I like the idea of combat being a fixed increase and non combat skills being more flexible. I've always been frustrated with games that have the need to level your character the "right way" in order to compete at the higher levels. Combat should just get better, plain and simple. But I also want to develop my trade skills as I see fit. I dont know what trades I am going to enjoy the most until I am well into the game most of the time, so those being fixed based on my decisions when I first started a new game is frustrating. I think your method is the best of the three for these reasons.

@TheDungeonCoach

Жыл бұрын

I 100% feel ya on the “right way” concept!! 😆

@LordSquarepants

Ай бұрын

Pathfinder does this though. The combat proficiency in Pathfinder also goes up "automatically" like DC explains here for DC20. Just your level instead of half your level, and your choice in class also effects this as martiale become Master at weapons at a certain level (no need to "put points into it" or smthn, it's "automatic") while casters don't.

I kinda like Pathfinder 2Es consistent and unified system more overall, I just wish they tuned down the bonus from level to half of level instead and would allow use of general feats to fill in gaps so instead of lagging behind in a core combat proficiency you’re still middle of the pack with that investment. The freedom provided here also looks good and I liked the way it synergizes and plays in with the mind skills / stat as well though.

@Tiyev

Жыл бұрын

I thought a similar thing too when I found out PF 2 added your level to every skill, that adding half your level would be a more down to earth scaling of modifiers. Allows enemies to still be viable threats longer, and makes the characters less super-heroic in skill.

@BestgirlJordanfish

Жыл бұрын

@@Tiyev A lot of that’s a good thing to me, and still feels superheroic. A pool of +24 between ability and proficiency alone is gigantic compared to D&D5E where most of them are coming from, and still huge over game start. Plus if designed there it would’ve given more flexibility in level encounters, and difficulty could be scaled more beautifully with Expert-20, Master-25, and Legendary-30. But I get it that level is supposed to be a gigantic factor and higher level creatures are supposed to be godlike and untouchable.

Man, you explained PF2E skill proficiency in the most complicated way possible, is much more immediate when you play You also forgot to mention that, compared to dnd 5E, you don't have class restriction on which skills you can become proficient in. Your class doesn't really impact your skill progression

I'll stick with my bug mastery, thank you. Bonus feat, artistic license. 😉

I want to take a moment and say the passion and insights you bring to designing and presenting DC20 is LEAGUES ahead of JC and 5e as well as Kobold Press' public statements on ToV. Your enthusiasm is infectious and your design philosophy is clear and well laid out, refreshing to see!

@TheDungeonCoach

Жыл бұрын

Dude... thank you for that DungeonDr. That really does mean a lot!!

This is just using the Proficiency Without Level variant rule for Pathfinder 2e where you only add the proficiency level (+2, +4, +6, +8) and ability score modifiers to skills and weapon and armor proficiency. And just to clarify, classes and background start you with skills you're trained in, but class progression doesn't increase skill proficiency automatically (just weapon and armor proficiency), at levels 1-2 the maximum proficiency is Trained, at 3-6 it's Expert, at 7-14 it's Master, 15+ it's Legendary. keep up the good work

I don't think that your DC20 version is less complicated. I think that all 3 systems can work as long as the game is balanced around it. I think having players choose what things get more skilled as they level is the best idea, regardless of what math or numbers we're using, as opposed to being stuck to increasing skills linked to original creation picks or to class.

Love the system. Choosing which skills you become better at feels better. I can see why you're inspired by pathfinder 2e. Are we also going to see skill based actions in combat? Example: Lore action to learn a weakness of an enemy.

@gaborbazso7812

Жыл бұрын

I highly doubt it. PF2 did so much things with the skill system than 5e: -integrated it into the combat system via skill actions -introduced degrees of success (4), while 5e and DC20 is still binary for the most part -reintroduced depths of customisation that was lost due to streamlining -changed the scaling so that character building choice would matter more compared to luck. I think the Coach only sees the customization part as positive, and little work to implement.

