Storytelling and Pathfinder 2e

I am recent convert from 5e and I have to admit, the critical successes and critical failures make everything feel so much more heroic and tragic. The base mechanic of everything having crits makes everything feel more impressive because of the character's abilities rather than a flat, never changing, 1/20 chance.

As I am very new to the system, what other things/mechanics do you enjoy for story telling purposes? What elements in 2e help you tell an engaging fun story?

I love that social skill actions have discrete outcomes. I, the GM, don't need to waffle about with "well, they maybe do this" - the nature of their response is dictated to me. I love that a failure on a Request makes the target suggest a different method.

The fact that everyone participates in Perception checks and has a reasonable amount of success.

Narratively, skills allow for a lot more mobility in this edition, but also with more character choice. Now players are influencing the narrative in the ways they chose to influence the narrative.

I enjoy the fact that with 3 actions, there's more elbow room to come up with off-the-cuff action sequences.

If a player wants to run across the table, swing on the chandelier, and attack the monster with their rapier I can handwave and say "Two actions for the movement and one for the attack"

I don't need to consult a table that describes what can be done in a single move action, whether that would count as running, or whatever.

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

This is a big one. The "I've hyped the BBEG up for a year and then my players beat it in 1 round" problem is basically non-existent in PF2.

Let players know the mechanics for the Victory Point and Influence encounters system. Straight up let them read the rules and say you are going to be using them liberally. Then do so.

Its pulling the curtain back a little bit, but setting the baseline lets players know they can attempt things, and then they will. In your average conversation the Barbarian player won't be that engaged because opening their mouth could do the party more harm than good. But if that same player knows that other skills can be used in social encounters? Well he'll start trying to impress the bandit thugs with arm wrestling contests, the wizard will enamour the court poet with the beauty of exotic tongues etc.

Engaging the hero point system and encouraging your players to hype one another up for doing something awesome (awarding a hero point in the process) can lead to really cinematic moments in-game of a near-miss becoming a resounding success.

Gorbacz wrote:

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

This is a big one. The "I've hyped the BBEG up for a year and then my players beat it in 1 round" problem is basically non-existent in PF2.

SO much this. I remember back when I ran Kingmaker and the party made it to the final boss. Luckily I was aware of the issue and prepared a little... Long story short, the party had a fight with the "as written in the book" final boss that lasted less than a round.

And then I busted out my absolutely monstrous homebrew version of the final boss that had literally thousands of hit points... that lasted less than four rounds.

I'm planning on running Kingmaker again in 2e, and the fact that I might be able to run the final boss as written and have it be an actual fight has me really excited.

The Building Creatures rules are fantastic for telling stories I don't expect to see represented in bestiaries. Much better than 1e's system for making monsters IMO. I was running a campaign for a while where almost every monster was a custom creation, which is something I'd wanted to do for a while but never felt confident doing in 1e

Backgrounds being part of character creation. Helps get players thinking about their character beyond just numbers and combat mechanics, and the actual background mechanics are simple enough that homebrewing a new background doesn't look very difficult.

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

I don't now about this, maybe it was because it was early levels but all of the encounters I have tackled with +3 enemies felt either easy (if dice-gods are is on side) or impossible. The boss spends one round to knock out your front liner and then picks off the rest whilst the party flails uselessly against his inflated saves and AC. Or you hit and you realize his AC and Saves are far more impressive than his Hit-point total.

3 actions /1 reaction system it's definitely worth it, but I am going to also implement "lairs" from 5e, which are definitely a thing.

I also tend to play battles in the best way possible to give my players a challenge whose end is not written yet ( they won't go easy on enemies, and so the enemies will do), obviously with no DM screen ( apart from skill checks like knowledge or stealth) in order to both improvise and cheating in both ways ( like preventing a hero's death or by creating a scripted story, like auto success on ts in specific situations and so on).

It works perfectly, they enjoy it and the more they proceed ( and learn how to deal with this system, as I do too) the more the learn how to manage fron easy to hard encounters ( even fleeing, carrying around almost dead people and so on).

