pact" are "special origins"? Because they seem to me to be things that you do well after originating, and therefore entirely compatible with your request for a martial character with "no special origin". If you meant "no special abilities", I regret to inform you that the character attribute you are describing is "low-level", not "martial".


Of course not - some can be Milamber, Elminster, Moiraine, Prospero...

And some of them can be first-year Harry Potter or any number of other apprentice wizards. The point is that characters can be higher or lower level while remaining the same class.


So a joke character even within the realm of anime and an Exalted expy?

Perhaps you could provide some affirmative example of what you think high level martials should be. Surely that would be more effective than this guessing game where we try to figure out what gets the Psyren Stamp of Approval for high-level martial.


Kaladin is probably a spren-pact warlock, TBH.

Kaladin is definitely a Paladin (or maybe some kind of Paladin-analog PrC, depending on how exactly you model things and how early you think he gets Radiant powers). Most of his magical abilities amount to enhancements to his ability to fight (super speed, super healing, flight, sword that cuts anything, unbreakable armor), and of those that don't he has very few active "spells". Plus the Oaths sound a lot more like a Paladin's Code of Conduct (or Wu Jen Taboos in 3e) than anything Warlocks typically do.

[Psyren]

Sure. My whole point is that high-level D&D characters should have more access to the kind of stunts one can pull in Exalted.

Okay - But surely you can see how/why people might not want that in D&D? Exalted already exists, there's no need to make D&D into it - nor Pathfinder for that matter.

For those who do want that - the tools to make compatible third party conversions / lookalikes exist. And if enough of said people exist, they will be successful and keep getting made.


Catherine, from A Practical Guide to Evil, starts off as an orphan (and, no, not the "secretly the daughter of the dead king" kind, the "genuinely unexceptional with no secret heritage" kind). She then gains various superhuman powers, including your basic basket of physical upgrades, the ability to steal other people's magic, the ability to open fae gates (not exactly analogous to a D&D ability, but it's a travel power that lets her take an army with her, which is important to her as the protagonist of a military fantasy story -- also it allows her to drop lakes on people), various shadow powers, and a vaguely divination-ish suite of abilities (basically the ability to understand stories, which have a metaphysical importance to the setting).

Sounds impressive. For the bold, how? Critical mass of pushups?



Can you explain how "being a gish" and "making a pact" are "special origins"? Because they seem to me to be things that you do well after originating, and therefore entirely compatible with your request for a martial character with "no special origin". If you meant "no special abilities", I regret to inform you that the character attribute you are describing is "low-level", not "martial".
...
And some of them can be first-year Harry Potter or any number of other apprentice wizards. The point is that characters can be higher or lower level while remaining the same class.


So every martial at high levels should eventually make a pact with an otherworldly being / discover a heretofore unknown divine origin, or else stay at low levels for ever? That's just banning Fighter with extra steps.



Perhaps you could provide some affirmative example of what you think high level martials should be. Surely that would be more effective than this guessing game where we try to figure out what gets the Psyren Stamp of Approval for high-level martial.

I'm fine with/happily stamp the ones we have now. Certainly I could make a high level Fighter or Barbarian that does a much better job than Beowulf did.


Kaladin is probably a spren-pact warlock, TBH.



Kaladin is definitely a Paladin (or maybe some kind of Paladin-analog PrC, depending on how exactly you model things and how early you think he gets Radiant powers). Most of his magical abilities amount to enhancements to his ability to fight (super speed, super healing, flight, sword that cuts anything, unbreakable armor), and of those that don't he has very few active "spells". Plus the Oaths sound a lot more like a Paladin's Code of Conduct (or Wu Jen Taboos in 3e) than anything Warlocks typically do.

Okay, so Paladins and Bladelocks already exist - that's fine.

[RandomPeasant]

Okay - But surely you can see how/why people might not want that in D&D?

I genuinely do not. D&D consists of, at minimum, twenty distinct levels. If you do not like how some of those levels play, you can simply not play at those levels. Just as you can not play in settings with features you do not appreciate, or ban classes that disrupt the experience your table expects. High level D&D is already crazy and gonzo for casters, making it crazy and gonzo for martials as well makes the game better and intent clearer.


For those who do want that - the tools to make compatible third party conversions / lookalikes exist. And if enough of said people exist, they will be successful and keep getting made.

How strong of an Efficient Market Hypothesis do you believe in exactly?


Sounds impressive. For the bold, how? Critical mass of pushups?

Honestly it's basically "she gained a level". Possibly specifically a PrC, but the way the setting works is that if you are a sufficiently hardcore badass you will get a Name, which signifies the universe's recognition of your badassery and allows you to do things you could not do previously. In Catherine's case she becomes the Squire, and then eventually the Warden.


So every martial at high levels should eventually make a pact with an otherworldly being / discover a heretofore unknown divine origin, or else stay at low levels for ever?

Yes every character that eventually becomes high levels should gain abilities that are appropriate at high levels. What's next, a demand for freedom from the tyranny of adding 1 to 3 producing 4?

[Psyren]

I genuinely do not. D&D consists of, at minimum, twenty distinct levels. If you do not like how some of those levels play, you can simply not play at those levels. Just as you can not play in settings with features you do not appreciate, or ban classes that disrupt the experience your table expects. High level D&D is already crazy and gonzo for casters, making it crazy and gonzo for martials as well makes the game better and intent clearer.

It seems to me that more than enough people enjoy all the levels today. Especially in Pathfinder 2 which manages to have better high level balance without going full "gonzo."



How strong of an Efficient Market Hypothesis do you believe in exactly?

Blaming the "market" for a niche product (realistically, a niche of a niche) only goes so far.



Honestly it's basically "she gained a level". Possibly specifically a PrC, but the way the setting works is that if you are a sufficiently hardcore badass you will get a Name, which signifies the universe's recognition of your badassery and allows you to do things you could not do previously. In Catherine's case she becomes the Squire, and then eventually the Warden.

Sponsored by divinity, got it.



Yes every character that eventually becomes high levels should gain abilities that are appropriate at high levels.

Existing Fighters do have appropriate abilities for high levels in both systems.

[lesser_minion]

I genuinely do not. D&D consists of, at minimum, twenty distinct levels. If you do not like how some of those levels play, you can simply not play at those levels. Just as you can not play in settings with features you do not appreciate, or ban classes that disrupt the experience your table expects. High level D&D is already crazy and gonzo for casters, making it crazy and gonzo for martials as well makes the game better and intent clearer.

Whatever the high level core content of the game is, it will distort the game at all other levels. And houseruling whole swathes of core out of existence is a far more radical departure from the base game than adding in a sourcebook.

[tyckspoon]

Sponsored by divinity, got it.


More or less. She also spent some time as the sole remaining titled faery of the Winter Court, which qualifies as a lesser divinity in its own right (although she was frequently remarked on as being really quite bad at employing it by other characters who were much more practiced at magic - near limitless power and mostly used it as a particularly big stick.

.. also, as far as 'characters from humble origins' go, it should probably be noted that in the Practical Guide From Evil universe being a smart self-motivated orphan in a city captured by the Evil Empire is actually a very high chance of developing superpowers, because that's where Inspiring Rebels and Folk Hero Leaders of the Commons come from. It's not exactly a The Evil Empire's right-hand liutenant was actually monitoring the orphanages for potential heros to pre-emptively kill them (or in Catherine's case, recruit her.) It's not exactly a non-special origin in that universe, because it hugely increases the chances that you're gonna fall in the path of a capital-S Story and end up empowered to better perform your narrative role.

[Talakeal]

I'm guessing they eluded D&D because it's hard to credibly translate those characters into a class-based system. Heracles, Beowulf, Cuchulainn and even Juggernaut didn't become what they are through class/training, they're literal divine scions in their respective fiction. That's wholly incompatible with D&D's squire-to-dragonslayer martial idiom.

The one exception to that may be Beowulf himself - largely because his origins are extremely vague rather than divinity being wholly ruled out - but I'm really confused why he keeps getting brought up in these discussions. When you consider his fictional feats they're really not impressive in D&D terms. He fights a troll(?) that can't regenerate unarmed and wins, is gifted an almost-certainly magic sword that fails to kill its mother until he spots a different one in her lair and uses that instead... then he fights a dragon (without either magic sword? I guess?), gets mortally wounded in the process, and succumbs to his injuries. Three big fights and the third one kills him, even Caramon or Conan can pull off that much.

Hawkeye's abilities by contrast definitely come from training, but he relies on what in D&D terms would be magic items. Sure he can make a lot of them, but he's dependent on external resources (i.e. outsize wealth courtesy of whichever agency he works for) to do so. The bulk of his power comes from magic-mart.

Beowulf's big feats are, imo, endurance based. Being able to hold his breath for hours and swim for days wearing armor and fighting sea monsters.

Not something that would be terribly useful or hard to pull off in D&D mind you, but it certainly makes him well beyond what any real world human could pull off.

[RandomPeasant]

It seems to me that more than enough people enjoy all the levels today. Especially in Pathfinder 2 which manages to have better high level balance without going full "gonzo."

Again, how is this different from just saying "the market has spoken". Yes, it is true that the particular games that sell more or less copies sell more or less copies. Do you have some defense of your position that is grounded in anything I couldn't learn by listening to the earnings calls for Paizo and whatever company owns the license for Exalted right now?


Existing Fighters do have appropriate abilities for high levels in both systems.

I mean, they don't. Here's a fun exercise to do. Imagine a 7th level Barbarian. Think about how you might describe his capabilities to a person who doesn't play D&D. He can rage a couple times per day, he's modestly more durable than average in a couple of ways, that sort of thing. Now imagine that same Barbarian, leveled up to 17th level. How have his capabilities changed? How do you describe that to someone who doesn't play D&D? He rages slightly harder? He can rage a few more times per day? His rage still isn't anywhere near the Hulk, and the Hulk can rage at will. He can attack more times in a six-second round? Does that even mean anything to a non-D&D player if we aren't assuming a one-to-one mapping of attack rolls and sword swings? He has more DR, but the two points of it he's gained don't even let him shrug off a javelin flung by a peasant levy reliably, let alone the attacks he's taking now.

Compare this to a 7th Wizard. Not only can I easily tell anyone the difference between a 7th level Wizard and a 17th level Wizard without them knowing word one of D&D mechanics, I can do it with a 7th level Wizard and a 9th level Wizard. "This guy can teleport across continents, that guy can't." "This guy can wave his hands and turn a pile of raw ore into finished swords, that guy can't." "This guy can conjure a toxic cloud that kills the weak and cripples the strong, that guy can't." The Barbarian does not have "appropriate abilities for high levels". He, at best, has numbers that mostly scale to high level.


Whatever the high level core content of the game is, it will distort the game at all other levels. And houseruling whole swathes of core out of existence is a far more radical departure from the base game than adding in a sourcebook.

I don't see how you can make this argument, but limit it to giving martials high-level abilities. Either there is a distortionary effect to spells like teleport and plane shift (or finger of death and meteor swarm) or there is not. If there is, then we need to take them away from Wizards as well (oh, hi 4e, didn't realize you were in today). If there is not, then we can give them to martial characters. The issue, fundamentally, is that the ask is not "let's create an entirely new category of abilities", but "let's allow all characters to have access to a category of abilities that already exist".


More or less.

More less than more, to be honest. Sure, she gets a couple of magical sponsors. But her initial power is all her by any standard that the Fighter is. For the first two, two-and-a-half books she's working with stuff she got on her own. And more to the point, the series has plenty of characters that don't get a fae court or the power of Night pumped into them and still do crazy superhuman stuff. The Saint of Swords is immune to anything that doesn't effect swords, cuts everything from "the air" to "people's magical capabilities", and has some kind of dueling super-senses (it's not super well-explained, IIRC). Archer is an explicitly-superhuman combatant, and gets the ability to travel between planes (though without the portal abuse Cat demonstrates). Even if you think Cat or Hanno or whoever is a bad example, it is absolutely the case that there are characters from the Guide that are A) not wielding magical powers and B) demonstrably more capable than D&D's martials.


.. also, as far as 'characters from humble origins' go, it should probably be noted that in the Practical Guide From Evil universe being a smart self-motivated orphan in a city captured by the Evil Empire is actually a very high chance of developing superpowers, because that's where Inspiring Rebels and Folk Hero Leaders of the Commons come from.

This is really just the equivalent of "being an adventurer" in D&D. Yes, Cat is the narrative's favorite for a reason, but every D&D character is the narrative's favorite because that's how D&D works. She does not have the claim to legacy resources in the way that Kairos or Akua do.

[Talakeal]

I mean, they don't. Here's a fun exercise to do. Imagine a 7th level Barbarian. Think about how you might describe his capabilities to a person who doesn't play D&D. He can rage a couple times per day, he's modestly more durable than average in a couple of ways, that sort of thing. Now imagine that same Barbarian, leveled up to 17th level. How have his capabilities changed? How do you describe that to someone who doesn't play D&D? He rages slightly harder? He can rage a few more times per day? His rage still isn't anywhere near the Hulk, and the Hulk can rage at will. He can attack more times in a six-second round? Does that even mean anything to a non-D&D player if we aren't assuming a one-to-one mapping of attack rolls and sword swings? He has more DR, but the two points of it he's gained don't even let him shrug off a javelin flung by a peasant levy reliably, let alone the attacks he's taking now.

Martial classes are typically defined by their martial prowess. So I would do it by describing the sorts of opponents they can defeat.


Compare this to a 7th Wizard. Not only can I easily tell anyone the difference between a 7th level Wizard and a 17th level Wizard without them knowing word one of D&D mechanics, I can do it with a 7th level Wizard and a 9th level Wizard. "This guy can teleport across continents, that guy can't." "This guy can wave his hands and turn a pile of raw ore into finished swords, that guy can't." "This guy can conjure a toxic cloud that kills the weak and cripples the strong, that guy can't." The Barbarian does not have "appropriate abilities for high levels". He, at best, has numbers that mostly scale to high level.

You know, this may hit upon what the whole MCD argument boils down to; people who are fine with consistent scaling abilities throughout the games career and those who want completely new abilities as they level up.

[RandomPeasant]

Martial classes are typically defined by their martial prowess. So I would do it by describing the sorts of opponents they can defeat.

Sure. At 17th level he could defeat a huge stone statue (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Greater_Stone_Golem), which any non-D&D player would be able to easily distinguish from the huge stone statue (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Huge_Animated_Object) he could've defeated at 7th level. "No you see the Greater Stone Golem is different from the Huge Animated Object because rather than being best defeated by exploiting its predictable behavior it is best defeated by *checks notes* ... exploiting its predictable behavior".

But, sure, there are some high level monsters that are not like low level monsters. But can the 17th level Barbarian defeat them? Can he defeat a Planetar (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Planetar) that can fly faster than he can run, plane shift away if that doesn't work, and which he is unlikely to even be able to permanently kill (it takes lethal damage from [Evil], which even an Evil Barbarian may not have a source of)? That's not even a level-appropriate opponent, strictly speaking, as it's only CR 16. At CR 17 he might face a Marilith (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Marilith), which doesn't get plane shift but can teleport away to nearly as good effect, and is quite plausibly his match in a straight up fight. Or perhaps he'll get a party of martial characters together to fight some big game. Can a party of the Barbarian, a Fighter, a spell-less Ranger, and a Monk beat the Tarrasque (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Tarrasque) head-to-head? Well, obviously they literally can't, because they don't get wish or miracle, but can they even beat it down to 0 HP before it kills them?


You know, this may hit upon what the whole MCD argument boils down to; people who are fine with consistent scaling abilities throughout the games career and those who want completely new abilities as they level up.

If the only thing that is changing about your abilities is that you are getting larger numbers, you are playing WoW, not D&D. Actually not even that. At least WoW has ability unlocks as classes level.

[Talakeal]

Sure. At 17th level he could defeat a huge stone statue (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Greater_Stone_Golem), which any non-D&D player would be able to easily distinguish from the huge stone statue (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Huge_Animated_Object) he could've defeated at 7th level. "No you see the Greater Stone Golem is different from the Huge Animated Object because rather than being best defeated by exploiting its predictable behavior it is best defeated by *checks notes* ... exploiting its predictable behavior".

But, sure, there are some high-level monsters that are not like low level monsters. But can the 17th level Barbarian defeat them? Can he defeat a Planetar (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Planetar) that can fly faster than he can run, plane shift away if that doesn't work, and which he is unlikely to even be able to permanently kill (it takes lethal damage from [Evil], which even an Evil Barbarian may not have a source of)? That's not even a level-appropriate opponent, strictly speaking, as it's only CR 16. At CR 17 he might face a Marilith (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Marilith), which doesn't get plane shift but can teleport away to nearly as good effect, and is quite plausibly his match in a straight up fight. Or perhaps he'll get a party of martial characters together to fight some big game. Can a party of the Barbarian, a Fighter, a spell-less Ranger, and a Monk beat the Tarrasque (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Tarrasque) head-to-head? Well, obviously they literally can't, because they don't get wish or miracle, but can they even beat it down to 0 HP before it kills them?

A martial character can go toe to toe with just about any monster of equal CR and come out ahead. Saying that the monster can potentially run away from you to avoid dying doesn't make it significantly less impressive.

You can easily describe high CR krakens, dragons, dinosaurs, golems, elementals, demons, etc. in a way that sounds impressive to a layperson.

See Sabin suplexing a train.


If the only thing that is changing about your abilities is that you are getting larger numbers, you are playing WoW, not D&D. Actually not even that. At least WoW has ability unlocks as classes level.

That's just not true.

As you noted, WoW absolutely does grant new abilities as one levels, while several of the martial classes in several editions of D&D never pick up abilities they didn't have at level 1.

[Zalabim]

That's just not true.

As you noted, WoW absolutely does grant new abilities as one levels, while several of the martial classes in several editions of D&D never pick up abilities they didn't have at level 1.

This reminds me of the heavily D&D inspired Final Fantasy 1 giving spellcasting to Knights and Ninjas after class change, sort of like how paladins and rangers had to be level 8 or higher (depends on edition) to learn spells in D&D, all the way to the later job systems in Final Fantasy Tactics where every job got a special command ability. Some of those abilities were like the archer's charge or dragoon's jump (bigger numbers), and others would be knight's break "stat" and the thief's steal "whatever".

Anyway, the things that characters often need at high levels is the ability to avoid or counter (or even employ) tactics that become more common like hiding/invisibility, flying, teleportation, long-term consequences (curses, possessions, drains, petrifications, etc), selective immunity, and abilities that can use time proactively. The option to exert control over the story and be less reactive. Those are the kinds of things that either every party should be able to access, or no party should be accessing.

[Ignimortis]

But classes already have different levels of access to the skills subsystem. The Beguiler gets more of it than the Fighter and less of it than the Rogue. So, what, we're going to have a second sort of access to skills people have that is connected to how skills currently work... how exactly? By using ranks as level gates? In what sense is this supposed to be a "skills system" at that point?

There's a distinction between "navigate to the planes" and "navigate through hostile high-level environments". Certainly you could imagine characters who would have both sets of abilities (like a Ranger), but you could also imagine characters who had only one set. Like a Summoner who has "go to the outer planes" and "bring over creatures from the outer planes" abilities. Or another Ranger who spec'd a combination of "track stuff down" abilities that finds portals and people but doesn't have particularly strong wilderness survival.

And I think this points to the issue with "it should come from skills" for high-level abilities. You have multiple skills that might lead to any particular ability. You could get plane shift from Survival (finding freestanding portals to other planes), Knowledge (the planes) (that would seem to be obvious), or even something weirder like Decipher Script (figuring out how to activate some weird planar travel runic array). And you have multiple abilities that could arise from any particular skill. Maybe Survival gives you plane shift. But equally, maybe it gives you some high-level version of goodberry because you're really good at foraging. Or maybe it gives you locate creature/locate object-type stuff because you're good at tracking. Or maybe it gives you animal powers because it's the wilderness skill. So the question is what the linkage to Survival is really getting us. How does it simplify the system compared to just having a "Travel Between Planes" ability track and a "Finding Stuff Track" and so on and letting people pick the ones they want?
This all ties together - "finding stuff track" is already the Survival skill. It just cuts off early because it has no higher-level abilities than being able to find something that leaves few traces. There's no other track for that stuff, which is why it makes sense to co-opt the existing one, rather than invent a whole separate one. And "travel between planes" is only ever expressed through spells, but since not everyone has spells (nor should everyone), and everyone has skills, it makes more sense to use skills if the aim is to produce a subsystem that technically allows everyone access to some degree. Otherwise you'd be inventing a whole new subsystem that orphans skills while still probably somehow reliant on them for some support.

And this could be done through skill unlocks or skill feats or whatever one would call them. A Rogue gets a lot of skill points and a lot of skill feats, a Fighter gets a bit less but still a high number (or should, in such a paradigm), and the more spellcasting you get, the less of that you should get, since spellcasting already provides access to similar abilities in different packages.

As for "why is finding portals part of survival rather than decipher script", I'd say that Decipher Script is on the same chopping block as Use Rope, while the remaining skills would probably provide access to "travel between planes" in different ways: Knowledge: Planes might just let you access a Plane Shift ritual, whereas Survival would have different limitations (for instance, that portal you find can bring over a lot more people and is more stable, but you actually need to go somewhere to get to it).



I think "you can jump a bit higher than a regular guy" and "you can jump to another plane" don't really qualify as the same sort of "superhuman". Like, yeah, you can push the regression of "strongness" a bit. Why that needs to connect over to a qualitatively different ability is just not clear to me.

Because it provides a more flexible subsystem that plugs into every class ever printed going forward, rather than requiring a class to have predescribed tracks it can go through.



But "various means" doesn't have to mean "a completely different subsystem". Druids and Warblades have "different means" of doing melee combat, but they come from class levels at bottom.
It's D&D, everything comes through either class levels, racial abilities or feats at the bottom (and the latter two are usually more tacked-on and one-note). You get access to spells, class abilities, skills, and sometimes feats through classes. So it's a bit too general to describe something as "you get there through your class".



I just don't understand what alternative approach you're advocating for. To the degree that the way the Mind Flayer works is the "5e approach" it is also the "3e approach", as far as I can tell.
The way I see it, the 3e approach is when you can build a monster from nothing using existing sources, since all their parts just add up. They have their monster classes, they have their monster feats, they basically function like PCs that have put their levels into different classes. Sure, there's a bit of a mixup with racial HD, but once monstrous races became available to PCs, that distinction was gone too. If a certain feat meaningfully changes, you need to reevaluate every monster that has it, as it might have gotten a different value now.

5e does away with all of that, assigning maybe a hit die value to a "type", and then pretty much pulling numbers out of nowhere - not according to how PCs are built, but rather according to criteria they need to meet to produce a CR X enemy. I'm not even sure if monsters' proficiencies and ability scores add up to their to-hits consistently, and they certainly don't map onto PCs.


Sure but why are we using that framework to begin with? We already have a mechanism to spend feats to get abilities. It's called feats. If you want "you can find a portal to whatever plane this week's adventure is on" to be an ability some people have, that can just be a feat. I still don't see what need or benefit there is to tying this into skills when it manifestly has nothing to do with the rest of the skill system. In what sense is a system that consists of "you have a bonus that scales with level that you can roll against different tasks" and "you have some arbitrary abilities that do things with some notional thematic relationship" one system?
Once those arbitrary abilities are tasks you can do with those rolls. The thing is, skills provide a good foundation for those skills exactly because they cover "tasks you can do" - it would make much less sense to just whip out a "I teleport to another plane" or "I jump a mile away" without anything to support that previously. Now, if you already had recorded capability to jump far higher than a regular human without ranks in Athletics or a distinct expertise in either travel or extraplanar stuff, that gets a lot easier to square with the narrative.



It seems to me that more than enough people enjoy all the levels today. Especially in Pathfinder 2 which manages to have better high level balance without going full "gonzo."
At the cost of making high levels play like low levels with bigger numbers. I have, in this very thread, provided examples of how single-digit 3.PF non-spellcaster characters have access to more spectacular abilities than level 20 PF2 characters.



Existing Fighters do have appropriate abilities for high levels in both systems.
Existing Fighters in both systems have some part of appropriate abilities for high levels. That is, they have appropriate numbers to win in a purely mathematical sense, when you take a Fighter and a similar CR enemy and bash their statblocks against each other in an attack fest. Otherwise, no, not really.


A martial character can go toe to toe with just about any monster of equal CR and come out ahead. Saying that the monster can potentially run away from you to avoid dying doesn't make it significantly less impressive.
Sure, if they both resort to just attacking each other in melee. Once tactics and extra abilities the enemies have enter play, that's a lot less certain.



You can easily describe high CR krakens, dragons, dinosaurs, golems, elementals, demons, etc. in a way that sounds impressive to a layperson.

See Sabin suplexing a train.
The issue here is that it needs mechanical backing. If your character can't feasibly grapple a Gargantuan+ enemy (like a train locomotive), you don't get to describe yourself suplexing it. Or at least, in my mind you don't. If your numbers don't add up to being capable of that, you probably can't do that in text, either.



That's just not true.

As you noted, WoW absolutely does grant new abilities as one levels, while several of the martial classes in several editions of D&D never pick up abilities they didn't have at level 1.
Honestly, a lot of vanilla WoW Rogue mechanical gameplay is a lot more exciting and solid design-wise than, say, D&D Rogue mechanical gameplay. You actually get mechanics you have to interact with in combat (energy, cooldowns, combo points), you actually have stealth gameplay (very simplistic, but with enough basic nuance to keep it interesting - enemies first turn in your direction before spotting you outright, enemies have lines of sight, some enemies can see through stealth, there's picking pockets and opening locks), you sometimes get magic items you can use...

And that's in a game that in no way intended to be a roleplaying game (no, MMORPGs are not about roleplaying).




Anyway, the things that characters often need at high levels is the ability to avoid or counter (or even employ) tactics that become more common like hiding/invisibility, flying, teleportation, long-term consequences (curses, possessions, drains, petrifications, etc), selective immunity, and abilities that can use time proactively. The option to exert control over the story and be less reactive. Those are the kinds of things that either every party should be able to access, or no party should be accessing.
Precisely. While I am not a fan of how 3.PF ended up at "you pretty much need flight, Freedom of Movement, Deathward, Mind Blank and True Seeing either permanently or on-demand", to a some extent, having actual high-level capabilities that can gate characters is important. Then again, with proper design (namely, with less blanket immunities and straight counters, but with wider access to "good enough" effects), that would be less jarring.

[Talakeal]

The issue here is that it needs mechanical backing. If your character can't feasibly grapple a Gargantuan+ enemy (like a train locomotive), you don't get to describe yourself suplexing it. Or at least, in my mind you don't. If your numbers don't add up to being capable of that, you probably can't do that in text, either.

Of course it needs mechanical backing.

My entire point was that big numbers can be cool and exciting if you describe the things they let you do rather than the numbers themselves in a vacuum.

[lesser_minion]

I don't see how you can make this argument, but limit it to giving martials high-level abilities. Either there is a distortionary effect to spells like teleport and plane shift (or finger of death and meteor swarm) or there is not. If there is, then we need to take them away from Wizards as well (oh, hi 4e, didn't realize you were in today). If there is not, then we can give them to martial characters. The issue, fundamentally, is that the ask is not "let's create an entirely new category of abilities", but "let's allow all characters to have access to a category of abilities that already exist".

4e did many things differently, and failed for many reasons. You can knock casters down a peg without recreating it. And there has been enough appetite for a game that does so that 3e, both editions of Pathfinder, and 5e all looked for ways capitalise on it.

It's also true that martial characters in fantasy games shouldn't be limited to the physical capabilities of their players (or what those players imagine real people doing), whether those players conform to nerd stereotypes or not. But that doesn't mean we have to go to the opposite extreme.

[RandomPeasant]

A martial character can go toe to toe with just about any monster of equal CR and come out ahead.

The Planetar casts as a 17th level Cleric. The Barbarian isn't "going toe to toe" with that for the same reason Barbarians are worse than Clerics in general. Sure, you can build an Ubercharger that turns it into a fine red mist, but it can just prepare gate and do the Free Vacation: No Save trick to you.


Saying that the monster can potentially run away from you to avoid dying doesn't make it significantly less impressive.

Yes it does, because it's not the monster "running away to avoid dying". It's the monster being able to do whatever it is it's trying to do without you being able to stop it. Even insofar as the Barbarian physically outmatches level-appropriate opposition, that doesn't solve the problem, because high level adventures are not (or should not be) simply a series of cage matches. What does the Barbarian do when he learns there is a demon cult on the other side of the country that has just started a week-long ritual to unleash some sort of magical apocalypse? How does he protect more than a single village from demonic invaders when they can teleport freely?


You can easily describe high CR krakens, dragons, dinosaurs, golems, elementals, demons, etc. in a way that sounds impressive to a layperson.

How do you think the Barbarian, who swims slower than a kraken and has no particular ability to breathe water, is supposed to defeat a kraken? I agree that it sounds cool if you can do that, but this isn't the Pirates of the Carribean version that has to get up close and personal with the ship. It can just throw storms at you until you capsize, or attack with tentacles at a distance where you can't effectively retaliate.


Anyway, the things that characters often need at high levels is the ability to avoid or counter (or even employ) tactics that become more common like hiding/invisibility, flying, teleportation, long-term consequences (curses, possessions, drains, petrifications, etc), selective immunity, and abilities that can use time proactively. The option to exert control over the story and be less reactive. Those are the kinds of things that either every party should be able to access, or no party should be accessing.

Yeah this is pretty much it. If you want the Barbarian to not get some kind of flashy active abilities, that's workable (though I do not think this is a common demand, or even a signature demand of the "no magic" crowd). But he needs to get some new abilities, because the monsters are getting new offenses and new defenses. He needs to be able to survive in exotic environments and withstand novel attacks and so on. And he needs some kind of abilities that allow him to advance the plot beyond "I win this fight scene".


There's no other track for that stuff, which is why it makes sense to co-opt the existing one, rather than invent a whole separate one.

Yes there is. It's called "Divination spells". It gives you low-level stuff-finding abilities you do not get from Survival (e.g. detect magic) and it scales to high-level stuff-finding (e.g. locate creature).


And "travel between planes" is only ever expressed through spells, but since not everyone has spells (nor should everyone)

This is the kind of demand for non-overlapping magisteria that I find a little silly. Yes, as-written plane shift is a spell. But that doesn't mean giving someone a feat or whatever that says "you can reproduce the effect of plane shift" is getting Wizard juices on them. It means that we have a defined piece of rules text that does what we want and we are re-using it in a new context. Hell, you want a Ranger to "replicate the net effect of Shadow Walk" at high levels. Of course we're going to define these effects in terms of spells when we give them to other people, we have spells that define how they function.


Otherwise you'd be inventing a whole new subsystem that orphans skills while still probably somehow reliant on them for some support.

It is not clear to me why inventing a new subsystem to do a new thing is a bad idea. If we make it so that plane shift comes from a "Survival Skill Feat", but that just means "the feat that gives you plane shift requires you to have 12 ranks in Survival" I wouldn't even call that "part of the skill system" to begin with, and to the degree that it is that's bad because it means you need a separate way for the Summoner and the Cleric to get their plane shifts. It seems to me that "there are skills and also there are non-combat ability tracks" is simply a better system because it achieves a separation of concerns. I don't need to anticipate all the high level abilities someone who invests in Survival might think are appropriate for their character, and I don't need to anticipate all the skills someone who wants to get plane shift might've had at low levels.


Because it provides a more flexible subsystem that plugs into every class ever printed going forward, rather than requiring a class to have predescribed tracks it can go through.