I think a simple change to skills in D&D would be that instead of you becoming proficient in a skill, you get a number of skill points equal to your proficiency bonus. Each skill point only adds a +1 to a chosen skill. If your background, race, class or subclass gives you free skills, that's another skill point to add. Is this a fine homebrew rule or are there holes in my plan?

It'll probably work. The only unique take on skills I saw was from Index Card RPG where effectively a challenge is also like hit points (the RPG uses hearts). From what I understand that makes a unified resolution mechanic across the whole system (so it's easier to learn any part of it), but for now for let's just call it "Progress." So the more skilled you are in something, the more progress points you can do for the challenge. Obviously without any pressure or time limit you would assume the task can be completed without rolling.

@SkittleBombs

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think effort and big hits or brutal hits would be good😊

Oh, you think that PF2e's system is complex? I invite you to look at D&D 3e.

@TheDungeonCoach

Жыл бұрын

Haha! I have heard horror stories! 😂

I love that you’re thinking about proficiency. It’s a subject which sees few videos.

So excited for this, can't wait to back it. This sounds like it's gonna be my new favorite ttrpg

I do really like the pathfinder system. Constant scaling feels nicer than the arbitrary jumps in power from 5e, and you can invest points to get even more bumps for skills you actually need. Only downside is, at higher levels you're absolutely terrible in things you're not proficient in. With DnD, even with expertise and +6 attribute bonus, the highest you can get is +18, but that's clearly overkill and most characters will at most have +11. So if you're completely untrained and have +0, you can still succeed some checks meant for high level with some luck, up to DC 20 (on a nat20 but still), which for an invested character would be a 50/50 roll. Meanwhile in PF, let's say you have +6 from proficiency, +14 from level, you're already at 20. someone with no training is still at +0. For DCs regularly in the 20s or even 30s, you're just SOL with those checks. I mean it's sort of realistic, if you want to pick a lock you can with some luck finnagle a basic one, but anything more complicated would require a professional. But at the same time, it still feels kinda odd to not be able to pass checks if you're not trained. I'd say if pf either toned down the level bonus, or gave everyone 1/2 level in untrained skills, it would feel a bit smoother in terms of the gap.

@claudiolentini5067

Жыл бұрын

There are ways to tackle that in Pathfinder 2E, to mitigate that disparity . Most useful is the Untrained Improvisation general feat, that allows you to get half your level (your level if you're level 7 or above ) as a proficiency bonus in any skill check in a skill you're not trained in. So in your example, the level 14 player will get a +14 bonus with this feat. Your pc will not be as good as someone that has taken expert or master proficency, but it allows you to still succeed some checks

@helleye311

Жыл бұрын

@@claudiolentini5067 I never noticed this one. I'm pretty new to pf2e in general. It really has everything, but it is really complex and a lot of things are hidden behind feats. Thanks for this, might pick it up at some point in my games!

@claudiolentini5067

Жыл бұрын

@@helleye311 Yeah, it is really granular

Hype!!! This is great coach!! So hype for this system!! Can't wait for the pdf or physical book!!!!

interesting take. I'm designing my own system atm mainly bc i want a classles system so i have to work around when chars get better in things. I'm thinkink about giving players a fixed amount of proficiency tokens at the character creation they can spend on the abilities they wanna build around. Like attacking meele or ranged. Spend a token. You know have proficiency with meele weapons, which will get better at certain points. You can spend this tokens for skill checks (pickpocketing, religion, perception etc), meele, range, or spell proficiency, armor calsses (1 tokenpoint for light armor, 2 for the next type and so on) and saving throws. Additionaly i'm thinking about using the ranks from pathfinder first edition for skills. With every lvl up you get an amount of ranks equal to your int mod that you can spend on skills independently from proficiency. That way builing your character is a little more flexible and you arent stuck to what you did in the character creation. I just dont know if i should take the lvl bonus on prof. rolls too. Seems a bit high for attack rolls? How is that balanced out in 2e? Higher enemy ac? In Hindsight maybe Pathfinders 1e's Base attack bonus wasnt such a bad idea? How did you work in talents?