Gorbacz wrote:

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

I don't now about this, maybe it was because it was early levels but all of the encounters I have tackled with +3 enemies felt either easy (if dice-gods are is on side) or impossible. The boss spends one round to knock out your front liner and then picks off the rest whilst the party flails uselessly against his inflated saves and AC. Or you hit and you realize his AC and Saves are far more impressive than his Hit-point total.

This has been a small frustration for my group too. Less that they get wiped out by the boss, but more that they just... fail, a lot at any individual action they attempt. It undermines the heroic narrative a bit because their characters just come across as inept if they simply try to attack the boss outright.

The counter-strategy is to strategically use and stack debuffs to maximize your chance to hit and minimize your enemy's... but they've found that undermines the heroic narrative even more. One major fight in Plaguestone ended with the boss they were fighting sickened, blinded and prone while the party surrounded their almost-helpless adversary and beat them to death. Effective? Definitely. Archetypal heroic fantasy? Absolutely not.

Every class gets skills. No single character is going to be the best at all skills, so you get natural teamwork.

The Interact action. The answer to so many "can I do this weird thing that's not in the book" questions is "you can try, roll the appropriate skill and use Interact actions".

I'll list some of the elements I enjoy:

1. Hazards: I like that hazards are built with an idea of how you disable them and how they work now. They include the use of skills usually not meant to disable hazards like Religion to exorcise haunts or nature to disarm some dangerous plant. Or Athletics to knock over some dangerous totem.

2. I like the way the Champion's reaction works. I can see the Champion manifesting deific power to protect their friends.

3. I like narrating monsters. Narrating even a bear grabbing someone in it's huge paw and chewing on them has a little more meat to it now.

4. Barbarians can be cool. The dragon barbarian starting to rage causing electricity to dance up his blade is pretty neat visual.

And the three action system really lends itself well to narration. You can see the characters doing things in a quick and fluid way just by spending their actions in way that makes sense. It opens up the door to a more natural flow of events for monsters and pcs.

Every class gets skills. No single character is going to be the best at all skills, so you get natural teamwork.

Except that even as a party of 4 there's only so many skills you can "be best at" as a group.

The guy with the highest rating rolls bum? Well, the next highest rating in the group is 3 points below that. Better roll well! Ah, that would've been enough if you were the first character...who's next? Oh, you're 3 points behind that? *Hiss* You're going to need to roll a nat-20. Sorry.

Repeat for every skill check in the adventure.

If the first guy succeeds, its not memorable. If he doesn't, it rolls down the chain fishing for 20s. And that's not heroic.

The guy with the highest rating rolls bum? Well, the next highest rating in the group is 3 points below that. Better roll well! Ah, that would've been enough if you were the first character...who's next? Oh, you're 3 points behind that? *Hiss* You're going to need to roll a nat-20. Sorry.

Repeat for every skill check in the adventure.

If the first guy succeeds, its not memorable. If he doesn't, it rolls down the chain fishing for 20s. And that's not heroic.

If everyone can roll, they should all roll at once. This makes the occasional times it's someone other than the specialist fun and memorable rather than something like this.

Indeed, I'm not thinking of any situations where this rolling pattern can actually occur outside Recall Knowledge and searching an area (and even there, they can also do the 'all roll at once' thing most of the time). Either it's time sensitive/time consuming and everyone should do it at once for that reason, or it's something that can be retried, in which case the specialist can retry rather than other people having to do so.

I mean, you're not wrong. But the perception is still there.

There's also the fact that "if everyone is rolling" the DC is 5 higher because "reasons."

I mean, you're not wrong. But the perception is still there.

Only in terms of armchair analysis.

There's also the fact that "if everyone is rolling" the DC is 5 higher because "reasons."

No, a DC everyone is intended to roll against is sometimes 5 higher if the GM wants to make things like this less likely to succeed. Actual DCs in adventures should never change based on how many people are rolling, and nothing says they should.

The section on this on p.504 is very clear when and how you're supposed to use this option, and this isn't it.

Draco18s wrote:

I mean, you're not wrong. But the perception is still there.

Only in terms of armchair analysis.

Not really. After playing Plaguestone ("Plaguestone is too overpowered!" No its not, it 100% to the value, exactly matches the guidelines in the core book) I felt like any skill I performed that I was supposed to be "good" at (mind, this is "I am Trained" because you don't get Expert until 3rd, and even then only one) I pretty much had to roll a 14 or better. Didn't matter if it was a group check, didn't matter if it was a solo check.

