On the Road to Sombrefell Hall!

Monday, September 10, 2018

As of today, we turn our focus to Part 3 of Doomsday Dawn, "Affair at Sombrefell Hall," written by one of the many talented developers of the new edition of Pathfinder, Amanda Hamon Kunz. If you've already played Part 3 of Doomsday Dawn, you can find the surveys at the following links:

Player Survey | Game Master Survey | Open Survey

Before we move on, we'd like to look back at what we've learned from the first two parts of the adventure and talk about some additional changes we're making to the game based on your comments and feedback.

But first, a few important notes.

First off, you can still turn in survey results for Parts 1 and 2 of the adventure. Although we're moving on, your responses will still be counted and help us make further decisions about the game.

Second, I want to take a moment to stress that the various parts of Doomsday Dawn are meant to be tests that look at various parts of the game engine. This goal was more important to us, in some places, than creating a balanced play experience. This will make certain parts of the adventure a little challenging to run at times, but we hope you'll bear with us. We've tried to ensure you'll have a good time with the adventure, but the test goals have to come first. Thanks for understanding.

Finally, the rest of this blog may contain spoilers for Parts 1 and 2, so if you have not finished those chapters, you might want to go back and do that first.

Deconstructing Part 2: In Pale Mountain's Shadow

In case you missed the Twitch stream on Friday, Designer Logan Bonner sat down with Dan Tharp to talk through some of the things we've learned so far from the survey results from Part 2 of Doomsday Dawn. Here are a few of the highlights, along with a thing or two we might have missed.

As the first part of Doomsday Dawn to be set above level 1, Part 2 was our first chance to ask about archetypes. 15% of you took an archetype, and of those, most were arcane spellcasters picking up the fighter archetype.

This is also the first part of the adventure where characters start play with magic items. 62% of you chose magic armor as your 3rd-level item, but over 10% took a lower-level item or a consumable item instead. We might look into making changes in how you can select items in the future to accommodate players who want more flexibility.

It took players, on average, almost 10 minutes less to make their 4th-level characters that it did to make their 1st-level characters, which is great news.

Resonance continues to be a topic of discussion amongst players, and our surveys are just starting to give us a picture of how it is working in play. Only about 1 out of every 4 players ran out of resonance once during Part 2, and only 1 out of every 10 players failed their check when overspending resonance and became cut off during Part 2 (usually alchemists). Now, the important thing to note here is that this is not really showing us how resonance is being used, merely that players aren't running out very often, so be on the lookout for survey questions in upcoming parts that will delve a little deeper into exactly how you're using resonance at your table.

Finally, this part of the adventure was designed to test the game in situations with complex environmental and tactical challenges. Our results showed that players viewed these fights as a significantly greater challenge than the raw monster numbers—not counting the environmental advantages—would indicate. Players also rated the fights in this part as significantly longer and not quite as fun. Some of this was expected, but when we look at these results by class, things become really interesting, showing us which classes had the most difficulty with Part 2. Barbarians, monks, and paladins, for example, seemed to have a bit of trouble with the manticore fight, since they tend to lack ranged options. This shows us that there are adjustments to be made with these classes to ensure they have some way to contribute.

New Updates

With the start of a new part of Doomsday Dawn, we also have a number of changes to the game that we want to bring to your attention. All of these can be found in the download below (which includes all of the previous changes in one handy document). Here are a few of the highlights:

First up, we're changing the anathema for the animal totem barbarian to allow you to use whatever weapon you want while outside of rage. When transformed with fury, though, you still need to use those special animal unarmed attacks. Look for a few more barbarian updates as well.

Next, we're adding a longer range to soothe, the occult healing spell, allowing you to use it on targets up to 30 feet away. There's a bard update, as well; they now have a feat to gain access to 10th-level occult spells.

Finally—and this is the big change for the week—we're removing the concept of signature skills from the game. Now anyone can advance any skill up to any proficiency rank they want (assuming their level is high enough for them to do so). In addition, a number of classes are having their total number of starting skill choices increased to at least three, with each also getting one or more automatic skills, to represent basic class training.

This change also precipitates the need for a NEW CHARACTER SHEET! On top of removing signature skills from the game, we are also taking this opportunity to clean up a number of issues with the character sheet to make it a bit more intuitive and easy to use.

As always, none of these changes are final, but instead more steps toward the best version of Pathfinder we can make. Thank you for all of your feedback and assistance so far. We're looking forward to learning more from you in the coming months.