This system reminds me of 3.X systems like Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder but with a more modern approach to skills. Which is good, I do think Base Attack Bonus was better than the weird proficiency thing in more modern systems, it's just a number attached to your level. It also allows you as a designer to make martials potentially better at combat if it is tied to your class levels, if you dip a level in a non-martial such as a wizard then your attacks are slighly less effective than those of one who didn't. That said, proficiency systems are much better than the skill points methods these old systems had. At the end of the day, with skill points you ended up doing either full of your points to a skill or only half and the flexibility was more of a trap rather than anything else. I kinda wished that dichotomy of going full into a skill or only half was still maintained in 5e but Pathfinder 2e feels like it has too many steps. I haven't played yet, but I think having the none, half and full would be best since it is what emerges when going full control over your bonus in my experience playing systems that have skill points.

2:54 It's the GM's responsibility to put some animals in the path of characters with animal handling. Imagine saying "The fighter kept getting better with weapons even tho there was never any combat in the campaign!"

Yo @thedungeoncoach, im brewing my version of dnd5e/pf2e for my games, I am always really impressed how similarly we think, for I hear you talking about DC 20 and always something clicks in my head and I go "huh, I did pretty much the same thing XD." If you ever feel like taking a look at the document I'd happy send it to you. :)

I do somthing similar to this. I like the PF2e skills and skill feats, but I also like the 5e simplicity for most of the game. I have my players use the PF skills and they get one skill point on each odd level to either improve their skill (trained to expert or expert to master) or they can gain a new skill with it. then on even levels they get a skill feat from PF, this lets their skill be used in a different way, like there is a skill feat that let you use deception to detect lies instead of insight, or one to be better at intimidation. it really opens up the use of skills and makes it so you don't have multiple characters that just say i want to roll deception. they might both have different skills under deception so they don't work the same way. I have 5 levels too: untrained (just add the ability score, but there are limited uses for the skill if you are untrained), trained (add your Proficiency Bonus), expert (PB+2), master (PB+4), and legendary (PB+6). Basic 5e skills are too generic, but i agree that PF2e went HAM on the crunchiness, a little too crunchy for my tastes.

I’m so excited for this system. Thank you for all of your content!

@codicook2262

Жыл бұрын

Yes bro. This will be the best, I can't even imagine the homebrew stuff that will come out with DC20 RPG stuff too!

Hi Coach! I like your idea and how you approach the whole problematic system with proficiency. I like your skill mastery levels but in my opinion you could give a +2 for Novice and add +1 for every level up to Grandmaster (+6) but out side of leveling of character. For example if you fight every day with Goblins then you get level up in skill faster then level up of character. Additionally you gain some skill mastery levels from class, race, subclass, traits, talents of features and feats. So for example as a Drow I would have proficiency in rapiers (Novice), as a Paladyn in all armors and weapons (rapier - Adept) and so one. You can even create a class groups like in One DnD: Martial, Magic, Range etc. And a player will get 1/2 character level to a skill from a group of they class. You are warrior you level up fighting, you are a Mage you level up spellcasting, you are a Rough you level up sneaking or pick-locking etc.

The longer I think about D&Desque RPG systems, it seems that levels and classes make the game unnecessarily abstract and complicated.

Are the reaction action point options fully fleshed out currently? I am most excited by this aspect of the game, but I haven't seen much about them yet. I didn't watch that live show with the playtesters...

@eddieblanton2981

Жыл бұрын

Aside from Class specific Features, the only ways to spend Action Points on another creature's turn (as a Reaction) is by making an Opportunity Attack (Martial Only) or a Spell Duel (Spellcaster Only).