Hell, even when I had +10 to medicine and was rolling medicine checks to do out of combat healing (or Battle Medicine), and all I had to do was roll a FIVE I still failed three times out of four. No joke. Was that partly luck? Sure, but it doesn't make me feel better.

I mostly did other things, barely paying attention, and if I heard a skill I'd go "let me roll that. Oh hey, I didn't roll over a 14 cool." And there were very few spots where failing was Fail Forward.

Hell, we bummed around the town early on going (as players) "Look, we know there's plot around here somewhere. We've talked to that guy, we've asked that guy, we talked to her, we looked in every damn house here. What are we missing?" We literally started pointing at things on the map and going "Look that clearing is OBVIOUSLY important because its on the map, lets go there."

Draco18s wrote:

There's also the fact that "if everyone is rolling" the DC is 5 higher because "reasons."

No, a DC everyone is intended to roll against is sometimes 5 higher if the GM wants to make things like this less likely to succeed.

That's literally the definition of "because reasons."

Actual DCs in adventures should never change based on how many people are rolling, and nothing says they should.

The section on this on p.504 is very clear when and how you're supposed to use this option, and this isn't it.

Let me pull up Plaguestone...

Spear Launcher (level 2), Stealth DC 20 (everyone rolls perception)

The door leading out of this room into area F6

is locked, but it can be opened with two successful
DC 15 Thievery skill checks. It can also be Forced
Open with a successful DC 20 Athletics check

Oh look, everyone can roll Athletics, but only the rogue can roll Thievery.

A PC who succeeds at a DC 15 Crafting,

or a DC 20 Nature or Occult check, recognizes that

Crafting is a little more "one player has it" and Nature and Occult are very much "more than one people should have that."

Anyone searching the

caves can attempt a DC 20 Perception check to find

Perception: everyone.

they must

first attempt a DC 20 Survival check to find its trail.

Perception: everyone.

Go on.
Tell me how that rule is not being applied to published adventures again.
Do it.

Let me pull up Plaguestone...

At level 2 a typical DC should be 15.

Spear Launcher (level 2), Stealth DC 20 (everyone rolls perception)

That's not a great example since rules for building hazards have been revealed and explicitly operate under different assumptions from the table from which you are slightly misquoting (it lists 16 at level 2)

And those hazard building rules tell us things like "almost all hazards have one extreme statistic because hazards normally activate only if they have gone unnoticed or if someone critically failed to disable them." and that things on the charts labeled "high" can "generally serve as a baseline value" for hazard stats

So when you compare the spear launcher stats to these relevant charts, it's stealth DC 20 is just shy of the extreme value, the DC 18 to disable is exactly the "baseline" value, it's defenses are all in the "baseline" range except it's significantly low reflex save, it's attack modifer is exactly what is listed for a simple hazard of its level, and it's damage is - despite making one of my players go "Are you serious?!" when I rolled the 2d6 and added 6 - lower than the 2d10+7 listed as normal.

Which is to say that your perception of what is "normal" doesn't match with what the game is actually treating as "normal" - though that's not entirely your fault since Paizo didn't put a distinct warning that to treat the skill DC charts in the core book as universal would result in inaccurate perception of the system.

I believe you misunderstood what Deadmanwalking was saying. The rule absolutely is used in published adventures when the author knows several PCs are likely to roll a check, just like a GM making up their own adventure may set a DC higher when they expect several PCs to be able to roll a check.

What I believe Deadmanwalking means is that actual DC in an published adventure is already set and should not have an additional +5 added to it.

Also, when you're failing multiple rolls where you only have to roll a 5 or higher, that's not a problem with bad design; that's just bad dice luck. I've been there, and it's incredibly frustrating, but you can't use that to say "the difficulty of this game is set too high."

Not really. After playing Plaguestone ("Plaguestone is too overpowered!" No its not, it 100% to the value, exactly matches the guidelines in the core book) I felt like any skill I performed that I was supposed to be "good" at (mind, this is "I am Trained" because you don't get Expert until 3rd, and even then only one) I pretty much had to roll a 14 or better. Didn't matter if it was a group check, didn't matter if it was a solo check.

