Forging the Heroes of Undarin

A lot of the complaints I see are about heavily hanky or broken things that people enjoyed from PF1 being polished out.

Very few things actually seem polished out but more ground into a fine powder IMO. Just look at casters: quintuple nerfed into the ground isn't exactly "polished out"... Then add to that that the game has an entire different set of expectations on success: in the playtest, 50% means you're doing good and have put significant resources into something while in PF! it means it's something you don't focus on and didn't put resources towards. Or the fact that you go from making know checks automatically to not only failing but giving false info...

There is a lot to complain about that has nothing to do with "heavily hanky or broken things"... Take ten for instance. :P

I feel like just how "core only" PF1 is a much, much lower powered game than PF1 with all the books available, it's pretty inevitable that we're going to get a steady power creep throughout PF2, and if you want that rocket tag game PF1 will still be there.

So trying to set PF2 at the "end of PF1" power level will inevitably get silly in a couple years.

Edge93 wrote:

A lot of the complaints I see are about heavily hanky or broken things that people enjoyed from PF1 being polished out.

Very few things actually seem polished out but more ground into a fine powder IMO. Just look at casters: quintuple nerfed into the ground isn't exactly "polished out"... Then add to that that the game has an entire different set of expectations on success: in the playtest, 50% means you're doing good and have put significant resources into something while in PF! it means it's something you don't focus on and didn't put resources towards. Or the fact that you go from making know checks automatically to not only failing but giving false info...

There is a lot to complain about that has nothing to do with "heavily hanky or broken things"... Take ten for instance. :P

No. Full stop. No.

Look - We're being very dishonest with the hyperbole on skills - average level 1 skill DC is 12 TWELVE in the playtest BEFORE they lowered them.

+4 from stat, +1 from level, +0 from trained:

+5 DC 12 requires a 7 SEVEN not an 11. That isn't "A 50% chance" that is a 70% chance.

Take 10 in PF1 was broken as all heck.

A Bard, in PF1, at level 10 that I played with in PFS was hitting 54's in diplomacy with "take 10"

Aka "can never fail"

That isn't balanced.

Significant investment is stat +6 +2 from item +10 from ranks and +3 from class skill on a class that only gets 2+int per level.

FYI that's only a +21 and takes 50% of a class' total skill points. A +44 is outright ridiculous overkill. That was the problem with 1e.

People could, and did, power game to the point of game shattering. PF2 curbs thst.

I'll take a 70% chance to succeed vs a 0% chance to fail.

Take 10 in PF1 was broken as all heck.

A Bard, in PF1, at level 10 that I played with in PFS was hitting 54's in diplomacy with "take 10"

Aka "can never fail"

That isn't balanced.

That... doesn't really seem like a problem with Take 10 to me? There's nothing about the way Take 10 works that necessitates having the ability to have a +44 skill modifier, that's its own separate thing - and, frankly, I'm not seeing how the bard would have been less amazing at diplomacy if they couldn't take 10; a result of 45-64 is a) still really high, even at the lowest end, and b) going to equal or exceed the take 10 value more than half the time.

The problem with take 10 is that it makes chances of failure less than 50% meaningless.

If you can take 10, then you have a 100% chance to succeed any action that you have a 55% chance to succeed. That is a wide band to have to balance around.

If there was going to be a "take X" ability in PF2e, I would prefer take 5, or maybe take 6. If you can get up to 75% chance to succeed, then pushing that to 100% is fine.

But considering that most people are pushing for the average chance of success to be in the 65-70% range, and complaining that 50% is far too low, take 10 would turn everything it applied to into auto-success.

One option that Paizo has in their collective back pockets for any game mechanic is to revert to what PF1 did -- but there is no reason to revert to that mechanic during the playtest or test it out because that mechanic may have already seen years of use. As a result, the fate of any new mechanic that they are thinking of completely abandoning is not something that we will find out until next spring at the earliest, when the playtest is concluded and they have decided on the final state of the rules.

I'm not quite so sure about this. They can revert sections to the way PF1 does them, but with so much else changed, they can potentially interact in ways that makes the PF1 way more of a problem. The various sub-systems of the game don't work in isolation after all. They need to be tested together to see how the whole package works. So while they can fall-back, and in some cases probably should, I don't think waiting until after the playtest is done would be a wise move.