The combat mastery is strikingly similar to how 4th edition handled checks. You add the relevant ability plus half your level (rounded down though) to anything involving a d20; attack rolls, armour class and defenses (fort ref and will), and skills. They also used proficiency, but it was tied to the weapon. If you had the proficiency feat in a given weapon, you also add the weapon's proficiency bonus to your attack roll, otherwise, you don't. Proficiencies were either +2 or +3, depending on how accurate the weapon was supposed to be. Skills were either trained or untrained. If you were trained, you simply added a +5 to that skill roll. i see that as a good thing in your system though, as 4e is my preferred edition of D&D (garnished with some 3.5 and 5e rules and sprinkled with a bit of homebrew)

Cool. Proficiencies. I was just writing about them. I prefer my combat system separate from noncombat activities. So proficiency and attributes are for combat only. I prefer it that way. World of Warcraft is a great example of a video game RPG that keeps the two separate. Sure each class has some utility abilities, but it isn't much. I find it weird and not intuitive for DND to mix the two. I am so glad this video makes this distinction. That is a huge improvement. World of Warcraft gives separate progression for crafting, traveling and reputation. These three plus combat form four separate systems of progression. I was writing about how calculations work in combat. It is in there that I have proficiency. I am used to playing DND and focusing on the rules of combat. So I think of proficiency as becoming better at fighting during leveling up. Attributes make fighters better at fighting. I have each attribute in a fighter as proficiency plus bonus. The bonus is due to the class being strong in a given attribute. For example, a mage gets an intelligence bonus while a priest gets a stamina bonus. I plan for proficiency to increase every level. I haven't figured out exactly how much of an increase will work. I did have two features that makes calculations easier. One is that the level cap is ten. So that can really limit how big numbers can get. Another is that proficiency cancels out when two fighters are the same level. I have just figured out the math of how the canceling works. I have two fighters of the same level as the state of normal gameplay. In that case, proficiencies can be ignored, because they cancel out. I think there should be separate systems for stuff outside of combat. I have ideas. Players can craft nice items using food and minerals gathered in the field. There can be a progression for that. More gathering and crafting allows the player to do that with more powerful and valuable items. Note that crafting with food is essentially cooking. Travel can have a progression. Fast travel can get better as one travels to more places around the world and unlock fast travel locations. I would definitely have this work as magical teleportation. Travel can also improve with moving in the field. Early abilities can be things like moving obstacles out of the way like trees and rocks. Another one is lighting up caves. Later abilities can be running, swimming and climbing. Running can be as fast as a horse or a car. The highest skill is flying. That is really powerful. The most impressive travel thing is portals. They are used for going to different continents. They can even go to different realms, like the divine realm (Heaven), the underworld and the four elemental realms. I would just have portals be at specific towns and cities. They don't require special skill. Diplomacy can be a skill. It is tied to the quest system. It has nothing to do with the charisma attribute. I can bring so much more meaning to quests. That would be cool. Whenever the players complete a quest, they win the favor of the quest giver and the quest giver's faction. Doing more quests builds reputation. Having better reputation is something earned by merit. The questing gots into lore and political intrigue. A player has more sway in the politics with more reputation. This leads to nice rewards in money. There is also access to cosmetic items, such as clothes. I do like the idea of player housing. Better reputation unlocks items to decorate the house and yard.

@c.d.dailey8013

5 ай бұрын

I did have one idea for a system. That is creatures. My world has all the characters be magicians. One ubiquitous ability is to summon and shapeshift into animals. It isn't limited to the druid class. Animals have their own separate systems. Animals can be used for combat, travel and resource gathering. The animal species doesn't affect the usefulness. It is mainly cosmetic. Players start out with one super basic creature. This thing is tiny. Then players go around the wilderness and encounter wild animals. They get some kind of magical attunement. When the player progresses the animal skill they gain access to new forms. The little creat changes through an intricate process of evolution. Higher stages lead to bigger cooler looking animals. There is also a lot of branching. So there are a variety of animals. There can be mammals, birds, fish, bugs etc. Some creatures are even based on plants and fungi. I think it is cool for some games to focus on supernatural animals, like Pokemon. So I would like to have my spin on that.