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Join the Pathfinder Playtest designers every Friday throughout the playtest on our Twitch Channel to hear all about the process and chat directly with the team.

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

My issues :

- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"

- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.

Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?

Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)

Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)

Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)

Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)

And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time

Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.

Liberty's Edge

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

As one of those who has been fairly vocal about the things I don't like, I just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate Paizo staff posting here with comments that show they appear to be genuinely listening.

Hang in there guys. I know it probably gets discouraging being told "you're doing it wrong" over and over and over again, but I hope you take it as a compliment to the great game you have designed that so many of us feel so protective about it.

For the record, I agree with this completely. This is a playtest, and the folks at Paizo have shown every willingness to adjust things as necessary (if more slowly than some might prefer). Heck, they just ditched a fairly major mechanic (Signature Skills) completely because people complained.

The amount of negativity that seems to stem from the assumption that a specific thing will not be changed (ie: Resonance) seems excessive given the high likelihood of it getting changed if people continue to not be pleased with it. I mean, it's a bigger change than Signature Skills...but not by all that much.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

My issues :

- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"

- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.

Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?

Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)

Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)

Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)

Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)

And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time

Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.

That's exactly how 1e/2e D&D and dozens of systems which leave setting the difficulty to the GM work. The difficulty in those games is set by the GM using guidelines s_he is given. This removes both the need to quantify every possible use of a skill in rules, but also allows the GM to adjust the difficulty based on the situation.

The GM can then set the DC accordingly. It may be lower, if you're trying to handle a horse in front of a non-threatening drgaon. It may be higher, if that's an angry red dragon. It may be lower, if that's an angry red dragon BUT your horse has been through literal Hell and back with you AND you your horsey knows it's a do or die time, because that dragon is the final boss. A smart GM has now the freedom to set the DC taking the situation, the story, the tension and the importance of the roll into the account.

I completely understand that this paradigm takes away some of the certainty (or illusion thereof) that 3.5/PF had. But I'm fine with that. I much prefer a flexible DC system to countless arguments as to how exactly wide that ledge is and is the wind 39 mph or 40 mph.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

My issues :

- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"

- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.

Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?

Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)

Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)

Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)

Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)

And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time

Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.

That's exactly how 1e/2e D&D and dozens of systems which leave setting the difficulty to the GM work. The difficulty in those games is set by the GM using guidelines s_he is given. This removes both the need to quantify every possible use of a skill in rules, but also allows the GM to adjust the difficulty based on the situation.

The GM can then set the DC accordingly. It may be lower, if you're trying to handle a horse in front of a non-threatening drgaon. It may be higher, if that's an angry red dragon. It may be lower, if that's an angry red dragon BUT your horse has been through literal Hell and back with you AND you your horsey knows it's a do or die time, because...

I have no issue with "there is a base DC but you can change it according to circumstances".

But as it is there is no base DC at all for the most part.

And since the game tell you that DC for the same task doesn't change over time you need to track every time you made up a "base dc" to use it again maybe 5 months later if someone tries the same thing again.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

I have no issue with "there is a base DC but you can change it according to circumstances".

But as it is there is no base DC at all for the most part.

And since the game tell you that DC for the same task doesn't change over time you need to track every time you made up a "base dc" to use it again maybe 5 months later if someone tries the same thing again.

The tables on p. 337 and p. 338 are your friends here. Work from there, and you'll have consistent DCs and you won't have to wait 8 years for the game to tell you what the DC for identifying and harvesting trophies from slain bests is.

Liberty's Edge

19 people marked this as a favorite.

A random note about this errata/change for the folks at Paizo:

The deities currently have somewhat odd and potentiall wrong skill selections because they were built around Clerics already having certain skills as Signature. Shelyn having Crafting rather than Performance being the most obvious example (though Sarenrae not granting Medicine is fairly notable, too).


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Brell Stormforge wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.

If you were doing what you were saying and giving honest feedback then WHY would you assume he was adressing you unless in fact you were the one doing it... Did he call you by name? I didn't see that. All who are guilty please stand up *STANDS UP!* How dare you say I'm guilty!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brell Stormforge wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.

1) You are coming across as pretty hostile.

2) Your "alternative solution" has zero intersection with Resonance as is. The only thing resonance affects is magic items and you want to get rid of that. You are functionally calling to it to go entirely.

3) We don't know the "direction of development." Paizo has said there is almost a 0% chance resonance survives without changes to the final core rulebook.