But it provides a less flexible system than simply allowing people to pick which abilities they want (or whatever tracks you want, if you think cohesive identity across levels is important). It seems to me that "everything comes through your class" is a reasonable choice because classes are the fundamental unit of D&D characters, and it allows us to maximize class cohesion and identity. Conversely, "everyone gets whatever they want" is a reasonable choice because it maximizes character customization and that's something we generally think is good from a design perspective. I'm just struggling to see the affirmative case for "everyone gets whatever they want, subject to filtering on the skills they picked at first level".


The way I see it, the 3e approach is when you can build a monster from nothing using existing sources, since all their parts just add up. They have their monster classes, they have their monster feats, they basically function like PCs that have put their levels into different classes.

But this is not where monsters come from. Sure, there are some monster progressions for some particularly well-known monsters, but almost all of those are post hoc constructions (and also they suck). But for the vast majority of 3e monsters, they simply have the combination of stats and abilities that they have, and those stats and abilities are derived by the process of "designer made it up". When you fight an Arcadian Avenger, it is not the product of an Arcadian Avenger progression that neatly breaks down into 2nd level or 4th level Avengers, they just have a combination of abilities.

To be clear, I think it is good that the Arcadian Avenger has attack rolls that correspond to a Strength stat and a base attack bonus and so on, and it is also good that you can trace those things farther back than "we made them up bespoke for the Arcadian Avenger". But that is still not very much overlap with what you'd want to change to balance PCs.


If a certain feat meaningfully changes, you need to reevaluate every monster that has it, as it might have gotten a different value now.

Sure. That's true. But how many feats do you really want to change? And in particular, how many feats do you want to change that monsters are using? If you want to change Persistent Spell (a reasonable enough thing to want) there is one monster statblock that you have to change to my knowledge, and it is arguably already illegal as it is applying Persistent to a touch spell, which some people will argue is illegal.


And there has been enough appetite for a game that does so that 3e, both editions of Pathfinder, and 5e all looked for ways capitalise on it.

There's been appetite for a game that is more balanced, and trying to do that through nerfs is easier. But it doesn't work as we can see from 5e's nerfs to casters resulting in a game that produces debates about martials and casters that are all but indistinguishable from 3e's. The only way to nerf casters enough to not have to give martials abilities that matter is to make 4e, and "this doesn't feel like D&D because I can't do the cool stuff I could do in 3e" was a hugely central complaint people (rightly) had about 4e.

[lesser_minion]

There's been appetite for a game that is more balanced, and trying to do that through nerfs is easier. But it doesn't work as we can see from 5e's nerfs to casters resulting in a game that produces debates about martials and casters that are all but indistinguishable from 3e's.

I was there for the 3e caster vs martial flamewars. They were far more intense than basically any of the caster vs. martial discussions I've seen for 5e. That's already a pretty big difference. And while forums were more of a thing back then, you don't necessarily need more than a handful of people for things to get that heated.


..."this doesn't feel like D&D because I can't do the cool stuff I could do in 3e" was a hugely central complaint people (rightly) had about 4e.

I was there for the edition wars too. People feeling that 4e didn't seem like D&D any more were certainly a thing. But the "...because I can't do the cool stuff I could do in 3e" part? I saw a grand total of maybe one post that identified the stuff 4e took from casters as central to why the game didn't feel like D&D.

[Satinavian]

I was there for the 3e caster vs martial flamewars. They were far more intense than basically any of the caster vs. martial discussions I've seen for 5e. That's already a pretty big difference. And while forums were more of a thing back then, you don't necessarily need more than a handful of people for things to get that heated.True.

But That just might be because most people are sick of the martial/caster and especially fighter/wizard debate. Everything that can be said about it has been said a thousand times already. And 3E and 5E are similar enough to not spark new arguments.

[Pex]

True.

But That just might be because most people are sick of the martial/caster and especially fighter/wizard debate. Everything that can be said about it has been said a thousand times already. And 3E and 5E are similar enough to not spark new arguments.

The 5E Forum still gets the spellcaster hate.

[Tanarii]

Something that triggers me about both editions of PF as a DM, as well as D&D editions that effectively require it:
Wealthy By Level, required either or both of specific Magic Items and/or Magic Mart access.

Especially for tight-math bonuses to hit. But in PF2e specifically, I'm really underwhelmed by the system assumed dependency on striking runes for weapon damage.

On the plus side, PF2 crafting seems like a solid way to put it into the players hands. If they want to be on par for system expected specific magic items, they can take the time to locate a formula, take one found item apart to figure out the formula and then provide copies for other players, or at 7th level spend a feat to gain the ability to just flat out research formulas if neither of the first two are available.

That means that as long as I give them downtime, Magic marts (or even just formula marts) in every little podunk town aren't flat out required.

[Talakeal]

True.

But That just might be because most people are sick of the martial/caster and especially fighter/wizard debate. Everything that can be said about it has been said a thousand times already. And 3E and 5E are similar enough to not spark new arguments.

True enough.

But even after 20 years I still see people (many of them newcomers to the forum) making the same, imo fallacious, arguments that they did in the d20 heyday.


The Planetar casts as a 17th level Cleric. The Barbarian isn't "going toe to toe" with that for the same reason Barbarians are worse than Clerics in general. Sure, you can build an Ubercharger that turns it into a fine red mist, but it can just prepare gate and do the Free Vacation: No Save trick to you.

Yes it does, because it's not the monster "running away to avoid dying". It's the monster being able to do whatever it is it's trying to do without you being able to stop it. Even insofar as the Barbarian physically outmatches level-appropriate opposition, that doesn't solve the problem, because high level adventures are not (or should not be) simply a series of cage matches. What does the Barbarian do when he learns there is a demon cult on the other side of the country that has just started a week-long ritual to unleash some sort of magical apocalypse? How does he protect more than a single village from demonic invaders when they can teleport freely?

How do you think the Barbarian, who swims slower than a kraken and has no particular ability to breathe water, is supposed to defeat a kraken? I agree that it sounds cool if you can do that, but this isn't the Pirates of the Carribean version that has to get up close and personal with the ship. It can just throw storms at you until you capsize, or attack with tentacles at a distance where you can't effectively retaliate.

First, we were talking about how to describe martial prowess to a layperson without using numbers. Just because a straight up fight is unlikely to come up in actual game play doesn't make the description any less impressive. If, as a hypothetical, I say I can beat up Mike Tyson, that's still an impressive claim even if Mike and I have no reason to ever actually fight.

I never said the game was perfectly balanced, it isn't. But just as it rarely devolves into a cage match, it also rarely devolves into monsters kiting / ignoring the PCs because it is a team game with objectives. I tend to play my monsters much smarter than any other DM I know, to the point where people in person and on the forums often complain about it, and even so I almost never get into situations where the martial characters don't contribute massively to any given encounter.


Sure, you can build an Ubercharger that turns it into a fine red mist, but it can just prepare gate and do the Free Vacation: No Save trick to you.

I am not familiar with this trick. Is it PF exclusive? Because I haven't played PF above level 10.

If not, I am assuming it involves a Loony Tunes style reading of the ready action rules that forces people to run into something like an idiot if you put something in their path before a charge?

[Ignimortis]

Yes there is. It's called "Divination spells". It gives you low-level stuff-finding abilities you do not get from Survival (e.g. detect magic) and it scales to high-level stuff-finding (e.g. locate creature).
That's not a track, it's a please-help-yourself buffet that has no continuity and no real limitation to even "finding stuff", either, unless you throw "finding things out" under the same umbrella. Divination spells are a bit tamer in that respect than, say, Conjuration spells, but they still run a very wide gamut and certainly aren't limited enough to be called a "track".



This is the kind of demand for non-overlapping magisteria that I find a little silly. Yes, as-written plane shift is a spell. But that doesn't mean giving someone a feat or whatever that says "you can reproduce the effect of plane shift" is getting Wizard juices on them. It means that we have a defined piece of rules text that does what we want and we are re-using it in a new context. Hell, you want a Ranger to "replicate the net effect of Shadow Walk" at high levels. Of course we're going to define these effects in terms of spells when we give them to other people, we have spells that define how they function.
If everything is just "you cast Spell X without having to spend a spell slot or be a caster", then yes, it works. But I don't see how this approach is less silly than striving for "you can't just Spell X at everything". The fact that I am describing this theoretical effect of Ranger abilities as "net effect of Shadow Walk" doesn't mean that the ability should say "as Shadow Walk, except this changes and that changes".

I am describing it as such because it's a useful shorthand in a discussion. But it doesn't feel good to have all the abilities be derivative of spellcasting - see the recent 5e attempts to move in that direction. And there's no need for that, either, outside of rather meaningless text optimization to save on book space and balancing efforts. For a player-facing explanation of mechanics, "feel" is important. 4e is high proof of that - a large issue for players was that WotC re-classified powers into consistent categories that were not sufficiently mechanically discrete, and even if it was technically better for the kind of design 4e was, it was not well-received.



It is not clear to me why inventing a new subsystem to do a new thing is a bad idea. If we make it so that plane shift comes from a "Survival Skill Feat", but that just means "the feat that gives you plane shift requires you to have 12 ranks in Survival" I wouldn't even call that "part of the skill system" to begin with, and to the degree that it is that's bad because it means you need a separate way for the Summoner and the Cleric to get their plane shifts. It seems to me that "there are skills and also there are non-combat ability tracks" is simply a better system because it achieves a separation of concerns. I don't need to anticipate all the high level abilities someone who invests in Survival might think are appropriate for their character, and I don't need to anticipate all the skills someone who wants to get plane shift might've had at low levels.
At this point one might just graduate to running something like HERO or GURPS, and get all the abilities they think appropriate through those games' rules on obtaining such.

The thing is, you'll end up with far more tracks than you'd have skills. Consider how many domains clerics eventually got, and that those domains pretty much express the idea of "this is a track of extra powers I get for this particular theme".

I also don't see how those things wouldn't be part of the skill system. You need skill X at rank Y, a skill feat (independent of regular feats), and possibly a skill roll to activate that particular feature.


But it provides a less flexible system than simply allowing people to pick which abilities they want (or whatever tracks you want, if you think cohesive identity across levels is important). It seems to me that "everything comes through your class" is a reasonable choice because classes are the fundamental unit of D&D characters, and it allows us to maximize class cohesion and identity. Conversely, "everyone gets whatever they want" is a reasonable choice because it maximizes character customization and that's something we generally think is good from a design perspective. I'm just struggling to see the affirmative case for "everyone gets whatever they want, subject to filtering on the skills they picked at first level".
It's the same idea that comes from classes, actually. If you don't want Wizard spellcasting, you don't pick Wizard. If you don't want to be a survivalist, you don't pick Survival. You won't need Survival to cast Plane Shift if you can pick it up through a different track (for instance, if you're a Summoner, you don't need anything, you get Plane Shift in your level 11 spell selection, or even as a class ability if that aspect is that core to being a Summoner). But you can pick up an effect that allows you to travel between planes through Survival - or ignore it if it doesn't fit your idea of the character.

I honestly don't see how it's bad. It is less flexible, true, but the whole point of class-based systems is that they're not exactly as flexible as point-build-based systems, but instead provide stronger thematics and consistency.



Sure. That's true. But how many feats do you really want to change? And in particular, how many feats do you want to change that monsters are using? If you want to change Persistent Spell (a reasonable enough thing to want) there is one monster statblock that you have to change to my knowledge, and it is arguably already illegal as it is applying Persistent to a touch spell, which some people will argue is illegal.
Personally, I'd change most if not all feats out there. In a game where you get circa 7 to 10 feats for most classes, having them be "+1 to this particular roll" is indefensible if you're not PF2 (and if you are, there are bigger problems at the core already). In a 3e-adjacent paradigm, feats should be powerful packages rather than "something that will eventually, after spending three or four feats, function fully". For instance, Two-Weapon Fighting needs to include all the improved versions and potentially Two-Weapon Defense and Two-Weapon Rend, too - unlocking at requisite points of BAB, but for the price of a single feat.

[Kurald Galain]

In a 3e-adjacent paradigm, feats should be powerful packages
Why would that be true though? The term "package" suggests to me that it is multiple feats (and indeed, pretty much none of the feats in 3E-adjacent games are a package by themselves). What if I don't want the entire package but only part of it?

[Ignimortis]

Why would that be true though? The term "package" suggests to me that it is multiple feats (and indeed, pretty much none of the feats in 3E-adjacent games are a package by themselves). What if I don't want the entire package but only part of it?
Then you get the rest of the package as extra. I'm not sure who would want only TWF but not ITWF and GTWF, for instance, or who'd decline getting Weapon Specialization bundled into their Weapon Focus, or Mobility becoming part of Dodge, that sort of thing. It's not like there'd be feats that combine Combat Reflexes and Power Attack, for example.

[Kurald Galain]

Then you get the rest of the package as extra. I'm not sure who would want only TWF but not ITWF and GTWF, for instance, or who'd decline getting Weapon Specialization bundled into their Weapon Focus, or Mobility becoming part of Dodge, that sort of thing. It's not like there'd be feats that combine Combat Reflexes and Power Attack, for example.

Well, if you increase all feats (or merge them with other feats) until all of them are at the power level of TWF+ITWF+GTWF combined, then I'd say that 7-10 of such high-power feats is too many for a character. Personally, I'd rather have more feats that are smaller steps.

...of course that doesn't mean that I want feats as weak as PF2's "+1 to one particular roll only", either. That's the other extreme.

[Kish]

I can see value in "there shouldn't be a bunch of feats that are just: like that other feat only slightly stronger."

At the same time, though, this seems like it makes the primary fighter class ability--getting a billion feats--even more redundant than it already is. "You've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 8" becomes "you've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 2."

[Ignimortis]

Well, if you increase all feats (or merge them with other feats) until all of them are at the power level of TWF+ITWF+GTWF combined, then I'd say that 7-10 of such high-power feats is too many for a character. Personally, I'd rather have more feats that are smaller steps.

...of course that doesn't mean that I want feats as weak as PF2's "+1 to one particular roll only", either. That's the other extreme.
Eh. I figure that number can go down somewhat, but frankly, I don't see an issue in there being, say, 7 picks over 20 levels of feats like these. Consider that you spend half the game with only, maybe, three to four of these, and you still blow one or two on things that are prereqs for prestige classes or build-defining stuff like Rapid Reload, TWF, etc.


I can see value in "there shouldn't be a bunch of feats that are just: like that other feat only slightly stronger."

At the same time, though, this seems like it makes the primary fighter class ability--getting a billion feats--even more redundant than it already is. "You've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 8" becomes "you've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 2."
To be entirely honest, if I were to redo 3e, there wouldn't be a Fighter-type class whose features are "high BAB, high HP" and "I get more feats". Fighter is likely getting replaced by Warblade with some tweaks, and Fighter-type enthusiasts might get something like Adventurer or Soldier, which would be a Rogue//Fighter gestalt losing sneak attack and some focused Rogue features in return for, well, being better in a stand-up fight. So good skills (including skill feats, so they won't fall off hard), good BAB and HP, high saves (Fort/Ref natively, Will against fear and charm effects, I figure), very few to none mandatory active features.

[icefractal]

In terms of complexity, I think it's a mistake to think primarily in terms of 20th level complexity (ie. you'll have 7 feats by 20th level), when most campaigns don't reach that high.

If complexity had to be linear, I'd rather balance it so that 10th level had the right amount of complexity to be fun, and 20th level was over-complex, since 10th is at least a level people often reach.

It doesn't, IMO, but that requires something 4E tried and a lot of people hated - forgetting / losing things. But IMO, trying to have all four of:
1) The game is complex enough to be interesting by fairly early, like 3rd level.
2) The game is simple enough to run smoothly at 20th level.
3) PCs get new things frequently, level-up isn't just increasing numbers.
4) PCs never lose/forget anything, so by 20th level they have everything they've ever gotten.
Is a circle that's impossible to square. And if I have to drop one of these, #4 is the one I'm most willing to lose.

[RandomPeasant]

First, we were talking about how to describe martial prowess to a layperson without using numbers.

If you ignore all the abilities the Planetar has that make it difficult for you to defeat it in a fight, the description you are giving is "I can defeat a winged resident of the outer planes", which is doable at like 5th level depending on how aggressive you're willing to be with templates and whatnot. What are the non-numeric capabilities of the Planetar our Barbarian is overcoming that cannot be attributed to a 6th level Fighter with the Half-Celestial template?


it also rarely devolves into monsters kiting / ignoring the PCs because it is a team game with objectives.

By all means. Bring your team. But just don't put any casters on that team. If you think "a Barbarian, a Swashbuckler, a Fighter, and a Rogue versus a Solar" looks better than "a Barbarian versus a Planetar", I am prepared to have that debate. More broadly, a "team game" does not mean "you carry me to fights", it means "we all solve different problems". If all the Fighter brings to the table is "being a level-appropriate combatant", he is not level-appropriate, because everyone is supposed to be a level-appropriate combatant. And often the Fighter isn't even expected to do that, because people will tell you he deserves combat buffs as well!

More than that, the core point here is negative space. Yes, people seldom play campaigns where the Fighter has no useful contribution to make. But that's because the existence of the Fighter operates as a constraint on what campaigns can exist. You can write a campaign where all the monsters with teleport and plane shift conveniently attack where the PCs are. You can even figure out marginally less contrived versions of that where the PCs have a base that is on top of the Font of Souls or whatever and there's a reason everyone comes to them. But it's not "kiting" or "ignoring" to have a problem that is a physically large distance away that the PCs need to go to, it's just something the Fighter gets zero tools to engage with. Basically every caster has something for that. That's the sort of issue people are talking about when they say martials lack high-level abilities.


I am not familiar with this trick. Is it PF exclusive? Because I haven't played PF above level 10.

gate allows you to summon creatures and have them perform a service of your choice for 1 round per CL. If you summon them to a location like "the Negative Energy Plane" (or some other place that is environmentally hazardous) and choose a service like "performing push-ups" (or some other service that is not threatening to you), you can kill them pretty trivially. And you don't get a save against it. The only rules argument against it is to essentially read "particular being" out of the spell and assert that everyone is their own "unique being", and therefore that the spell can never summon any specific individual. But I find that reading pretty clearly untenable.


That's not a track, it's a please-help-yourself buffet that has no continuity and no real limitation to even "finding stuff", either, unless you throw "finding things out" under the same umbrella. Divination spells are a bit tamer in that respect than, say, Conjuration spells, but they still run a very wide gamut and certainly aren't limited enough to be called a "track".

But isn't this what skill feats would be as well? If you can potentially turn your Survival into "I did a shadow walk and now we're on the plane where the bad guy lives" and "I did a locate creature and now we know where the kidnapped princess is" and "I did a hero's feast and now we have nourishing rations in the wilderness" or even "I did a speak with animals and the badger told us where the McGuffin is", that seem to me to be at least as much a grab-bag as Divination is.

The simple reality is that there are a lot of non-combat abilities you could have, and many different combinations of them are reasonable. You could imagine a guy who has healing magic and travel magic for small groups of people (Aragorn-style Ranger). Or a guy who has scrying-style divinations and travel magic for large groups of people (some sort of mage-commander). Or a guy who has commune-style divinations and commands spirits of nature (high-level Logan Ninefingers). Or a guy who has all sorts of divinations (any oracle-type). And so on and so forth. Anything you do is going to end up being a grab-bag, because the abilities characters have are a grab bag. And it needs to be a grab bag, because each character needs to get enough abilities that the party can reasonably expect to cover their bases without forcing Greg to play a Cleric because no one else gets the healing powers.


I am describing it as such because it's a useful shorthand in a discussion. But it doesn't feel good to have all the abilities be derivative of spellcasting

Just as it is a useful shorthand for discussion, it is a useful shorthand for implementation. I will absolutely agree that you would not implement these things as spells first. But however you implemented them in the PHB, you'd want to point back to that implementation as much as possible when you wrote Masters of the Wild and introduced the Scout.


meaningless text optimization to save on book space

This is not meaningless at all! If you make your "shadow walk, but not a spell" ability twice as long so that the people taking it feel sufficiently distanced from Wizards, the direct result of that is that people get half as many abilities to choose from. Managing space is very important, and "reference things that work similarly to a common set of templates" is a very useful optimization for it.


a large issue for players was that WotC re-classified powers into consistent categories that were not sufficiently mechanically discrete

That was a problem with combat abilities, not really non-combat ones. I'm unconvinced there are that many meaningful ways for non-combat abilities to work differently at the resource management level. It's all well and good to have a shadow walk that works differently from your teleport, but it's not really clear to me that there are enough different ways for the usage of those abilities to be managed so that the Fighter and the Ranger and the Wizard can all get access to them in different ways.


I also don't see how those things wouldn't be part of the skill system. You need skill X at rank Y, a skill feat (independent of regular feats), and possibly a skill roll to activate that particular feature.

I don't see how that isn't just a separate track you have glued the skill system on to. The difference between "skill X and rank Y" and "must be level Z" is that sometimes you can take the wrong skills and not be able to get the ability you want (note that this is separate from whatever "people should have abilities from a limited number of tracks" thing you want to do, which can be done in either system). Stuff requiring a skill check for level-appropriate abilities is a bad idea, as the Truenamer demonstrates. If you want people to have slots to pick up abilities, just do that. You don't need to connect it to skills.


I honestly don't see how it's bad. It is less flexible, true, but the whole point of class-based systems is that they're not exactly as flexible as point-build-based systems, but instead provide stronger thematics and consistency.

I don't think it does provide stronger thematics or consistency. It provides stronger consistency with skills, but that's not the same thing as stronger consistency of a theme. Even if you don't think it is the only thing they are supposed to do, it is clear that a thing skills are supposed to do is provide a framework for human-level actions and experts. It's not at all clear to me that the best set of categories to divide things into for that purpose is the best set of categories to divide things into for high-level non-combat abilities.


In a game where you get circa 7 to 10 feats for most classes, having them be "+1 to this particular roll" is indefensible if you're not PF2 (and if you are, there are bigger problems at the core already).

Just give people more feats. 3e feats are stuck between "incremental customization" and "character-defining", and I think the game wants something to fill the former space more than it wants something to fill the latter. Big things should be Archetypes or PrCs, feats can be little stuff like Educated or whatever and people can get a lot of them.


At the same time, though, this seems like it makes the primary fighter class ability--getting a billion feats--even more redundant than it already is. "You've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 8" becomes "you've probably taken all the fighter bonus feats you want by level 2."

Yes the Fighter class is poorly designed and should not work that way.


Is a circle that's impossible to square. And if I have to drop one of these, #4 is the one I'm most willing to lose.

I think you can do a good deal of 3 if you provide non-numeric progression that is just not relevant very often. If you pick up a feat every level, but those feats are things like "now my character is good at oceanic navigation" rather than "now I have a new combat action", that makes things much more manageable because you avoid making the number of options that have to be considered at any particular time explode too much. Similarly, people get much less mad about 4 if it's stuff like readied maneuvers or prepared spells, where you still know all your old options, but just don't have them as live options in every round of every fight.

[icefractal]

gate allows you to summon creatures and have them perform a service of your choice for 1 round per CL. If you summon them to a location like "the Negative Energy Plane" (or some other place that is environmentally hazardous) and choose a service like "performing push-ups" (or some other service that is not threatening to you), you can kill them pretty trivially. And you don't get a save against it. The only rules argument against it is to essentially read "particular being" out of the spell and assert that everyone is their own "unique being", and therefore that the spell can never summon any specific individual. But I find that reading pretty clearly untenable.
While the spell does pretty clearly allow calling specific individuals, I think most players would be fine with taking that option off the table, since it applies to them as well.

Same thing as the "simulacra have all the memories" reading - it's plausible, but I always rule / house-rule that they don't (they have what Gather Information could uncover, plus whatever the caster knows) and I've never once had a player say: "This is a bad house-rule, I want any 13th level caster to get all my secrets with no save or possible defense."

[Talakeal]

If you ignore all the abilities the Planetar has that make it difficult for you to defeat it in a fight, the description you are giving is "I can defeat a winged resident of the outer planes", which is doable at like 5th level depending on how aggressive you're willing to be with templates and whatnot. What are the non-numeric capabilities of the Planetar our Barbarian is overcoming that cannot be attributed to a 6th level Fighter with the Half-Celestial template?

I am not sure if you are shifting the goal-posts or are just assuming I am arguing something I am not, but just because you can come up with situations where they aren't useful doesn't mean abilities don't exist.

Saying:

I can defeat an army of ten-thousand ordinary men single-handedly.
I can pick up an elephant and toss it around.
I can out-wrestle a kracken.
I can kill a dinosaur in a single blow.
I can beat up the devil in a boxing match.
I can outrun a racecar.
I can survive immersion in lava.
Etc. are absolutely impressive feats that martials achieve with nothing other than sheer numbers and which sound like impressive feats to your average non-gamer.

And yeah, they are all possible at level six with the right build, but then again so are any a caster's feats, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.



By all means. Bring your team. But just don't put any casters on that team. If you think "a Barbarian, a Swashbuckler, a Fighter, and a Rogue versus a Solar" looks better than "a Barbarian versus a Planetar", I am prepared to have that debate. More broadly, a "team game" does not mean "you carry me to fights", it means "we all solve different problems". If all the Fighter brings to the table is "being a level-appropriate combatant", he is not level-appropriate, because everyone is supposed to be a level-appropriate combatant. And often the Fighter isn't even expected to do that, because people will tell you he deserves combat buffs as well!


One can easily make an all martial team that can handle any appropriate CR challenge, assuming the GM and the players are working on the same level of optimization.

Although I am not sure why you are telling me who I can or can't have on my team, or even what this team is for. First off, in a properly designed game, a variety of characters is more useful than a bunch of the same types, and second, D&D, particularly 3.X does have huge balance issues.

Yeah, balancing everything in combat and then giving some classes out of combat options on top of that is dumbass design, especially when they didn't even balance combat properly in the first place.

Not sure why "carrying someone to fights" makes something not a team game though; in lot's of other RPGs we often have dedicated brutes who do little but fight, and dedicated pilots / drivers /conjurers who do very little aside from transport the rest of the team, and it works fine. You can easily have an all "mundane" team where one guy makes the gear, one guy flies the chopper, one guy makes the plan, one guy fights the bad guys, and one guy patches up his wounds in the end, and it works fine. Although admittedly, combat is such a big draw / time sink that most people will like to pull out a side arm and at least contribute a little even if they are doing less than the combat specialist.

In short; play games other than D&D 3.X.


More than that, the core point here is negative space. Yes, people seldom play campaigns where the Fighter has no useful contribution to make. But that's because the existence of the Fighter operates as a constraint on what campaigns can exist. You can write a campaign where all the monsters with teleport and plane shift conveniently attack where the PCs are. You can even figure out marginally less contrived versions of that where the PCs have a base that is on top of the Font of Souls or whatever and there's a reason everyone comes to them. But it's not "kiting" or "ignoring" to have a problem that is a physically large distance away that the PCs need to go to, it's just something the Fighter gets zero tools to engage with. Basically, every caster has something for that. That's the sort of issue people are talking about when they say martials lack high-level abilities.

You can say the same thing about literally every character short of pun-pun.

There is no ability, "high level" or otherwise, that you can't build a martial character with (usually by way of magic items) and there is no ability that you can't make a caster without (mostly due to poor spell selection).

Yes, a game where everyone can do everything allows more potential stories. It is, paradoxically, also dull as dirt.


gate allows you to summon creatures and have them perform a service of your choice for 1 round per CL. If you summon them to a location like "the Negative Energy Plane" (or some other place that is environmentally hazardous) and choose a service like "performing push-ups" (or some other service that is not threatening to you), you can kill them pretty trivially. And you don't get a save against it. The only rules argument against it is to essentially read "particular being" out of the spell and assert that everyone is their own "unique being", and therefore that the spell can never summon any specific individual. But I find that reading pretty clearly untenable.

That is indeed the most direct reading of the spell.

I personally assumed it didn't work on PCs because they are both unique and not extra-planar, but you could argue semantics either way on that.

Odd that nobody has bothered to fix that text in the 25 years since it was written or that more people don't talk about that trick.

[lesser_minion]

gate allows you to summon creatures and have them perform a service of your choice for 1 round per CL. If you summon them to a location like "the Negative Energy Plane" (or some other place that is environmentally hazardous) and choose a service like "performing push-ups" (or some other service that is not threatening to you), you can kill them pretty trivially. And you don't get a save against it. The only rules argument against it is to essentially read "particular being" out of the spell and assert that everyone is their own "unique being", and therefore that the spell can never summon any specific individual. But I find that reading pretty clearly untenable.

While it's an interesting find, I think this is ultimately just another locate city bomb.

While the spell does explicitly say that it works on unwilling creatures, there's no reason for the "unless they're unique" condition not to reduce the set of unwilling creatures that it works on to the empty set. Sure, that reading is "pretty clearly untenable", but you openly acknowledge that what you're proposing is an exploit -- so an argument based on RAI claims like "that reading is untenable" cannot possibly justify it.

[Zalabim]

Something that triggers me about both editions of PF as a DM, as well as D&D editions that effectively require it:
Wealthy By Level, required either or both of specific Magic Items and/or Magic Mart access.

Especially for tight-math bonuses to hit. But in PF2e specifically, I'm really underwhelmed by the system assumed dependency on striking runes for weapon damage.

On the plus side, PF2 crafting seems like a solid way to put it into the players hands. If they want to be on par for system expected specific magic items, they can take the time to locate a formula, take one found item apart to figure out the formula and then provide copies for other players, or at 7th level spend a feat to gain the ability to just flat out research formulas if neither of the first two are available.

That means that as long as I give them downtime, Magic marts (or even just formula marts) in every little podunk town aren't flat out required.
You can make PF2E crafting work, but it requires a number of hoops to jump through, and even when it works, it's remains unsatisfying to a lot of the player base because it's a situational option, and not a core character power. At a basic level, crafting items for a party takes more downtime than taking a detour to a metropolis, or sending a message to that metropolis, where every item you want to buy can just be purchased outright. The more items you want, the more it makes sense to go to a shop. But if you invest several feats and skill ranks from a build, buy a magical portable workshop, and receive treasure in the form of whatever raw materials you need and the appropriate formulas, then a party can spend at least four days of downtime per item instead of having to include a magic shop in the world. While you do that, there's probably at least one character in the party who has nothing to spend downtime doing at all.


I don't see how that isn't just a separate track you have glued the skill system on to. The difference between "skill X and rank Y" and "must be level Z" is that sometimes you can take the wrong skills and not be able to get the ability you want (note that this is separate from whatever "people should have abilities from a limited number of tracks" thing you want to do, which can be done in either system). Stuff requiring a skill check for level-appropriate abilities is a bad idea, as the Truenamer demonstrates. If you want people to have slots to pick up abilities, just do that. You don't need to connect it to skills.
The truenamer represents how to do it badly, not that it is bad to do it. After all, we roll for attacks and allow saving throws. The teleport spell is basically calling for a skill check when you make that d100 roll. When the ability is used, a roll is made to see how well it goes. As long as this doesn't usually include a large portion of "the ability fails to activate at all" players won't mind it.

[Tanarii]

You can make PF2E crafting work, but it requires a number of hoops to jump through, and even when it works, it's remains unsatisfying to a lot of the player base because it's a situational option, and not a core character power. At a basic level, crafting items for a party takes more downtime than taking a detour to a metropolis, or sending a message to that metropolis, where every item you want to buy can just be purchased outright. The more items you want, the more it makes sense to go to a shop. But if you invest several feats and skill ranks from a build, buy a magical portable workshop, and receive treasure in the form of whatever raw materials you need and the appropriate formulas, then a party can spend at least four days of downtime per item instead of having to include a magic shop in the world. While you do that, there's probably at least one character in the party who has nothing to spend downtime doing at all.
Being able to craft an item that you can't buy because magic item marts don't exist seems like a pretty good option to have to me.