You should really take a look at D&D 4E, PF2E borrows quite a few ideas from it and so does 5E. there are a lot of great ideas still left in that system. (Like prof = to half you level like you wanna do).

It feels like you made a half version of proficiencies with the BAB and skill point system of Pathfinder 1e. I know you like having a stet number range like in 5e, but does it really need to be condensed like that? I don't see how numbers potentially getting up to maybe 50 instead of 30 is that confusing. If anything with regular skill points its a 1 to 1 ratio and less steps.

I'd like to make a system where characters have to choose what weapons and armor to be proficient in and can even get better at but I find it hard to try to encourage them to find the right balance in specializing and being diverse even with having point costs be higher the more specialized they get. Maybe it will be a simple matter of, "Sorry your longsword broke and you didn't put any points into anything else and you'll be terrible for a while." And, "Wohoo! You got another longsword! You'll be awesome again!" I find it hard to believe once someone decides to be a warrior that they're an expert in every weapon and armor in existence. Sigh, if only players would be interested in playing these sorts of games.

@peterrasmussen4428

Жыл бұрын

You can take a look at how gurps do it. They don't have profiency for armor (but wearing heavy armor without a high strength will leave you very slowed down), but for weapons, you put points into each weapon skill. So you might have someone who dumps a ton of points into broad-sword. What happens if they pick up a short-sword? well skills have defaults, sometimes just based on yout base stat (like dexterity), but often also based on other skills. So the short sword skill will list that it defaults to the broadsword skill minus 4. So even though you don't have the skill, you can still fight using your broadsword skill with a -4 penalty. Gurps is very rules heavy / chrunchy, so it will even list out different penalties for different skills, like some weapons might be so similar that their skills default to each other at -2 instead of -4. If you decide to go with something like that. Take a look at the raise from default section as well. It basically talks about how to handle someone with a very high broad-sword skill, wanting to learn short-sword and how they basically get to start from the level of short sword that they can default to. A similar system could be developed for armor if you are so inclined.

It will be problematic to balance skill mastery and combat mastery when one has max of 5 while other one has max of 10, especially if skills are usable in combat.

This is my approach for my classless, level-less, skill based system... Proficiency = Aptitude + Discipline A Proficiency score of 1 to 20 is determined by adding a character's core attribute or Aptitude (APT) of 1 to 10 plus the character's Discipline level (DSC) 1 to 10. An Aptitude is a measure of the character's inherent talent or ability toward a given task, and a DSC is a measure of the character's level of training and experience toward that endeavor. A character with an APT of 5 and a DSC of 7 will have the same opportunity for success as a character who has a greater APT of 8, but is less experienced with a DSC of 4. Many Disciplines can be combined to various Aptitudes, depending on different actions taken by the character, but only one APT and one DSC per instance. Discipline is improved by Experience When a Dramatic Success or Failure roll is made, a mark of Experience is attached to the Discipline involved in that Challenge roll. When those accumulated EXP marks exceed the Discipline level, that DSC gains one point, and the Experience is spent. A level 5 Discipline needs 6 EXP to advance, a level 6 DSC needs 7 EXP to advance. I see no need to differentiate between combat related skills, language based or whatever. Each character's proficiency score of 1 to 20 is pitted against a difficulty score of 1 to 20 to determine a Challenge rating (target number) to roll. In the case of my game, a d100 roll under system, with 10% of rolls being Dramatic (critical), worthy of book keeping the Experience accumulated. That's about 550 attempts in non-training-where-it-counts scenarios to rise from a rank of 1 Initiate to a rank 10 Master. That will take a enough sessions, not too slow, so the player can feel the progression.