4) Jason didn't quote you. He didn't single you out. He addressed the thread at large. And as others have mentioned in this thread, lots of folks have been posting on how much they hate resonance in threads that have nothing to do with resonance. You haven't posted enough to be part of that group (in fact you have barely posted since August) so I'm not sure why you feel like you were included in it.

5) You have complained that Resonance isn't going to change, when the two most recent blog posts allude to the fact that it will.

6) Collecting feedback is exactly what Paizo is doing here. They just have specific techniques they want to use to do it. Part of that includes us actually playing with these systems and collecting data based on that. They've already said in the positives and negatives blog that the feedback for using resonance as is has given them good insight into alternatives. And they haven't even gotten to the parts where Resonance really kicks in proper.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

In a game where the math is so tightly controlled as either PF1 or PF2, introducing GM whim is... jarringly inconsistent.

I've said it elsewhere, but there's a difference between a GM applying +1/+2 or even +4 circumstance bonuses or penalties due to things like wind or sunlight in the PC's eyes and "ask the GM".


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.

1) You are coming across as pretty hostile.

2) Your "alternative solution" has zero intersection with Resonance as is. The only thing resonance affects is magic items and you want to get rid of that. You are functionally calling to it to go entirely.

3) We don't...

The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

"do a single encounter, maybe two and retreat"

This is not the case.

BS. That is exactly what happened in the games I've been in.

A straight up factual retelling of what happened is not hyperbole, even if your experience was different.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

That for me is one of the least fun things about 3rd Ed/PF1. I have gone so far as to remove amulets of natural armour, rings of deflection, and cloaks of protection, and replacing them with a character level bonus to AC, and Saves.

Needing +X magic items to keep up, grates on me.

Silver Crusade

30 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Note: We do not have an alchemist.

At 7 levels in, one member of our party, the druid, only ran out of resonance once, and it was during the last battle during Sombrefell hall when he went ham with his necklace of fireballs (it does cost 1 resonance for each ball because of the action involved, right?). For the most part, our cleric has been perfectly fine with healing, and the rest of the party's use of single magic items hasn't taxed them. With the new chapter's suggestion to have two dedicated healers, we rolled up the druid to help.

I don't know. I can't speak to anybody else's experience, but we as 5+ year players and a 16+ year GM have no issue with the current state of resonance, even insofar as using our fill of items during the playtest adventure.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

Exactly. Magic items are fun and interesting. The +3 Cloak that absolutely everybody in the party is wearing because it's effectively mandatory is not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

Now that is a separate issue, whether some things are to mandatory can be looked at, blasting apart the fun that is having a bag of low level wands as tricks to solve problems, making potions a trap, and laying waste to magic items does solve this, by changing to a low magic system. If that is what Paizo wants, just say they want a low magic setting and the genre shift can be looked at, and people can make the decision of playing that game or not, rather than asking for something Paizo have already made a decision on, that is a high magic high fantasy setting, with associated piles of magitek utility items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the Signature Skill changes (removal) this is exactly what my group wanted and everyone seems really happy with that system now.
Especially as we have a system now where anyone can disable device all the way to high level (with rogues being better due to feats).

Curious though with the rebalance of numbers of skills.
Wizard for example went from 2+INT skills to 1+4+INT skills.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:


"twitch": grumble, grumble, grumble... not everyone can or wants to watch an entire video to pull out the few things they want out of it or has to rewatch it and reference a time code if they wish to reference it. An official overview that lists important points in a thread here on the forums would be a huge boon.

BUT KEEP DOING THE TWITCH VIDEOS!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

Pretty much every game I've run my players eventually end up disappointed they had to give up that interesting item they found for a +bonus item in that slot.

I *REALLY* like how the new attribute buff items work, you can only have one and you have to choose a +2 or instant 18.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:

I was hoping the new character sheet would be vertical instead of horizontal.

A landscape character sheet is awful because horizontal space is at a premium when you're clustered around a table with 7-8 people.

In my experience, the premium land rests upon the game mat/map; thus, landscape sheets are superb.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turelus wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

Pretty much every game I've run my players eventually end up disappointed they had to give up that interesting item they found for a +bonus item in that slot.

I *REALLY* like how the new attribute buff items work, you can only have one and you have to choose a +2 or instant 18.

I’m also a fan of having fewer (or no) required magic items.

FWIW, I’d actually prefer not having stat increasing items at all. Among other things, given how tight the math is, it would give us another point of variation to give to something else (such as how proficient you are).