Being able to do it in four days (at full price) instead of having to trek across the world for a 2 month round trip to the only nearby metropolis that has magic items marts, well off the map of of the frontier west marches adventuring area and effectively removing the character from play and having to switch to another until they return is pretty nice too. (Although I have had players in 5e choose to do exactly the last for a variety of reasons.)

[Kurald Galain]

Being able to craft an item that you can't buy because magic item marts don't exist
Sure. The only problem is that "no magic item marts" and "having to trek for two months for a metropolis" go directly against both the established setting for PF2 (which has over a hundred metropoles), and PF2's settlement rules (which note that every village or town has magic items for sale). Like, by the rules and published setting, the central city of Absalom is a "level 20 settlement" meaning (among others) that you can buy any magic item up to level 20 there.

So basically, you have to go through quite a number of hoops and contradict the rulebook and the default setting before these crafting rules become useful.

Although to be fair, PF2's teleport spell is higher-level and has only a 100 mile range and is by default banned for all player characters, so PCs have to put in at least a little effort to reach the nearest market. (edit) Teleport also now has a ten-minute casting time and a hard cap of five creatures, just in case the spell needed more restrictions on it. Considering how many classes get a pet or familiar or eidolon, the average party is probably more than five.

[Tanarii]

And that's my gripe. I don't use default settings. Any base rules that require WBL / magic marts are a problem, as far as I'm concerned.

And variant rules that give flat bonuses to replace magic items are not a solution. Magic items need to be something folks look forward to, give some kind of bonus, but the math can't be so tight that the only two options are magic items are required to meet the pre-calculated in bonuses (treadmill) or you replace them entirely with non-magic item math bonuses.

Edit: note that the two biggest areas that this becomes a problem is bonuses to rolls, so ability checks/skills, attack rolls, DCs, and damage. And indirectly through ability scores. I get that it's a choice between tight math balance and possibly too loose math being abusable for balance.

If you want tight math balance but magic items to be cool non-math effects, alternate rules baking it in are of course fantastic.

[RandomPeasant]

While the spell does pretty clearly allow calling specific individuals, I think most players would be fine with taking that option off the table, since it applies to them as well.

Sure. But the broader point is that the Planetar casts as a 17th level Cleric. If we agree that the Fighter is not the equal of the Cleric (and I would submit that we do), I do not see why we would think they would be the equal of a Cleric that is also an angel.


I can defeat an army of ten-thousand ordinary men single-handedly.

Can you? Remember, in 3e you auto-hit on a 20. That means an average of 500 hits from the army every round. Now, the Barbarian's DR helps a bit here, but even with 3 points of it you're taking an average of 250 damage per round from 11 STR 1st level Warriors throwing javelins. So you can survive that if you manage to kill all of them in one round. Can you kill all of them in one round?


I can pick up an elephant and toss it around.

An elephant weighs over 10,000 pounds. Per the carrying capacity rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm) simply lifting that at all requires a STR score of 39. With a maxxed-out base stat, the Orc's +4 racial bonus, an accumulated +4 from levels, and the +6 bonus Rage gives you at 17th level, you're hitting 32, which is still a ways sort. And that doesn't get you to "tossing around". It does make you comfortably superhuman, but does it really make you superhuman on the level of fabricate or teleport, spells a Wizard gets at a bit over half your level? If you described a superhero who could almost lift an elephant off the ground, would you expect the person you were talking to to they they were on the same level as Hulk or Thor?


I can out-wrestle a kracken.

Again, can you? The Kraken swims in with a +44 grapple bonus. With your 32 STR and 17 points of BAB, you get +28. I suppose it is possible for you to out-wrestle a kraken, but we're talking about you rolling a 20 while it rolls a 3. And it's not even a level-appropriate enemy!


I can kill a dinosaur in a single blow.

I say again: can you? I suppose it depends on the dinosaur, but the high-end ones have close to 200 HP. You'd have to stack up quite a few power attack multipliers to hit that sort of damage target.


I can beat up the devil in a boxing match.

I don't even know what this is supposed to represent, but I am deeply skeptical of a claim that a 17th level Barbarian can beat up whatever Demon Prince or Archdevil you think is supposed to be "the" devil even in a straight fight.


I can outrun a racecar.

People run, per the movement rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm) at about 15 MPH. Factoring in your +10ft speed bonus from Barbarian, you hit 20 MPH, which is not even as fast as professional cyclists.


I can survive immersion in lava.

Immersion in lava deals 20d6 points of damage per round. So you can, with maximally favorable rolls, survive less than a minute in lava. Which I guess is not nothing, but again does not seem to measure up to the kinds of capabilities the feats of similarly-leveled casters suggest.


And yeah, they are all possible at level six with the right build, but then again so are any a caster's feats, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

What is your 6th-level caster build that gets teleport? fabricate? imprisonment? greater planar binding?


One can easily make an all martial team that can handle any appropriate CR challenge, assuming the GM and the players are working on the same level of optimization.

Okay, here's a very simple challenge: Orcus is on his layer of the abyss. He is sending demons to go despoil mortal lands. The demons arrive in various places, and set up cults, unleash horrible plagues, or simply start murdering the residents. What specific abilities that non-casters get do they use to address this problem? What is the earliest level at which they can do so?


Although I am not sure why you are telling me who I can or can't have on my team

Because the point of the exercise is to determine the degree to which martial characters can contribute at high level environments. Observing that a team of someone competent and someone else can solve problems doesn't tell us whether the second person is competent.


a variety of characters is more useful than a bunch of the same types

What makes a Ranger and a Barbarian "the same type"? The Ranger is a high-mobility combatant who specializes in large numbers of small-damage attacks, the Barbarian is a frontline bruiser who specializes in singular high-damage attacks. Those are very different characters, even though they are both "martial" characters, in the same way that an Illusionist and a Fire Mage would both be different characters despite being "casters".


Yeah, balancing everything in combat and then giving some classes out of combat options on top of that is dumbass design, especially when they didn't even balance combat properly in the first place.

Balancing in combat is mandatory. There is an entire book that is combat encounters, you cannot reasonably propose a balance paradigm where some people aren't useful against those challenges in exchange for non-combat abilities. That does not work.


You can say the same thing about literally every character short of pun-pun.

And you can say the opposite about any character better than a 1st level Commoner with 3s in all stats. Surely there is a qualitative difference you can observe between "this character has no actions they can take in this situation and that is bad" and "this character is not literally a god and that is bad".


There is no ability, "high level" or otherwise, that you can't build a martial character with (usually by way of magic items) and there is no ability that you can't make a caster without (mostly due to poor spell selection).

Please, enlighten me as to the martial build with plane shift.


Yes, a game where everyone can do everything allows more potential stories. It is, paradoxically, also dull as dirt.

There is a difference between "do everything" and "contribute in every situation". If you have a character that is level-appropriate in combat encounters in general, they will almost never find themselves unable to contribute to a particular combat encounter. This does not make combat uninteresting, because characters contribute to combat encounters in different ways, and because how much each character contributes varies.


so an argument based on RAI claims like "that reading is untenable" cannot possibly justify it.

I very much disagree with this line of reasoning. Lots of exploits are legal by the plain text of the rules. SLA wish for a Ring of Infinite Wishes, for instance. What that means is that the rules are inadequate and must sometimes be changed. "The rules should be interpreted based on direct interpretation of their plain text" is a higher goal than "the rules should never produce outcomes that are dumb". Dumb outcomes can be changed, contorting the way we read the rules makes interpreting all rules a nightmare.


The truenamer represents how to do it badly, not that it is bad to do it. After all, we roll for attacks and allow saving throws. The teleport spell is basically calling for a skill check when you make that d100 roll. When the ability is used, a roll is made to see how well it goes. As long as this doesn't usually include a large portion of "the ability fails to activate at all" players won't mind it.

Yes if you make your skill check a glorified level check it will not fail in the way the Truenamer does. That's still a failure, because you have added complexity (using a skill check rather than a level check), and you have constrained the rest of your system (skill bonuses must remain within the range expected by skill feats at each level). And the latter is a constraint I think it would be better to avoid. Having the possibilities of skill checks that are not closely capped to level is good, because it solves a problem 3e typically has where you can't have a character who knows more than the PCs (and therefore can provide exposition for them) without also being higher level than they are (and therefore able to solve the adventure for them). The ability to have a sage who is a 3rd level Wizard but can make the DC 35 check to know what the rogue necromancers are researching is good, and if the cost we pay for that is that the feats that give you non-combat abilities are Utility Feats instead of Skill Feats, that seems completely fine to me.


Although to be fair, PF2's teleport spell is higher-level and has only a 100 mile range and is by default banned for all player characters, so PCs have to put in at least a little effort to reach the nearest market. (edit) Teleport also now has a ten-minute casting time and a hard cap of five creatures, just in case the spell needed more restrictions on it. Considering how many classes get a pet or familiar or eidolon, the average party is probably more than five.

God that's incredibly dumb. If you're going to nerf it that hard just say it targets a Teleport Anchor and those are only in big cities and have to be keyed to each caster.


And that's my gripe. I don't use default settings. Any base rules that require WBL / magic marts are a problem, as far as I'm concerned.

This I think is an absolutely valid point. You should think very hard before adding rules to your game that constrain what types of campaigns it can run. You can have a version of magic items that does not require magic marts, so I think you should be required to present a very strong case for them before you choose one that does.

[lesser_minion]

I very much disagree with this line of reasoning. Lots of exploits are legal by the plain text of the rules. SLA wish for a Ring of Infinite Wishes, for instance. What that means is that the rules are inadequate and must sometimes be changed. "The rules should be interpreted based on direct interpretation of their plain text" is a higher goal than "the rules should never produce outcomes that are dumb". Dumb outcomes can be changed, contorting the way we read the rules makes interpreting all rules a nightmare.

Not being intended is what makes an exploit an exploit in the first place. Therefore, you cannot appeal to the rules as intended when trying to justify one. Nothing you have said addresses this.

[RandomPeasant]

Not being intended is what makes an exploit an exploit in the first place. Therefore, you cannot appeal to the rules as intended when trying to justify one. Nothing you have said addresses this.

It is not "rules as intended" to say that unique beings and particular beings refer to distinct categories. That's just "words", because "unique" and "particular" are distinct words and therefore have distinct meanings. If you can present a justification for "PCs are unique beings and not particular beings" that is not rooted in a desire to avoid this particular exploit, I'm all ears. But simply saying "this interpretation leads to an exploit, therefore use this other interpretation" doesn't cut it. We can fix exploits. We can't fix everyone deciding what words mean on an ad hoc basis in an effort to advance their vision of what the rules should be, rather than in an effort to provide a framework for understanding the rules.

[icefractal]

Personally, I'll take "this rule leads to undesirable results, so I'm house-ruling it" over "if you read it this specific way it's fine, so I'm not going to house-rule it and will instead just call anyone who reads it differently a munchkin" every time.

Like honestly, if it's ambiguous, it's better to say "I'm running it this way" up front and have everyone on the same page.

And FWIW, I don't even consider Gate ambiguous - it fairly unambiguously does something stupid, hence why I house-rule it. But as we can see from this thread, others read it differently, which is all the more reason to clear things up in advance.

[lesser_minion]

Personally, I'll take "this rule leads to undesirable results, so I'm house-ruling it" over "if you read it this specific way it's fine, so I'm not going to house-rule it and will instead just call anyone who reads it differently a munchkin" every time.

That's not what I said. At all. The spell is broken and has to have some sort of ruling applied to it either way. But if you're proposing a fun RAW exploit that you'd never want to see in play, it needs to work under that paradigm. We have enough locate city bombs and commoner railguns already.

[MonochromeTiger]

That's not what I said. At all. The spell is broken and has to have some sort of ruling applied to it either way. But if you're proposing a fun RAW exploit that you'd never want to see in play, it needs to work under that paradigm. We have enough locate city bombs and commoner railguns already.

Not sure the peasant railgun is really the example you want to go with for the rules allowing something to be exploited since it's really more of an example of "people think it works like this because the time in a round and the time for actions don't line up logically but then the actual mechanics invalidate what you're planning."

Peasant railgun was, much like many "exploits", people thinking they were being clever with something not actually simulated in the game. In the peasant railgun's case it was accelerating an object to massive speeds by having every link on the chain have a readied action to pass it further down a long line in the space of an action. Thing is it then immediately falls apart when it runs into what the game actually does simulate which is a standard attack or throw range and standard damage instead of some near relativistic projectile powered by a conga line of nameless NPCs casually handing it from person to person.

All of that goes into the point, a bunch of exploits are people trying to be clever with things the game wasn't really built for and quite a bit of the success of those exploits is down to the DM/GM, as final arbiter of the rules at their own table, deciding "yeah cool I'll say that works cause it sounds fun" or just throwing up their hands and allowing something because it's easier and less likely to start an argument than saying "that clearly wasn't how it's meant to work."

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, "using the rules as they are written" is way less important to me than, well, just about anything when it comes to the game. Any reading of the rules that doesn't contribute to a fun time for everyone at that particular table is a bad reading. Doesn't matter if it's the closest reading to the text. The text itself only matters to the degree that it assists in playing a fun game. The rules won't get mad at me for reading them "wrong". They're just words, they don't get to have opinions. Only people do. And people on the internet don't count either. Anyone who gets mad for reading the text in a way that does assist in doing so if it violates the "plain reading of the text" is not someone I want to play with.

[lesser_minion]

Not sure the peasant railgun is really the example you want to go with for the rules allowing something to be exploited

I listed it as an example of a "RAW exploit" that doesn't work. It's obvious that if you try it at a table, the DM is going to intervene. But if you then decide "Just for fun, let's imagine that they don't intervene.", you don't get to abandon that when the end result turns out to be a single attack at -4 to hit, with a 10 foot range increment and dealing 1d3 damage.

The exploit being discussed relies on a DM ruling favourably on what qualifies as a 'deity or unique being'. 'Unique' isn't explicitly defined in the context of the spell, but we can guess that it's meant for singularly powerful beings who don't qualify as actual deities. Ultimately, it's still up to the DM where that bar is. Which puts it into the same category as the other exploits I mentioned. A RAW exploit being put forward as a thought experiment shouldn't require a favourable DM ruling to work, and therefore, this one fails.

[icefractal]

I feel like I've lost the thread here. Are you saying that:
A) Despite the "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell", all named individuals are "unique beings" and thus can't be compelled? I'd disagree with that, as it makes little sense with the multiple mentions of calling specific people.
B) PCs are not "unique beings" any more than NPCs are, which I'd agree with.

[Talakeal]

I feel like I've lost the thread here. Are you saying that:
A) Despite the "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell", all named individuals are "unique beings" and thus can't be compelled? I'd disagree with that, as it makes little sense with the multiple mentions of calling specific people.
B) PCs are not "unique beings" any more than NPCs are, which I'd agree with.

AFAICT modern D&D does not have a definition of "unique being".

Earlier editions had "unique" listed in the entry for certain monsters such as the tarrasque, demon princes, arch-devils, Bahamut, etc. I am not sure if a PC / NPC would have counted, but I don't see why the various "hero deities" in Deities and Demigods who are just high-level NPCs wouldn't count. Of course, that is pretty much academic as, ironically, the AD&D version of Gate didn't use the word "unique" in its description like the post 3.0 version does.

A bigger stumbling block is extra-planar, because that does have a specific rules definition in 3.X, its a sub-type that anyone gains when they aren't on their home plane. Which makes it really weird as by RAW you can't gate stuff in from its home plane.


Sure. But the broader point is that the Planetar casts as a 17th level Cleric. If we agree that the Fighter is not the equal of the Cleric (and I would submit that we do), I do not see why we would think they would be the equal of a Cleric that is also an angel.

"Superior" is meaningless without context.

Overall, yes, cleric casting is more useful than a martial class.

But they aren't necessarily better at fighting. And while CoDzilla is a thing, your average cleric won't be able to outfight a barbarian, and certainly not without a lot of prep time and the right spell selection.

A planetar lacks the magic items of a PC, has an ordinary stat array, and doesn't have a build focused in any one particular area, let alone combat.



Can you? Remember, in 3e you auto-hit on a 20. That means an average of 500 hits from the army every round. Now, the Barbarian's DR helps a bit here, but even with 3 points of it you're taking an average of 250 damage per round from 11 STR 1st level Warriors throwing javelins. So you can survive that if you manage to kill all of them in one round. Can you kill all of them in one round?

An elephant weighs over 10,000 pounds. Per the carrying capacity rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm) simply lifting that at all requires a STR score of 39. With a maxxed-out base stat, the Orc's +4 racial bonus, an accumulated +4 from levels, and the +6 bonus Rage gives you at 17th level, you're hitting 32, which is still a ways sort. And that doesn't get you to "tossing around". It does make you comfortably superhuman, but does it really make you superhuman on the level of fabricate or teleport, spells a Wizard gets at a bit over half your level? If you described a superhero who could almost lift an elephant off the ground, would you expect the person you were talking to to they they were on the same level as Hulk or Thor?

Again, can you? The Kraken swims in with a +44 grapple bonus. With your 32 STR and 17 points of BAB, you get +28. I suppose it is possible for you to out-wrestle a kraken, but we're talking about you rolling a 20 while it rolls a 3. And it's not even a level-appropriate enemy!

I say again: can you? I suppose it depends on the dinosaur, but the high-end ones have close to 200 HP. You'd have to stack up quite a few power attack multipliers to hit that sort of damage target.

I don't even know what this is supposed to represent, but I am deeply skeptical of a claim that a 17th level Barbarian can beat up whatever Demon Prince or Archdevil you think is supposed to be "the" devil even in a straight fight.

People run, per the movement rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm) at about 15 MPH. Factoring in your +10ft speed bonus from Barbarian, you hit 20 MPH, which is not even as fast as professional cyclists.

Immersion in lava deals 20d6 points of damage per round. So you can, with maximally favorable rolls, survive less than a minute in lava. Which I guess is not nothing, but again does not seem to measure up to the kinds of capabilities the feats of similarly-leveled casters suggest.

You can make martial characters who can do all of these things and far more. If you really care how, go browse some old char-op boards; I am not the right person to ask about specific builds because I am out of practice with 3.X and was never really that big of a power gamer to begin with.

That's all tangential to my point though; the point I was refuting is that martials don't get anything impressive as they level up besides bigger numbers and it is impossible to describe bigger numbers in a way that sounds impressive to non-gamers.

I am also not sure why all of your examples are now using "17th level barbarian" as a stand in for martial characters as a whole.


People run, per the movement rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm) at about 15 MPH. Factoring in your +10ft speed bonus from Barbarian, you hit 20 MPH, which is not even as fast as professional cyclists.

A quick google search shows that a core only 3E character with no particular cheese can get up to 143mph; I have no doubt that with access to the entire range of books you can get ludicrously faster than that.

Although I will say a turn-based game is a pretty bad model of human running as it would take take a RL sprinter almost the full six second round to get up to full speed and they can't maintain said speed for a full six seconds either.



What is your 6th-level caster build that gets teleport? fabricate? imprisonment? greater planar binding?

In 3.X you can make Pun-Pun at below level six. If you are willing to dig through all the source books (which I am not right now) I am sure you can find a build that can do all of that. IIRC you can summon a lantern archon for access to teleport at level 7 without any optimization or splat-book diving at all.




Okay, here's a very simple challenge: Orcus is on his layer of the abyss. He is sending demons to go despoil mortal lands. The demons arrive in various places, and set up cults, unleash horrible plagues, or simply start murdering the residents. What specific abilities that non-casters get do they use to address this problem? What is the earliest level at which they can do so?

That scenario is so open ended that any character can contribute at any level using any ability.

Not that coming up with scenarios on a forum really proves anything; you can tailor a scenario to require / inhibit whatever character you like.





Because the point of the exercise is to determine the degree to which martial characters can contribute at high level environments. Observing that a team of someone competent and someone else can solve problems doesn't tell us whether the second person is competent.

Sorry, I wasn't aware we were engaging in an exercise. Heck, I am not even sure what statement I am trying to prove / disprove.

I don't really need a forum excercise to determine that martial characters can contribute in high-level environments, I have been running high level games with martial characters for decades.

Of course, the definition of "high-level" one of those goal-posts that never seems to stay put in these discussions, so I am sure whatever examples I use would be no-true-Scotsmanned as not really being high level.



Again though, I am not saying that D&D, particularly 3.x, doesn't have huge balance issues and a lot of utterly broken spells.




What makes a Ranger and a Barbarian "the same type"? The Ranger is a high-mobility combatant who specializes in large numbers of small-damage attacks, the Barbarian is a frontline bruiser who specializes in singular high-damage attacks. Those are very different characters, even though they are both "martial" characters, in the same way that an Illusionist and a Fire Mage would both be different characters despite being "casters".

Traditionally D&D has divided characters into four categories. In AD&D they were "warrior, rogue, priest, magic-user". In 4E they were "defender, striker, controller, leader." In 5.5 they are going to be "Expert, Mage, Priest, and Warrior."

That's not quite how I would personally group them, but in any edition that party covers no better than 2 of the 4 archetypes.



Balancing in combat is mandatory. There is an entire book that is combat encounters, you cannot reasonably propose a balance paradigm where some people aren't useful against those challenges in exchange for non-combat abilities. That does not work.

That's quite a statement.

I don't think I have ever played a game where any of the players assumed that was the case, and I am pretty sure that the designers didn't either.

But if that is a core tenant of D&D, then I agree, the authors utterly failed at their job and the game is, as a result, unworkable.



And you can say the opposite about any character better than a 1st level Commoner with 3s in all stats. Surely there is a qualitative difference you can observe between "this character has no actions they can take in this situation and that is bad" and "this character is not literally a god and that is bad".

Absolutely. A character who can do everything and a character who can do nothing are equally boring.

But coming up with a specific scenario that the character can solve without effort / can't hope to accomplish doesn't really prove anything.



Please, enlighten me as to the martial build with plane shift.

One who has an amulet of the planes.


IMO, that's seems to be the big blind spot of all MCD threads; in 3.x WBL is more important than class features, and there is a significant overlap in "high level" abilities that any given martial might have due to a magic item (or other non-standard ability) and those that any given caster might not have due to spell's known.



There is a difference between "do everything" and "contribute in every situation". If you have a character that is level-appropriate in combat encounters in general, they will almost never find themselves unable to contribute to a particular combat encounter. This does not make combat uninteresting, because characters contribute to combat encounters in different ways, and because how much each character contributes varies.

Don't disagree.

And I would go further and say this extends beyond combat to the adventure as a whole.



I very much disagree with this line of reasoning. Lots of exploits are legal by the plain text of the rules. SLA wish for a Ring of Infinite Wishes, for instance. What that means is that the rules are inadequate and must sometimes be changed. "The rules should be interpreted based on direct interpretation of their plain text" is a higher goal than "the rules should never produce outcomes that are dumb". Dumb outcomes can be changed, contorting the way we read the rules makes interpreting all rules a nightmare.


That's a fine philosophy for forum arguments, but not so great at the gaming table, let alone real life.

For example, I doubt you would turn into oncoming traffic because the person who wrote a street sign messed up their grammar.

[Zalabim]

Yes if you make your skill check a glorified level check it will not fail in the way the Truenamer does. That's still a failure, because you have added complexity (using a skill check rather than a level check), and you have constrained the rest of your system (skill bonuses must remain within the range expected by skill feats at each level). And the latter is a constraint I think it would be better to avoid. Having the possibilities of skill checks that are not closely capped to level is good, because it solves a problem 3e typically has where you can't have a character who knows more than the PCs (and therefore can provide exposition for them) without also being higher level than they are (and therefore able to solve the adventure for them). The ability to have a sage who is a 3rd level Wizard but can make the DC 35 check to know what the rogue necromancers are researching is good, and if the cost we pay for that is that the feats that give you non-combat abilities are Utility Feats instead of Skill Feats, that seems completely fine to me.

There is a lot to unpack here. If your skill bonus doesn't have a maximum or minimum value based on level, then it runs into many problems, notably with your example: There no reason the party couldn't just already have such an expert. There's no reason an NPC expert on the topic you're researching should be rolling checks to see what they know. It's an NPC you made up. You know what they know. Saying it's DC 35 for the party to already know information about the secret organization doesn't mean that everyone who does know about the organization has passed a DC 35 check, or that they could pass any similar DC 35 check. You don't need skill bonus to break level bounds to make a Sage NPC unless you've added the unreasonable constraint that NPCs have to be at perfect build parity with PC classes.

If your skill bonuses aren't associated with level - the generic summation of a PCs combat capability - then skill bonus can't ever have meaningful use in combat. There's practical use in separating out level-associated checks from level and each other. They may vary to be higher or lower from character to character, category to category, within a limited range. The categorization lets you design abilities that interact by choice with attacks, defenses, and skills that might be neither. If you want level to be an indicator of how much impact a PC can have on the world, then you need skill bonuses to stay within a certain bound, or else add the constraint that skill bonus cannot have any impact on the world. At that point, you're just cutting off your ability to have skills at all. If your system has combat skills affected by a roll with a bonus, then why cut off your option to have non-combat skills also consider a roll with a bonus. That's the core of the DM's resolution ability. Deciding if the PC "definitely can", "definitely cannot", or "outcome depending on a die roll." If you have no constraints on skill bonuses, then you cannot rely on that last category anymore.

Once again, I was talking about using a die roll with skill bonus to determine the quality of the result being a reason for a feat-like ability to be tied to a skill proficiency.

[RandomPeasant]

And FWIW, I don't even consider Gate ambiguous - it fairly unambiguously does something stupid, hence why I house-rule it. But as we can see from this thread, others read it differently, which is all the more reason to clear things up in advance.

It also absolutely has a broken application either way, in that you can summon things with 34 HD and command them as a 17th level character. Though I suppose if we take the claim that there are no particular beings to its conclusion, that is fixed as well and the calling functionality simply does nothing.


Personally, "using the rules as they are written" is way less important to me than, well, just about anything when it comes to the game. Any reading of the rules that doesn't contribute to a fun time for everyone at that particular table is a bad reading. Doesn't matter if it's the closest reading to the text. The text itself only matters to the degree that it assists in playing a fun game. The rules won't get mad at me for reading them "wrong". They're just words, they don't get to have opinions. Only people do. And people on the internet don't count either. Anyone who gets mad for reading the text in a way that does assist in doing so if it violates the "plain reading of the text" is not someone I want to play with.

I don't think this is quite correct either. There is real value in approaching the rules from a perspective of "what do these say", because that is easy to agree on, and often good enough. Arguing to get a rule from 80% good to 100% good is generally a waste of time, and often the argument you are having is "100% good for Steve" versus "100% good for Alice", in which case "go with what's written even when it's not everyone's favorite" will save not just time but hurt feelings.


The exploit being discussed relies on a DM ruling favourably on what qualifies as a 'deity or unique being'.

No it doesn't. It simply relies on not reading out "particular being" as a category. Asserting that the category is empty is dysfunctional, and if it is non-empty whatever set of beings it includes are subject to the Free Vacation: No Save.


But they aren't necessarily better at fighting. And while CoDzilla is a thing, your average cleric won't be able to outfight a barbarian, and certainly not without a lot of prep time and the right spell selection.

Does the Barbarian have the ability to stop a creature that can move faster than he can and has plane shift listed as a default spell from securing as much prep time as it is likely to want? Is there any particular reason to assume a creature with an INT of 22 is going to make bad choices when selecting spells?


A planetar lacks the magic items of a PC, has an ordinary stat array, and doesn't have a build focused in any one particular area, let alone combat.

A planetar is perfectly capable of casting spells like greater magic vestment to make up for lack of items, has enough stat bonuses to make up for base 10s and 11s, and is honestly as specialized to combat as you could reasonably expect -- I suppose a few of its at-will SLAs could be better choices for a fight.


That's all tangential to my point though; the point I was refuting is that martials don't get anything impressive as they level up besides bigger numbers and it is impossible to describe bigger numbers in a way that sounds impressive to non-gamers.

Those things aren't "bigger numbers", or at least they aren't just "bigger numbers". You don't defeat an army with a really high AC and lots of HP, you defeat it with DR, which is a qualitatively different sort of defense than you had at low level. Simply having a grapple bonus of +Yes doesn't let you grapple a kraken, you need a swim speed and water breathing or you drown before engaging it. You could have a big enough damage output to one-shot dinosaurs, but the rest of the system models one-hit-kills with SoDs, and honestly that's a better paradigm because it avoids exponential HP inflation.


In 3.X you can make Pun-Pun at below level six. If you are willing to dig through all the source books (which I am not right now) I am sure you can find a build that can do all of that. IIRC you can summon a lantern archon for access to teleport at level 7 without any optimization or splat-book diving at all.

I really don't understand why I am being asked to defend Pun-Pun. Do I ask your side to defend 1st level Commoners with no stat over 3 in 20th level games? As far as your specific example goes, your Lantern Archon doesn't give you teleport, because it can only move itself.


That scenario is so open ended that any character can contribute at any level using any ability.

Really? How does a 3rd level Rogue reach Orcus and defeat him? How does a 7th level Ranger defeat an incursion by an adult Nabassu and its ghoulish minions every day, without any foreknowledge of where they will appear, and when they can appear anywhere in the kingdom?


Not that coming up with scenarios on a forum really proves anything; you can tailor a scenario to require / inhibit whatever character you like.

Can you? I'd love to know the scenario that is as difficult for the Wizard as this one is for the Fighter. I suppose you'd say something with antimagic fields everywhere or entirely in a Dead Magic Zone. But honestly that feels like it proves my point, because Orcus isn't doing anything to negate the Fighter. None of his demons reduce people's BAB to zero or disable bonus feats. If you have to turn to "what if we turn off the Wizard's whole class" to equal it, that seems illustrative to me.


I don't really need a forum excercise to determine that martial characters can contribute in high-level environments, I have been running high level games with martial characters for decades.

Great. Then tell me how they contribute to defeating Orcus. What specific and purely numerical abilities do they use to defeat Orcus?


Again though, I am not saying that D&D, particularly 3.x, doesn't have huge balance issues and a lot of utterly broken spells.

Could we also admit that D&D has a dearth of abilities for martial characters? Because as someone who largely likes casters the way they are, I am rather tired of "you get only a few nerfs, my character remains unchanged" being the compromise position.


Traditionally D&D has divided characters into four categories. In AD&D they were "warrior, rogue, priest, magic-user". In 4E they were "defender, striker, controller, leader." In 5.5 they are going to be "Expert, Mage, Priest, and Warrior."

I suppose my question in that case would be why you think those groupings are desirable. If Greg wants to play a Cleric, why is the game better if he needs to instead play a Rogue because Samantha is already playing a Druid? Even if we do accept those groupings, what's wrong with a party of a Barbarian (defender), a Ranger (striker), a Paladin (controller), and a Marshal (leader)? Or a Cleric (defender), a Sorcerer (striker), a Wizard (controller), and a War Weaver (leader)?


But if that is a core tenant of D&D, then I agree, the authors utterly failed at their job and the game is, as a result, unworkable.

The game is entirely workable. The demand that is unworkable, and fairly trivially so, is "the Fighter should never have to gain new abilities as he reaches new levels and faces new challenges".


But coming up with a specific scenario that the character can solve without effort / can't hope to accomplish doesn't really prove anything.

You know what, fair enough. Let's populate a couple of other scenarios for consideration, in case the one with Orcus has some non-obvious property that makes it particularly difficult for Fighters to handle.