One option that Paizo has in their collective back pockets for any game mechanic is to revert to what PF1 did -- but there is no reason to revert to that mechanic during the playtest or test it out because that mechanic may have already seen years of use. As a result, the fate of any new mechanic that they are thinking of completely abandoning is not something that we will find out until next spring at the earliest, when the playtest is concluded and they have decided on the final state of the rules.

This is a good point! It also goes well with something they mentioned at GenCon: That for some things in this playtest, they went with the most "out there" mechanic they could, to see what would stick, and knowing they had a more reliable alternative in their back pocket.

Look - We're being very dishonest with the hyperbole on skills - average level 1 skill DC is 12 TWELVE in the playtest BEFORE they lowered them.

Not dishonest at all. What's the average DC needed for saves, to hits, skills, ect throughout the game? NOT just skills at 1st but throughout all your levels on all kinds of checks? If anything seems "very dishonest with the hyperbole", it's taking a single skill DC to try to disprove the entirety of checks in the game. :P

I'll take a 70% chance to succeed vs a 0% chance to fail.

Personally, I'll take the 0%. I like the fact that you can actually get good at simple tasks and at a certain point you can do them consistently. Nothing breaks my immersion in the game when a legendary blacksmith fails to make a horseshoe or a nail because someone doesn't like to see a "0% chance to fail" even when that makes total sense. A 30% failure rate IMO isn't exactly being good at a task as you fail 1/3 of the time...

Except a Legendary Blacksmith has a 5% chance of failure, not 30%. Even if that Blacksmith had a 10 Strength, the mere fact they are Legendary provides them with a +3 to their Skill... and even if they were only a level 10 Expert or whatever the NPC class would be, that still would give them a +13 to their roll while aiming for a DC of 12. A 1 auto-fails... but no doubt as a Legendary Blacksmith they have one of those Skill Feats that would make a Critical Failure into a mere Failure, meaning that they'd realize that horseshoe had some flaw in the metal or the like and was better reforged or used as scrap.

Also, even the best blacksmiths occasionally screw up. The best scholars make mistakes. It is part of being human. Hell, even the Gods will make mistakes according to myths and stories. So having a 0% chance of failure is unrealistic even in a setting of myth and legend.

To carry off of Tangent101. Yeah if you have a 0% chance of failure then might as well remove the dice from the game. Sometimes characters should fail roles. Maybe 5% might be to high for some but we are talking about a D20. Its 5% or 0% there not really an in between. I guess we could use re-rolls (like advantage or disadvantage) but the more you do that the more things slow down for checks.

Except a Legendary Blacksmith has a 5% chance of failure, not 30%.

I was specifically commenting on the 0% comment.

Also, even the best blacksmiths occasionally screw up.

5%? 1 out of every 20 nails made by a legendary blacksmith is expected to be a failure? That's FAR, FAR, FAR more than often than I'd expect s0omeone THAT skilled to "occasionally" do.

The best scholars make mistakes.

5% of the time? Again, one out of 20 questions are answered wrong by the best of the best on the easiest questions like simple math [like what's' 1+1?]. I think the guy at the burger joint has a better percentage of successful burgers made than a 5% failure rate. The best scholars shouldn't be stumped by 'is water wet?'

So having a 0% chance of failure is unrealistic even in a setting of myth and legend.

5% failure rate no matter how skilled andor how simple the task is FAR, FAR more unrealistic IMO than an effective 0% failure rate. IMO, the reason for a failure chance should be because of either lack of skill or difficulty of the skill and not a 'just cuz' failure rate.

Tangent101 wrote:

Except a Legendary Blacksmith has a 5% chance of failure, not 30%.

I was specifically commenting on the 0% comment.

Tangent101 wrote:

Also, even the best blacksmiths occasionally screw up.

5%? 1 out of every 20 nails made by a legendary blacksmith is expected to be a failure? That's FAR, FAR, FAR more than often than I'd expect s0omeone THAT skilled to "occasionally" do.

Tangent101 wrote:

The best scholars make mistakes.

5% of the time? Again, one out of 20 questions are answered wrong by the best of the best on the easiest questions like simple math [like what's' 1+1?]. I think the guy at the burger joint has a better percentage of successful burgers made than a 5% failure rate. The best scholars shouldn't be stumped by 'is water wet?'

Tangent101 wrote:

So having a 0% chance of failure is unrealistic even in a setting of myth and legend.