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:


...simply looking at how often people ran out isn't really a good metric because resonance discourages the use of things that require it.

Agree 100% My group didn't run out of resonance because we were scared to death we'd need it for healing potions.

Personally, I hate the PF1 healing ease; however, it makes the game fun for people because they aren't going down left and right. As a GM, I want to challenge my players but I don't want to kill them left and right due to them not being able to utilize potions they've paid for but can't use due to resonance.

I also dislike Charisma as a dump stat-but you can't dump Charisma in PF2! There are no dump stats. If someone forsakes putting points in Charisma, and this becomes a thing like in PF1, then make more skills/abilities/actions be based on Charisma so people don't take it for granted. In PF1, it's taken for granted because there are only a few skills which utilize it.

I won't be playing in a system that uses resonance points as they are currently written. My group has tried, given the system the benefit of the doubt, and have done really played trying to give resonance a chance. But it's too far afield from what we enjoy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely love the skills tweaks. Basic training (such as a wizard having to know the Arcana underpinning their spells) makes much more sense to me that a cap anyhow. To be honest I'm also really happy that the int classes will tend to be good at skills as a result, feels less jarring, I think.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

My issues :

- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"

- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.

Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?

Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)

Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)

Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)

Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)

And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time

Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.

Players shouldn't always necessarily know the DCs of their actions.

Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.

1) You are coming across as pretty hostile.

2) Your "alternative solution" has zero intersection with Resonance as is. The only thing resonance affects is magic items and you want to get rid of that. You are functionally calling to it to go entirely.

3) We don't...

Jason's "hyperbole" statement rests with the people who are basically calling Paizo designers obtuse. The designers are doing a hell of a job. I hate resonance as it currently stands and entertain ways to make it better. I would never accuse the designers of being dead-set on a set of rules if they didn't work for the game. To do so is being hyperbolic. Saying you will no longer play the game and move to DnD is hyperbolic. Why move? If you like PF1 just keep playing PF1. It's simple. I've stated I won't play PF2 if the resonance rules as they exist now are kept, but ALL of the designers have stated or intimated that the rules will certainly be changed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My worry isn't/wasn't that Resonance will never be changed, but rather that the changes will take too long to get into the playtest, or not get in during the playtest period at all.

Jason's most recent post alleviates this a small bit, as does the fact they get the Sig Skills change in relatively early. If they keep up the pace and scale of updates, I think things will go well.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

This is something I vehemently disagree with.

Everyone has their own take on fantasy. For me, 'gearing up' as it were is a needless treadmill that takes power away from the character and forces you to put as many decision making on what order your character gets +1s as you would on new abilities. It's the dated progression system that I really wish wasn't stuck tacked onto this genre.

In 1e, there are so many magic items I may as well ignore because they are a belt, cloak or headband slot. Usually fun ones, items that would free up feat slots or enable strange styles. If I was very lucky there'd be time and crafting available to make that slot a hybrid item.

For me, consumables (potions/scrolls), toys (wands/metamagic rods) and other items that give on-use boosts or other ways to spend my actions are the only magic items I really care about.

I like resonance for investure (and killing off the problem of bringing 5 quick runners' shirts on an adventure without tacking on the day-long attunement). I like resonance for activating wands, and staves, and boots of speed, and cloaks of elvenkind. I don't think it's fun while it applies to consumables, and as others are showing, it simply isn't working when tacked onto healing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding "the GM sets the DC" it's honestly pretty easy to just reckon "what is the rough percentage chance of failure for a qualified person in this situation", divide that number by 5 then just add that number to some appropriate scalar (like Level +3). I find this much easier than having to look up stuff in 19 different books like in PF1.

Since the DC doesn't change for the same task, if I happen to forget what we used in the past I would just ask "does anybody remember what it used to be" and if no one does just err on the low end if they already did it once at a lower level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I find this much easier than having to look up stuff in 19 different books like in PF1.

I don't see how looking at the Skill involved in the CRB is 19 different books. You might want books outside the CRB for extra stuff, like the Hobnobber class, and what-have-you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of the time, knowing the exact dc doesn't even matter once the player has rolled. They'll give the GM a result that is either plenty high enough, or obviously too low. It's only when the dc is "somewhere in the teens" and they get a result of say 14, that you need to know if that's just a bit too low or just high enough.

That's why I usually get people to roll first and ask questions later. It saves time.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

My issues :

- Insane table variation. Endless discussion about "are you sure ?"

- Immersion Breaking because players Will ask ten times per minutes "What is the DC again dude ?" And won't be able to decide if an action is worth it on their own.