1. Orcus is starting problems.
2. An ancient lich has retreated within his tomb-temple to perform a ritual that will destroy the sun and blanket the world in endless night. Fight your way in and defeat him before it succeeds.
3. War is on the verge of breaking out between the four genie houses. Intrigue up a solution that keeps everyone happy enough that they don't start fighting.
4. A five-headed dragon has been born and claims to speak with the voice of Tiamat herself. It has united the feuding Dragonlords, and now they and their armies rally against moral lands rather than warring internally.
5. A powerful alchemist plans to sacrifice a nation's worth of people in a ritual that will elevate him to godhood. The ritual circle spans most of a continent, but if you can destroy enough of it before it activates, his work may fail.
6. Atropus's drifting through the Astral Plane has brought it close to the Prime. Across the world the dead rise, and a terrible moon hangs in the sky. Hold off the dead long enough to travel to the moon and do battle with Atropus's avatar.
7. The Great Beasts have awoken. Several tarrasque-level monsters have appeared across the world, and you need to stop them before they do irreparable damage to various nations.
8. A cabal of White Ethergaunts have escaped from one of their prisons. They have begun assembling forces for an invasion. Travel into the deep Ethereal and stop them.
9. Long ago, the four Heralds of Tharizdun were imprisoned by mages who could not defeat them. But their prisons have leaked, and now the pollution threatens to unleash the dark god without their active intervention. Find them, pop them out, and kill them for good.
10. Rumors have arrived that the God-Emperor of a distant desert land has fallen ill. If you can reach there in time, you may be able to win his favor by healing him, or alternatively claim the spark of his divinity when he dies.

So, which of those adventures do you see a Fighter as being well-suited to? Are there common areas beyond "killing bad guys" between those adventures he might contribute to?


One who has an amulet of the planes.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere. Suppose we lean into this. The Fighter class is bad, but the Fighter gets magic items, so Fighter characters are good. What problems do we have?

Well, one immediate one is that it's hard to see how magic items would work that would make them asymmetrically good for the Fighter. We don't want to tell the Paladin that he can't have a magic sword, so for the Fighter to close the gap he can't just get magic items, he needs to be better at using magic items than other characters. That's a class feature right there.

But we have another problem: what if the Fighter doesn't get the magic items? Well, then we'd be back to the Fighter being bad. So the Fighter needs a class feature that guarantees he gets magic items.

So now we have a character that has abilities that give him magic items and abilities that make him better at using magic items. Guess what? That character is an Artificer. Maybe a full-BAB Artificer or something, but an Artificer nonetheless. And, to be fair, "Artificer" is a perfectly workable concept for a high-level character. But I think most people who play Fighters at 1st level imagine their high level abilities being stuff like "I am so strong I can divert rivers" not "I am pretty reasonably strong, and also I have a Ring of River Diversion".


in 3.x WBL is more important than class features,

It is for martials, because their class abilities are bad. It very much is not for casters. There is not one caster who would pick "lose your casting" if given "lose your WBL" as an alternative.


And I would go further and say this extends beyond combat to the adventure as a whole.

Alright. Suppose the challenge is "we would like to go a place that is far away". What class abilities does the Fighter have that contribute to solving this challenge in a party that has access to teleport?


For example, I doubt you would turn into oncoming traffic because the person who wrote a street sign messed up their grammar.

Isn't that my point? Yes, I wouldn't obey a mispainted sign that said "turn left off this cliff". But I also wouldn't obey a correctly painted sign that said "drive off this cliff", and more importantly I would not change how I interpreted signs in general because one was painted in a way that suggested I should drive off a cliff.


There's no reason an NPC expert on the topic you're researching should be rolling checks to see what they know. It's an NPC you made up.

Transparency is good, actually. If the NPC always arbitrarily knows what they need to know, there's no reason for the PCs to ever invest in Knowledge, because they can be secure knowing that they will always find a helpful sage.


If your skill bonuses aren't associated with level - the generic summation of a PCs combat capability - then skill bonus can't ever have meaningful use in combat.

Not quite. Skills can have meaningful uses, they just have to be uses that are appropriate at 1st level. Or maybe you could have a paradigm where skill bonuses scale slowly for a while before becoming uncapped, and skills can have uses that are meaningful to 5th level characters (which is about what they eyeball out to now).


There's practical use in separating out level-associated checks from level and each other.

From each other, sure. From level, not so much. If your "level associated check" is just "a level check, but your bonus is 3 bigger" (as skill checks are), you can just adjust skill DCs down three and simplify.


The categorization lets you design abilities that interact by choice with attacks, defenses, and skills that might be neither.

Doesn't this also justify adding Talents and Capabilities and Quirks and so on for every noun that we can think of? Where's the limiting principle where we decide that abilities can interact with enough different kinds of bonuses?


If you want level to be an indicator of how much impact a PC can have on the world, then you need skill bonuses to stay within a certain bound, or else add the constraint that skill bonus cannot have any impact on the world.

Do you not see how this is an articulation of why it is precisely pointless for abilities to work off skills? You've two options. One is that skills relate to level in a consistent way. In this case, the only effect of something depending on a skill is that someone can forget to invest their skill points and not be level-appropriate using an ability they are suppose to have. One is that skills do not relate to level in a consistent way. In this case, things can only depend on skills if they are abilities that are appropriate for characters of any level to have. Where is the option where things depending on skills is expanding the design space in a balanced way? Because it looks to me like both A and not-A don't work, leaving us with no options that work!

[Zalabim]

Transparency is good, actually. If the NPC always arbitrarily knows what they need to know, there's no reason for the PCs to ever invest in Knowledge, because they can be secure knowing that they will always find a helpful sage.
There's a huge difference between passing the knowledge check on the spot and having to go consult a sage. The whole example of the sage and an impossible for PCs but possible for an NPC sage who is built exactly like the PCs is rubbish. It assumes things about knowledge that never make sense to do when running a game. If the adventure has a knowledge check in it, then some PC could potentially pass it, even if that hypothetical PC isn't in the party, and if they don't succeed that way for whatever reason, it's either okay to skip whatever information that was, or there is some other way to access that information. The alternative is Sierra adventure game design where you lost the game in the first five minutes and won't know until 10 hours later.

Not quite. Skills can have meaningful uses, they just have to be uses that are appropriate at 1st level. Or maybe you could have a paradigm where skill bonuses scale slowly for a while before becoming uncapped, and skills can have uses that are meaningful to 5th level characters (which is about what they eyeball out to now).
That's still describing skill bonuses that stop being meaningful as soon as you lose control of them.

From each other, sure. From level, not so much. If your "level associated check" is just "a level check, but your bonus is 3 bigger" (as skill checks are), you can just adjust skill DCs down three and simplify.
I'm in favor of attacks, defenses, and skills (not necessarily attacks or defenses) all using similar number scales because it allows for easy adjudication when concepts cross over one category to another. What are weapon attacks and armored defenses but weapon skills and defense skills by a different name. There's even systems that include them right alongside hacking skills, or stealth skills.

Doesn't this also justify adding Talents and Capabilities and Quirks and so on for every noun that we can think of? Where's the limiting principle where we decide that abilities can interact with enough different kinds of bonuses?
It's arbitrary. You can apply as many descriptors, or traits, or indicators, or keywords as you want to include in your game. For example. a taunt, a cheer, a threat, and an hour gathering rumors might all be affected by bonuses or penalties based on the shared link of using language.

Do you not see how this is an articulation of why it is precisely pointless for abilities to work off skills? You've two options. One is that skills relate to level in a consistent way. In this case, the only effect of something depending on a skill is that someone can forget to invest their skill points and not be level-appropriate using an ability they are suppose to have. One is that skills do not relate to level in a consistent way. In this case, things can only depend on skills if they are abilities that are appropriate for characters of any level to have. Where is the option where things depending on skills is expanding the design space in a balanced way? Because it looks to me like both A and not-A don't work, leaving us with no options that work!
This is like saying you have to exclude weapons because players might kill themselves with them. Even so, there are systems that don't allow players to "not invest their skill points." There are other systems that outright say, "This is your maximum value. You should assign this value to abilities that are most important to your character." That's why I said an expected minimum and maximum value. What if everyone was unreasoningly stupid is not a counterargument.

[JNAProductions]

There’s an issue with 3.P’s skill iteration.

It is tied far too much to killing and survival power.
You’re a performer-you’ve got an 18 Charisma, Skill Focus (Sing) and max ranks in Perform (Sing). That’s +11 right there.
How do you get better? Why, you murder rats and level up! What does that have to do with singing? Nothing.

For players I don’t see an issue with skills and levels correlating, because D&D is meant to model PC adventurers. Not professors, not performers, not sports stars-all of which might be PART of a PC, but their main thing is adventuring.
But it doesn’t mean that you have to treat the rules of the game as the laws of the universe-they’re a UI. They’re there to let you play a game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For players I don’t see an issue with skills and levels correlating, because D&D is meant to model PC adventurers. Not professors, not performers, not sports stars-all of which might be PART of a PC, but their main thing is adventuring.
But it doesn’t mean that you have to treat the rules of the game as the laws of the universe-they’re a UI. They’re there to let you play a game.

This. So very much this. The rules exist to help you play a game. That's their purpose.

[Satinavian]

For players I don’t see an issue with skills and levels correlating, because D&D is meant to model PC adventurers. Not professors, not performers, not sports stars-all of which might be PART of a PC, but their main thing is adventuring.
But it doesn’t mean that you have to treat the rules of the game as the laws of the universe-they’re a UI. They’re there to let you play a game.
That is not necessarily true.

Sure, D&D is only really concerned with the adventuring and of of adventuring mostly the combat part, but it is not even uncommon to have a campaign where the adevntures are basically interruptions in the daily life of the characters, not their main job and where you have years of downtime between them.

"Adventurer as an in game thing" is not something that even exists in many settings.


As for seeking out NPCs in general : When you have a PC that is specialist in X as their main shtick and the GM introduces a problem around X designed in a way that the group has to get an NPC expert of X to solve it for them, then that is pretty bad form in most cases.

[Talakeal]

First, let me say I am not really interested into getting into the nitty gritty of 3.X mechanics.

First, because I fully agree it is a poorly balanced system. Way too stingy with mundane abilities, way too many broken spells, and enough optimization tricks and exploits that you can basically ignore any of the inborn limits of the game.

Second, because its been over a decade since I played it seriously and was never much into TO, so my memory of the specifics is pretty rusty.

I am mostly talking about the concepts involved, because I have played many games where muggles and magic-users worked side by side and both contributed roughly equally to the team over the years, and even in 3.X the martials were never simply dead weight.


Does the Barbarian have the ability to stop a creature that can move faster than he can and has plane shift listed as a default spell from securing as much prep time as it is likely to want? Is there any particular reason to assume a creature with an INT of 22 is going to make bad choices when selecting spells?

Depends on the scenario. Stopping things from simply running away is one of the big challenges in 3.X.

Still doesn't change the fact that a martial can defeat it in a straight fight.


A planetar is perfectly capable of casting spells like greater magic vestment to make up for lack of items, has enough stat bonuses to make up for base 10s and 11s, and is honestly as specialized to combat as you could reasonably expect -- I suppose a few of its at-will SLAs could be better choices for a fight.


The bigger problem with the planetar iirc is that it doesn't have persistent spell, divine metamagic, turn undead, and night sticks, which are the things required to really make CoDzilla work.


Those things aren't "bigger numbers", or at least they aren't just "bigger numbers". You don't defeat an army with a really high AC and lots of HP, you defeat it with DR, which is a qualitatively different sort of defense than you had at low level. Simply having a grapple bonus of +Yes doesn't let you grapple a kraken, you need a swim speed and water breathing or you drown before engaging it. You could have a big enough damage output to one-shot dinosaurs, but the rest of the system models one-hit-kills with SoDs, and honestly that's a better paradigm because it avoids exponential HP inflation.

Ok... then if martials already do get abilities beyond bigger numbers as they level then what was the point of the discussion in the first place?



I really don't understand why I am being asked to defend Pun-Pun. Do I ask your side to defend 1st level Commoners with no stat over 3 in 20th level games? As far as your specific example goes, your Lantern Archon doesn't give you teleport, because it can only move itself.

Defend? No.

I am just pointing out that 3.X has so many optimization tricks that it is possible to give virtually any character virtually any ability if you are so inclined.



Really? How does a 3rd level Rogue reach Orcus and defeat him? How does a 7th level Ranger defeat an incursion by an adult Nabassu and its ghoulish minions every day, without any foreknowledge of where they will appear, and when they can appear anywhere in the kingdom?

I said any character could help out with the overall situation, not handle any given problem.

In an actual game, players find stuff to solve their problems. On a forum discussion, the goalposts always get shifted to a scenario where there is only one very specific solution that one of the characters being discussed has and the other does not.



Can you? I'd love to know the scenario that is as difficult for the Wizard as this one is for the Fighter. I suppose you'd say something with antimagic fields everywhere or entirely in a Dead Magic Zone. But honestly that feels like it proves my point, because Orcus isn't doing anything to negate the Fighter. None of his demons reduce people's BAB to zero or disable bonus feats. If you have to turn to "what if we turn off the Wizard's whole class" to equal it, that seems illustrative to me.

Again, I am not defending 3.X design, but that is kind of the whole idea behind the wizard class. Spells are incredibly powerful and versatile, but they are limited in how many can be known, how many can be cast, and it is a lot more common to find immunities or hard counters to magic than it is melee.

Typically, in my experience, when we fight a demon prince or the like, the magic-user is locking them down while the warrior is dealing damage, and in a properly balanced system / party (imo) the pair is doing better than two warriors or two magic-users would in the same situation.



Great. Then tell me how they contribute to defeating Orcus. What specific and purely numerical abilities do they use to defeat Orcus?

Their attack bonus exceeds his armor class and their damage output exceeds his hit points.

Fighters fight, its not complicated.



Could we also admit that D&D has a dearth of abilities for martial characters? Because as someone who largely likes casters the way they are, I am rather tired of "you get only a few nerfs, my character remains unchanged" being the compromise position.

Absolutely. D&D is super stingy with mundane abiltiies.

But, that's only half the problem, as there are also some really broken spells.

I don't think you can have a game (or atleast not a high fantasy adventure game, you can absolutely have an esoteric cosmic philosophical game like nobillis) with things like chain-gating and XP free wishes.

And, of course, the basic idea of daily spell slots hasn't really worked right since the game divorced game time from real world time sometime around 1980.



I suppose my question in that case would be why you think those groupings are desirable. If Greg wants to play a Cleric, why is the game better if he needs to instead play a Rogue because Samantha is already playing a Druid? Even if we do accept those groupings, what's wrong with a party of a Barbarian (defender), a Ranger (striker), a Paladin (controller), and a Marshal (leader)? Or a Cleric (defender), a Sorcerer (striker), a Wizard (controller), and a War Weaver (leader)?

It isn't better per se.

But there is always going to be a best class, and, IMO, in a team game it's better to go with a team being more than the sum of its parts rather than just four copies of the same S tier character build.

In either case, Greg is going to have to choose between the character he wants to play and the most powerful character.


There isn't a problem with using different classes to fulfill different roles, in fact I think D&D would be a lot better if it were more lenient about which classes can fulfill which roles, but the sample party you gave was still all warriors and experts and lacking magic-users and priests entirely (to use the 5.5 terms) or all defenders and strikers to use the 4E terms.



The game is entirely workable.

It's not workable in an RPG.

You might be able to get close in a battle arena game.

But if one person wants to play a rogue built around backstabbing and one person wants to play a rogue built around picking locks, it is both absurd on a narrative level and overly restrictive on the mechanical level to demand they both have exactly the same combat potential.

And as is, some of the classes are clearly designed around combat and others are not. Having a war-mage not be any better at combat than a standard wizard while also giving the standard wizard full utility is unfair to the war-mage on both a narrative and mechanical level.


I think your table probably has a much higher focus on combat than mine does, which is weird because you keep going on about how its the lack of utility spells that make martials suck.



The demand that is unworkable, and fairly trivially so, is "the Fighter should never have to gain new abilities as he reaches new levels and faces new challenges".

Did anyone actually make that demand?

As is, martial characters do gain new abilities as they level, and I don't recall anyone complaining about it.

I personally prefer characters who simply get better at using the abilities they have as they level up as I like to master one character and don't get bored very easily, but that's just a matter of personal preference rather than an absolute game design principal, and has very little to do with martial characters vs. magic users.


No idea at all why such a class is trivially unworkable in your opinion, it works just fine at my table.




1. Orcus is starting problems.
2. An ancient lich has retreated within his tomb-temple to perform a ritual that will destroy the sun and blanket the world in endless night. Fight your way in and defeat him before it succeeds.
3. War is on the verge of breaking out between the four genie houses. Intrigue up a solution that keeps everyone happy enough that they don't start fighting.
4. A five-headed dragon has been born and claims to speak with the voice of Tiamat herself. It has united the feuding Dragonlords, and now they and their armies rally against moral lands rather than warring internally.
5. A powerful alchemist plans to sacrifice a nation's worth of people in a ritual that will elevate him to godhood. The ritual circle spans most of a continent, but if you can destroy enough of it before it activates, his work may fail.
6. Atropus's drifting through the Astral Plane has brought it close to the Prime. Across the world the dead rise, and a terrible moon hangs in the sky. Hold off the dead long enough to travel to the moon and do battle with Atropus's avatar.
7. The Great Beasts have awoken. Several tarrasque-level monsters have appeared across the world, and you need to stop them before they do irreparable damage to various nations.
8. A cabal of White Ethergaunts have escaped from one of their prisons. They have begun assembling forces for an invasion. Travel into the deep Ethereal and stop them.
9. Long ago, the four Heralds of Tharizdun were imprisoned by mages who could not defeat them. But their prisons have leaked, and now the pollution threatens to unleash the dark god without their active intervention. Find them, pop them out, and kill them for good.
10. Rumors have arrived that the God-Emperor of a distant desert land has fallen ill. If you can reach there in time, you may be able to win his favor by healing him, or alternatively claim the spark of his divinity when he dies.

So, which of those adventures do you see a Fighter as being well-suited to? Are there common areas beyond "killing bad guys" between those adventures he might contribute to?

Again, D&D fighters are bad. They do mostly boil down to "killing bad guys", but that is useful enough in all of these scenarios that they aren't just dead weight.

None of these scenarios are conceptually impossible for an all martial party to accomplish, although they are of course much easier with a balanced party that includes casters.



Alright, now we're getting somewhere. Suppose we lean into this. The Fighter class is bad, but the Fighter gets magic items, so Fighter characters are good. What problems do we have?

Well, one immediate one is that it's hard to see how magic items would work that would make them asymmetrically good for the Fighter. We don't want to tell the Paladin that he can't have a magic sword, so for the Fighter to close the gap he can't just get magic items, he needs to be better at using magic items than other characters. That's a class feature right there.

But we have another problem: what if the Fighter doesn't get the magic items? Well, then we'd be back to the Fighter being bad. So the Fighter needs a class feature that guarantees he gets magic items.

D&D fighters are bad. Magic items don't make them not bad.

But the argument "no martial character is valid because they don't have X ability" is easily disproven because if that ability truly is so vital, you can just get a magic item that replicates it.

A fighter should absolutely be better at using magic arms and armor than a paladin as the "Weapon master" is pretty much the whole class fantasy. In AD&D they accomplish this with weapon specialization, meaning that in their hands a magic sword will both get more attacks and those attacks will be more likely to hit. In 3.X, not so much.



It is for martials, because their class abilities are bad. It very much is not for casters. There is not one caster who would pick "lose your casting" if given "lose your WBL" as an alternative.

Eh. I suppose that depends on the level of optimization.

I think I would rather have an item that casts Shape-change or Gate at will than 20th level wizard casting.



Alright. Suppose the challenge is "we would like to go a place that is far away". What class abilities does the Fighter have that contribute to solving this challenge in a party that has access to teleport?

None.

Now, if teleportation is blocked, as it so often is, I would say a ranger or a druid would be better than a wizard in this case.

But again, you can design whatever scenario you want to make whatever class you want look good. For example: "Suppose the challenge is, opening a locked door. What is a wizard without knock or silence memorized supposed to contribute to this scenario when there is already a rogue with maxed out open locks and skill knack?"



Isn't that my point? Yes, I wouldn't obey a mispainted sign that said "turn left off this cliff". But I also wouldn't obey a correctly painted sign that said "drive off this cliff", and more importantly I would not change how I interpreted signs in general because one was painted in a way that suggested I should drive off a cliff.

I thought your argument was that it was always best to go by the most direct reading of the text rather than trying to infer what the author actually meant to come up with a sensible reading.

[Psyren]

At the cost of making high levels play like low levels with bigger numbers. I have, in this very thread, provided examples of how single-digit 3.PF non-spellcaster characters have access to more spectacular abilities than level 20 PF2 characters.

I'm not denying that, and that's in fact a big reason why PF2 isn't for me personally. That doesn't mean there's no market for that; clearly there is.



Existing Fighters in both systems have some part of appropriate abilities for high levels. That is, they have appropriate numbers to win in a purely mathematical sense, when you take a Fighter and a similar CR enemy and bash their statblocks against each other in an attack fest. Otherwise, no, not really.

What's wrong with people who want to "bash" against CR-appropriate monster statblocks? That's a valid way to play in many systems. I would argue most people who pick up a martial in D&D or PF are in fact looking for exactly that.


Again, how is this different from just saying "the market has spoken". Yes, it is true that the particular games that sell more or less copies sell more or less copies. Do you have some defense of your position that is grounded in anything I couldn't learn by listening to the earnings calls for Paizo and whatever company owns the license for Exalted right now?

Just so I'm clear - you want a defense other than "the market has spoken" for why a particular design philosophy championed by two for-profit companies has prevailed all this time?



I mean, they don't. Here's a fun exercise to do. Imagine a 7th level Barbarian. Think about how you might describe his capabilities to a person who doesn't play D&D. He can rage a couple times per day, he's modestly more durable than average in a couple of ways, that sort of thing. Now imagine that same Barbarian, leveled up to 17th level. How have his capabilities changed? How do you describe that to someone who doesn't play D&D? He rages slightly harder? He can rage a few more times per day? His rage still isn't anywhere near the Hulk, and the Hulk can rage at will. He can attack more times in a six-second round? Does that even mean anything to a non-D&D player if we aren't assuming a one-to-one mapping of attack rolls and sword swings? He has more DR, but the two points of it he's gained don't even let him shrug off a javelin flung by a peasant levy reliably, let alone the attacks he's taking now.

Compare this to a 7th Wizard. Not only can I easily tell anyone the difference between a 7th level Wizard and a 17th level Wizard without them knowing word one of D&D mechanics, I can do it with a 7th level Wizard and a 9th level Wizard. "This guy can teleport across continents, that guy can't." "This guy can wave his hands and turn a pile of raw ore into finished swords, that guy can't." "This guy can conjure a toxic cloud that kills the weak and cripples the strong, that guy can't." The Barbarian does not have "appropriate abilities for high levels". He, at best, has numbers that mostly scale to high level.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to adding new capabilities to the 17th-level Barbarian. PF1 had "rage powers" that served as a useful vector for such, allowing high level barbarians to do things like sunder spells, alter terrain, gain magic & energy resistance, condition immunities, fly, ignore death etc. Maybe PF2 retained some of these.

But I think it's possible to add a few powers like this to the Barbarian while still being experientially different from spellcasters.

[Pex]

I don't see how that isn't just a separate track you have glued the skill system on to. The difference between "skill X and rank Y" and "must be level Z" is that sometimes you can take the wrong skills and not be able to get the ability you want (note that this is separate from whatever "people should have abilities from a limited number of tracks" thing you want to do, which can be done in either system). Stuff requiring a skill check for level-appropriate abilities is a bad idea, as the Truenamer demonstrates. If you want people to have slots to pick up abilities, just do that. You don't need to connect it to skills.



The problem with Truenamer was not in idea but execution. As you gained levels the DCs increased to the point you could never make them unless you took specific feats and had specific items and even then it was hard. In my opinion get rid of the 2x multiplier and it would work.

However, there is downside to the system in terms of two chances of failure if the Thing is an attack of some kind. Presuming the Skill DC numbers are perfect, you can still fail the DC check. When you make the DC check depending on the ability you can still fail the attack roll or the opponent makes the saving throw. The solution is not have an attack for this system - it's only for utility or buffing, or accept the price of two chances to fail in exchange for unlimited use but maybe as the levels progress you will auto succeed on the low level DC checks.


There’s an issue with 3.P’s skill iteration.

It is tied far too much to killing and survival power.
You’re a performer-you’ve got an 18 Charisma, Skill Focus (Sing) and max ranks in Perform (Sing). That’s +11 right there.
How do you get better? Why, you murder rats and level up! What does that have to do with singing? Nothing.

For players I don’t see an issue with skills and levels correlating, because D&D is meant to model PC adventurers. Not professors, not performers, not sports stars-all of which might be PART of a PC, but their main thing is adventuring.
But it doesn’t mean that you have to treat the rules of the game as the laws of the universe-they’re a UI. They’re there to let you play a game.

Not exactly. You get XP for dealing with encounters. If instead of fighting a monster you convince it to go away, help you, redeem, or avoid it altogether because your mission as nothing to do with it it was just there in the way, you also get XP and gain levels. Milestone leveling can also be used where the point is to accomplish goals and you can do it however you want.

Combat is but one aspect of the game There is also Exploration and Social Interaction.

[RandomPeasant]

it's either okay to skip whatever information that was, or there is some other way to access that information. The alternative is Sierra adventure game design where you lost the game in the first five minutes and won't know until 10 hours later.

It seems to me that there is a middle ground where missing the information is bad, but does not cause you to instantly lose. Perhaps it results in an encounter that would otherwise be easy being difficult, or in a challenge that requires expending some other resource. It's true that players shouldn't lose simply because they don't have a specific ability, but there does need to be some combination of abilities where not having all of them makes you lose, because otherwise it doesn't matter what abilities you have since you always win.


There's even systems that include them right alongside hacking skills, or stealth skills.

There are skill-based systems. D&D is not one of them.


What if everyone was unreasoningly stupid is not a counterargument.

It's not "unreasoning stupidity". It's "organic character growth". Perhaps you have a character who starts out as a farmer, but ends up as an archmage. Why should their backstory, which presumably involves investment in skills like Handle Animal and Knowledge (Nature) have to be discarded for them to get idiomatically appropriate high-level non-combat abilities? They didn't have to discard it for their combat abilities.


How do you get better? Why, you murder rats and level up! What does that have to do with singing? Nothing.

Well, you level up. You are, notionally, supposed to get roleplaying XP, so presumably the way NPCs level up is the steady trickle of XP they get through daily life rather than by having periodic rat-murder binges. Again, I do think that having some consideration for how people who aren't adventures level up is useful, because having some coherent model of how the evil High Priest (or whatever antagonist) became a PC-level threat without having to have been a rival adventurer adds depth to the world and potentially creates opportunities for PCs to act strategically.


I am mostly talking about the concepts involved, because I have played many games where muggles and magic-users worked side by side and both contributed roughly equally to the team over the years, and even in 3.X the martials were never simply dead weight.

It's not a matter of not being dead weight. It's a matter of offering enough to justify picking martial characters over casters, and martials do not do that. If you just want to argue that people can tolerate imbalance, I think that's a true claim, but I don't think it's a very good affirmative argument for imbalance. People can tolerate poorly-written rules, that doesn't mean you should skimp on editing.


Still doesn't change the fact that a martial can defeat it in a straight fight.

I have not seen anything to suggest that to be the case. It has the mobility advantage and its magic gives it ranged attacks. Your argument here is just "3e has a lot of cheese in it, you can figure something out". But that's not really compelling when there's cheese the Planetar can do too. What if it starts chain-gating in more outsiders? What if it has some way of boosting its CL and kills you with holy word?


The bigger problem with the planetar iirc is that it doesn't have persistent spell, divine metamagic, turn undead, and night sticks, which are the things required to really make CoDzilla work.

It is natively large and natively has good BAB, meaning it doesn't need to make the two big Cleric buffs (righteous might and divine power) persistent. It's quite capable of getting by with the buffs that are already long-duration.


Ok... then if martials already do get abilities beyond bigger numbers as they level then what was the point of the discussion in the first place?

The point is that the martials don't get those abilities! The Fighter does not get water breathing or a swim speed, and therefore cannot wrestle a kraken effectively regardless of how high you optimize his grapple bonus. The Babarian gets DR, but even at 20th level it's not enough to ignore a bunch of conscripts with crossbows. One-shotting dinosaurs is possible, but it requires cobbling together a bunch of Power Attack multipliers and starts to raise questions about comparative optimization (and, as noted, is I think a worse way for the game to work than SoDs).

You seem to be alternating between "this is what martials can be built to do in 3e" and "this is what I think martials should be able to do" without really clarifying which one you are talking about. If you don't want to talk about the details of 3e mechanics, that's fine. Feel free to advance your vision of how you think these things should work without worrying overmuch about how well it aligns with how they do work in whatever particular edition of the game.


In an actual game, players find stuff to solve their problems.

So what stuff would you expect them to find? I don't even need it to be 3e-legal. I am asking you to explain what you expect a Ranger or a Monk or a Swashbuckler to do in this situation that is A) comparable to what a Wizard or a Cleric or an Artificer might accomplish and B) consistent with your desire for those characters to never gain new abilities and progress only through larger numbers.


Again, I am not defending 3.X design, but that is kind of the whole idea behind the wizard class. Spells are incredibly powerful and versatile, but they are limited in how many can be known, how many can be cast, and it is a lot more common to find immunities or hard counters to magic than it is melee.

It's reasonably common to find enemies that have defenses against specific spells. But immunity to "all of magic" is basically non-existent. Even the famed magic immunity of the golems still leaves them vulnerable to indirect targeting effects like silent image. Conversely, flight and ranged attacks does a pretty good job of hard-countering melee.


Fighters fight, its not complicated.

This is like saying a character's contribution is that they "adventure". Everyone fights, you're not special for doing it. If the Wizard can transport you to Orcus's layer of the abyss (and then fight him when you get there) and the Cleric can set up wards against demonic incursions (and then fight the ones that arrive) and the Druid can call up the armies of nature to defend the realm from demons (and then bear-form her way through Orcus's honor guard), the fact that the Fighter is "fighting" is not sufficient to make him a co-equal member of the party. He needs to do things that are not fighting, in the same way that a Wizard with no combat spells is not an adequate character.


But there is always going to be a best class, and, IMO, in a team game it's better to go with a team being more than the sum of its parts rather than just four copies of the same S tier character build.

But neither of those parties are "four copies of the same S tier character build". Why is the threshold for appropriate character difference "this guy is sneaky and that guy is stabby", rather than "this guy is a fire mage and that guy is a death mage"?


There isn't a problem with using different classes to fulfill different roles, in fact I think D&D would be a lot better if it were more lenient about which classes can fulfill which roles, but the sample party you gave was still all warriors and experts and lacking magic-users and priests entirely (to use the 5.5 terms) or all defenders and strikers to use the 4E terms.

Sure, the party was all experts or warriors. But that's an aesthetic judgement, not a mechanical one. What is it that the "priest" role is supposed to do, exactly? Presumably some combination of healing and maybe magical guidance of some sort. Isn't that exactly what Aragorn brings to the table in LotR, admittedly in a fairly low-level form? He knows the wilderness, and he is able to do some healing at Weathertop when it's needed. Why can't that scale up to fill the mechanical portions of the "priest" role, even if he is still aesthetically an "expert"?