5% failure rate no matter how skilled andor how simple the task is FAR, FAR more unrealistic IMO than an effective 0% failure rate. IMO, the reason for a failure chance should be because of either lack of skill or difficulty of the skill and not a 'just cuz' failure rate.

Your character is also not going to make as many checks as a real one how many things does a real blacksmith make in his life? How many is your character going to realistically make?

Also D&D has never been perfect as simulation. Its a d20 5% is as low as you get. Are you suggesting we start using a different die? would a d1000 even get us close to real life?

Yeah if you have a 0% chance of failure then might as well remove the dice from the game.

This is a false equivalency IMO. No one wants every roll to have no failure. What I want is for my characters to have the ability to specialize in a skill and get good enough that some tasks don't realistically have a failure chance. I don't want to fail an athletics check to climb some stairs. if I make the best tightrope walker in the world, I don't want to have a 5% of falling to my death every time I try to use my skill...

Its 5% or 0% there not really an in between.

Yep, and when the chance of failure should be far, far closer to the 0% than the 5%, I say go with the 0%.

How many is your character going to realistically make?

If he makes one and fails, that's too many for that kind of check.

Also D&D has never been perfect as simulation.

Agreed... So why try to force a chance of failure into the game if we accept that?

Its a d20 5% is as low as you get.

Last time I checked, 0 is less than 5.

Are you suggesting we start using a different die?

Nope, just the auto-fail on a one. WE agreed it wasn't "perfect as simulation", so why force a miniscule percentage all the way up to 5% JUST for realism in an imperfect simulation of a fantasy world?

Don't say no one there is always someone. Heck not to long ago there was a post wanting to remove the d20 form the game.

But anyways whats your suggested fix for it? Keep the take 10 rule or just 1 not being an auto failure?

I would say the best way would be Proficiency making rolls under a certain point not be fail-able? but then figuring out the exact numbers is tricky.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the assurance feat pretty much what you want? (without the actual taking of a feat cause believe you me I know how much you hate that.)

Also Grey you do realize you can't roll a 0 on a d20 right?

Also did you really say one failed check is to many? You don't believe you should fail checks?

Er...

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

Don't say no one there is always someone. Heck not to long ago there was a post wanting to remove the d20 form the game.

I have seen no one in this thread say that, or any of the playtest threads: I'll happily retract my statement if you have a quote from someone that's said that. ;)

But anyways whats your suggested fix for it? Keep the take 10 rule or just 1 not being an auto failure?

Both. Assurance is... well, it's just awful in any situation you'd actually want to use it in. AS for as auto fail, we have a nifty +/-10 crit rule, so why do we need 20/1 to affect the dice at all?

I would say the best way would be Proficiency making rolls under a certain point not be fail-able? but then figuring out the exact numbers is tricky.

This works itself out if we ditch the 1 = fail rule: auto-make rolls naturally are those that equal your bonuses+1.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the assurance feat pretty much what you want? (without the actual taking of a feat cause believe you me I know how much you hate that.)

Oh I wish assurance was worth taking but it only lets you make rolls FAR under rolls you'd actually be rolling. AS such, it's only use seems to be for those static 'climb a rope against this 5' wall' task you'll never see after 1st...

Now if the numbers were actually high enough to be relevant for actual challenges you'd meet, it might be workable but as/is it's just a feat tax to get rid of the chance to fail on a 1 for simple tasks you shouldn't, IMO, have a chance to fail on in the first place.

EDIT:

Also Grey you do realize you can't roll a 0 on a d20 right?

You were talking about 5% failure: if no number is an auto failure, that's a 0. It's kind of the point that it's not on the die.

Also did you really say one failed check is to many? You don't believe you should fail checks?

"for that kind of check": we were talking about nails and basic math remember. If you fail just one "for that kind of check", it too many as you should NEVER fail that kind of check IMO. That has 0% impact on other types of rolls that pose an actual challenge.

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

Ah so you want to get rid of the 20 upgrading success and 1 downgrading success by one rules right?

That's somewhat reasonable. I think your removing a few old D&D staples that way. The excitement of seeing a 20 or a 1 which is probably a hard sell but I can see where your coming from.

If I was gonna do that what I would do is make it so a certain level of proficiency (maybe master? ) Would remove the downgrade from rolling a 1. I think that kind of makes sense and give the Prof something more. I'm all about feats being upgrade with Prof I've said that like 50 times.