Like he want to handle his war horse in front of a dragon. How could he known how the GM Will rule it ?

Maybe the GM Will say "The horse is level 1 so it is Level 1 DC but Extreme because of the dragon" (18)

Maybe the GM Will say "Well it is the LVL 10 dragon that frighten the horse so High level 10 DC" (27 !!!!)

Or "Let's look at the Intimidation DC of the dragon" (25)

Or ANY NUMBER between 18 and 27 because the GM may be like "level 1 horse, level 10 dragon so difficulty 5 Extreme (25) ... No. 7 but just High !" (23)

And the player can't possibly know without asking each freaking time

Note : I may have missed some info on the Handle an animal DC though.

Players shouldn't always necessarily know the DCs of their actions.

Players should generally have an idea what to expect and how likely their actions are to succeed. Without that intuition the game ceases to be a collaborative storytelling effort and just becomes the DM's story. Too much variance and too many ad-hoc calls can definitely be a problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the level of information a player should receive about a skill check before they roll is on the level of "that looks relatively simple to climb" or "he looks like he's in a really bad mood" or "it's looks like a standard lock."


FitzTheRuke wrote:

Most of the time, knowing the exact dc doesn't even matter once the player has rolled. They'll give the GM a result that is either plenty high enough, or obviously too low. It's only when the dc is "somewhere in the teens" and they get a result of say 14, that you need to know if that's just a bit too low or just high enough.

That's why I usually get people to roll first and ask questions later. It saves time.

5th Ed has a guideline for this very thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Only to get responses like, "Well I can never roll above a 10!"

I really hope your next comment was, “get new dice.” :-)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

On the whole, pretty pleased with the new changes. (Also pretty pleased with the new vertical orientation of the character sheets, hooray!)

I agree that a lot more guidance on setting DCs would be helpful as a GM. Both my partner (switching off GMing duties for Doomsday Dawn) have been struggling with this throughout the playtest, and we're far from inexperienced. There's little to no indication of what a "trivial," "low," "extreme," etc. challenge means. Even just listing a few examples would be nice.

This is especially glaring for knowledge checks to identify monsters, where it's not really indicated how common a monster is, what should be common knowledge about a monster, or even what skill should be used to identify a monster. For some monsters, this pretty obvious (religion to ID a skeleton), but for others, I have no idea what skill should be used (usually in cases where the corresponding PF1 skill to identify it isn't there anymore).

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Regarding "the GM sets the DC" it's honestly pretty easy to just reckon "what is the rough percentage chance of failure for a qualified person in this situation", divide that number by 5 then just add that number to some appropriate scalar (like Level +3). I find this much easier than having to look up stuff in 19 different books like in PF1.

That...definitely does not sound simpler to me. The point at which I have to figure out percentages and do division is the point where I just make up an arbitrary number (and then probably forget it by next session). I'm not saying we need a list of DCs for ever single action a player could possibly undertake (that'd be impossible), but some more guidance on this would be useful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
The 'big 6' and the 'magic utility belt' are a large part of what makes PF mechanically fun, they aren't a 'problem' that needs fixing they are a core and interesting feature. That for me is the disconnect here, Paizo are introducing a system to 'fix' what makes high magic, high fantasy games fun.

You will find this position highly debatable.

Having magic items is fun. Having to have certain magic items so you don’t fall behind which means you’re cut off from using other fun magic items, not so much.

The Big 6 were certainly a problem. You could basically ignore all belts and headbands that weren't stat items for example. PF2 has done a pretty good job of cutting those down. You still have magic weapons and armor that are basically required at high levels, but I'm not sure that can be otherwise and stay true to Pathfinder. (Well, magic weapon extra damage might need to be reexamined). Keeping them around but making challenges doable without them, means that if you do have them, you're likely overpowered due to the tight math. And getting rid of them is not Pathfinder anymore. Mixing the effects of a cloak of protection with magic armor is a cool touch, but it does make magic armor even more vital. That could potentially go away and just have the DCs set so they aren't counting on those bonuses. But I'm not wedded to either keeping or removing that at this point. I'm also on the fence about the stat items. The tight math does make getting one almost required at high levels when you can start to afford them. But the effect is much less dominant, and the restriction of only one at a time does reduce the need to always have the best belt and headband. The option of an auto 18 is interesting, but in practice I don't see that being used much. Since you're limited to one, the incentive is to take it in your biggest, most important stat.