As far as the 4e stuff goes, I think you are just flat wrong, unless you are specifically making the claim that those classes were not the roles I suggested for them as printed in 4e, in which case I do not care. A Barbarian is absolutely a tank defender. He gets up in melee, and contributes by convincing the enemies to attack him rather than other characters. That's a Fury Warrior in WoW terms. Paladin is maybe a little bit dicey as a controller, but there are absolutely martial characters that fit that niche -- like the Tripstar in 3e. Honestly, the real issue is that on some level "defender" and "controller" are just the "in melee" and "at range" versions of the same concept: someone who contributes by forcing enemies to take actions that are worse than the actions they take otherwise.


But if one person wants to play a rogue built around backstabbing and one person wants to play a rogue built around picking locks, it is both absurd on a narrative level and overly restrictive on the mechanical level to demand they both have exactly the same combat potential.

How do you expect to balance that without carefully proscribing a ratio of "encounters that can be solved by backstabbing" to "encounters that can be solved by picking locks"? It is not easier or more sensible to balance across different minigames. It is easier to balance within the minigames, so that when one DM decides to run an intrigue-heavy or combat-heavy campaign they don't suddenly upend your entire effort at balance.


And as is, some of the classes are clearly designed around combat and others are not. Having a war-mage not be any better at combat than a standard wizard while also giving the standard wizard full utility is unfair to the war-mage on both a narrative and mechanical level.

No it's not. A Warmage (stupid implementation in Complete Arcane aside) is not a mage who just has combat spells. It's mage who is good at war, an activity that famously includes many things that are not just killing people (as they say, amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics). That means that while they have both combat and non-combat spells, the spells they do have are the ones you might want as a general. So their utility suite has things like fabricate (to simplify logistics), gate (or rather "create a portal that you can walk an army through" -- not the summoning portion), scrying (monitoring enemy troop movements), or whispering wind (keep in touch with your own troops). Conversely, the Wizard might get spells like legend lore (a useful spell for an arcane researcher, less so for an army on the march) or teleport (great if you need to go visit a distant land and study its arcane secrets, not so much if you need to get a couple of divisions to the site of a battle in time).


No idea at all why such a class is trivially unworkable in your opinion, it works just fine at my table.

You have yet to describe how such a class works, and have thus far refused to articulate any role a Fighter might fill other than the universal role of "contributes to combat encounters". Perhaps the way that it works is that you simply never have adventures like the ones I have outlined, or your party has a very high tolerance for imbalance.


None of these scenarios are conceptually impossible for an all martial party to accomplish, although they are of course much easier with a balanced party that includes casters.

Then please, pick one and walk me through how the all-martial party is defeating it with their abilities that are all numerically-improved versions of abilities they had at first level. Are they going to be so incredibly fast they can respond to four different crises across the world before any of them has time to escalate? If we do that, are we also going to ask that their players track however many thousands of squares of movement that is in combat time? It seems like we would, if we were committed to their speed being just a numeric improvement of the base land speed they had at 1st level. But that seems massively unwieldy compared to just giving them a "Run Very Fast" ability.


"Suppose the challenge is, opening a locked door. What is a wizard without knock or silence memorized supposed to contribute to this scenario when there is already a rogue with maxed out open locks and skill knack?"

Do you not see the double standard you're applying here? I didn't say "a Fighter who has not selected the Blade Teleport ability". I just said a Fighter. So, yes, a Wizard is quite capable of contributing to dealing with a locked door. Now, there are scenarios where you might instead want someone else to deal with the locked door. Perhaps it is important to conserve resources, and it is better for the Rogue to use Open Lock. Perhaps it is not important to be stealthy when opening the door, and you can simply have the Warblade smash it with mountain hammer. Perhaps you want to open the door because it has the cure to the poison afflicting the baron behind it, and it turns out the Paladin can use his healing powers to solve the problem directly, obviating the need to open the door in the first place. But the Wizard has a thing to do. Conversely, in the long-distance travel situation, the Fighter has nothing to do. He doesn't even have an option that is probably not very useful. That's the difference, and it's bad.


I thought your argument was that it was always best to go by the most direct reading of the text rather than trying to infer what the author actually meant to come up with a sensible reading.

My argument has two parts. First is the question of "how you should understand the rules". Second is the question of "what you should do in practice".


Just so I'm clear - you want a defense other than "the market has spoken" for why a particular design philosophy championed by two for-profit companies has prevailed all this time?

Mostly I would like to know what Psyren thinks. I can look at earnings reports and roll20 stats for myself. If your argument is to simply point out what those are, I don't see that there's much value in engaging with you.


But I think it's possible to add a few powers like this to the Barbarian while still being experientially different from spellcasters.

I think that's a fair thing to ask. But I don't really see how "not getting non-combat abilities" is an important part of that. If you want the Barbarian to be different from the Wizard, just make him different from the Wizard. Give him a Rage Meter that charges up as he deals and takes damage in melee, encouraging him to play aggressively in combat. That will do far more to make him feel different from the Wizard than having their respective approaches to "travel a long distance quickly" be "do nothing" and "cast teleport".


The problem with Truenamer was not in idea but execution. As you gained levels the DCs increased to the point you could never make them unless you took specific feats and had specific items and even then it was hard. In my opinion get rid of the 2x multiplier and it would work.

Sure, you could make it work. But to the degree that you make it work what you have done is give the Truenamer a level check to use their abilities. Yes, if a Truenamer simply reliably has a level + 8 Truespeak bonus and Truespeak DCs are set in a way that results in that bonus doing level-appropriate things, that's level-appropriate. But it's also just exactly the same as the Truenamer having a mechanic where they roll a level check with a +8 bonus and Truespeak not being a skill.

[Psyren]

Truenamer's problem wasn't just the Law of Resistance's harsh scaling; their single-target focus at low levels combined with the Law of Sequence.


Mostly I would like to know what Psyren thinks. I can look at earnings reports and roll20 stats for myself.




I'm fine with/happily stamp the ones we have now. Certainly I could make a high level Fighter or Barbarian that does a much better job than Beowulf did.



I think that's a fair thing to ask. But I don't really see how "not getting non-combat abilities" is an important part of that.

I am okay with them getting non-combat abilities. The Primal Knowledge ability in the playtest is definitely a non-combat ability. A Magic Sunder sort of ability would have a number of non-combat applications.

[Pex]

Sure, you could make it work. But to the degree that you make it work what you have done is give the Truenamer a level check to use their abilities. Yes, if a Truenamer simply reliably has a level + 8 Truespeak bonus and Truespeak DCs are set in a way that results in that bonus doing level-appropriate things, that's level-appropriate. But it's also just exactly the same as the Truenamer having a mechanic where they roll a level check with a +8 bonus and Truespeak not being a skill.

Making it a skill is what allowed the game to have it interact with all rules that deal with skills. It allows someone to take the feat Skill Focus (Truenamer) instead of needing to create a new feat just to say add +3 to your Truenamer level check. This issue is for Truenamer specific, but for the idea as a whole for which you used Truenamer to discourage all or at least many skills would each have their own DC checks to accomplish things that for now only spellcasters can do. Devil in the details how that works, but the existence of how Truenamer works RAW does not disprove the viability of this idea working at all.

[pabelfly]

Making it a skill is what allowed the game to have it ia nteract with all rules that deal with skills. It allows someone to take the feat Skill Focus (Truenamer) instead of needing to create a new feat just to say add +3 to your Truenamer level check. This issue is for Truenamer specific, but for the idea as a whole for which you used Truenamer to discourage all or at least many skills would each have their own DC checks to accomplish things that for now only spellcasters can do. Devil in the details how that works, but the existence of how Truenamer works RAW does not disprove the viability of this idea working at all.

The problem with having a skill check not directly based on ranks (like, say, bardic performance) is that your performance is so heavily dependent on how well you can (and are allowed to) optimize. Is Truenamer a caster that can't actually cast at all, one that only has a chance of using their ability when they cast, or one that can use their spell as often as they want throughout the day? Don't know, ask your DM. That doesn't strike me as great conceptual design.

[Pex]

The problem with having a skill check not directly based on ranks (like, say, bardic performance) is that your performance is so heavily dependent on how well you can (and are allowed to) optimize. Is Truenamer a caster that can't actually cast at all, one that only has a chance of using their ability when they cast, or one that can use their spell as often as they want throughout the day? Don't know, ask your DM. That doesn't strike me as great conceptual design.

It's not about Truenamer but using skills to perform fantastical things now limited to spellcasters. Who said it's not based on ranks? You want unlocks "need to be this level/have this many ranks" before you can do stuff. 2E Psionics had a similar system based on the 2E paradigm of proficiencies, and it was possible to Disintegrate at 3rd level. Not guaranteed to work, but you were given the possibility. As I said devil in the details of how this could work, but I'm not obligated to create such a system here.

I can say the concept has already proven to work as there are other game systems that use skills to do fantastical things. The question is how to do it in the D&D/Pathfinder system. For D&D it may be easier in 3E than 5E due to lack of bounded accuracy and 3E is more acceptable of at will powerful abilities. Even in 5E I could see it being locked behind class and level. Anyone can Jump their strength score, but you need to be Fighter/Barbarian level X to make a DC 15 Athletics check to simulate Jump spell. In 5E The Psi Warrior Fighter can do it at 7th level

[lesser_minion]

Making it a skill is what allowed the game to have it interact with all rules that deal with skills. It allows someone to take the feat Skill Focus (Truenamer) instead of needing to create a new feat just to say add +3 to your Truenamer level check. This issue is for Truenamer specific, but for the idea as a whole for which you used Truenamer to discourage all or at least many skills would each have their own DC checks to accomplish things that for now only spellcasters can do. Devil in the details how that works, but the existence of how Truenamer works RAW does not disprove the viability of this idea working at all.

Wouldn't a feat like Skill Focus: Truenamer be either completely useless to your character or a non-negotiable mandatory pick, with nothing in between for well over 99% of characters?

If I wanted to implement truenaming as a skill, I'd actually be strongly tempted to disallow taking skill focus in it, since the alternative would basically just be saying that truenamers arbitrarily don't get one of their feats.

3rd edition is balanced around the idea that skills aren't that big a deal. That's why the magic item guidelines lists skill boosts as so cheap compared with attack and damage boosts, and why non-epic skill usages rarely have DCs over 40 that aren't set through opposed checks.

[Kurald Galain]

Wouldn't a feat like Skill Focus: Truenamer be either completely useless to your character or a non-negotiable mandatory pick, with nothing in between for well over 99% of characters?
If a weapon user can be written so that Weapon Focus becomes neither useless nor mandatory, and if a spellcaster can be made so that Spell Focus is neither pointless nor required, then a truenamer can be designed so that the same applies to Skill Focus. At least in theory.

[Ignimortis]

I'll try and get back to reply to all the posts that I want to reply, but I just wanted to drop at least a quick reply to this in particular.


If a weapon user can be written so that Weapon Focus becomes neither useless nor mandatory, and if a spellcaster can be made so that Spell Focus is neither pointless nor required, then a truenamer can be designed so that the same applies to Skill Focus. At least in theory.

That would require the Truenamer to have the same amount of facets as a weapon user (free BAB bonuses to hit, highly varied enemy AC, hitting not necessarily meaning achieving the intended result) or a spellcaster (Spell Focus affecting only one particular school of magic, varied enemy save bonuses, spells that do not require any checks at all). Even if a weapon user is stuck with a single weapon, they might not need Weapon Focus since they hit often enough anyway. Even if a spellcaster cannot affect the target with a spell, they can cast a check-free spell to support the team. A Truenamer, however, must first pass a skill check to even attempt anything from their arsenal, which is the crux of the problem, I think.

[lesser_minion]

That would require the Truenamer to have the same amount of facets as a weapon user (free BAB bonuses to hit, highly varied enemy AC, hitting not necessarily meaning achieving the intended result) or a spellcaster (Spell Focus affecting only one particular school of magic, varied enemy save bonuses, spells that do not require any checks at all). Even if a weapon user is stuck with a single weapon, they might not need Weapon Focus since they hit often enough anyway. Even if a spellcaster cannot affect the target with a spell, they can cast a check-free spell to support the team. A Truenamer, however, must first pass a skill check to even attempt anything from their arsenal, which is the crux of the problem, I think.

Yes. And 4e's various expertise feats actually had a similar problem, if I recall correctly. Such feats are very easy to get wrong.

[Pex]

Wouldn't a feat like Skill Focus: Truenamer be either completely useless to your character or a non-negotiable mandatory pick, with nothing in between for well over 99% of characters?

If I wanted to implement truenaming as a skill, I'd actually be strongly tempted to disallow taking skill focus in it, since the alternative would basically just be saying that truenamers arbitrarily don't get one of their feats.

3rd edition is balanced around the idea that skills aren't that big a deal. That's why the magic item guidelines lists skill boosts as so cheap compared with attack and damage boosts, and why non-epic skill usages rarely have DCs over 40 that aren't set through opposed checks.

That was the problem with Truenamer (Raw). You had to take feats and get specific magic items to function. Even if the DC was manageable having everything be on one skill made Skill Focus a no brainer. The point here is not to defend Truenamer. The point is Truenamer's existence is not proof using skills to do fantastical things wouldn't work.

Allowing non-spellcasters to do fantastical things does not have to be done using the skill system. It's not Must Be This Way. The point is it's also not Never This Way. It's merely possible. It's one way to do it. It's a means to do it with base rules that already exist without having to think up a new system of rules to do it. It's expanding on what exists instead of creating new stuff. If you want to create new stuff go for it, but that doesn't mean using the skill system can't work.

[RandomPeasant]

Making it a skill is what allowed the game to have it interact with all rules that deal with skills.

But were any of those interactions things we liked from a design perspective? Sure, Truenamers could buy items of +20 Truespeak. But what that did in practice was allow them to sort of make up for their bad scaling, and if they'd had normal scaling it would've meant that the difference between "optimized Truenamer" and "un-optimized Truenamer" was the entire RNG and more than the difference between a 1st level and a 20th level Truenamer in normal circumstances. And the Truenamer was only partially skill-based! They still got abilities on a level-dependent schedule


The problem with having a skill check not directly based on ranks (like, say, bardic performance) is that your performance is so heavily dependent on how well you can (and are allowed to) optimize.

It's like I've been saying. There are two kinds of relationships skills can have with level. They can have a direct correspondence, in which case a skill check is just a glorified level check and it's not clear what the point of the added complexity is. Or they can not have a direct correspondence, in which case you are plugging a number that does not predictably have any given value at any given level into a formula that is supposed to output something level-appropriate. So it seems to me that both A and not-A have issues that make them undesirable approaches, leaving me to wonder what possible part of the design space for this is good.


I can say the concept has already proven to work as there are other game systems that use skills to do fantastical things.

Again, there are system that are skill-based. That is different from it being a good idea to key things off of skills in a system that is itself level-based.


If a weapon user can be written so that Weapon Focus becomes neither useless nor mandatory, and if a spellcaster can be made so that Spell Focus is neither pointless nor required, then a truenamer can be designed so that the same applies to Skill Focus. At least in theory.

I would question whether weapon users are, in fact, written in a way that makes Weapon Focus neither useless nor mandatory. Spell Focus, on the other hand, is fairly different from Skill Focus for a Truenamer. It applies to a single school, and to only a limited subset of strategies, so it is more akin to something like Combat Reflexes. The appropriate comparison would be 3.0 Spellcasting Prodigy, which people did pretty much take all the time, because it just made your character linearly better. Or that Kobold feat that gives you a bonus level of Sorcerer.


It's a means to do it with base rules that already exist without having to think up a new system of rules to do it.

But it's not. As far as I can tell, the closest thing to an articulated proposal is that you would get "Skill Feats" (which would perhaps be separate from your non-skill feats) and that these would allow you to do things you cannot currently do with skills, like find portals to other planes or revive the dead. That is, as far as I can see, no more connected to what skills currently do and no less effort to implement than having "Utility Feats" that simply grant you arbitrary non-combat abilities.

[Pex]

But were any of those interactions things we liked from a design perspective? Sure, Truenamers could buy items of +20 Truespeak. But what that did in practice was allow them to sort of make up for their bad scaling, and if they'd had normal scaling it would've meant that the difference between "optimized Truenamer" and "un-optimized Truenamer" was the entire RNG and more than the difference between a 1st level and a 20th level Truenamer in normal circumstances. And the Truenamer was only partially skill-based! They still got abilities on a level-dependent schedule

It's not about Truenamer. I'll be on the mountaintop with you cheering Truenamer was a badly designed class. I'm not defending how it was designed. It's irrelevant to the point.




But it's not. As far as I can tell, the closest thing to an articulated proposal is that you would get "Skill Feats" (which would perhaps be separate from your non-skill feats) and that these would allow you to do things you cannot currently do with skills, like find portals to other planes or revive the dead. That is, as far as I can see, no more connected to what skills currently do and no less effort to implement than having "Utility Feats" that simply grant you arbitrary non-combat abilities.

Again, I don't need to create a system for you. It doesn't exist. If it were ever to be done in a 3E/Pathfinder 1E system then surely do does it need to take into account Skill Focus. That doesn't mean the idea is doomed to failure. It only means that feat needs to be taken into account. There already exists feats that help a class do its job better. In Pathfinder 1E there is a feat to give clerics and life oracles more channel energies, a feat to use it without affecting the enemy, a feat to use it as a move action. So if a class can use a skill to do something fantastical, the fact that Skill Focus exists to make it easier to do is par for the course. It makes it easier for the player to make the DC. Hooray. He spent a feat resource to do it. That's the game working as designed. The unlock for the fantastical ability could be needing X ranks where X = a minimum level. The PCs total modifier is Y = X + ability score + 3 for class bonus + 3 for Skill Focus. The DC is Z. Devil in the details the theoretical game designers need to determine the appropriate values for X and Z. If multiclassing is an issue you can further restrict the unlock as a class feature needing to be X level in the class in addition to having X ranks. It would not be one skill for everything. Each skill would have its own fantastical power. Not all skills need have as the game designers work at it. Not every class need access to the ability as the game designers work at it.

It's a functional system. It's the game designers' job to get the math right with respect to the power of the ability. Truenamer's existence does not make this not work. You not liking the idea does not make it not work. It's one way to do it, not the only way, not it must be done this way.

[Zalabim]

I'll try and get back to reply to all the posts that I want to reply, but I just wanted to drop at least a quick reply to this in particular.



That would require the Truenamer to have the same amount of facets as a weapon user (free BAB bonuses to hit, highly varied enemy AC, hitting not necessarily meaning achieving the intended result) or a spellcaster (Spell Focus affecting only one particular school of magic, varied enemy save bonuses, spells that do not require any checks at all). Even if a weapon user is stuck with a single weapon, they might not need Weapon Focus since they hit often enough anyway. Even if a spellcaster cannot affect the target with a spell, they can cast a check-free spell to support the team. A Truenamer, however, must first pass a skill check to even attempt anything from their arsenal, which is the crux of the problem, I think.

Which is why I started the rebuttal with a statement that the truenamer's problem is that there's too much "nothing happens," and made the comparison to Teleport. Even the riskiest teleport does something, but the roll determines whether it ultimately does exactly what you want, something close to what you want (with another roll determining how close), or goes haywire, and how much damage you take in the process, if any.

For example, a Fire Safety metamagic skill based on Arcana that lets you attempt to reduce the scope of harm caused when you cast a spell that normally affects targets in an area. On a success, you can exclude a number of targets from that area. On a failure, you reduce the area the spell affects. You can expand this to determine number safe selections based on level of success, or add a critical failure on a 1 where you take damage from holding onto to too much energy yourself (regardless of your result against the DC).

@RandomPeasant
If you can't see how skill checks work, what about attack rolls? Different classes get different total values, depending on the system, and the result of a success is "you hit" but the actual result of "you hit" varies by weapon, class, feats, target, other items, all sorts of circumstances.

[pabelfly]

It's like I've been saying. There are two kinds of relationships skills can have with level. They can have a direct correspondence, in which case a skill check is just a glorified level check and it's not clear what the point of the added complexity is.

For Bards, it forces players to invest skill points into the performance skill, modelling their increasing performance ability. I actually don't mind it, it mechanically reinforces the roleplay of being a Bard.

[RandomPeasant]

It's not about Truenamer. I'll be on the mountaintop with you cheering Truenamer was a badly designed class. I'm not defending how it was designed. It's irrelevant to the point.

I mean if the literal one example of someone trying to make this work in D&D is so catastrophically bad that you cannot name one part of it that you think was executed well, maybe that is indicative of it not being a terribly fruitful avenue to pursue?


So if a class can use a skill to do something fantastical, the fact that Skill Focus exists to make it easier to do is par for the course.

No it's not. The feats that improve channel energy or spellcasting or rage improve specific aspects of those things. There are a very limited number of feats that simply make you uniformly better at what you do (Spellcasting Prodigy and Improved Binding). And you know what? I think those feats are badly designed and should not exist.


The PCs total modifier is Y = X + ability score + 3 for class bonus + 3 for Skill Focus. The DC is Z.

And +20 for an item, and +20 for whatever that Cleric spell that grants a big bonus is, and +2 for this synergy, and +2 for that synergy, and a +2 racial bonus, and soon you've got a system where the actual level is a vanishingly small portion of what the character is doing compared to optimization. Or maybe you don't allow any of those things, and you're back to "why is this a skill". If Y is just 3 + level + stat, then you could just make Z 3 points lower and remove the coupling between skills and special abilities. Which, again, brings me back to the underlying question: why is this coupling a good idea?


For example, a Fire Safety metamagic skill based on Arcana that lets you attempt to reduce the scope of harm caused when you cast a spell that normally affects targets in an area.

How is this different from Selective Spell, a thing which A) already exists and B) is not an application of a skill. Like, sure, you could re-write the system so that a bunch of stuff flowed through skill checks. But why do we want to do that? Is there some huge constituency for which the primary problem with how the game functions is that you do not roll an additional d20 when casting a spell that is Silenced or Enlarged?


If you can't see how skill checks work, what about attack rolls?

But attack rolls are different from skill checks. An attack roll has one job: you swing at an enemy, and either you hit them or you do not. A skill check has, in whatever system we are constructing, two jobs. One is that you use it to bake a cake or navigate a desert or forge a sword. Another is that you use it to determine how accurate your teleport is. Those are different problems, and we could reasonably expect that they have different constraints. If you think the progressions for sword-smithing and teleport precision diverge ever at all, you are shooting yourself in the foot by tying them together.


For Bards, it forces players to invest skill points into the performance skill, modelling their increasing performance ability. I actually don't mind it, it mechanically reinforces the roleplay of being a Bard.

Sure. I think there's some value in doing that. But it does have issues and limitations. For one thing, I do not really think "you need skill ranks to take the ability" means the ability is "part of the skill system" in any real way. Arcane Disciple requires Knowledge (Religion) and Spellcraft, doesn't make it a skill ability. More than that, I think there is only a limited degree to which classes have specific skills that are clearly core to their identity. What is the core skill for a Barbarian? Intimidate? Survival? Athletics?

[Zalabim]

Using a skill check instead of a higher level spell slot is like the WoT d20 RPG's over channel mechanic. Including something like that for the whole system means balancing the effects of magic around that availability and variability, it wouldn't work to staple it on 3rd edition for example, but it is another example where applying a skill check doesn't break the character.

Using a skill to teleport to your destination is just a magical world version of navigation to your destination that involves using a shortcut. When high level combat requires high power swords, there's a similar sort of high-level sword smithing right along side that high-level navigation.

Attack rolls also determine if you critically hit, when systems include it, and whether you fumble. I'd put the difference between baking a cake and navigating a teleport as to whether the activity needs a roll at all, but you jumped right to skill checks in the first place. So I don't know what difference you're trying to draw between those examples. Either way, I'm not in the mood to do a deep dive on remedial game mechanics 30 pages deep in a migrated thread.

The concept of skill feats is not something that deflects me from Pathfinder. The execution of skill feats leaves me a bit cold.

[Pex]

I mean if the literal one example of someone trying to make this work in D&D is so catastrophically bad that you cannot name one part of it that you think was executed well, maybe that is indicative of it not being a terribly fruitful avenue to pursue?

An implementation being bad does not mean the whole idea goes out the window. It's a good lesson on what not to do.


No it's not. The feats that improve channel energy or spellcasting or rage improve specific aspects of those things. There are a very limited number of feats that simply make you uniformly better at what you do (Spellcasting Prodigy and Improved Binding). And you know what? I think those feats are badly designed and should not exist.

You don't have to like the feats, but they exist. The game has them. Don't like them? Blame Paizo for the feats. It has nothing to do with the hypothetical idea. I'm not defending feats. That's your own new goal posts suddenly appearing since you were complaining Skill Focus existed in the first place.


And +20 for an item, and +20 for whatever that Cleric spell that grants a big bonus is, and +2 for this synergy, and +2 for that synergy, and a +2 racial bonus, and soon you've got a system where the actual level is a vanishingly small portion of what the character is doing compared to optimization. Or maybe you don't allow any of those things, and you're back to "why is this a skill". If Y is just 3 + level + stat, then you could just make Z 3 points lower and remove the coupling between skills and special abilities. Which, again, brings me back to the underlying question: why is this coupling a good idea?



And night sticks + Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell was a bad idea too. Good, you identified a problem. This hypothetical rewrite can include "Mental note: Don't have magic items that give bonuses to skills anymore." Spells giving buffs to PCs is the game working as designed. Bonus to saving throws, bonus to attack rolls, bonus to damage, bonus to AC. Bonus to skill use is nothing new. Don't like them? Get in line with all the other people who yell about 3E/Pathfinder 1E magic. Their existence has nothing to do with the idea of using skills to accomplish fantastical things. Alternatively it means teamwork because to use the buff spell means the other PC is likely trying a hard DC for him at the time and needs the buff.

[Ignimortis]

What's wrong with people who want to "bash" against CR-appropriate monster statblocks? That's a valid way to play in many systems. I would argue most people who pick up a martial in D&D or PF are in fact looking for exactly that.

Because it usually goes out of the window the moment you can't bash your way out of combat, OR makes most if not all enemies dull bashing bots. See 3e and 5e high-level enemy design differences. 3e is clearly putting a lot of focus on how a dragon isn't only a giant firebreathing lizard with wings, but also a powerful spellcaster. Same for demons who have tons of supernatural abilities that often do not stop at "I deal damage in an area of X". You simply cannot beat them by hitting them really hard, because they don't have to stoop to that unless sufficiently countered in other directions. Come 5e, dragons ARE just giant lizards with wings and spicy breath, and even a pit fiend or a balor is mostly a melee brute with a couple basic effects tacked on top, perfectly suited to bashing them with basic attacks.



But isn't this what skill feats would be as well? If you can potentially turn your Survival into "I did a shadow walk and now we're on the plane where the bad guy lives" and "I did a locate creature and now we know where the kidnapped princess is" and "I did a hero's feast and now we have nourishing rations in the wilderness" or even "I did a speak with animals and the badger told us where the McGuffin is", that seem to me to be at least as much a grab-bag as Divination is.

The simple reality is that there are a lot of non-combat abilities you could have, and many different combinations of them are reasonable. You could imagine a guy who has healing magic and travel magic for small groups of people (Aragorn-style Ranger). Or a guy who has scrying-style divinations and travel magic for large groups of people (some sort of mage-commander). Or a guy who has commune-style divinations and commands spirits of nature (high-level Logan Ninefingers). Or a guy who has all sorts of divinations (any oracle-type). And so on and so forth. Anything you do is going to end up being a grab-bag, because the abilities characters have are a grab bag. And it needs to be a grab bag, because each character needs to get enough abilities that the party can reasonably expect to cover their bases without forcing Greg to play a Cleric because no one else gets the healing powers.
And tying it to skills seems like a decent idea since you can actually have classes with access to Medicine skill. Or, even, have pretty much anyone be good at Medicine if they invest their skill points into it, with the actual limitation being the amount of points you get and the amount of supplementary feats you can spare. It promotes continuity (so you don't just say "oh, it's level 11, time to grab that feat that gives me Heal") while retaining enough freedom of choice so that you actually can get stuff from more than one "track".

Consider that a Rogue might very well have 8 skills at max rank and another 3 to 4 at varied thresholds - that's a lot of stuff to be dipping into. But it's also more limited than spellcasting, because you do lock yourself out of stuff you didn't choose and the number of tracks is much higher than the number of spell schools. It's a decent middle ground between feat trees (too numerous and restrictive, while also not being terribly effective) and high-tier casting (pick from all those spells that just work, with barely any prerequisites or limitations).

Meanwhile doing it through class abilities would require you to either create from scratch a subsystem like spell, but one that every class gets access to, or...put those abilities into every class that you intend to have them, separately.




Just as it is a useful shorthand for discussion, it is a useful shorthand for implementation. I will absolutely agree that you would not implement these things as spells first. But however you implemented them in the PHB, you'd want to point back to that implementation as much as possible when you wrote Masters of the Wild and introduced the Scout.

This is not meaningless at all! If you make your "shadow walk, but not a spell" ability twice as long so that the people taking it feel sufficiently distanced from Wizards, the direct result of that is that people get half as many abilities to choose from. Managing space is very important, and "reference things that work similarly to a common set of templates" is a very useful optimization for it.
Yes, you'd want to refer back to those things later on. But in the current structure of 3e, the only thing you can refer to is spells, which means that maximum efficiency would be achieved if everyone got "spell X, except...". But that also ruins the feel of things, so there needs to be a balance... and probably things that aren't spells, so that your potential reference pool is broader.



That was a problem with combat abilities, not really non-combat ones. I'm unconvinced there are that many meaningful ways for non-combat abilities to work differently at the resource management level. It's all well and good to have a shadow walk that works differently from your teleport, but it's not really clear to me that there are enough different ways for the usage of those abilities to be managed so that the Fighter and the Ranger and the Wizard can all get access to them in different ways.
You don't exactly need for every class to access their stuff in a different way. Having 3 to 4 abilities that do the same thing, vaguely, with their own stipulations and limitations, should be more than enough.



I don't see how that isn't just a separate track you have glued the skill system on to. The difference between "skill X and rank Y" and "must be level Z" is that sometimes you can take the wrong skills and not be able to get the ability you want (note that this is separate from whatever "people should have abilities from a limited number of tracks" thing you want to do, which can be done in either system). Stuff requiring a skill check for level-appropriate abilities is a bad idea, as the Truenamer demonstrates. If you want people to have slots to pick up abilities, just do that. You don't need to connect it to skills.

I don't think it does provide stronger thematics or consistency. It provides stronger consistency with skills, but that's not the same thing as stronger consistency of a theme. Even if you don't think it is the only thing they are supposed to do, it is clear that a thing skills are supposed to do is provide a framework for human-level actions and experts. It's not at all clear to me that the best set of categories to divide things into for that purpose is the best set of categories to divide things into for high-level non-combat abilities.
I still don't get why you claim that "skills are only supposed to function in a human-level spectrum". Yes, they (some of them, at least) do function in a similar manner at low levels. But there's always been some intent to make them more than that, even back in the days of the original 3e, misguided as it was.

The general issue with skills is that they are possibly the easiest number in the game to pump very high, due to skill boosting items and skill boosting feats being more powerful pound-for-pound than, say, to-hit boosts or save boosts or spell DC boosts. But if you work out the math properly, and get skills (and skill feats) to function as something more than a binary check of "yes/no", then you get a very decent third track along the to-hit/AC and spell DC/save bonus computations.



Just give people more feats. 3e feats are stuck between "incremental customization" and "character-defining", and I think the game wants something to fill the former space more than it wants something to fill the latter. Big things should be Archetypes or PrCs, feats can be little stuff like Educated or whatever and people can get a lot of them.
That's certainly functional, although might be harder for players to deal with. Then again, PF2 basically slathers you in feats for everything, and people aren't having too much trouble with it...