Hell, even when I had +10 to medicine and was rolling medicine checks to do out of combat healing (or Battle Medicine), and all I had to do was roll a FIVE I still failed three times out of four. No joke. Was that partly luck? Sure, but it doesn't make me feel better.

I mostly did other things, barely paying attention, and if I heard a skill I'd go "let me roll that. Oh hey, I didn't roll over a 14 cool." And there were very few spots where failing was Fail Forward.

Hell, we bummed around the town early on going (as players) "Look, we know there's plot around here somewhere. We've talked to that guy, we've asked that guy, we talked to her, we looked in every damn house here. What are we missing?" We literally started pointing at things on the map and going "Look that clearing is OBVIOUSLY important because its on the map, lets go there."

None of that has anything to do with the matter I was talking about, or that you complained about, which was regarding decreasing returns as multiple people tried the same skill in sequence.

If you just think the DCs are too high to start with, that's another matter entirely and quite a separate issue that I was not addressing. Though, on that subject, if you're failing DC 15 with a +10 three times out of four...that's not 'partly' luck, that's entirely due to terrible luck and can happen in any game.

That's literally the definition of "because reasons."

'Because reasons' implies it to be completely arbitrary and also tends to indicate that it can happen suddenly as soon as X condition is met. Neither of those seem applicable to me.

Go on.

Tell me how that rule is not being applied to published adventures again.
Do it.

As Joana says, you have utterly misunderstood what I was saying. That's probably my fault for my phrasing, so I'll strive to clarify:

Yes, absolutely, some DCs will be higher in published adventures because of this rule. What will not happen, and you seemed to be saying it would, is the DC changing arbitrarily mid-stream because more people are now making the check. The GM will never be adding that +5 DC to that listed in the adventure.

So the check DC is decided beforehand and there's no downside to everyone trying it.

As I am very new to the system, what other things/mechanics do you enjoy for story telling purposes? What elements in 2e help you tell an engaging fun story?

Just... thought I'd leave this here, remind everyone that this is a happy thread. :)

Let me pull up Plaguestone...

At level 2 a typical DC should be 15.
Spear Launcher (level 2), Stealth DC 20 (everyone rolls perception)

Was a bit curious about this, so I decided to look at Simple Traps in the CRB.

Crafting is a little more "one player has it" and Nature and Occult are very much "more than one people should have that."

I'd also like to point out that Crafting is significantly more useful compared to PF1, so I'd actually expect more than one party member to have it once they realize that. Crafting is now a monster identification skill, has replaced Appraise from PF1 to determine item value, and is required to identify any form of alchemical item.

The current "must have" knowledge skills at the moment seem to be:
Arcana, Crafting, Nature, Occultism, Religion, and Society. These cover all monster identification along with other useful knowledge tasks. Medicine is also a potential must have knowledge, but lacks creature identification like the other six (though obviously has the whole healing thing). Having just started Fall of Plaguestone myself, current level 1 Party has half of them with training in Crafting, but only one each in Occultism & Religion. Other "knowledge" skills have 2 trained each.

Also @topic: I very much enjoy how all the knowledge skills have additional uses as well. Gives players more reason to take & invest in them compared to PF1 where only the Wizard, Bard, or Rogue seemed to care about knowledge skills. Now everyone seems to have a bit of knowledge on multiple topics even at level 1.

Quote:

Anyone searching the

caves can attempt a DC 20 Perception check to find

Perception: everyone.

There's also at least 3 Thievery checks at DC 20 that are "or using the key." Apparently because the key exists justifies an extra +5, because you know, reasons.

This is a bit misleading, as looking up where this text was in the adventure & comparing it to my EXP chart for preparing the campaign - it looks like the party is expected to have recently reached level 3 at this point. DC by Level for third level = 18, so a DC of 20 is only a +2 "hard" adjustment rather than a +5 "very hard" adjustment that is suggested if you want to make a group roll a challenge. So either this is toned down from suggestions for a hard level appropriate group DC or the author decided it was only a level 1 challenge and added the +5 for group onto that despite the party being higher level by that point.

The same can be said for the following quote / DC you used, though a method to reduce the DC to 15 actually can make it a below level DC.