Having a bunch of useful magic items on the other hand, is more a feature than a bug in my mind. Having cool and flavorful options to help you out is great. It's just when they're required, under-priced or overpowered that things get problematic. The incentive to use low level magic items instead of the higher level versions can be solved with balancing the costs. A healing wand that costs twice as much, should do at least twice as much healing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Only to get responses like, "Well I can never roll above a 10!"
I really hope your next comment was, “get new dice.” :-)

"You're supposed to use the d20!"

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wandering Wastrel wrote:

As one of those who has been fairly vocal about the things I don't like, I just wanted to drop in and say how much I appreciate Paizo staff posting here with comments that show they appear to be genuinely listening.

Hang in there guys. I know it probably gets discouraging being told "you're doing it wrong" over and over and over again, but I hope you take it as a compliment to the great game you have designed that so many of us feel so protective about it.

For the record, I agree with this completely. This is a playtest, and the folks at Paizo have shown every willingness to adjust things as necessary (if more slowly than some might prefer). Heck, they just ditched a fairly major mechanic (Signature Skills) completely because people complained.

The amount of negativity that seems to stem from the assumption that a specific thing will not be changed (ie: Resonance) seems excessive given the high likelihood of it getting changed if people continue to not be pleased with it. I mean, it's a bigger change than Signature Skills...but not by all that much.

Thanks Wandering Wastrel and Deadmanwalking.

Having surveyed the scope of many different possible changes, I would say that it is a substantially (by an order of magnitude) bigger and tougher change to propagate alongside the playtest than Signature Skills was (a more dramatic change likely involves errata in every, or nearly every item in the book). But in terms of things we can execute on overall? It is definitely in the scope of things we can change, and we are beginning to develop several ideas already that we can refine as we ask more nuanced questions moving forward. There's one I'm pretty excited about that I think fans and detractors of the current resonance system alike might enjoy, but it's also the one that requires the most changes to every item.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the new Character Sheet, I notice there still isn't any place to track a Cleric's uses of channel energy or a Druid's uses of wild shape.

Granted, I dislike these mechanics as they are (I think they should be a part of spell points/powers), but as long as they continue in their current form I believe there should be a place on the character sheet for player's to easily track them.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Brell Stormforge wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks...

The hyperbole on resonance is getting a bit thick. There are a lot of parts of the game that we have not fully worked on yet because it's too early in the playtest for us to get good data. Resonance is one of those systems. We know a lot of folks dont like it. We hear you. We also know that until we get to mid and high levels, the system is not really doing any work at all, and we are just now getting to that in the playtest.

Have some patience. We are looking at the system, there is almost no chance it will make it to the final game in its current form, a fact I can say about as lot of systems. Changing things without data is what we've spent years doing. Play the game. Tell us how it played. That's how we make this better.

We have faith in you to give us honest, rational feedback. Have faith in us to get it right, given the right time and data.

It's pretty discouraging when you take the time to give your honest criticism, some alternative ideas, how the direction of the development is going to affect my gaming and players, only to have the developer turn around and dismiss what we are saying as "hyperbole". I guess the countless hours and money we pour into Pathfinder is just unwanted "hyperbole". Seems hypocritical when we are asked for our critique and then insulted when we give what was asked for.

On the flip side, I am glad to finally have acknowledgement and assurance that the resonance system will be hopefully improved.
Sorry if my opinion is unwanted, I'll keep it to myself from now on, and if I don't like the final product, I'll just find another system. I truly hope PF2 turns out very good and I can continue to use a Pathfinder system.
If you were doing what you were saying and giving honest feedback then WHY would you assume he was adressing you unless in fact you were the one doing it... Did he call you by name? I didn't see that. All who are guilty please stand up *STANDS UP!* How dare you say I'm...

I guess it must just be my guilty conscience. :p


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
There's one I'm pretty excited about that I think fans and detractors of the current resonance system alike might enjoy, but it's also the one that requires the most changes to every item.

GO FOR IT!

Seriously though, any chance we could get a glimpse of the new system(s) before the playtest is over, similar to how Jason previewed the new saving throw format with a few examples and immediately got a ton of feedback? I hope it was a positive experience for you.

Paizo Employee Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
CyberMephit wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
There's one I'm pretty excited about that I think fans and detractors of the current resonance system alike might enjoy, but it's also the one that requires the most changes to every item.

GO FOR IT!