Which is why I started the rebuttal with a statement that the truenamer's problem is that there's too much "nothing happens," and made the comparison to Teleport. Even the riskiest teleport does something, but the roll determines whether it ultimately does exactly what you want, something close to what you want (with another roll determining how close), or goes haywire, and how much damage you take in the process, if any.

For example, a Fire Safety metamagic skill based on Arcana that lets you attempt to reduce the scope of harm caused when you cast a spell that normally affects targets in an area. On a success, you can exclude a number of targets from that area. On a failure, you reduce the area the spell affects. You can expand this to determine number safe selections based on level of success, or add a critical failure on a 1 where you take damage from holding onto to too much energy yourself (regardless of your result against the DC).

@RandomPeasant
If you can't see how skill checks work, what about attack rolls? Different classes get different total values, depending on the system, and the result of a success is "you hit" but the actual result of "you hit" varies by weapon, class, feats, target, other items, all sorts of circumstances.
Well put. It's something I've been thinking about in regards to skills as well.



But attack rolls are different from skill checks. An attack roll has one job: you swing at an enemy, and either you hit them or you do not. A skill check has, in whatever system we are constructing, two jobs. One is that you use it to bake a cake or navigate a desert or forge a sword. Another is that you use it to determine how accurate your teleport is. Those are different problems, and we could reasonably expect that they have different constraints. If you think the progressions for sword-smithing and teleport precision diverge ever at all, you are shooting yourself in the foot by tying them together.
Those are different level problems, not different purpose problems. Navigating a desert to get somewhere is pretty much the same thing as teleporting, just lower-level and more time-consuming.



Sure. I think there's some value in doing that. But it does have issues and limitations. For one thing, I do not really think "you need skill ranks to take the ability" means the ability is "part of the skill system" in any real way. Arcane Disciple requires Knowledge (Religion) and Spellcraft, doesn't make it a skill ability.
Once it requires a skill check to make function, it becomes a skill ability in all but name.

[AMFV]

Because it's for nerds. Obviously.

[Tanarii]

I've descended into Reddit for the last to few weeks to follow the PF2 forums, and the contrast in views between folks in this thread and that forum really is astounding. In many cases they think the exact same things that are decried in this thread are the bees knees.

This thread was specifically a call for negative "triggering" opinions, but it really is funny to go back and forth between the two. :smallamused:

[Rynjin]

Well yeah, of course people on the Pathfinder 2e forum specifically are there because they like the game lol.

In this case I think you can take heart in the fact that everybody is in 100% agreement about what the game is and how it works, they just have differing opinions on whether that's good or not.

[Ignimortis]

I've descended into Reddit for the last to few weeks to follow the PF2 forums, and the contrast in views between folks in this thread and that forum really is astounding. In many cases they think the exact same things that are decried in this thread are the bees knees.

This thread was specifically a call for negative "triggering" opinions, but it really is funny to go back and forth between the two. :smallamused:

I mean, yes. Keep in mind that it's also Reddit - unpopular opinions tend to get drowned in downvotes pretty quickly, and negativity about the main subject of the subreddit is usually unpopular.

Also, a lot of the PF2 crowd seems to be people disillusioned either with 3.PF or 5e. I do think that PF2 fixes most of the commonly encountered issues with either of those games, but, well, I've established my opinion of it earlier in the thread.

[Kurald Galain]

Also, a lot of the PF2 crowd seems to be people disillusioned either with 3.PF or 5e. I do think that PF2 fixes most of the commonly encountered issues with either of those games, but, well, I've established my opinion of it earlier in the thread.
Interesting. I'd say that the most common issues with 3.PF are that (A) class balance is off and (B) there are too many fiddly details; and the most common issue with 5E is that (C) there are not a lot of meaningful options when building characters; and it seems that PF2 has all three of these issues.

Maybe you're talking about different common issues? If people take issue with WOTC's recent controversial legal statements, then yes I would agree that moving to PF2 fixes that.

[Ignimortis]

Interesting. I'd say that the most common issues with 3.PF are that (A) class balance is off and (B) there are too many fiddly details; and the most common issue with 5E is that (C) there are not a lot of meaningful options when building characters; and it seems that PF2 has all three of these issues.

Maybe you're talking about different common issues? If people take issue with WOTC's recent controversial legal statements, then yes I would agree that moving to PF2 fixes that.

I think that you have pinpointed the wording of those issues, but not the underlying gripes.
A) Class balance is a 3.PF and a 5e issue.

In 3.PF, it's off in both directions - there exist classes that can break the game as intended, and classes that don't get enough tools to interact with the game as intended past a certain level.
In 5e, only the former exists - crafty spellcasters, especially Wizards, can still break the game (scenario), but the game itself is structured in a way that a Champion Fighter almost never loses mechanical relevance as long as they're supplied with a +1 weapon.
In PF2, you may have the latter (Alchemist being the most poignant example), but not the former, unless you count "doing combat somewhat more efficiently than expected" to be breaking the game. Certainly never to the point of the spellcasters just saying "ok we can bypass 50% of the plot next morning".


This appeals heavily to certain people, especially GMs prone to posting about how double-digit level characters are no longer challenged by Tier 1/2 challenges of locked doors, spike-filled pits, and orc/undead hordes. PF2 provides ways to keep all of these relevant - or, rather, (almost) never provides ways to make them irrelevant as long as you keep bumping basic enemy stats up. A lot of praise for PF2 comes from the GMs who keep saying "it's so easy to GM in, much easier than in 5e!", and I would assume that partially that's related to how easy it is to get "level-appropriate numbers" for anything you need, and how hard it would be to go off rails without GM's explicit approval.

B) There are too many fiddly details in 3.PF. That is also true for PF2...except in PF2, most things you can take are close enough in power that you can rarely make a poor choice. There are no Toughness-tier feats aside from maybe certain specific skill feats. Granted, this is achieved by having all feats be noticeably low-power and only doing anything in aggregate, but PF2 gets to attract people who want more crunch than in 5e, while having less cruft to sift through than in 3.PF.

C) This, of course, depends on what people consider meaningful, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer. However, I do think there are probably more ways to build a Fighter reasonably different from its' fellows in PF2 than there is in 5e, for instance.

[Gnaeus]

C) This, of course, depends on what people consider meaningful, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer. However, I do think there are probably more ways to build a Fighter reasonably different from its' fellows in PF2 than there is in 5e, for instance.

I would disagree, by orders of magnitude. The decisions your fighter makes every single level, because 5e has actual multiclassing, are more relevant than the decisions a PF2 fighter makes in his lifetime. He could choose, when going from level x to y, to get sneak attack, or rage, or smites. The PF2 fighter can choose which dwarf racial ability ribbon to take.

[Rynjin]

I would disagree, by orders of magnitude. The decisions your fighter makes every single level, because 5e has actual multiclassing, are more relevant than the decisions a PF2 fighter makes in his lifetime. He could choose, when going from level x to y, to get sneak attack, or rage, or smites. The PF2 fighter can choose which dwarf racial ability ribbon to take.

If the most impactful decision your "Fighter" has to make is when to stop being a Fighter, that's a pretty big issue.

[pabelfly]

I would disagree, by orders of magnitude. The decisions your fighter makes every single level, because 5e has actual multiclassing, are more relevant than the decisions a PF2 fighter makes in his lifetime. He could choose, when going from level x to y, to get sneak attack, or rage, or smites. The PF2 fighter can choose which dwarf racial ability ribbon to take.

PF2 Fighter can pick all sorts of archtypes, and you can pick how much you add in. Like, you could be Fighter with a bit of Sorcerer, or pick a bunch of Sorcerer stuff to improve your spellcasting, or even do some Sorcerer and some of a third class. Or, instead, you could go with one of the archtypes that aren't related to other classes at all.

I get the complaint about ribbon feats, and it's a fair complaint, but PF2 has plenty of build variety.

[lesser_minion]

If the most impactful decision your "Fighter" has to make is when to stop being a Fighter, that's a pretty big issue.

What exactly is the in-universe concept represented by the 'Fighter' class, and why would multiclassing -- or even never taking a 'Fighter' level in the first place (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) -- stop you from being one?

[Rynjin]

What exactly is the in-universe concept represented by the 'Fighter' class, and why would multiclassing -- or even never taking a 'Fighter' level in the first place -- stop you from being one?

I don't really care about the in-universe concept of a Fighter in this case, it's the mechanical bit. I don't consider "Level 5 is the optimal place to stop leveling Fighter and take a couple levels of Rogue" to be a particularly ringing endorsement of a class's power level or variety of choice.

[Kurald Galain]

I don't really care about the in-universe concept of a Fighter in this case, it's the mechanical bit. I don't consider "Level 5 is the optimal place to stop leveling Fighter and take a couple levels of Rogue" to be a particularly ringing endorsement of a class's power level or variety of choice.

Sure, but I'd consider Class X with a one-level dip in Class Y to be a valid build for Class X - for instance, Fighter 19 / Cleric 1 strikes me as a fighter build, just like how Druid 19 / Monk 1 looks like a druid build to me.

(e.g. a fighter who has 1 less BAB but gets the Travel Domain's increased speed and ignoring difficult terrain; or a druid who has delayed spellcasting but gets the monk's wisdom to AC; both strike me as a perfectly reasonable build choice, if not a super-optimized one).

[Rynjin]

Sure, it's a valid build choice. I jus thought it was very silly that the 5e Fighter was touted as "more customizable" because it has the option to multiclass.

That's not the Fighter being more customizable, that's the player having more build options. Those are two very different things.

Tangentially related, one of my favorite things about Pathfinder is that it encourages single-classing. That was hands down my least favorite part of 3.5 character building sensibilities, that multiclassing was REQUIRED for optimal builds.

In PF you still CAN multiclass if you want, and it can be powerful if you know what you're doing, but under no circumstances do you have to if you want to be the strongest whatever class you can be. The classes themselves often provide enough inherent build options to be viable from 1-20, and the ones that don't (like Gunslinger, which is only 5 levels long) can be pointed to as notably poorly designed.

[lesser_minion]

Sure, it's a valid build choice. I jus thought it was very silly that the 5e Fighter was touted as "more customizable" because it has the option to multiclass.

That's not the Fighter being more customizable, that's the player having more build options. Those are two very different things.

Tangentially related, one of my favorite things about Pathfinder is that it encourages single-classing. That was hands down my least favorite part of 3.5 character building sensibilities, that multiclassing was REQUIRED for optimal builds.

In PF you still CAN multiclass if you want, and it can be powerful if you know what you're doing, but under no circumstances do you have to if you want to be the strongest whatever class you can be. The classes themselves often provide enough inherent build options to be viable from 1-20, and the ones that don't (like Gunslinger, which is only 5 levels long) can be pointed to as notably poorly designed.

I don't particularly disagree with most of this, although I'm not sure it's fair to compare the amount of customisation within a single class between games that have 'modern' 3e-style multiclassing and ones that don't.

[Gnaeus]

If the most impactful decision your "Fighter" has to make is when to stop being a Fighter, that's a pretty big issue.

As opposed to deciding what level you get your dwarf ribbons which could have been given at level 1.

get the complaint about ribbon feats, and it's a fair complaint, but PF2 has plenty of build variety.

No, it has a pointless illusion of build variety. Archetypes that are vastly more limited than actual multi-classing and lots of feats to choose from but only one advances your path, so you take that one. PF 2 has less meaningful choice than any RPG (not any OTHER RPG PF 2 doesn't qualify for the name) that I have read in the last 20 years. It's like they got together and said "How can we make 4th edition worse" while 5E was at least asking how they can make it better.


In PF you still CAN multiclass if you wantdesigned.

If you tell a lie 1000 times, it doesn't make it true. It makes people recognize you as dishonest. PF 2 doesn't have multi-classing. It has something it calls multi-classing so it can pretend to be an RPG to people who don't know any better.

[icefractal]

PF 2 has less meaningful choice than any RPG (not any OTHER RPG PF 2 doesn't qualify for the name) that I have read in the last 20 years.I'm not a fan of PF2, but that's hyperbolic.

PF2 is an RPG, by any commonly used definition - "Would I enjoy playing it?" is not such a definition. And while it's got less true choices than the nominal amount of options implies, it's still several. There are rules-light games out there where you get one mechanical choice at char-gen, or even zero.

My beef with PF2 isn't the limited scope per-se, it's having that limited a scope with crunchy mechanics that require browsing through a bunch of options to find the "good" (relatively speaking) ones. And then the payoff for that work is "you're keeping up adequately, I guess".

Like, Savage Worlds works best with humanoid characters in the "somewhat competent" to "very competent but not superhuman" range, a limited scope, but it's also a lot faster to learn and make characters for than PF2, and those characters generally do feel effective (having a fixed DC for the majority of skill use helps with that - no palette-shift treadmills possible).

This has given me a realization - I dislike bounded accuracy for D&D, because IMO in a game where "being legendary heroes who literally save the world" or "going to hell and brawling archdevils for fame and fortune" are on the table, being hyper-competent in a given area, literally off-the-RNG from most people, is appropriate and should be possible. If you're not going to allow PCs to be hyper-competent (reasonable not to in some genres), then you should just use bounded accuracy and make things simpler for everyone.

[Rynjin]

If you tell a lie 1000 times, it doesn't make it true. It makes people recognize you as dishonest. PF 2 doesn't have multi-classing. It has something it calls multi-classing so it can pretend to be an RPG to people who don't know any better.

You might wanna doublecheck my post because at no point do I put a "2" after the name.

[Pex]

This appeals heavily to certain people, especially GMs prone to posting about how double-digit level characters are no longer challenged by Tier 1/2 challenges of locked doors, spike-filled pits, and orc/undead hordes. PF2 provides ways to keep all of these relevant - or, rather, (almost) never provides ways to make them irrelevant as long as you keep bumping basic enemy stats up. A lot of praise for PF2 comes from the GMs who keep saying "it's so easy to GM in, much easier than in 5e!", and I would assume that partially that's related to how easy it is to get "level-appropriate numbers" for anything you need, and how hard it would be to go off rails without GM's explicit approval.


I accept that's their opinion of the matter, but I strongly disagree with that point of view. I find it a feature when locked doors and spike-filled pits are no longer a problem for PCs. It's no different than a chasm or getting to the top of a mountain is no longer a problem. Obstacles at low level not being obstacles at high level means the PCs have grown in power, and that's a good thing. I want to face new obstacles at level 15, not the same ones I faced when I was level 5. At level 15 I don't want to spend three weeks traveling from point A to point B and roleplay every day of traveling with random encounters and other things that have nothing to do with the adventure. I'm not a fan of that style at low level either, but I can play and enjoy it. I want to get to Point B already and play the adventure we're supposed to be doing. If the spellcaster can teleport/fast travel us there, great. Thank you. Let's play the game.

[Tanarii]

I don't particularly disagree with most of this, although I'm not sure it's fair to compare the amount of customisation within a single class between games that have 'modern' multiclassing and ones that don't.
That's one of the best things I can see about PF2. It has modern Multiclassing, unlike 5e, which left it after 4e to go back to the outdated 3e model.

[Ignimortis]

I would disagree, by orders of magnitude. The decisions your fighter makes every single level, because 5e has actual multiclassing, are more relevant than the decisions a PF2 fighter makes in his lifetime. He could choose, when going from level x to y, to get sneak attack, or rage, or smites. The PF2 fighter can choose which dwarf racial ability ribbon to take.
Since 5e multiclassing is an optional rule most people employ, PF2 can match that with the Free Archetype optional rule that most people employ, and which makes multiclassing much, much easier and more detailed. In short, you get a set of free feats that you can only spend on Archetypes and Dedications (which pretty much amounts to how multiclassing works in PF2), so you can easily grab some Wizard with your Alchemist or Champion with your Fighter.

Also, I don't think "stopping to advance as Fighter" is a good Fighter choice. If anything, it attests to how frontloaded the classes are, and how most if not all martials have much more to gain by dropping the latter half (or even two thirds) of their progression.


I accept that's their opinion of the matter, but I strongly disagree with that point of view. I find it a feature when locked doors and spike-filled pits are no longer a problem for PCs. It's no different than a chasm or getting to the top of a mountain is no longer a problem. Obstacles at low level not being obstacles at high level means the PCs have grown in power, and that's a good thing. I want to face new obstacles at level 15, not the same ones I faced when I was level 5. At level 15 I don't want to spend three weeks traveling from point A to point B and roleplay every day of traveling with random encounters and other things that have nothing to do with the adventure. I'm not a fan of that style at low level either, but I can play and enjoy it. I want to get to Point B already and play the adventure we're supposed to be doing. If the spellcaster can teleport/fast travel us there, great. Thank you. Let's play the game.

And yet both PF2 and 5e have made significant attempts to make high level play "low level play with greater numbers" - although at least PF2 does try, half-heartedly, with level 15 and above.

[Kurald Galain]

That's one of the best things I can see about PF2. It has modern Multiclassing, unlike 5e, which left it after 4e to go back to the outdated 3e model.
I'd say the advantage of 4E/PF2-style multiclassing is that it's more userfriendly (because a lot of combinations in 3E/5E-style multiclassing are simply a bad idea, and novice players have no way of knowing); and the disadvantage is that it comes online much later (meaning your campaign may well end before you get the character combo you want, which is the same problem 3E's prestige classes face).

I'm basically ok with both, I'd say the former is a bit too lenient and the latter a bit too restrictive.

[Zalabim]

There's some substantial differences in design going on there. The 5E multiclassing is an optional rule is just that, you can allow players to access it without changing any character. With free archetype the optional rule is bonus features added to every character. The purpose is completely different. One possible purpose of free archetype relates to the downside of PF2's archetypes: They are not balanced. So you can give everyone a free circus archetype, or business archetype, or thieves' guild archetype, or something to add a theme to a party that otherwise has to meet the game's default challenges. Or you can add free archetype with no restrictions and just make every character stronger, some characters much stronger, depending on the application of synergistic archetypes.

There's also a big philosophical difference behind 4E's multiclassing and PF2's archetypes. 4E decided early on that multiclassing should always give a level appropriate ability, while PF2 favors niche protection and so archetypes will never give a level appropriate ability. YMMV on how each system upheld their goals.

If multiclassing with another class is not a way to play fighter, then there's scarce little ways to play fighter. Otherwise, I think it worth pointing out that Battle Master, Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, Rune Knight, Samurai, Psi Warrior, and to an extent Cavalier, Arcane Archer, Champion and Banneret have at least one, and for the good subclasses multiple, good combat strategies. PF2E fighters have Sword and Board, Sword and Hand, Two-handed Reach, and Bow as I understand it.

The two systems don't even agree on what a fighter is. 5E gives its fighter the reserve of heroic willpower, that uncanny ability to push a little harder when the chips are down, represented by second wind, action surge, and indomitable. The PF2 fighter gets a high attack bonus, a couple bonus feats [AoO and Shield Block], and bravery. They're a hardened warrior, well-trained and brave, but entirely ordinary in-universe. The PF2 fighter is so basic that the system chose to make every other class look like a cowardly, bungling, sidekick in comparison to the only class who can straight up hit someone more than half the time, hold a shield in position, and aim the pointy end at the enemy. Plenty of other classes start with Shield Block, or can learn an Attack of Opportunity or equivalent, but it says something about a combatant's level of expertise when they start the game unable to even engage an enemy in melee combat. Sorry. I'm ranting again.

[Kurald Galain]

Since 5e multiclassing is an optional rule most people employ, PF2 can match that with the Free Archetype optional rule that most people employ,
Multiclassing in 5E is a tradeoff of one feature (level) for another, and I get the impression that allowing it is pretty much the default. PF2 free-archetype is a straight-up power boost and is basically the equivalent of Gestalt characters, and I get the impression that this is very much not the default. Indeed, the rules text for free-archetype mentions several times that this is very powerful and the GM should probably restrict it.

Case in point, in organized play for 5E multiclassing is explicitly allowed (as was 3E/4E/PF multiclassing, and 4E hybrids), whereas for PF2 free-archetypes are explicltly banned. So I don't think comparing the two is entirely fair here.

(edit) That said, as mentioned in my previous post I have no issue with 4E/PF2-style regular multiclassing, and I'd say it's fair to compare that to 3E/5E-style multiclassing. Both of them are tradeoffs.

[Ignimortis]

There's also a big philosophical difference behind 4E's multiclassing and PF2's archetypes. 4E decided early on that multiclassing should always give a level appropriate ability, while PF2 favors niche protection and so archetypes will never give a level appropriate ability. YMMV on how each system upheld their goals.
Yes. PF2 is very hard on niche protection and people not getting to do X easily if it's not their primary thing. However, since it's also rather unforgiving on your primary thing if you don't play the right way, it's easy to end up feeling rather powerless even if your character, strictly speaking, isn't poorly built at all.



If multiclassing with another class is not a way to play fighter, then there's scarce little ways to play fighter. Otherwise, I think it worth pointing out that Battle Master, Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, Rune Knight, Samurai, Psi Warrior, and to an extent Cavalier, Arcane Archer, Champion and Banneret have at least one, and for the good subclasses multiple, good combat strategies. PF2E fighters have Sword and Board, Sword and Hand, Two-handed Reach, and Bow as I understand it.
Honestly, I don't think that most Fighter subclasses are that different in play. You're either melee or ranged, maybe with the added benefits of having some CC potential for either. And Eldritch Knight, which is special because it gets access to some spellcasting and therefore actual new abilities.

PF2 Fighters can go into S&B, 2H, dual-wielding, Bow, Gun (actually quite workable if you get Running Reload), free-hand for grapples (there are quite a few things you can do with grapples, surprisingly), and potentially some specific shenanigans with either Athletics or Intimidation, like Sudden Jump. If you allow Fighters to actually spend class feats (not even from Free Archetype) on archetypes, that becomes even more pronounced, with things like Dread Marshal, Wrestler, etc. Basically anything that doesn't use their bad class DC. Those will have at least marginally different play patterns, since action expenditures differ between most of these, and effects/goals will also differ (anything based on S&B or Grappling will not do nearly as much damage as 2H/TWF, but there's a lot of CC potential in those). This contrasts 5e heavily, since a 5e Fighter that doesn't do damage for a whole turn is likely wasting their actions or is incredibly unlucky.



The two systems don't even agree on what a fighter is. 5E gives its fighter the reserve of heroic willpower, that uncanny ability to push a little harder when the chips are down, represented by second wind, action surge, and indomitable. The PF2 fighter gets a high attack bonus, a couple bonus feats [AoO and Shield Block], and bravery. They're a hardened warrior, well-trained and brave, but entirely ordinary in-universe. The PF2 fighter is so basic that the system chose to make every other class look like a cowardly, bungling, sidekick in comparison to the only class who can straight up hit someone more than half the time, hold a shield in position, and aim the pointy end at the enemy. Plenty of other classes start with Shield Block, or can learn an Attack of Opportunity or equivalent, but it says something about a combatant's level of expertise when they start the game unable to even engage an enemy in melee combat. Sorry. I'm ranting again.
As I've stated before, one of my friends believes that this is intentional, and I find myself agreeing - PF2 isn't actually geared to playing heroes, but rather the Pathfinder Society (IC) mercenaries of certain professions that can be mastered. This clashes with the most high-level abilities, but aligns with everything else, including balance and printed adventure content (oh, how I loathe yet another "double-digit level generic bandit enforcer" type of enemy).


Multiclassing in 5E is a tradeoff of one feature (level) for another, and I get the impression that allowing it is pretty much the default. PF2 free-archetype is a straight-up power boost and is basically the equivalent of Gestalt characters, and I get the impression that this is very much not the default. Indeed, the rules text for free-archetype mentions several times that this is very powerful and the GM should probably restrict it.

Case in point, in organized play for 5E multiclassing is explicitly allowed (as was 3E/4E/PF multiclassing, and 4E hybrids), whereas for PF2 free-archetypes are explicltly banned. So I don't think comparing the two is entirely fair here.

(edit) That said, as mentioned in my previous post I have no issue with 4E/PF2-style regular multiclassing, and I'd say it's fair to compare that to 3E/5E-style multiclassing. Both of them are tradeoffs.

While this is entirely true, I've seen polls (on Reddit, for instance) that indicate that a fair number of groups (IIRC, close to 50%) use Free Archetype in the most powerful form (free archetype feats). Personally, I find that PF2 is almost unplayable without it, but I already expect much higher power and width of ability than PF2 provides.

[Rynjin]

Somehow I doubt even 10% of the actual players of the game use that subReddit, so I'd take polls like that with a shaker of salt.

[Kurald Galain]

a fair number of groups (IIRC, close to 50%) use Free Archetype in the most powerful form (free archetype feats). Personally, I find that PF2 is almost unplayable without it
Good point. Ok, based on Reddit, FA appears not intended by the designers but embraced as a much-needed fix by the majority of the playerbase outside of PFS organized play.

Well, I'd agree that FA is a step in the right direction.

[vasilidor]

I don't like the nerf a lot of weapons got in the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder 1.
I don't like the fact that they took it further with updates.
Caster supremacy is already a problem, this just made it worse.

[Pex]

And yet both PF2 and 5e have made significant attempts to make high level play "low level play with greater numbers" - although at least PF2 does try, half-heartedly, with level 15 and above.

Yes, and that's one of the few things I don't like about 5E to prefer 3E/Pathfinder 1E over.

[Talakeal]

@Random Peasant:

Sorry I didn't respond to your last post, I was out of town all last week. I could go back and do it now, but honestly I am just repeating the same points I have been in every MCD threat for twenty years and I am not really saying anything new.


Good catch about lantern archons though; I never noticed that rule in the generic archon abilities before.

[Tanarii]

I'd say the advantage of 4E/PF2-style multiclassing is that it's more userfriendly (because a lot of combinations in 3E/5E-style multiclassing are simply a bad idea, and novice players have no way of knowing); and the disadvantage is that it comes online much later (meaning your campaign may well end before you get the character combo you want, which is the same problem 3E's prestige classes face).

I'm basically ok with both, I'd say the former is a bit too lenient and the latter a bit too restrictive.
3e & 5e Multiclassing is inherently broken. It's beyond me why they went back to it with 5e.

[Psyren]

I mean, yes. Keep in mind that it's also Reddit - unpopular opinions tend to get drowned in downvotes pretty quickly, and negativity about the main subject of the subreddit is usually unpopular.

For the exception that proves the rule, check out r/MMORPG :smallbiggrin:


That's one of the best things I can see about PF2. It has modern Multiclassing, unlike 5e, which left it after 4e to go back to the outdated 3e model.

Level-by-level multiclassing isn't outdated, it works and people want it. Even/especially newcomers. I'm not going to crap on PF2 multiclassing but neither is "outdated."


I don't like the nerf a lot of weapons got in the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder 1.
I don't like the fact that they took it further with updates.
Caster supremacy is already a problem, this just made it worse.

PF1 caster supremacy is nowhere near 3.5. And PF2, for all that I dislike it, seems to have nearly eliminated it, unless I'm missing something huge.

[Pex]

As I've stated before, one of my friends believes that this is intentional, and I find myself agreeing - PF2 isn't actually geared to playing heroes, but rather the Pathfinder Society (IC) mercenaries of certain professions that can be mastered. This clashes with the most high-level abilities, but aligns with everything else, including balance and printed adventure content (oh, how I loathe yet another "double-digit level generic bandit enforcer" type of enemy).


A game designer admitted this, using the term "gritty". The PCs are heroes in the sense they are meant to save the day but on purpose are not very fantastical compared to D&D. It was a design choice in an effort to keep high level play viable, in their view.

[icefractal]

3e & 5e Multiclassing is inherently broken. It's beyond me why they went back to it with 5e.If you consider "has aspects which aren't new player friendly" to be "inherently broken", then sure. But I don't. It's not ideal, but if that's the trade-off for flexibility I'll take it. And no, I have not found semi-multiclassing systems like 4E to offer the same flexibility - which again, doesn't make them bad systems, but it is a trade-off with pros and cons.

I mean, by that logic, Hero system (or really any crunchy generic system) is inherently broken. Which is just not my experience in the slightest.

[Kurald Galain]

3e & 5e Multiclassing is inherently broken. It's beyond me why they went back to it with 5e.
Because it's fun, easy to explain, a one-level dip in whatever isn't going to hurt any build, and it allows for more organically built characters than having to plan 5+ levels ahead for prestige classes.


PF2 isn't actually geared to playing heroes, but rather the Pathfinder Society (IC) mercenaries of certain professions that can be mastered. This clashes with the most high-level abilities, but aligns with everything else, including balance and printed adventure content (oh, how I loathe yet another "double-digit level generic bandit enforcer" type of enemy).
Yeah, that's a fair description. I'd say it does clash with how much the rulebooks emphasize "becoming legendary", though.

[Ignimortis]

For the exception that proves the rule, check out r/MMORPG :smallbiggrin:
I find that more general communities are more often tolerant of criticism, since they aren't a fanbase for a specific thing, but rather people interested in a category of things.

However, some of the 5e subs are very critical of 5e as well.


PF1 caster supremacy is nowhere near 3.5. And PF2, for all that I dislike it, seems to have nearly eliminated it, unless I'm missing something huge.
PF2 doesn't have caster supremacy at all, yes. You might need a caster for some things, but you need a martial (preferably a Fighter) pretty much always, too.


A game designer admitted this, using the term "gritty". The PCs are heroes in the sense they are meant to save the day but on purpose are not very fantastical compared to D&D. It was a design choice in an effort to keep high level play viable, in their view.
While making it feel like less high-level play. Weird choice, but I do think that it makes designing a system much easier, of course.



Yeah, that's a fair description. I'd say it does clash with how much the rulebooks emphasize "becoming legendary", though.
A lot of legendary abilities feel as though the devs are saying "alright, you hit level 15, you can go crazy now...but not too crazy, please, a little bit unusual would be best".
For instance, Cloud Jump is nice but is limited by your Speed which means it's likely to be worthless in combat, and Scare to Death is riddled with so many saves and traits that it plainly doesn't work on many creatures (including living ones), and the ones it does work on, it's not really worth using on.

[Tanarii]

If you consider "has aspects which aren't new player friendly" to be "inherently broken", then sure.


Because it's fun, easy to explain, a one-level dip in whatever isn't going to hurt any build, and it allows for more organically built characters than having to plan 5+ levels ahead for prestige classes.
Unless every single level is balanced against every single level in every class, it is broken game design. Since that is not possible, it is inherently broken game design. Not "aspects which are not player friendly", and definitely yes a one level dip hurts the design of both games.

If not being possible to be unbroken game design is okay with your table and you like broken game design, that's fine. But it's generally not a good idea to build a game that way.

That's why it's outmoded game design, and some other method that uses a feature-level balancing design system (like feat-based) is the current modern method of Multiclassing.

[Zombimode]

Unless every single level is balanced against every single level in every class, it is broken game design. Since that is not possible, it is inherently broken game design. Not "aspects which are not player friendly", and definitely yes a one level dip hurts the design of both games.

It is only broken if the intention was that you could level up in random classes and get a playable character.

Why do you assume that is the case?

You also can't put random MTG cards together and get a playable deck. And picking traits, attribute increases and skill increases at random in Gurps will result in similar unplayable messes as picking classes at random in 3.5.
Are point-buy system inherently broken? Or are they just inherently not to your taste?

[Psyren]

But it's generally not a good idea to build a game that way.

Clearly it is, unless you don't care about what people actually want/enjoy. Which isn't the best position for a game designer to be in.


I find that more general communities are more often tolerant of criticism, since they aren't a fanbase for a specific thing, but rather people interested in a category of things.

Right, but my joke was that everyone there seems to hate the category itself rather than just specific examples. But they can't quit the genre either. It's rather fascinating.


A game designer admitted this, using the term "gritty". The PCs are heroes in the sense they are meant to save the day but on purpose are not very fantastical compared to D&D. It was a design choice in an effort to keep high level play viable, in their view.