Additionally, three DC 20 Thievery checks is the definition of a "Simple Lock." Lock DCs seem to be something that wouldn't change based on party level, rather they are something based on the world regardless of the level the party is. So this really just says the final villain could afford 2gp for a level 1 item to lock their personal area. And it is also worth noting that the DC 20 Perception finds a key that lets you in early, otherwise another key can let you in later in the adventure that requires no check to find if you want to return to loot the optional area.

Locks DCs are actually kinda interesting since they don't seem to correspond to the item's level and only Simple locks are +5 above their level based DC. Looking at them:
Poor (level 0 item) (level 0 DC +1 OR level 1 DC)
Simple (level 1 item) (level 1 DC +5 OR level 5 DC)
Average (level 3 item) (level 3 DC +7 OR level 8-9 DC)
Good (level 9 item) (level 9 DC +4 OR level 12 DC)
Superior (level 17 item) (level 17 DC +4 OR level 20 DC)

-----
Back @topic again. Something I actually really like as a GM is the Simple DCs and DC adjustments. My first session of PF2 proper had a player ask to do something completely outside of any suggested rules - but it was quick and easy to put together, "Sounds like something that would use an Athletics check, shouldn't be influenced by level so Simple DC, wouldn't need training so Untrained DC, add Easy Adjustment since it doesn't like it'd be difficult to accomplish." Done. Only a couple moments during gameplay to pull out an Athletics DC 8 and feel confident about that number. And with something like this being much easier on the GM side, I anticipate players will quickly catch on that they're more open to try things outside the strict rules without slowing down play or just being told "no."

The ability for any class to be good at any skill makes it a lot easier to deliver on a character concept. My Dragon Instinct Barbarian is a disgraced noble and thanks to the changes to the skill system feels like a credible socialite.

The fact that the "skills can only achieve peak normal human level of ability, you can't do anything with skills that isn't 100% realistic" paradigm got taken out and shot. Legendary Athletics? Climb sheer walls. Legendary Stealth? Sneak in plain sight. Legendary Diplomacy? Stop battles by shouting "STOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE!".

I like that all ABC combinations can yield an effective character.* And that no character combinations can give triple the bonus to some skills but not others. Players can thus make character choices without impeding mechanically capability too much.

*Preemptige Draco conversion: I like that all ABC combinations yield a power level in line with game expectations even though those expectations are terrible.

siegfriedliner wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

I don't now about this, maybe it was because it was early levels but all of the encounters I have tackled with +3 enemies felt either easy (if dice-gods are is on side) or impossible. The boss spends one round to knock out your front liner and then picks off the rest whilst the party flails uselessly against his inflated saves and AC. Or you hit and you realize his AC and Saves are far more impressive than his Hit-point total.

This has been a small frustration for my group too. Less that they get wiped out by the boss, but more that they just... fail, a lot at any individual action they attempt. It undermines the heroic narrative a bit because their characters just come across as inept if they simply try to attack the boss outright.

The counter-strategy is to strategically use and stack debuffs to maximize your chance to hit and minimize your enemy's... but they've found that undermines the heroic narrative even more. One major fight in Plaguestone ended with the boss they were fighting sickened, blinded and prone while the party surrounded their almost-helpless adversary and beat them to death. Effective? Definitely. Archetypal heroic fantasy? Absolutely not.

I've only had fights like this at early levels when the game can be a bit swingy. At higher levels this has disappeared and it's more of a knock down, drag out fight in nearly every major boss encounter.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Every class gets skills. No single character is going to be the best at all skills, so you get natural teamwork.

Except that even as a party of 4 there's only so many skills you can "be best at" as a group.

The guy with the highest rating rolls bum? Well, the next highest rating in the group is 3 points below that. Better roll well! Ah, that would've been enough if you were the first character...who's next? Oh, you're 3 points behind that? *Hiss* You're going to need to roll a nat-20. Sorry.

Repeat for every skill check in the adventure.

If the first guy succeeds, its not memorable. If he doesn't, it rolls down the chain fishing for 20s. And that's not heroic.