@DND20

2 ай бұрын

My system uses a two dice separately compared against a DC. One Dice for the attribute (you need to spend points from the attribute for higher dice) and one for the proficiency (fixed) Fir example if I have 2d6 and 1d8 in strength, and a d6 in athletics I always roll a do for my athletics and I can either use a d4 (for free) for strength or spend one of the d6s or the d8. If one dice passes the DC you succeed, if two pass you crit. This makes critical success tied to proficiency and makes it a show of mastery, instead of dumb luck with a 5% chance of happening to any random dude.

2:00 how is this a problem? Its demonstrating that you're developing the skill over time as you get better, its not "random"

I sound like a broken record.. but 3.5 had great skills. You got points per level and chose where they went w cross class skills being harder to increase. And not tied to combat. Simple.

I'm moving to Skills based games. I like Cyberpunk Red, but I don't like the aspect of some skills that need to be high to do specific things. I prefer systems where you increase skills and you get better at it. Simple and not over complicated. Spend skill points on combat or magic or social skills. Customize your character as you like.

Thanks for the video!

I've thought of having campaigns where critical on skills-based roles can give you a permanent point to that skill to incentivize roleplaying more. But that is a very busted system because some players just get better roles as a whole, making one player that gets dozens of 20's while someone could never roll a 20 despite double the attempts of everyone else, and possibly start incentivizing cheating at the table instead of roleplay. But Mastery does sound like a good system.

I like this but I can see a similar problem, a wizard at level 10 could choose to pick up a sword and now gets the same +5 the Fighter gets with hardly any resources spent. Just like with proficiencies, it feels like cheating. In the game I'm designing I'm proposing a similar point system for weapons and wands or magic staves and you get these points frequently, if you want to unlock a new weapon at higher levels you can just spend more of those points to try an catch up, meaning you had to work for it to get as good as the fighter.

Great synergenic system assimilation!

HYPE!

Love it, best fit for this type of game.

I do think that separation of combat and skills are a good decision, the scaling is good. I had been thinking about the profiency bonus being more granular. You start with the class or background training which makes you "trained" I would have sheet that has (5 x 5 or 4 x4 or whatever) squares with a line on top for the skill label. Every success in that skill you can fill 1/2 a square but every failure is a whole square (because you learn more from your mistakes). While this can seem fiddly it gives a sense of progress. You can also spend time with another PC or NPC with a higher mastery level to give pointers an help level up during downtime. I would say that the greater difference in skill levels, the fewer days it takes to train the player. The "Master" may require something in trade to help advance the rest of the way. This is up to the GM of course.

love the plushies

What does combat mastery do for armor and shields? If they both just add to ac, then I think that shields are going to become overpowered. One of the problems with 5e is that it is actually pretty easy to make someone with an ac so high they are basically invincible. This seems like it could be that on steroids.

@eddieblanton2981

Жыл бұрын

Shields don't add Mastery to AC. Not having Shield Mastery means you have Disadvantage on Checks (includes Attacks and Spells) while wielding one.

@dlaserus

Жыл бұрын

@@eddieblanton2981 So then, is there only one level of mastery for shields?

@eddieblanton2981

Жыл бұрын

@@dlaserus things that have Combat Mastery (Weapons, Armor, Shields, Spellcasting, etc.) either have it or not. Like the Proficiency Bonus in 5e, if you have it you gain a universal bonus that increases with level (the bonus from Combat Mastery is equal to 1/2 your level). Shields don't use this bonus, so having Mastery with Shields just means you can use them without having Disadvantage on all Checks.

What's your ETA on dc20??

@TheDungeonCoach

Жыл бұрын

Alpha Releases next month and Kickstarter release is 11 months from now, but the Alpha and Beta will be 100% playable :)

"solved"

@MrB_Chamberlain

Жыл бұрын

Like every claim... "problem" is also one of them.

Proficiency is not a problem. The only thing I don't like about your marketing about your game is that you trear everything as a big problem you're solving, instead of a new, third system that people can play alongside the other two. I, personally, like pf2e's proficiency system. But 5e's work just fine.