And that's fine, I think there's room for a game like that. It's not for me personally but it's clearly in vogue enough for them to hold on to the #2 spot.

[Tanarii]

It is only broken if the intention was that you could level up in random classes and get a playable character.

Why do you assume that is the case?

You also can't put random MTG cards together and get a playable deck. And picking traits, attribute increases and skill increases at random in Gurps will result in similar unplayable messes as picking classes at random in 3.5.
Are point-buy system inherently broken? Or are they just inherently not to your taste?
So trap interactions and OP unexpected interactions, that even the designers are unaware of because they're designing classes without each-level-is-equal mindset and avoiding front loading or growth over levels, isn't a design problem because the players can figure it out on their own by trial and error?

That sounds remarkably like a new variation on "it's not a design problem if you can houserule it" to me.

[Rynjin]

No two options will ever be equal in a game, unless those options are literally identical.

[Olive_Sophia]

I remember being frustrated by the way they made it hard to stack size increases in PF.

[Satinavian]

A game designer admitted this, using the term "gritty". The PCs are heroes in the sense they are meant to save the day but on purpose are not very fantastical compared to D&D. It was a design choice in an effort to keep high level play viable, in their view.
That is still not a reason to make all viable builds ridiculous focused one trick ponies. Sure, niche protection. But it just makes them all feel pretty incompetent when they have to refer to other people for 80% of all level appropriate tasks.

That is also probably part of the reason why "free archetype" is so popular.

That's why it's outmoded game design, and some other method that uses a feature-level balancing design system (like feat-based) is the current modern method of Multiclassing.That design is not "modern", it is at least as old as point buy and thus way older than the method you dislike.
And it is not a silver bullet generating balanced characters. Even when all features are perfectly balanced in itself, combinations are not. There will still be synergies making stuff good and (more often) still be redundancies making certain builds weaker than they should be.

But yes, i do prefer point buy and feature based balance as well. But i don't have any need or emotional attachment to classes which all D&D derivatives won't give up.

[Kurald Galain]

Unless every single level is balanced against every single level in every class, it is broken game design.

...no, that is not what the word "broken" means.

[Snowbluff]

Sometimes I get the impression that a decision being defended purely on the basis of balance, with no thought to if the solution is balanced at all, is meant to be a thought terminating cliche. I've seen my complaints about casters devolving into cheerleaders against tougher opponents dismissed with "it's balanced that way," which is the opposite of what I would be considered balanced.



If you consider "has aspects which aren't new player friendly" to be "inherently broken", then sure. But I don't. It's not ideal, but if that's the trade-off for flexibility I'll take it. And no, I have not found semi-multiclassing systems like 4E to offer the same flexibility - which again, doesn't make them bad systems, but it is a trade-off with pros and cons.


I'll amend this by saying that the multiclassing systems of 4e and PF2 are not an ends but a means. They are designed with the fact that powers and feats respectively are strictly level locked in mind. Much how a paragon 4e character making a 3.5/5e style dip would be functionally limited by being able to take only level 1 powers. Similarly, in PF2 I get the impression that level 1 feats are generally not as good as higher level ones, so it would almost always be a mistake. I think this is to their detriment, of course, but the games are designed in a way that prevents a popular feature from existing.

[MonochromeTiger]

Sometimes I get the impression that a decision being defended purely on the basis of balance, with no thought to if the solution is balanced at all, is meant to be a thought terminating cliche. I've seen my complaints about casters devolving into cheerleaders against tougher opponents dismissed with "it's balanced that way," which is the opposite of what I would be considered balanced.

There are plenty of issues I have with Pathfinder 2. It feels dull and unrewarding to play with player power strictly limited for the sake of bounded accuracy forcing an air of "you're just the people who are around at the time" and a combat system where you're just filling out a checklist of buffs and debuffs to break even. Its options are almost all meaningless variations of achieving the same incremental bonus with the uniqueness being down to flavor text and "just imagine" so that you don't break the aforementioned strict combat system. Classes have been broken down into very set roles ridding them of variety while not even ensuring every class actually performs well at its designated role, only that it does terribly at the others. Even some of the story for their setting and their choice of what to include annoys me because we're just supposed to accept characters who were central to some of the biggest disasters in the setting are just redeemed offscreen or a monster they went out of their way to force into a niche aren't included in Pathfinder 2 because they've since decided they don't want to touch those themes and it's easier to completely ignore the monster instead of retconning it into something they will touch like they did with so many other things.

All of those and I can still say, I get where people are coming from when they say "it's balanced that way." I fully agree with you it's not good and that the argument is less a justification and more a dismissal, but I can get why some people are content to simply say it's balanced that way and move on.

From the perspective of someone whose seen plenty of upset martial class players being outshone I can see where some of them getting to be the single target DPS for the game and pump out more damage than the casters can appeals to them. I also see where it absolutely sucks for everybody else that instead of bringing the martial classes up to be even they cut everything else off at the knees. What for some is equality, for others is being told "you're now only useful for buffs to give +1 to the martials, debuffs to give -1 to the people the martials are killing, and occasionally giving a heal or an AoE if there's a bunch of squishy minions so the martial can keep focusing on the real fight." Even the martials who get to shine as the big numbers junkies of the group are still so beat down by the low power of player characters in the game that it's questionable if they'll really get to enjoy it.

From the perspective of someone whose seen plenty of DMs/GMs stress over balancing a fair fight for their players when CR isn't always a reliable estimate of difficulty I get where people would love a system so strict they can just pick a monster at a set CR and know it will be X level of difficulty for the party. I also get that it quickly becomes dull and demoralizing it is to be level 15 and get told "no, the Adventure Path says you're fighting bandits still, the same average bandits you fought at level 3 but they're scaled to still beat you if you don't play optimally still." Their attempt to make difficulty easier to manage made it more punishing if someone doesn't know how to build or doesn't fit with the group's tactical routine, and it is absolutely a routine. They've also made it so there's no reward for figuring out how to build more optimally other than breaking even. Your odds of achieving anything noteworthy is low against any encounter the game decides is balanced for you and even if you do most of the effects that could be game changers anywhere else have been broken down as much as the players.

If what people want is a tactics simulator with very set numbers and chances that you will never really break then Pathfinder 2 will appeal to them. They will see it, enjoy it, and come to say "it's balanced that way." If people don't, odds are they will find Pathfinder 2 overburdened by largely meaningless choices and the balancing so restrictive that you can neither truly thrive outside your strictly determined niche nor accomplish any feeling of your character being heroic or powerful.

[Kurald Galain]

There are plenty of issues I have with Pathfinder 2. It feels dull and unrewarding to play with player power strictly limited for the sake of bounded accuracy forcing an air of "you're just the people who are around at the time" and a combat system where you're just filling out a checklist of buffs and debuffs to break even. Its options are almost all meaningless variations of achieving the same incremental bonus with the uniqueness being down to flavor text and "just imagine" so that you don't break the aforementioned strict combat system.
Good post, that's really my impression as well.


If what people want is a tactics simulator with very set numbers and chances that you will never really break then Pathfinder 2 will appeal to them.
I'm curious how people feel about the tactics in PF2? My impression is that despite its fiddly bits it's not actually very tactical. Then again, a lot of roleplayers don't really want tactical combat, and I don't consider 5E very tactical either. I do consider tactics to be important and meaningful in 3E, PF1, and 4E.

[Ignimortis]

There are plenty of issues I have with Pathfinder 2.

*snip*
Pretty much this. Like I said, PF2 is balanced to the lowest common denominator possible in a heroic fantasy game - the PF1 Fighter, both stylistically and gameplay style-wise. It's all number juggling to make your numbers beat out the other people's numbers, instead of your abilities clashing with theirs with numbers only acting as intermediaries that outline the degree of effectiveness sometimes.



I'm curious how people feel about the tactics in PF2? My impression is that despite its fiddly bits it's not actually very tactical. Then again, a lot of roleplayers don't really want tactical combat, and I don't consider 5E very tactical either. I do consider tactics to be important and meaningful in 3E, PF1, and 4E.

Basic tactics are semi-mandatory - don't shoot/cast while in melee, flank opponents if you even can, pile on debuffs and buffs, heal on time (getting up from KO is a pain). Numbers are king, and spending 1 action to give an enemy -2 to AC is better than anything else you can do.

More advanced tactics (end your turn away from the enemy so they can't dump three actions into you, break LOS against casters then pop back in) are less mandatory, because not everyone can do that if they want to contribute properly.

Even more advanced stuff usually remains off the table due to, well, not having much to enable it. Especially with the way minions and mounts are done - you have to spend your own actions to have them do anything. Which is a fine general idea, it's just that they are so laughably weak - Summon Monster Type Y gives you a (Y*2-5) statblock, accessible at level (Y*2-1), so they're always at least 4 levels behind your on-level challenges, and 6 levels behind deadly threats.

[Xervous]

I'm curious how people feel about the tactics in PF2? My impression is that despite its fiddly bits it's not actually very tactical. Then again, a lot of roleplayers don't really want tactical combat, and I don't consider 5E very tactical either. I do consider tactics to be important and meaningful in 3E, PF1, and 4E.

My general impression is that PF2e is tactically shallow as most decisions come down to simple flowcharts and rote memorization comparable to an MMO rotation. This is not to say many other games in the D&D genre achieve great tactical depth, but for a game so slavishly balanced it leaves me wondering where the fun is supposed to be. PF2e doesn’t bring flashy, it doesn’t bring impactful, it doesn’t do much for stuff outside combat, and it doesn’t really bring good customization as having countless choices are meaningless when they feel like they hardly do anything.

[Ignimortis]

My general impression is that PF2e is tactically shallow as most decisions come down to simple flowcharts and rote memorization comparable to an MMO rotation. This is not to say many other games in the D&D genre achieve great tactical depth, but for a game so slavishly balanced it leaves me wondering where the fun is supposed to be. PF2e doesn’t bring flashy, it doesn’t bring impactful, it doesn’t do much for stuff outside combat, and it doesn’t really bring good customization as having countless choices are meaningless when they feel like they hardly do anything.

It is, basically, severely balanced 5e. Casters' don't steal the show, and it feels harder to win fights (and probably is) in PF2e, and therefore it feels more deserved to some players, as well as making people feel "everyone contributed equally here!".

Other than that, the fun is where it always was - you make it yourself, although the system does insist on tripping you up here and there.

[Wildstag]

My issue with PF1E is that it makes so few shapeshifting races actually fun in the way that those from 3.5 were. PF2E only made the fun ones from PF1E even worse. I mean, they actually made the Vanara's at-will size-changing option 1/day and a level 9+ option. Rougarou in 1e were 1/day wolf-changers with no way to increase the uses per day.

Shapeshifting races were the most fun part of 3.5 for me. In PF, they just do a disservice to that fantasy. I have to use Spheres to access it.

[Kurald Galain]

My issue with PF1E is that it makes so few shapeshifting races actually fun in the way that those from 3.5 were.
Kitsune are great though!

And Skinwalkers are at least at-will shifters to a bestial form; that's probably the closest you get to a werewolf race.

[Psyren]

+1 MonochromeTiger on what I find disappointing about PF2. What they went with and how they viewed individual contribution and the role of spellcasting was a valid design goal, just not one I find particularly exciting or desirable.

[kyoryu]

No two options will ever be equal in a game, unless those options are literally identical.

This is a strawman. Nobody is actually looking for perfect equivalence - what they are talking about is the range of variance.

While it's clearly a complex topic, even if you break it down to direct combat effectiveness, there's a difference between "build A is 10% more effective than build B" and "build A is 20X as effective as build B"

[Snowbluff]

If what people want is a tactics simulator with very set numbers and chances that you will never really break then Pathfinder 2 will appeal to them. They will see it, enjoy it, and come to say "it's balanced that way." If people don't, odds are they will find Pathfinder 2 overburdened by largely meaningless choices and the balancing so restrictive that you can neither truly thrive outside your strictly determined niche nor accomplish any feeling of your character being heroic or powerful.



I'm curious how people feel about the tactics in PF2? My impression is that despite its fiddly bits it's not actually very tactical. Then again, a lot of roleplayers don't really want tactical combat, and I don't consider 5E very tactical either. I do consider tactics to be important and meaningful in 3E, PF1, and 4E.

I'd probably argue that 5e is more tactical that PF2, in my experience. PF2 goes out of its way to weaken any effect that might have tactical value with the degrees of success it put into abilities. Ray of Frost's primary function is to slow and opponent in 5e, potential limiting their options or eating their action entirely. IN PF2, it only has tactical value on a crit. Furthermore, in more difficult fights where tactical use of abilities would be more desirable, once again degrees of success make them less effective as a rule. In my opinion, and I have NO evidence to back this up, I do get the impression that they had the degrees of success system, which could be useful in the right context, but also felt that more and more abilities had to use it even when it made little sense. I have a similar opinion about the action system.

Plus, 5e draws forward a lot of concepts from 4e, like forced movement and attack granting. I think that it's not necessarily a limitation of 5e if people choose not to run it in a 4e tactical style. I've had games that take advantage of this, and some that do not.


+1 MonochromeTiger on what I find disappointing about PF2. What they went with and how they viewed individual contribution and the role of spellcasting was a valid design goal, just not one I find particularly exciting or desirable.

Indeed, it's hypothetically valuable to make a more balanced caster. However, I'm not sure they achieved balance in how they did it to begin with. I do feel like a system that requires you to make more difficult and expensive choices should have some potential value. I do get the impression that fighter just always being able to do the maximum damage with way less decision making does lead to a sense futility when trying anything else.

[Rynjin]

This is a strawman. Nobody is actually looking for perfect equivalence - what they are talking about is the range of variance.

While it's clearly a complex topic, even if you break it down to direct combat effectiveness, there's a difference between "build A is 10% more effective than build B" and "build A is 20X as effective as build B"

It is exactly the ONLY thing the poster I was replying to could possibly be looking for, because the topic was on multiclassing.

The only way "Fighter 1/Cleric 19" and "Fighter 19/Cleric 1" and "Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 5" will ever be "balanced" in the way that poster was implying (that "each level is equal...with no frontloading or growth over levels") is if every class at every level gives the exact same non-stacking bonus(es).

There is literally no other way a system with no power growth by level and no variance in power between options can work.

[Wildstag]

Kitsune are great though!

And Skinwalkers are at least at-will shifters to a bestial form; that's probably the closest you get to a werewolf race.

If I want to shapeshift, I don't want to spend three feats to get the full suite of abilities, I'd rather change shape and get all the abilities. Or at least make it scaling like "at level 5 and every 5 levels after, pick an additional ability from the list".

The way the werebeast-kin work is "at level 1 you turn into werewolf-like thing. Congratulations, your teeth are soooo big. Oh, and you get +2 wisdom."

Like, it's somewhat better than Hengeyokai, but at least with them you get a full transformation as well.

[kyoryu]

It is exactly the ONLY thing the poster I was replying to could possibly be looking for, because the topic was on multiclassing.

The only way "Fighter 1/Cleric 19" and "Fighter 19/Cleric 1" and "Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Rogue 5/Fighter 5" will ever be "balanced" in the way that poster was implying (that "each level is equal...with no frontloading or growth over levels") is if every class at every level gives the exact same non-stacking bonus(es).

There is literally no other way a system with no power growth by level and no variance in power between options can work.

The end goal would be to avoid situations like 3.x multiclassing where unexpected synergies cause the 20X power delta. The goal is not to ensure that everybody is at exactly the same level.

If your argument is "that type of multiclassing will inherently lead to massive differences in effectiveness unless each class and level is exactly and precisely the same", then I think you're making their point for them.


So trap interactions and OP unexpected interactions, that even the designers are unaware of because they're designing classes without each-level-is-equal mindset and avoiding front loading or growth over levels, isn't a design problem because the players can figure it out on their own by trial and error?

That sounds remarkably like a new variation on "it's not a design problem if you can houserule it" to me.

I think for some people that trial and error is the gameplay. Focus on build-time fun/decisions rather than table-time fun/decisions.

[Rynjin]

The end goal would be to avoid situations like 3.x multiclassing where unexpected synergies cause the 20X power delta. The goal is not to ensure that everybody is at exactly the same level.

If your argument is "that type of multiclassing will inherently lead to massive differences in effectiveness unless each class and level is exactly and precisely the same", then I think you're making their point for them.

My argument is that trying to design a system where every level gives the same benefit, i.e. NO benefit, is very silly.

[lesser_minion]

The end goal would be to avoid situations like 3.x multiclassing where unexpected synergies cause the 20X power delta. The goal is not to ensure that everybody is at exactly the same level.

3.x wasn't balanced whether you multiclassed or not. This is the system that launched with a spell that gave +1 attack per round if used on a fighter and +1 spell per round if used on a wizard.

[Tanarii]

This is a strawman. Nobody is actually looking for perfect equivalence - what they are talking about is the range of variance.As always, I appreciate you attempting to see both sides. But in this case I think the "strawman" is actually fairly close to what I'm saying, and it's easy to see why it has been arrived at. The only problem is that it is being used to reject a slightly different neighboring but accurate assessment out of hand.

So I'll elaborate: While I'm not talking about perfect equivalence for each level, I AM saying they need to be roughly equal for every level out of 20 for every class with 3e-system Multiclassing.

But zero WotC editions of D&D do anything close to that. They're all incredibly front loaded to start with, which causes the basic problem right out the gate with the very first level dipped. And on top of that they very often have 'break' points where specific power jumps occur (accidentally or on purpose), making leaving a class for a dip extremely attractive. Or they have scaling power gains (almost all casters).

So it's never even close to roughly equal. It's always broken. I think of it as "inherently" broken because none of what I listed is going to change, and in fact most of it is desirably. Technically incorrect use of the word inherently, completely accurate use of the word broken.


While it's clearly a complex topic, even if you break it down to direct combat effectiveness, there's a difference between "build A is 10% more effective than build B" and "build A is 20X as effective as build B"10% or more variance is what I would expected from single classes. I mean, I accept multiple levels of difference as being normal in the same party. :smallamused:


The end goal would be to avoid situations like 3.x multiclassing where unexpected synergies cause the 20X power delta. The goal is not to ensure that everybody is at exactly the same level.

If your argument is "that type of multiclassing will inherently lead to massive differences in effectiveness unless each class and level is exactly and precisely the same", then I think you're making their point for them.
The problem is 3e Multiclassing builds in trap and system mastery options even before you get to unexpected synergies, by it's simple nature combined with the nature of the desirable way for single classing to work.

The two arguments are close enough it's easy to make the leap from "they must be roughly the same or it doesn't work" to "they must be perfectly the same or it doesn't work" and reject it. But the first is accurate, and the second is not.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A few things that are...suboptimal...about 3e's level-by-level multiclassing (very big IMO here)--

- Order of operations matters. Fighter 1-5/wizard 1-5 =/= Fighter 1/wizard 1/fighter 2/wizard 2/...[1] This is even more so in 3e where skill points can end up radically different and class skills are in play.
- the opportunity cost for multiclassing is all over the map. Some classes must multiclass (and often heavily) just to keep up with the baseline game expectations; others are severely penalized in non-obvious ways[2] for multiclassing except in particular ways.
- PrCs exacerbate the issue, because they don't build on existing classes, they replace class levels. So you have to have all the machinery of a full class in a shorter package that has entry requirements. Which means that early access makes things way more powerful...or makes them actually useful.
- The wide spread in power levels just in the classes themselves means that you can accidentally break things for better or worse. Which means you have to plan every single level in advance and rigidly adhere to it. Sometimes down to alignment changes at particular levels[3].

I'm most annoyed by the accidental breakage possibilities. Intentional breakage is one thing. But when two newbies can create characters with the same set of themes and end up in radically different spot power-wise just based on sequencing and other non-obvious cases...that's not good design IMO.

[1] Not that anyone would actually do equal-classed fighter/wizard, but whatever. The idea is that sequence matters but isn't recorded directly, so auditing a character becomes nearly impossible. It's deeply path-dependent, creating huge traps and exploits all over the place, leading to accidentally broken characters.

[2] I mean, the obvious ones are like monks who can't (couldn't?) gain more monk levels after multiclassing IIRC. But the less obvious ones are things like delaying spell access and thus DCs for casters unless you have the particular tricks to get around that. Or the real wonky effects of fractional BAB stacking, where depending on when you rounded things you could get radically different results.

[3] This may have only been a thing in NWN and other such D&D-based games. But the point of "planning for things that should be fictionally-bound" stands--you end up having to discard one of the original points of PrCs (being tied to actual prestige in the fictional world) or end up with really weird fictional effects.

[Gemini476]

Pathfinder's multiclassing is far from perfect, but it does have one thing going for it over 3.5's: no -20%/class-two-levels-below-your-first multiclass experience penalty. (You know, that thing that gets ignored slightly more often than the encumbrance rules do. Incidentally, this is why you'd go Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Fighter 2/Wizard 2/etc. rather than Fighter 3/Wizard 3.)

But Pathfinder 1E's Favored Class Bonuses aren't perfect either, of course. A Human Fighter gets +1/level to their CMD to resist two combat maneuvers, while a Human Sorcerer gets... +1 spell known/level? Not exactly created equal, there.


But at the same time, of course, the -20% experience penalty runs into the strangeness that is 3E's XP catch-up system (the "XP is a river" thing), meaning that it actually just means "you're one level below the rest of the party"...

[Psyren]

A few things that are...suboptimal...about 3e's level-by-level multiclassing (very big IMO here)-- *snip*

I think some of these are issues of execution rather than concept. For example, Order of Operations Mattering is conceptually a good thing, that creates strategic depth. I think 3.5e took that way too far because of its skill multiplier at first level and its level-by-level skill rank caps/cross-class penalties, which resulted in massive differences in effectiveness between even e.g. a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 and a Fighter 1/Rogue 1 (and don't get me started on favored class) - but you can fix those things, as both PF1 and 5e did, without throwing out the underlying concept.

[JNAProductions]

I'll add this: If you have meaningful customization, you're almost certainly going to have bad choices.

But, so long as the system is clear enough that bad choices are easy to avoid, I don't think that's an issue. Would anyone consider 5E broken because you could make a Barbarian with a statline of 8s in the physical abilities and 15s in the mental ones? No-it's 100% allowed by the system, but anyone who spends so much as a second thinking about it will know that it's a terrible choice.

[Rynjin]

Pathfinder's multiclassing is far from perfect, but it does have one thing going for it over 3.5's: no -20%/class-two-levels-below-your-first multiclass experience penalty. (You know, that thing that gets ignored slightly more often than the encumbrance rules do. Incidentally, this is why you'd go Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Fighter 2/Wizard 2/etc. rather than Fighter 3/Wizard 3.)

But Pathfinder 1E's Favored Class Bonuses aren't perfect either, of course. A Human Fighter gets +1/level to their CMD to resist two combat maneuvers, while a Human Sorcerer gets... +1 spell known/level? Not exactly created equal, there.


But at the same time, of course, the -20% experience penalty runs into the strangeness that is 3E's XP catch-up system (the "XP is a river" thing), meaning that it actually just means "you're one level below the rest of the party"...

Yeah, FCBs are flawed. Common houserule is to make it so every race can just pick form the big list of class FCBs, which makes things a bit more even for most classes. Fighter FCBs...just suck though, there's no getting around that lol.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think some of these are issues of execution rather than concept. For example, Order of Operations Mattering is conceptually a good thing, that creates strategic depth. I think 3.5e took that way too far because of its skill multiplier at first level and its level-by-level skill rank caps/cross-class penalties, which resulted in massive differences in effectiveness between even e.g. a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 and a Fighter 1/Rogue 1 (and don't get me started on favored class) - but you can fix those things, as both PF1 and 5e did, without throwing out the underlying concept.

I disagree that order of operations mattering is a good thing. It creates fake strategic depth at massive cost. It's complexity and traps without actual depth, because one order is always worse than the other. It becomes "look it up in a guide". And it removes the ability to actually audit character sheets.

And 5e did not solve it--taking Fighter 1 -> Wizard 1 gives you heavy armor proficiency. Wizard 1 -> Fighter 1 does not. Which produces all kinds of distortions. It's rather inherent in the fact that the first level of a class is treated (and kinda must be, for a lot of reasons) differently than any other level.

You could avoid it by having each class explicitly say what you get at each level of multiclassing. But that introduces other complexity, all for not very much benefit.

But yes, a lot of it is in execution. Which is why I scoped things the way I did.


I'll add this: If you have meaningful customization, you're almost certainly going to have bad choices.

But, so long as the system is clear enough that bad choices are easy to avoid, I don't think that's an issue. Would anyone consider 5E broken because you could make a Barbarian with a statline of 8s in the physical abilities and 15s in the mental ones? No-it's 100% allowed by the system, but anyone who spends so much as a second thinking about it will know that it's a terrible choice.

Bad choices are going to be inevitable. But they should be obviously bad IMO. The system should tell you what is expected up front, whether literally or not. You should have to intentionally anti-optimize to fall below the system's expected competency floor. Reading the class description and taking the things that have names that sound right should be enough to meet that floor. 3e fails this--Toughness, for one. In 3e, you have to intentionally optimize to meet the system's expectations, including acting in less-than-intuitive ways. 3e is user-hostile at build and play time, full of sharp edges and exposed live wires and things that fall apart or break other things due to interaction effects.

PF2e doesn't do much better on that--you end up with lots of false options. As in, you could theoretically choose them, but doing so would make your character worse so that they don't meet expectations. There are really only a couple "good paths" for each class build, and you'll pretty much always pick them in the same order each time.

[Psyren]

I disagree that order of operations mattering is a good thing. It creates fake strategic depth at massive cost. It's complexity and traps without actual depth, because one order is always worse than the other. It becomes "look it up in a guide". And it removes the ability to actually audit character sheets.

And 5e did not solve it--taking Fighter 1 -> Wizard 1 gives you heavy armor proficiency. Wizard 1 -> Fighter 1 does not. Which produces all kinds of distortions. It's rather inherent in the fact that the first level of a class is treated (and kinda must be, for a lot of reasons) differently than any other level.

You could avoid it by having each class explicitly say what you get at each level of multiclassing. But that introduces other complexity, all for not very much benefit.

But yes, a lot of it is in execution. Which is why I scoped things the way I did.


I didn't say 5e's take was perfect, but it's not bad either. Even if you can get heavy armor and Con proficiency starting Fighter 1 on your wizard, that doesn't make it strictly better than the reverse the way it might be in 3.5; doing things that way has advantages and disadvantages, including the fact that heavy armor may be actively detrimental for your build if your Str is low, or the fact that Wis proficiency might be superior for the type of campaign you're in or with the stat spread you ended up with.

In 3.5 it's more likely that one order will be strictly worse than the other, and I agree that's bad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't say 5e's take was perfect, but it's not bad either. Even if you can get heavy armor and Con proficiency starting Fighter 1 on your wizard, that doesn't make it strictly better than the reverse the way it might be in 3.5; doing things that way has advantages and disadvantages, including the fact that heavy armor may be actively detrimental for your build if your Str is low, or the fact that Wis proficiency might be superior for the type of campaign you're in or with the stat spread you ended up with.

In 3.5 it's more likely that one order will be strictly worse than the other, and I agree that's bad.

I agree that 5e made it better, but it didn't solve it. Because you can't actually solve it unless you treat the 1st level identically to all other levels...in which case other issues arise.

But yes, I scoped my initial comment to 3e's multiclassing for a reason. I don't like 5e's version both on principle and for the implementation, but I can live with it at the table. 3e takes all the things I don't like up to 11. Or maybe 5e just tuned down 3e's issues in this regard.

Personally, the value of build-time "strategic depth" is vastly overstated. Most of the time, what you actually get is complexity, not depth. And PF2e (to bring it back to the original point of the thread) doubles down on this--tons and tons of options that individually provide little value but in aggregate are necessary to reach the system's benchmarks. Meaning lots of opportunities to get it wrong (viz system expectations) and few opportunities to get it right (ie exceed expectations). They set a hard ceiling, and while the floor isn't so bad as 3e/PF1 was, it's still well below system expectations.

5e, on the other hand, has the class floor very close to the system's expectations. Which, for better or worse, makes it much more forgiving to groups of new players to play together as it's much less likely that you'll get characters that are way out of touch with each other or the system's expectations by accident. You can still do it, but it takes some effort in either direction.

[Talakeal]

Would anyone consider 5E broken because you could make a Barbarian with a statline of 8s in the physical abilities and 15s in the mental ones? No-it's 100% allowed by the system, but anyone who spends so much as a second thinking about it will know that it's a terrible choice.

I think you are giving “anyone” far too much credit. It is a very common complaint about my system, both in person and online, that it is possible to make a character that doesn’t synergize with itself much like said barbarian.

[lesser_minion]

I agree that 5e made it better, but it didn't solve it. Because you can't actually solve it unless you treat the 1st level identically to all other levels...in which case other issues arise.

It should be possible to take 1st-level bonus goodies out of character classes, especially in 5e.

That said, multiclassing in general is kind of a stopgap. If there's a single class or subclass that already does a decent job of portraying your concept, that's usually better than trying to hack together some approximation using multiclassing and feats.

[Psyren]

I agree that 5e made it better, but it didn't solve it. Because you can't actually solve it unless you treat the 1st level identically to all other levels...in which case other issues arise.

Putting aside that we clearly have different solutions/needs for solutions in mind, I never said 5e's version solved anything. Just that it did better at this than 3.5e.


I think you are giving “anyone” far too much credit. It is a very common complaint about my system, both in person and online, that it is possible to make a character that doesn’t synergize with itself much like said barbarian.

I don't know about your system, but I would much rather have a system where it's possible to build against type in this way, even if it's suboptimal, than one that packs me in bubble-wrap with no choices for fear I might make the wrong ones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It should be possible to take 1st-level bonus goodies out of character classes, especially in 5e.

That said, multiclassing in general is kind of a stopgap. If there's a single class or subclass that already does a decent job of portraying your concept, that's usually better than trying to hack together some approximation using multiclassing and feats.

You can't, really. Because the offending ones are the basic proficiencies, which you really need at first level. Getting armor or weapons later just is a drag since you have to spend several levels using bad stats or have bad stats later. And if you just don't grant them to mc, you're back at non commuting classes.

And back loading classes just so dipping isn't as good seems to be the tail wagging the dog--hurting those who weren't going to mc by making them wait longer before key cool things come online. Imagine if a wizard didn't get any leveled spells until like 3rd level.

PF2e/4e style feat based mc can work, but I'm not fond of either implementation. They're too cautious to really give the thematic stuff, so it either gets ignored or used for mechanical goodies like any other feat.

But I totally agree with the second paragraph. And I'm all in favor of making it easier and more accepted to homebrew classes and specializations (subclasses, etc) to fit a player's thematic vision.

[icefractal]

It's not really incompatible to have 3.x style multiclassing but say that there's a "first level package" separate from the normal levels. The same way that you get 4x skill points and max HP at 1st character level, but not at every 1st class level.

Or say that you do get it ... at 3rd class level, or whatever. But for the first class you take, you get it immediately.

[lesser_minion]

You can't, really. Because the offending ones are the basic proficiencies, which you really need at first level. Getting armor or weapons later just is a drag since you have to spend several levels using bad stats or have bad stats later. And if you just don't grant them to mc, you're back at non commuting classes.

I was thinking "take them out of the classes and shove them into backgrounds, starting feats, or something new", but for gear, you can also rework the proficiencies themselves so that they work better. This could involve decoupling armoured casting from armoured movement again, or retooling proficiencies to line up with gear prices.

Alternatively, "fighters have the weapon and armour proficiencies of a character 4 levels higher" and then there's a table of what weapon/armour stuff you get at given character levels. Then there's less incentive to dip for weapon/armour proficiencies because every class gets everything eventually anyway.