Hmm alternatively we could use the old +10 -10 rules. Where a 1 gives the roll -10 and a 20 gives the roll +10. (I think that one was from ELH)

(Also I feel like if you have a DM that makes you roll your legendary blacksmith against nails you will find other problems with that DM too. but having a rule never the less is probably preferential.)

Random curiosity: how often if ever do you play with the same group?

Cyouni wrote:

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

I think if "identify a monarch" is trivial at level 5, and "identify a minor noble" trivial at level 8, I'd be giving a pretty massive side-eye at a DM who makes "craft nails as a legendary blacksmith" a roll-required task.

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

I think if "identify a monarch" is a trivial level 0 task, and "identify a secretive minor noble" a trivial level 8 task, I'd be giving a pretty massive side-eye at a DM who makes "craft nails as a legendary blacksmith" a roll-required task.

I absolutly agree but I think the concept is more of a RAW vrs RAI thing so its probably best if the rules did encourage a DM to not make that situation happen. grated Most DM I know wouldn't but if its there in the RAW then maybe it could come up for some. I think the way Grey puts it is harder to grasp but I think that's the jest of the concern. Rather then just find a new GM the idea is to make the rule book more complete and less open to bad interpretations.

graystone wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Er...

Page 337 wrote:

Ordinary tasks become trivial at a certain level, listed in the final column so you have some idea when these tasks no longer present even a minor challenge for the characters. Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly.

Doesn't this handle a legendary blacksmith making nails, or a legendary scholar doing simple math?

That's a rule 0 type DM's fiat. As such, there is never a guarantee that a DM that I play with will or will not ask for a roll. So, it's kind of worthless as I don't have the same DM from adventure to adventure.

I think if "identify a monarch" is trivial at level 5, and "identify a minor noble" trivial at level 8, I'd be giving a pretty massive side-eye at a DM who makes "craft nails as a legendary blacksmith" a roll-required task.

We had the old 'not a FAQ' reply to take ten for PF that pretty much said that the Dm was encouraged to throw out the rules and not allow take tens because of pacing if they wished. If the devs think the Dm should be able to arbitrarily disallow a basic tactic in the game because it's more 'exciting' to roll dice, I don't see why it'd be different with this...

I mean I feel the DM always has the option of throwing out rules they don't like and changing the game to how it works for them. Of course they should also let people know that stuff at the beginning too. Not make changes mid game but rather at the beginning.

If I felt that way I would preface people signing up for(or however online games works) my game by saying I reserve the right to deny take 10 whenever suits me.

That's somewhat reasonable. I think your removing a few old D&D staples that way. The excitement of seeing a 20 or a 1 which is probably a hard sell but I can see where your coming from.

As/is, you have to wait for your 'excitement' to see if the number hit or missed as that affects it's being a crit. You have to 'math' it out anyway.

Random curiosity: how often if ever do you play with the same group?

Same group? Almost never: that only happens if the DM recruits from a current game to a future game but that's kind of a perfect storm to get all the players and DM willing and available at the same time. Add to that, the way the system is set up, only the DM[s] know your name so the other players only know your game name so I might play the next game with some of the players from this game and not know without guessing.

With the turnover and popularity of pathfinder games combined with real life and online play, it's always a mix of people you've played with before and people you haven't. ;)

Vidmaster7 wrote:

That's somewhat reasonable. I think your removing a few old D&D staples that way. The excitement of seeing a 20 or a 1 which is probably a hard sell but I can see where your coming from.

As/is, you have to wait for your 'excitement' to see if the number hit or missed as that affects it's being a crit. You have to 'math' it out anyway.

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Random curiosity: how often if ever do you play with the same group?

Same group? Almost never: that only happens if the DM recruits from a current game to a future game but that's kind of a perfect storm to get all the players and DM willing and available at the same time. Add to that, the way the system is set up, only the DM[s] know your name so the other players only know your game name so I might play the next game with some of the players from this game and not know without guessing.

With the turnover and popularity of pathfinder games combined with real life and online play, it's always a mix of people you've played with before and people you haven't. ;)

I think so far the best idea is the +10/-10 rules from ELH. ITs pretty well the same for normal at your level checks roll wise but for differing level checks it is less powerful. the only thing about that might be that it truely means a level 1 actually has no chance of hitting a level 20 even with a roll of a 20. Hmm I'll think on a way around that.