That's not how skills work. You don't get to just roll. You have to have the right skill rank to roll. If you don't have the right rank, you don't have the expertise to defeat what you're rolling against. The higher your skill rank, the more extraordinary feats you can pull off. There is rarely a bunch of people rolling for the same thing with the same skill. They get one roll, often with others assisting to add to the roll with aid. If they fail, they fail. It's done if say a perception check to start an encounter. Initiative starts and the enemy gets to start from a hidden position.

Squiggit wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

The tension of boss fights. A battle between PCs and an enemy +4 levels (max recommended, danger zone) feels like a proper epic encounter with dramatic swings of actions, people needing to pull out of danger and grab some healing, actual tactics needed to handle the situation etc.

I don't now about this, maybe it was because it was early levels but all of the encounters I have tackled with +3 enemies felt either easy (if dice-gods are is on side) or impossible. The boss spends one round to knock out your front liner and then picks off the rest whilst the party flails uselessly against his inflated saves and AC. Or you hit and you realize his AC and Saves are far more impressive than his Hit-point total.

This has been a small frustration for my group too. Less that they get wiped out by the boss, but more that they just... fail, a lot at any individual action they attempt. It undermines the heroic narrative a bit because their characters just come across as inept if they simply try to attack the boss outright.

The counter-strategy is to strategically use and stack debuffs to maximize your chance to hit and minimize your enemy's... but they've found that undermines the heroic narrative even more. One major fight in Plaguestone ended with the boss they were fighting sickened, blinded and prone while the party surrounded their almost-helpless adversary and beat them to death. Effective? Definitely. Archetypal heroic fantasy? Absolutely not.

I've only had fights like this at early levels when the game can be a bit swingy. At higher levels this has disappeared and it's more of a knock down, drag out fight in nearly every major boss encounter.

Also, Fall of Plaguestone has some balance issues, as it was developed in parallel to the rules and some numbers didn't quite land where they should.

Ascalaphus wrote:

Every class gets skills. No single character is going to be the best at all skills, so you get natural teamwork.

Except that even as a party of 4 there's only so many skills you can "be best at" as a group.

The guy with the highest rating rolls bum? Well, the next highest rating in the group is 3 points below that. Better roll well! Ah, that would've been enough if you were the first character...who's next? Oh, you're 3 points behind that? *Hiss* You're going to need to roll a nat-20. Sorry.

Repeat for every skill check in the adventure.

If the first guy succeeds, its not memorable. If he doesn't, it rolls down the chain fishing for 20s. And that's not heroic.

Man these grapes are sour.

What I mean is, you don't get one character that's always doing all the skills things while others sit back and be bored.

Need something done with Nature? Well the cleric or druid with high wisdom has a lot more talent at this than the wizard. Need someone smooth-talked? Charisma is needed.

Characters have only so many ability boosts to place, so you can't be good at everything. Not like first edition where a wizard due to high intelligence would have so many more skill points than the fighter, and where the various bonuses made the base ability "talent" irrelevant.

Wow, thread hijack. How about starting your own thread instead of derailing someone elses?

I too love Pathfinder 2e for the 4 degrees of freedom and what that brings to story and role play. Rather than the binary pass / fail of 1e, you get a much more nuanced result. I also lean into 'success at a cost', which feels more natural in this context too.

Yeah for example in an investigation themed adventure, you can do a check to find a clue as:

Critical Succcess you find the clue and more
Succcess you find the clue
Failure you find the clue but at a cost
Critical Failure you don't find the clue, your investigation basically stalls. This gives the bad guy time to do another bad thing, and there you can try to pick up the trail again.

That steps neatly around the "roll Perception to proceed with the adventure" problem that we often had. We think that skills should matter in finding clues, but the adventure should survive failures.

Also, Fall of Plaguestone has some balance issues, as it was developed in parallel to the rules and some numbers didn't quite land where they should.

I've heard this said before, but what exactly do you mean by this? I'm running Plaguestone and I'd like to know.

Gorbacz wrote:

Also, Fall of Plaguestone has some balance issues, as it was developed in parallel to the rules and some numbers didn't quite land where they should.

I've heard this said before, but what exactly do you mean by this? I'm running Plaguestone and I'd like to know.

The module has way too many severe encounters, including a couple encounters that could easily become extreme. As an example, in chapter 2