It's not really incompatible to have 3.x style multiclassing but say that there's a "first level package" separate from the normal levels. The same way that you get 4x skill points and max HP at 1st character level, but not at every 1st class level.

The 4x skill points problem has effectively been solved, I guess. 4e and 5e use mostly-binary skills, Pathfinder replaces it with the "Class Skill Bonus".

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was thinking "take them out of the classes and shove them into backgrounds, starting feats, or something new", but for gear, you can also rework the proficiencies themselves so that they work better. This could involve decoupling armoured casting from armoured movement again, or retooling proficiencies to line up with gear prices.

Alternatively, "fighters have the weapon and armour proficiencies of a character 4 levels higher" and then there's a table of what weapon/armour stuff you get at given character levels. Then there's less incentive to dip for weapon/armour proficiencies because every class gets everything eventually anyway.


If you have to completely change the core of the game (ie change proficiencies entirely, which is what you're doing here) to make multiclassing work...again, that's the tail wagging the dog. And you're making life worse for single-classed characters unless you implement some kind of janky thing. Now they get their core features later, just to make life less tempting for the dippers. Getting medium or better armor proficiency at any level other than first is much less valuable because of ability score requirements and caps. If you only get light armor at level 1 but medium or heavy at, say, level 3, you've got either
a) bad AC (because you didn't pump DEX at level 1, so your light-armor AC now sucks) for a couple levels
b) badly allocated stats for the rest of your career.
Yay. Let's make building characters even more difficult so we can keep around this pathological multiclassing thing.

And giving everyone all the armor and weapon proficiencies means that now martials have even less reason to exist. Yay for caster supremacy!

The way you solve the "dip for armor and weapons" "problem"[1] is in fact the reverse--a simple "you can only cast spells from a given class in armor that that class gave you proficiency with" statement. That doesn't solve all the non-commuting problems (there are also things involving HP, where your first character level gives you max HP for your HD but subsequent levels don't even if it's the first level in a given class, etc), but it removes the seemingly overwhelming need to multiclass as a caster for armor.

To me, the value brought by multiclassing as a thing is very small. It theoretically increases the number of builds...but mostly enables optimization races that drastically reduce the number of viable builds. The "get bigger numbers" effect vastly outweighs the "allow more concepts" side, to the point that I feel its net effect is bad for the game. It also opens up huge traps for the new or unwary. It's an attractive nuisance. Could it be done properly? Maybe. But likely not level-by-level.

I've actually conceptualized a scheme where everyone would get a series of choices in parallel with their main class. They can either progress down a specialization track (getting more things for their main class or getting them faster) or down one or more "dabbler" paths (name TBD), picking up specific features modeled after the key features of other classes. So "dabbling" in rogue might give you a sneak attack; investing more makes it get bigger. Dabbling in wizard might give you reduced-strength casting (roughly 1/4 progression), etc. But a barbarian specializing in barbarian might get more, bigger rages and other features that tie into his core class. So the choice would be between horizontal growth and vertical growth, but leaving your core features, HD, proficiencies, etc alone. You'd get both your core class features and your choice of specialization/"dabbling" at the appropriate levels.

[1] scare quotes intentional, as people differ as to whether this is a problem at all or not.

[Kurald Galain]

If you only get light armor at level 1 but medium or heavy at, say, level 3, you've got either
a) bad AC (because you didn't pump DEX at level 1, so your light-armor AC now sucks) for a couple levels

I fail to see how it's a problem to have lower stats (such as AC) at low level and have them increase as you level up. That's basically the point of leveling.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I fail to see how it's a problem to have lower stats (such as AC) at low level and have them increase as you level up. That's basically the point of leveling.

Because it vastly increases the chance of dying at low levels relative to the status quo (ie getting your core proficiencies at level 1). And provides traps for new players who may not know that they need to adjust things.

Having low AC that gets better isn't fundamentally a problem. Changing the game so that single-classed characters are worse than they are now, in contravention of system expectations, is a problem. Because you're disadvantaging single-classed players to keep the pathological case under control.

It's basically the same as altering PvE balance to balance PvP abilities in MMOs. It's a slap in the face of the majority to handle a minority problem. It's addressing the symptom, not the cause.

[Satinavian]

I've actually conceptualized a scheme where everyone would get a series of choices in parallel with their main class. They can either progress down a specialization track (getting more things for their main class or getting them faster) or down one or more "dabbler" paths (name TBD), picking up specific features modeled after the key features of other classes. So "dabbling" in rogue might give you a sneak attack; investing more makes it get bigger. Dabbling in wizard might give you reduced-strength casting (roughly 1/4 progression), etc. But a barbarian specializing in barbarian might get more, bigger rages and other features that tie into his core class. So the choice would be between horizontal growth and vertical growth, but leaving your core features, HD, proficiencies, etc alone. You'd get both your core class features and your choice of specialization/"dabbling" at the appropriate levels.
Isn't that basically what PF2 does ?

[lesser_minion]

(snipped)

It's true that most of the things I suggested wouldn't work at all as 'patches' for 5e. The point isn't to fix 5e, it's to address the claim that level-by-level multiclassing is inherently broken archaic nonsense.

[Ignimortis]

Isn't that basically what PF2 does ?

Technically, yes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Isn't that basically what PF2 does ?

Their system fights with your other feat choices. So you're trading off your core build feats for dedication feats. Or your lineage feats, etc. PF2e's Dedication feats (which are, to be sure, one of the better, if cramped and overly-cautious implementations IMO) are basically just another huge list of feats to wade through to make your build.

This would sit entirely parallel to those other pieces. You could think of them as feats, but they're in a different bucket that only trades against each other, not against your general feat budget. As in, every Xth level, you'd pick up a feature either from your own class or from another class, and you can pick them multiple times and they stack (so kinda tech-tree-like). I've not implemented this because it's a crap-ton of extra complexity and I'm currently focusing on more fundamental system overhauls.


It's true that most of the things I suggested wouldn't work at all as 'patches' for 5e. The point isn't to fix 5e, it's to address the claim that level-by-level multiclassing is inherently broken archaic nonsense.

Then you weren't responding to me, because I wasn't making that claim. Merely the much smaller claim that there are constraints that none of the systems I've ever seen implement level-by-level multiclassing have handled well. Inherent is too strong a word, but the evidence is strongly against such a thing really working.

Specifically, I was responding to the claim that 5e had "fixed" the problems with 3e multiclassing. Which they haven't. They've reduced the overall issue, but in some ways made it worse. And yes @Psyren, you did claim that 5e had fixed those issues:



think some of these are issues of execution rather than concept. For example, Order of Operations Mattering is conceptually a good thing, that creates strategic depth. I think 3.5e took that way too far because of its skill multiplier at first level and its level-by-level skill rank caps/cross-class penalties, which resulted in massive differences in effectiveness between even e.g. a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 and a Fighter 1/Rogue 1 (and don't get me started on favored class) - but you can fix those things, as both PF1 and 5e did, without throwing out the underlying concept.


My point was to show that you can't actually fix the underlying issue here without (as you say, @lesser_minion), rewriting the whole system to make multiclassing have primacy of place. At that point, however, I'd just rather not play a class-level game. If you want build variety as a top priority, class/level games are always going to be a bit janky and point-buy will do it better. Class/level games do other things I happen to like more, so I prefer them. But if you have to hack a bunch of janky elements into it so that multiclassing is a 1st class citizen without breaking things...yeah, just do a point-buy system from the get go. Same overall result, but smoother and more consistent.

[lesser_minion]

Then you weren't responding to me, because I wasn't making that claim. Merely the much smaller claim that there are constraints that none of the systems I've ever seen implement level-by-level multiclassing have handled well. Inherent is too strong a word, but the evidence is strongly against such a thing really working.

Specifically, I was responding to the claim that 5e had "fixed" the problems with 3e multiclassing. Which they haven't. They've reduced the overall issue, but in some ways made it worse. And yes @Psyren, you did claim that 5e had fixed those issues:

I think there's only one person specifically saying things to the effect that 3e/5e-style multiclassing is archaic or inherently broken, and I didn't mean to suggest that it was you. Since you were pointing out existing problems with multiclassing, I figured that pointing out how they could have been avoided couldn't hurt.

[Tanarii]

Don't forget if you want to fix the archaic and inherently broken level-by-level multiclassing you have to scrap single class casters getting access to higher levels of spells every 2nd level.

[lesser_minion]

If someone trades 9th-level spells for the ability to cast 8th-level spells from two different classes, or 7th-level spells while also having strong combat abilities, those are all legitimate choices. The main concern there isn't the basic idea, it's making sure you can play such a character at much lower levels without going insane.

As I said upthread though, multiclassing is basically a stopgap. Gishes and mystic theurges probably ought to be their own classes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As I said upthread though, multiclassing is basically a stopgap. Gishes and mystic theurges probably ought to be their own classes.

This, all else aside, I can heartily agree with.

In fact, the 5e hack I'm currently working on does this. All the 3 "gishes" (aka mixed martial/caster types) are half-casters (paladin for divine, ranger for primal/druidic, and spellblade for arcane, replacing bards). The "full casters" (priest/arcanist/shaman) are much less melee/weapon capable. Yes, including the cleric replacement, who will only get light armor and simple weapons unless they spend a subclass to upgrade to medium, at the cost of some of their casting. And since I'm not including multiclassing directly (yet), I don't have to worry about dipping.

And then there's warlock, which is going back much more toward 3e's "mostly at will, focused on eldritch blast modifications and invocations with weird spell-likes/spell-list-hopping stuff" model.

[Kurald Galain]

As I said upthread though, multiclassing is basically a stopgap. Gishes and mystic theurges probably ought to be their own classes.

Props to PF1 for including several highly effective gish classes, most notably the Magus.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Props to PF1 for including several highly effective gish classes, most notably the Magus.

Also something I can agree with. I don't like PF1 for a lot of reasons, but they did do this part well.

[kyoryu]

I think there's only one person specifically saying things to the effect that 3e/5e-style multiclassing is archaic or inherently broken, and I didn't mean to suggest that it was you. Since you were pointing out existing problems with multiclassing, I figured that pointing out how they could have been avoided couldn't hurt.

I wouldn't say "broken".

I do think that 3.x style multiclassing, where each "level" is really a grab-bag of various improvements, is going to inherently lead to massive charop shenanigans, as the combinatorial complexity is insane, and some classes for the "pure" version are going to need abilities that will end up synergizing massively with others.

I'm not sure how you'd design it to avoid that without either massively limiting the number of classes, or restricting what a level gives you so much that it would end up homogenizing a bunch. The only thing I could see would be deliberately building the system so that later levels give you more power, to decrease the likelihood that things like single-level dips would help.

But I think for a lot of people that like 3.x, it's a feature and not a bug.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do think that 3.x style multiclassing, where each "level" is really a grab-bag of various improvements, is going to inherently lead to massive charop shenanigans, as the combinatorial complexity is insane, and some classes for the "pure" version are going to need abilities that will end up synergizing massively with others.

I'm not sure how you'd design it to avoid that without either massively limiting the number of classes, or restricting what a level gives you so much that it would end up homogenizing a bunch. The only thing I could see would be deliberately building the system so that later levels give you more power, to decrease the likelihood that things like single-level dips would help.


This. It's why I also wouldn't say "broken", but certainly "impossible to balance" even if you cut out 90% of the classes, feats, etc. You're looking at factorial combinatorics, which are even worse than exponential.

You'd have to either homogenize everything down to the point where it's just different colors of blasts OR slice and dice stuff down to where you have point buy (including different costs for various things). Either of which makes you wonder why you're doing it and whether the cure is actually better than the disease.

It functions. Just like a window that was shattered and taped back together "works". For some definition of the word. And some people find the sharp edges and exploitable bits to be of value.

[Psyren]

And yes @Psyren, you did claim that 5e had fixed those issues:

Still no - by "fixed those things" I was referring to the previous part of the sentence, which stated: "massive differences in effectiveness between even e.g. a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 and a Fighter 1/Rogue 1". The wrong order of those in 3.5 resulted in a fundamentally different character, which is not the case for PF1 or 5e.

What you see as the "underlying issue", I don't - it's as simple as that.


Their system fights with your other feat choices.

Even the Free Archetype variant? I'm not seeing how that doesn't solve your problem.


Props to PF1 for including several highly effective gish classes, most notably the Magus.

Where PF1 succeeded was making a series of 2/3 and 1/3 casting gishes that are a lot of fun to play. What they did not do however was abolish 9th-level casting gishes, those still exist for the folks who want them (which I assume does not include PP.)

[Gnaeus]

This. It's why I also wouldn't say "broken", but certainly "impossible to balance" even if you cut out 90% of the classes, feats, etc. You're looking at factorial combinatorics, which are even worse than exponential.

You'd have to either homogenize everything down to the point where it's just different colors of blasts OR slice and dice stuff down to where you have point buy (including different costs for various things). Either of which makes you wonder why you're doing it and whether the cure is actually better than the disease.

It functions. Just like a window that was shattered and taped back together "works". For some definition of the word. And some people find the sharp edges and exploitable bits to be of value.

If by "of value" you mean "the defining feature of a RPG" yes. You can make a RPG with an open point system, like GURPS. Or you can make an RPG with a lot of interchangeable LEGO parts, like 3.PF. Or you can make quasi class/quasi point based systems, like World of Darkness. And some combinations will be better than others, but you will wind up with the ability to make new characters, so that unless I read your guide and directly follow your build, my character will never be the same as your character.

The moment "balance" takes priority over that, you have taken an RPG, ripped out its heart and used it as compost for something that will never be better than a boardgame without a board. Meaningful character generation isn't of value, it is the definition of value for an RPG. Something that may or may not be of value is balance.

The problem with 3.PF isn't that they aren't balanced. At all. In any way. The problem is that character results are often not predictable or desirable based on what classes should do. In the sense that fighters and monks should be some of the best classes at fighting, their alleged strength.

[kyoryu]

And again, it boils down to what you're looking for out of a game, and what your tolerance for imbalance is. I'm also very careful about saying what "the defining feature of an RPG is", because it is not the same thing for all players. It might be the defining feature for you.

I don't think you can really say that character builds are the focus of an RPG, as early D&D didn't really have that in any meaningful way. Mechanically speaking, one fighter was basically the same as the other, save for some bonuses from stats.

But for some people, that kind of optimization game is really an important thing, and maybe the most critical thing. A tightly-constrained system gets in the way of that.

For others, they don't care about that, and want to have a game with their friends where everyone can share in the fantasy experience and feel important, and the decisions made at the table matter - and those players will find a game with wide open optimization gets in the way of that, as they will find that one character becomes unable to contribute in a meaningful way, or they have to spend more time learning the ins and outs of

[PhoenixPhyre]

And again, it boils down to what you're looking for out of a game, and what your tolerance for imbalance is. I'm also very careful about saying what "the defining feature of an RPG is", because it is not the same thing for all players. It might be the defining feature for you.

I don't think you can really say that character builds are the focus of an RPG, as early D&D didn't really have that in any meaningful way. Mechanically speaking, one fighter was basically the same as the other, save for some bonuses from stats.

But for some people, that kind of optimization game is really an important thing, and maybe the most critical thing. A tightly-constrained system gets in the way of that.

For others, they don't care about that, and want to have a game with their friends where everyone can share in the fantasy experience and feel important, and the decisions made at the table matter - and those players will find a game with wide open optimization gets in the way of that, as they will find that one character becomes unable to contribute in a meaningful way, or they have to spend more time learning the ins and outs of

Yeah. That's why I was careful to phrase things the way I did.

Mechanical customization is a "nice to have" for me. But I don't play class/level systems to have fine-grained customization or to expect a fantasy-dress-up-simulator (ie make whatever build you want out of the entire generic realm of "fantasy"). That's what real generic systems are for. D&D has never been generic, despite what some want to think. The d20 system tried to be generic, and failed. But 3e isn't the d20 system--3e implements the d20 system in a non-generic way.

Class/level systems are about enforced, tightly supported and interwoven thematics with mechanics. Where the classes have a thematic thread that weaves through all their mechanics. Something that multiclassing fails miserably at on principle, because you can't assume the presence of any given thematic factor. You can cobble together thematic characters...with lots of dribs and drabs of unwanted cruft. And you end up having to ignore lots of "fluff" to get there, something I'm not comfortable with doing.

So I'm fine with a lot less customization in a class/level system. The level that can be supported within class features just fine.

On the other hand, I don't want a tightly-bound "balance" like 4e and PF2e did. Because that's super limiting as well. I'm fine with a broad range of balance, but where the system's baseline expectations form the floor for all classes. That is, where you have to anti-optimize to go below the system's baseline expectations. Optimization beyond that should provide some benefits...with some drawbacks. Specialization beyond what the class already provides shouldn't (IMO) be necessary to keep up. And shouldn't provide outsized returns either. But the acceptable bounds there are much larger than what 4e or PF2e took as acceptable. If basically all the builds end up in the tier 3 +- 1/2 tier (so bottom of T2, T3, top of T4) range, that's my sweet spot.

Most importantly (to me), accidental breakage should be off the table. Picking what seems good without significant system mastery shouldn't run any real risk of creating characters that are outside the acceptable range in either direction. Here's where 3e fails hard. A newbie fighter and a newbie druid, if they both pick "what looks good" with little system mastery, can end up being almost entirely incompatible (or at least really painful for a DM to handle both in the same party). That shouldn't happen. And 3e multiclassing is full of massive traps on the matter.

[Darg]

I accept that's their opinion of the matter, but I strongly disagree with that point of view. I find it a feature when locked doors and spike-filled pits are no longer a problem for PCs. It's no different than a chasm or getting to the top of a mountain is no longer a problem. Obstacles at low level not being obstacles at high level means the PCs have grown in power, and that's a good thing. I want to face new obstacles at level 15, not the same ones I faced when I was level 5. At level 15 I don't want to spend three weeks traveling from point A to point B and roleplay every day of traveling with random encounters and other things that have nothing to do with the adventure. I'm not a fan of that style at low level either, but I can play and enjoy it. I want to get to Point B already and play the adventure we're supposed to be doing. If the spellcaster can teleport/fast travel us there, great. Thank you. Let's play the game.

I know this is a little late, but you don't have to micro travel like that at high levels. By that time most of the troubles the party faces during general travel would be low level threats and travel like this should be well rehearsed by now for the characters. Gameplaywise it can be just as quick a narrative as teleporting to your destination is. Even prepping for such trips can be handwoven the same way: expertise.

[Tanarii]

An interesting comment I saw elsewhere online was (paraphrased): PF2 isn't a cousin to D&D 5e, it's a cousin to D&D 4e.

And from my exploring the system, this seems at a rough glance to be very true. It has a lot of the great things I loved from 4e, but I fear it appears to have many things that eventually made me welcome a new D&D system. Which is why I probably won't try switching to use it as my primary campaign system to replace D&Done.

Things I liked in 4e and would in PF2:
- effective martials with interesting things to do
- balanced casters
- a crafting system
- effective encounter building guidelines

Things that annoyed me in 4e and would in PF2:
- gear treadmill
- fiddly numbers
- so many feats (a la powers) to keep track of
- sloooooooooow combat
- narrow band of enemy CR usable

Things that are different from 4e or 5e that I'd dislike:
- adventuring day is completely ignored, there's no attempt to balance the game at that level
- cannot handle large groups of enemies

Most of these things that would annoy me probably won't be addressed in the Remaster, since they're fundamental to the design philosophy, and many of them are things the fans like.

[Darg]

- adventuring day is completely ignored, there's no attempt to balance the game at that level

To be fair, it's quite easy to ignore in 3.5 if you aren't actively making it a priority for management. For example, most of the talk I hear on these forums are about how wizards after level 5 make resource management a thing of the past thanks to teleport/flight. I think it's load of bull, but I can see how DMs might not be able to respond to such clever thinking.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, it's quite easy to ignore in 3.5 if you aren't actively making it a priority for management. For example, most of the talk I hear on these forums are about how wizards after level 5 make resource management a thing of the past thanks to teleport/flight. I think it's load of bull, but I can see how DMs might not be able to respond to such clever thinking.
It's also frequently ignored and then complained about that the game actually (theoretically at least) has some benchmarks for it in 5e.

I discovered this because PF2 aficionados tout it as something awesome that each encounter expects you to go in entirely healed and the game doesn't take in to account adventuring days ... despite casters inherently having daily resources. They're totally in to it. Exact opposite of my reaction.

[Lucas Yew]

Things I liked in 4e and would in PF2:
- effective martials with interesting things to do
- balanced casters
- a crafting system
- effective encounter building guidelines

Things that annoyed me in 4e and would in PF2:
- gear treadmill
- fiddly numbers
- so many feats (a la powers) to keep track of
- sloooooooooow combat
- narrow band of enemy CR usable

Things that are different from 4e or 5e that I'd dislike:
- adventuring day is completely ignored, there's no attempt to balance the game at that level
- cannot handle large groups of enemies

To be fair on the bolded part, Automatic Bonus Progression could have been the norm, if not for the final survey before PF2's launch indicated otherwise (either because of some lingering malicious intent for martials to be gear dependent, or a genuine wishing for treasure to matter, or something else).

That said, unlike PF1, the ABP was published early in the PF2 lifecycle in the GMG, thanks to one of the devs who fully supported its defaultness before launch (= Mark Seifter).

[Wildstag]

This would sit entirely parallel to those other pieces. You could think of them as feats, but they're in a different bucket that only trades against each other, not against your general feat budget.

A set of options separate from feat specializations that runs parallel to class features and not against your general feat budget?

Sounds familiar to me; 4e basically did something akin to that, though it handled multiclassing exceptionally poorly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A set of options separate from feat specializations that runs parallel to class features and not against your general feat budget?

Sounds familiar to me; 4e basically did something akin to that, though it handled multiclassing exceptionally poorly.

4e "multiclassing feats" came out of your general feat budget though. Which, in addition to the very weak multiclassing feats available, made it basically only useful to qualify for certain specializations later (Epic Destinies and whatever they called the level 11 ones, the "subclass" things).

So it's kinda similar, but more like at particular levels you could choose to either
* Take an "advanced feature" from your own class (getting more or stronger uses of something, etc)
* Take a "basic feature" from a different class.

And each time you did, it stacked with itself if it was the same choice--take Rogue Emulation (granting you Sneak Attack and some basic other feature) x2 and you get bigger Sneak Attack + a different feature. Or take (as a rogue) Rogue Specialization x2 and you get bigger better faster rogue stuff twice.

I never really worked up the details.

[Kurald Galain]

An interesting comment I saw elsewhere online was (paraphrased): PF2 isn't a cousin to D&D 5e, it's a cousin to D&D 4e.
I'm sure you've heard by now that PF2 was (largely) written by 4E's lead designers after they had been fired from WOTC (bearing in mind that 4E's design team was fired several years in a row because 4E was not as successful as Hasbro wanted).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm sure you've heard by now that PF2 was (largely) written by 4E's lead designers after they had been fired from WOTC (bearing in mind that 4E's design team was fired several years in a row because 4E was not as successful as Hasbro wanted).

I'd say that adding the parenthetical is (somewhat) unfair, as is being discussed in the parent forum thread on 4e's performance.

But I do agree that PF2e always reminded me more of 4e than of 5e. For better or worse.

[Gnaeus]

I'd say that adding the parenthetical is (somewhat) unfair, as is being discussed in the parent forum thread on 4e's performance.

But I do agree that PF2e always reminded me more of 4e than of 5e. For better or worse.

I think that is uniquely despicable, given that the original fan base went to PF overwhelmingly as a negative response to 4e. It is a distinctive slap in the face to the people who drove their business. Even if they had somehow managed to put out a decent RPG with that background (which to be clear they did not), it would have still been a betrayal of their fans.

[Wildstag]

4e "multiclassing feats" came out of your general feat budget though. Which, in addition to the very weak multiclassing feats available, made it basically only useful to qualify for certain specializations later (Epic Destinies and whatever they called the level 11 ones, the "subclass" things).

The "did something similar" and "multiclassing" statements were two separate statements. I understood the discussion to be "specialization progression in class being separate from standard feat progression", which PF2e doesn't do well. 4e's class features are separate from their power selections (generally speaking), so a build can do one thing with feats and another thing with power selection. It helps to synergize the two, but it's not required.

But also since y'all were talking multiclassing, I felt it worth mentioning how poorly 4e's multiclassing was.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The "did something similar" and "multiclassing" statements were two separate statements. I understood the discussion to be "specialization progression in class being separate from standard feat progression", which PF2e doesn't do well. 4e's class features are separate from their power selections (generally speaking), so a build can do one thing with feats and another thing with power selection. It helps to synergize the two, but it's not required.

But also since y'all were talking multiclassing, I felt it worth mentioning how poorly 4e's multiclassing was.

Ah. I'd still say it's fairly different, but that's neither here nor now. So I'll leave that alone. Only thing I'll say is that you really had to pick your powers and feats in unison, picking the feats and equipment that synergized with your powers. Otherwise your output would suck, drastically underperforming system expectations and turning the already sluggish combat into a nightmare. So the actual degrees of freedom were much reduced compared to the apparent ones.

That said, I found 4e's split between "class features" (mostly triggered or passive things, of which you only got like 3, total, at level 1, plus your paragon path + epic destiny ones) and "powers" (the things that actually mattered 90% of the time) was a horrible way to play. This is going to annoy a bunch of people, but it made me feel like everyone was a 3e sorcerer. No sense of progression other than core numbers (HP, attack bonus, etc) and "pick bigger power at level up". Instead of organic growth both in strength of class features and in number of class features, you just had this big flat "pick the best power from <list>".

But then again, I'm very much in favor of tightly thematically-coherent classes. Where all the pieces build off of each other and there's a clear thematic progression that also works mechanically. The 5e paladin does a great job of this. You can pick up and play the paladin with only minimal assembly required. Yeah, you pick spells, but you know your whole list and can swap out daily, and it's a thematically and mechanically narrow list.

[Snowbluff]

Does PF2 not have any guidelines for attrition/encounters per day? You would think that there would be, given that there is daily resources in the game. People have told me that this game is easier to run than 5e and has better rules so GMs don't ever have to guess or make their own adjustments, and I just took their word on it. I've generally only played 2e rather than tried to run it, but I guess this point was developed out of thin air.



Ah. I'd still say it's fairly different, but that's neither here nor now. So I'll leave that alone. Only thing I'll say is that you really had to pick your powers and feats in unison, picking the feats and equipment that synergized with your powers. Otherwise your output would suck, drastically underperforming system expectations and turning the already sluggish combat into a nightmare. So the actual degrees of freedom were much reduced compared to the apparent ones.

That said, I found 4e's split between "class features" (mostly triggered or passive things, of which you only got like 3, total, at level 1, plus your paragon path + epic destiny ones) and "powers" (the things that actually mattered 90% of the time) was a horrible way to play. This is going to annoy a bunch of people, but it made me feel like everyone was a 3e sorcerer. No sense of progression other than core numbers (HP, attack bonus, etc) and "pick bigger power at level up". Instead of organic growth both in strength of class features and in number of class features, you just had this big flat "pick the best power from <list>".

But then again, I'm very much in favor of tightly thematically-coherent classes. Where all the pieces build off of each other and there's a clear thematic progression that also works mechanically. The 5e paladin does a great job of this. You can pick up and play the paladin with only minimal assembly required. Yeah, you pick spells, but you know your whole list and can swap out daily, and it's a thematically and mechanically narrow list.

Indeed. I would like to have a combination of buttons, ribbons, and passives. One of my favorite 4e classes is the Mage, since they get the normal powers supplemented with some bonuses to them.

[Zalabim]

Does PF2 not have any guidelines for attrition/encounters per day? You would think that there would be, given that there is daily resources in the game. People have told me that this game is easier to run than 5e and has better rules so GMs don't ever have to guess or make their own adjustments, and I just took their word on it. I've generally only played 2e rather than tried to run it, but I guess this point was developed out of thin air.
There are no guidelines for attrition or encounters per day for PF2. Typically time is the only limit on HP recovery out of combat. In combat, HP recovery can be weaker, harder, or very limited in daily use. Yes, this does create an irreconcilable balance conflict with some classes that get daily spell slots.

As to the second half, I haven't GMd pathfinder, but because of the reputation for not requiring the GM to guess or make things up, everything that requires the GM to guess or make things up stands out. This gives me the impression that the system requires GM creative effort on a similar level to 5E. What PF2E does have is a chart of DCs by level and standard modifiers of +/- 2/5/10 for adjusting difficulty class based on things like rarity, an area of special focus, group checks, further inquiries, etc. The system often will openly say the GM decides what level something is and how long it takes, but once you decide on the level and difficulty, there's a specific number associated with that choice. Somehow people will claim that this is materially different from 5E's list of DCs for easy, hard, nearly impossible, etc.

[Snowbluff]

There are no guidelines for attrition or encounters per day for PF2. Typically time is the only limit on HP recovery out of combat. In combat, HP recovery can be weaker, harder, or very limited in daily use. Yes, this does create an irreconcilable balance conflict with some classes that get daily spell slots. Wow, now that it's been said out loud I am beginning to understand why PF2 has balance issues. Balance isn't my first, second, or even third consideration when picking a system usually, but a game designed to run on tight math, having ambiguity can mess that up.


As to the second half, I haven't GMd pathfinder, but because of the reputation for not requiring the GM to guess or make things up, everything that requires the GM to guess or make things up stands out. This gives me the impression that the system requires GM creative effort on a similar level to 5E. What PF2E does have is a chart of DCs by level and standard modifiers of +/- 2/5/10 for adjusting difficulty class based on things like rarity, an area of special focus, group checks, further inquiries, etc. The system often will openly say the GM decides what level something is and how long it takes, but once you decide on the level and difficulty, there's a specific number associated with that choice. Somehow people will claim that this is materially different from 5E's list of DCs for easy, hard, nearly impossible, etc.

Indeed, if you removed the level based bonuses, it would look like 5e's chart quite a bit. I think the mythology of what PF2 is is what leads to a lot of these misconceptions. I get the impression that a lot of people who make these sorts of arguments have a limited understanding of more systems outside of PF2. I'm not gonna say 3e/PF1's or 5e's approach to these sorts of things are right or wrong (they both definitely have their downsides, like Diplomacy rules), but there are definitely cases where a double standard is made without people realizing it. There's definitely some content creators who perpetuate these double standards as well, but I'm not gonna name names/witch hunt on that topic. See also the PF2's (horrid) action economy and (misleading) feat "choices."

[RandomPeasant]

This. It's why I also wouldn't say "broken", but certainly "impossible to balance" even if you cut out 90% of the classes, feats, etc. You're looking at factorial combinatorics, which are even worse than exponential.

You'd have to either homogenize everything down to the point where it's just different colors of blasts OR slice and dice stuff down to where you have point buy (including different costs for various things). Either of which makes you wonder why you're doing it and whether the cure is actually better than the disease.

It functions. Just like a window that was shattered and taped back together "works". For some definition of the word. And some people find the sharp edges and exploitable bits to be of value.

Open Multiclassing is very difficult to balance, but I don't think it's that important for what people want out of the game. Most 3e multi-class characters are A) someone trying to build an A + B theurge (addressable with a subclassing system that can have tighter assumptions and/or by making explicit classes for things like Gishes) B) someone who wants "a little bit" of some other class as part of their backstory (addressable with a better background system) or C) the result of trying to build a competent martial character in a system where martial classes don't offer worthwhile high level abilities (fixable by making martials more like casters, who do not do the "six different one level dips" thing). Balance is not hard in the sense that it is an unsolved problem, it's just hard in the sense that it takes fairly large and somewhat tedious amounts of effort to implement it and designers would apparently rather not.