Seriously though, any chance we could get a glimpse of the new system(s) before the playtest is over, similar to how Jason previewed the new saving throw format with a few examples and immediately got a ton of feedback? I hope it was a positive experience for you.

A preview sounds like it could be a good idea, but we'll need your data from the next few parts (and especially with the shift in questions to try to get more nuance from the data) to continue to refine our idea. Still, once we're further along and have more data (and alight on a particular option for moving forward), it seems worthwhile to let you know both so you guys can give feedback like in the blog you mention and just so it's out there to lower uncertainty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:


A preview sounds like it could be a good idea, but we'll need your data from the next few parts (and especially with the shift in questions to try to get more nuance from the data) to continue to refine our idea. Still, once we're further along and have more data (and alight on a particular option for moving forward), it seems worthwhile to let you know both so you guys can give feedback like in the blog you mention and just so it's out there to lower uncertainty.

Might I ask as well whether it would be possible to also let us know about what is being discussed more actively at the moment, regarding other aspects of the playtest?

I'm not asking to know about any of the specific changes you might be considering, but knowing that you are working on a given issue would go a long way in helping us know that our feedback is being considered.

Here's an example: most of us probably had no idea that you were aware of some of the issues with the Barbarian and looking into fixing them until the new errata came out.

It would have been nice, however, for us to know that you were working on it.

I understand that it is certainly not a good idea to explain exactly what solutions you're considering because you're not sure yet that they will work or can be implemented at all.

But, in the case of the Barbarian class, a little blog update stating that the next errata would probably come out with fixes for the class (without delving into more details) would have let us know that you were trying to address some of the issues mentioned here, on these forums.

It might not sound necessary or useful to do so when you're actually designing the game but for people on the receiving end, it helps tremendously knowing that your feedback is being considered and makes you feel included in the process.

It's just a thought, but I would like to know whether this is something you would consider or not.
I could understand this would maybe take too much of your time but I'd love to hear why you would not be able to share more with us about ongoing changes (assuming such is the case).

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


A preview sounds like it could be a good idea, but we'll need your data from the next few parts (and especially with the shift in questions to try to get more nuance from the data) to continue to refine our idea. Still, once we're further along and have more data (and alight on a particular option for moving forward), it seems worthwhile to let you know both so you guys can give feedback like in the blog you mention and just so it's out there to lower uncertainty.

Might I ask as well whether it would be possible to also let us know about what is being discussed more actively at the moment, regarding other aspects of the playtest?

I'm not asking to know about any of the specific changes you might be considering, but knowing that you are working on a given issue would go a long way in helping us know that our feedback is being considered.

Here's an example: most of us probably had no idea that you were aware of some of the issues with the Barbarian and looking into fixing them until the new errata came out.

It would have been nice, however, for us to know that you were working on it.

I understand that it is certainly not a good idea to explain exactly what solutions you're considering because you're not sure yet that they will work or can be implemented at all.

But, in the case of the Barbarian class, a little blog update stating that the next errata would probably come out with fixes for the class (without delving into more details) would have let us know that you were trying to address some of the issues mentioned here, on these forums.

It might not sound necessary or useful to do so when you're actually designing the game but for people on the receiving end, it helps tremendously knowing that your feedback is being considered and makes you feel included in the process.

It's just a thought, but I would like to know whether this is something you would consider or not.
I could understand this would maybe take too much of your time but I'd love to hear why...

There's a limited amount of blog space (and it's not just the author of the blog involved in getting these up there), so that would be tricky. I did post in a barbarian thread that covered most of these changes saying I had noted them and hoped to adjust them, but at the time, I didn't know when/if those would be included in an update. It's tricky; the messageboards are very very active, so things we post here are quickly lost (or as I noted in the lead-up to the playtest, sometimes even when the sentiment is remembered, the detail changes in a telephone game until I would be quoted as having said something slightly different that was inaccurate due to an unintentional change to my wording, while my original post was accurate).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
There's a limited amount of blog space (and it's not just the author of the blog involved in getting these up there), so that would be tricky. I did post in a barbarian thread that covered most of these changes saying I had noted them and hoped to adjust them, but at the time, I didn't know when/if those would be included in an update.

I guess that answers my question then.

I totally missed your post about adjustments you hoped to make to the Barbarian class though. I do check the forums everyday but it's hard to keep track of everything, hence why I thought it would be a good idea to have a blog post or maybe a sticky thread with a list of features which you're working on.
I understand that this is not possible so I guess I'll just keep watching out for each new errata and enjoy the unexpected new features when they come out! :D
Thank you for taking the time to reply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
There's a limited amount of blog space (and it's not just the author of the blog involved in getting these up there), so that would be tricky. I did post in a barbarian thread that covered most of these changes saying I had noted them and hoped to adjust them, but at the time, I didn't know when/if those would be included in an update.