World of Darkness has a vastly better skill system. Part of the problem with D&D and its clones are the concepts of levels and class. Gary Gygax is dead and won't mind if we abandon that model.

Mastery sounds worse than proficiency, if I would do such a system I would call it competency. And I think it is fine that the value increases even though it is not used in game. So, I would say of the given methods here I prefer the D&D method, since it enough for me to know if a character is trained or not, anything more is just too much of beans counting that adds nothing to the game. The solution for my own system was the opposite, to trough out any maths and skills out all together. No longer to think about what the character can do, since I went into direction of being more concerned about who the character is, since everything else makes most games feel somewhat ableist to me.

@TheDungeonCoach

Жыл бұрын

Love hearing the feedback, so thank you for your perspective on this!

It sounds to me like the Dungeon Coach just needs to play Burning Wheel or Runequest, instead of trying to change D&D all the time. Or go back to playing to 3.x system with skills with his personal games.

If Pathfinder had a good VTT or app that did all the math for you in the background, you just worry about character level and attributes, basically... and it tell you, "Oh Deception? Yeah, +7. You're proficient." And "Intimidation? Ah, no proficiency. +2." (From the +2 Charisma score) and you can go, "Ah, level 4. I'll add 2 skill points to intimidation." And your virtual character sheet app or whatever just goes, "Intimidation? Yeah that's +4 now." Then it would pretty much be the better system. Of course, some people prefer pen and paper, so it doesn't help them much... But hey, that's on them lol. Too early in the vid to see if I prefer your system yet. Will edit after, probably. Edit: Yeah, not much to say other than I do think your system does it better for the most part. I kinda think inspiration should be taken from Skyrim (and I think Oblivion, and maybe other Elder Scrolls games? Don't really remember cuz my memory is awful) and basically, the more you use a skill, the more you gain experience with that skill and eventually level up that skill. Obviously, the way levels work in a TTRPG and wanting to make sure you don't have to spend 100 hours grinding a skill or whatever, you probably want skill points sometimes, too... but could just have both. I really don't think having the option to basically max out all non-combat skills would break the game. If your party wants to spend a year of in-game time all just grinding out non-combat skills to max, then sure, whatever. Who cares? Lol.

@templatename2143

Жыл бұрын

if you're playing 2e check out pathbuilder

Your begging for the return of THAC0.

I bought Pathfinder 2e but rarely played it. I add my level to my checks as well? What the hell is the point of the proficiency bonus then? Hi, I'm Pathfinder, and I like large, arbitrary numbers for NO REASON what-so-ever! Typical level 20 roll Level 20 + 8 Prof Bonus + 5 stat mod bonus + 1d20 for a range of 34 to 53 without other bonuses? Sounds dumb. I can do the math, I have played D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e, but I got sick of the large numbers, especially after transferring to D&D 5e. For years I have used the 5 Proficiency levels when coming up with my own game. You tend to see it in jobs such as an electrician/plumber, or even martial arts. The nomenclature I use are: Novice - took an interest in the study, started practicing with little to no knowledge. Apprentice - started learning under the tutelage of a master. Journeyman - began traveling around the world to learn from other masters to further hone their craft. Master - has over 10,000 hours invested into their craft and has perfected the art. Grandmaster - has gone before a council of masters (if no Grandmaster(s) are present), and impressed them with your findings/progress, earning the title of grandmaster. Similar concept, just different names.

@templatename2143

Жыл бұрын

pathfinder 2e adds a rule where if you score 10 over a check it's a critical success so level proficiency makes you score more crits especialy against lower level enemies like if you are level 5 and stab a kobold there is a high chance you're gonna crit from it so the level proficiency actually means something didn't know 1e didn't have it

I still find it hard to believe that, with 50+ years of TTRPGs in the market, that people are still trying to a find a skill system that they like. It's already been done to death, just pick another system you like if you don't like D&D. If you make things "like D&D" it'll eventually end up carrying the same (or similar) problems. All these D&D clones are simply going to shatter the competitive market leaving WotC being the big fish in a pool of increasingly smaller ones.