I guess that answers my question then.

I totally missed your post about adjustments you hoped to make to the Barbarian class though. I do check the forums everyday but it's hard to keep track of everything, hence why I thought it would be a good idea to have a blog post or maybe a sticky thread with a list of features which you're working on.
I understand that this is not possible so I guess I'll just keep watching out for each new errata and enjoy the unexpected new features when they come out! :D
Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Yeah, the compromise that Mark has given us is that anything he sees that he wants to discuss with his team he'll leave a "Noted" comment. So seeing which threads he's noted via his recent posts is the "blog" of stuff they are going to look at via forum.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
There's a limited amount of blog space (and it's not just the author of the blog involved in getting these up there), so that would be tricky. I did post in a barbarian thread that covered most of these changes saying I had noted them and hoped to adjust them, but at the time, I didn't know when/if those would be included in an update.

I guess that answers my question then.

I totally missed your post about adjustments you hoped to make to the Barbarian class though. I do check the forums everyday but it's hard to keep track of everything, hence why I thought it would be a good idea to have a blog post or maybe a sticky thread with a list of features which you're working on.
I understand that this is not possible so I guess I'll just keep watching out for each new errata and enjoy the unexpected new features when they come out! :D
Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Yeah, I have a list of ~100 things I am currently keeping an eye on, most of which are things you guys found here on the boards. But it would be a mistake to post that list (or a similar list) because some percentage of them are going to wind up being OK as-is after working on and analyzing them, and seeing them on the list is going to give an expectation of change. For instance, even if there are only 10% false positive rate (which would mean both you guys in expressing and I in collecting did an amazing job in making the list to be that accurate), there will still be fully 10 things on there that would then not change.

I think it's better to let you guys know in general that we're noting your ideas (you guys help me come up with a response that is encouraging without seeming to promise too much, "Noted, thanks!" which I've started to use when I'm noting something for later) but leave the specifics for when we're more sure of what's going to happen. I mean I would get upset if something I cared about was on a list of changes and then wound up not changing (heck, it's the nature of any collaborative process that I think all of the designers, at some point during the design process, had a last-minute unexpected rug-pulled-out-from-under happen, and each time that person was upset), so it wouldn't be unreasonable if you did too in that situation. I just don't want to put you in that position.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

Man, leave it to the Bag of Devouring to sum it up so perfectly.

Honestly, I'm not sure there is much value at all in listing dozens of different tasks in a table listing Static DCs anymore or even ones that are variable for conditions. We can just reference ANY DC versus it's level and difficulty from table 10-2 and you're set.

Say you're in a Level 5 Dungeon full of mooks, with trivial training, equipment, infrastructure, and expertise, BOOM, DC 14 out the gate. If you have 1 or more doors that may be locked of higher than average quality or more difficult circumstance, BOOM, DC 21. Oh, there is a room with a cliff-edge of average deadliness for the party, BOOM, DC 18, there you go.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
It's not insane. The DM takes the skill DC table and tells you what the DC is. It's pretty much like 1e/2e used to work. You all whippsersnappers are just spoiled by your "this is the DC for walking on a 4 inch wide slightly slippery ledge while the wind is 39 mph, the temperature is 211 F and the moon is in crescent phase" tables 3e brought.

Man, leave it to the Bag of Devouring to sum it up so perfectly.

Honestly, I'm not sure there is much value at all in listing dozens of different tasks in a table listing Static DCs anymore or even ones that are variable for conditions. We can just reference ANY DC versus it's level and difficulty from table 10-2 and you're set.

Say you're in a Level 5 Dungeon full of mooks, with trivial training, equipment, infrastructure, and expertise, BOOM, DC 14 out the gate. If you have 1 or more doors that may be locked of higher than average quality or more difficult circumstance, BOOM, DC 21. Oh, there is a room with a cliff-edge of average deadliness for the party, BOOM, DC 18, there you go.

Here's the problem. I've got a character with +11 to Nature. I'd like to know:

  • What can she do? This is somewhat achieved by reading the Skills section.
  • What are her chances of achieving this? This is completely undefined.
  • How good is she at 'Nature'?

101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Paizo Blog: On the Road to Sombrefell Hall! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.