First of all, you are misrepresenting both of those systems that you want to build upon. And this video doesn't even try to handle the skill system in either of them. Instead you speak about the scaling of each of the skill systems, which is a majorly different thing. And the cool thing about PF2 is the integration of the skill system into the combat system, which you didn't even mention. That's the number one biggest change between the 2 systems. The second is the expansion of the binary success/fail skill system into a 4 degree of success system. The scaling compared to those are a miniscule nuance. The scaling of the system only shows the proportionality difference between luck (d20 roll) and the possible skill levels. At low levels in DnD with point buy a character can have between -1 to +5 on their skills without expertise. That is a scale of 7. And the luck factor is the d20 roll, which is obviously a scale of 20. So the success proportion will be 7 to 20. Which means in tier1 play in 5e luck is almost 3 times as important as what your character is good or bad at, for any roll. Since PF2 scales in the whole character level and not just a quarter of it that will mean that the skill to luck proportion will change and the system will be less luck favoured, which means the difference between your skill choices will matter more. Very disappointed in the video as usual. Since the basic understanding of the system building principles are missing, this video is only good to create noise over misinterpreted information. Which makes it worse is while you pretend to be smart you mischaracterize both systems that you are using.

@RangerIV

Жыл бұрын

I don’t understand your gripe with the video. The video is not intended to dive into the full nuance of each system and talk in depth about them. The purpose is to identify his issues with them, which is their level of complexity with the scaling and the aspects of the system that crossover between skills and combat, and talk about how he addresses them. He thinks PF2 is too complicated, 5e is too simple, skills automatically scaling with no in game reason doesn’t make sense, and the fact that the points you allocate straddle skills and combat gives players an ultimatum of making a character good in combat or making the character that they want to role play. You might disagree about those being problems or his proposed solutions, and thats perfectly fine, but the video is pretty clear about what it’s trying to cover and it isn’t whatever you’re talking about here. I don’t think bringing up topics outside of the scope of the video and being condescending about it while insulting his understanding and intelligence surrounding things he wasn’t even talking about is of any benefit to anyone here.

@gaborbazso7812

Жыл бұрын

@@RangerIV He generalises to the point where it's not true anymore. That's harmful for everyone, because it paints a false picture. And since he is an influencer with a big following he is influencing more people to do the same. That's generally harmful for the overall community. And I have been criticising him since the first looks at his system. He doesn't even analyze what are the consequences of the changes PF2 made and lacks understanding. What he does with his own is get PF2's base and builds 5e on top of that, reintroducing every 5e had that PF2 have solved. And he also lacks originality too, which causes the same issues with Critical Role's Candela Obscura and the Blades in the Dark system. The difference is that he makes money on stolen grounds from big players instead of smalls. And my biggest issue is that I don't like being lied to. The most obvious lie he makes is that his system is a 4 action system. In a previous video he has shown that making a separate category for action types that work differently is so bad, therefor reaction bad, just because... And right after that he reintroduces 5e's free item interaction action into his system as a dedicated 5th action, which is a clearly different chategory with special privilege, just like reactions, so by his own standards this should be bad. This shows that he misrepresents his own system too (because of the lack of understanding and self-reflection) and uses the hype that it generates for his own personal gain: money. And lying about your own product is marketing malpractice. It should be a very different issue if this would be a non-profit or community project, but it's not. You have to be a paying customer to even tryout the current version of the product, therefor it's a profit project, and he generates fame (which can be easily translated into future money) for himself by giving his own name and not his contributors to the product, therefor it's not a community project. So overall I'm on the contrary opinion than you. It's very beneficial for the community, when someone is called out who wants to create a product with the least amount of work (mostly using other's works with very little change) and misrepresenting both the competition and his own product. And in that context it doesn't really matter if it were a honest mistake based on his lack of understanding or a deliberate, clout inducing, manipulative lie, because the outcome is the same.