Let me think on that. with the upgrade one or down grade one. it means that the 20 will at least always hit and the 1 will be a miss. The fighter has that nifty mechanic where even on a miss its still a hit which that might actually fit to what your saying so maybe just change assurance so that it makes that auto down grade no longer a thing or better yet just make it so when you get to a certain proficiency in a skill it works like evasion in a way. where a 1 doesn't get the down grade. huh I like that one what do you guys thing about that idea? Also we could make that a facet of all prof and get rid of that fighter feat/feature and fold it into a facet of proficiency.

That's weird what program do you use? You would think it would have a way for you to create a list of friends that way you would have an easier time getting a group together of people you enjoy playing with and that way you can all agree on the rules. What your describing sounds like chat roulette in RPG form.

I mean I feel the DM always has the option of throwing out rules they don't like and changing the game to how it works for them. Of course they should also let people know that stuff at the beginning too. Not make changes mid game but rather at the beginning.

If I felt that way I would preface people signing up for(or however online games works) my game by saying I reserve the right to deny take 10 whenever suits me.

Oh, I totally agree with you: it's why I hated the non-FAQ so much. When given an opportunity to clear up take ten, they went for having it be MORE ambiguous instead of less.

Rather then just find a new GM the idea is to make the rule book more complete and less open to bad interpretations.

*nods* I'm 100% cool with DM fiat. I just hate it when the rule in question IS DM fiat instead of an actual rule with a right and wrong answer. I'd rather see 'it's this way but if the Dm wished they can do it this way'. So for the rule in question, I'd rather see "These rolls are automatic successes unless the DM requests a roll." Opt in to requiring a roll instead of opting out of the required roll.

ELH: I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

Thats weird what program do you use?: web site actually. Players CAN contact each other if they wish and exchange their site names and it's not that uncommon for me to get an invite to fill in if someone drops or a new game is starting.

you can all agree on the rules: Generally the DM lists everything when requesting players: books allowed, restrictions, levels, ect. Anyone interested sends a request to join, usually with a character and you have a back and forth with the DM if needed over specifics. Most times you don't see who the other players are until the game starts up unless the DM gets the players together to make up characters together but that's rare.

ELH is Epic Level Handbook from 3.0/3.5 the +10 for a 20 instead of auto success and vice versa was an optional rule in that book.

I'm thinking it might have made its way into 1 or 2 other books as well.

I generally find that if, as the GM, I cannot come up with a single interesting consequence of success vs. failure for some task I can't, in good conscience, ask anybody to roll for it.

Like a better way to handle it instead of "did you make a nail" is "how many nails did you make" or "how long does it take you to make the number of nails you need."

I generally find that if, as the GM, I cannot come up with a single interesting consequence of success vs. failure for some task I can't, in good conscience, ask anybody to roll for it.

Something I don't like about the four degrees of success is the amount of uninteresting failure conditions. I've improvised skill fumbles for years now...this feels stale in comparison.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I generally find that if, as the GM, I cannot come up with a single interesting consequence of success vs. failure for some task I can't, in good conscience, ask anybody to roll for it.

Something I don't like about the four degrees of success is the amount of uninteresting failure conditions. I've improvised skill fumbles for years now...this feels stale in comparison.

Are you saying that you think they need more critical failure options or that your having trouble of thinking of crit fumbles for each skill? Also how often is crit fumbles coming up for you? or do you mean regular fumbles which I don't think that is what you meant cause that is simple they just don't suceed.

Are you saying that you think they need more critical failure options or that your having trouble of thinking of crit fumbles for each skill? Also how often is crit fumbles coming up for you? or do you mean regular fumbles which I don't think that is what you meant cause that is simple they just don't suceed.

My bad. I should have used consistent language. I was going off of this section of the rules.

If you fail and roll a 1 on the d20 (also called a “natural 1”), or you fail and your result is equal to or less than the DC minus 10, you critically fail instead of just failing. A critical failure is sometimes called a “fumble.” If an action or activity does not specify a critical failure effect, then the effect for a critical failure is the same as that for a failure.

In any case, I'm referring to Critical Failures and specifically those that occur outside of direct combat. I've houseruled Natural 1 Critical Failures for Skill checks in Pathfinder First Edition for years and my group has definitely embraced the concept. However - I think that the Critical Failures outlined in the playtest often kill momentum and fail to be interesting.

For instance, breaking a lockpick isn't interesting and kills momentum. It would be more interesting and open up the option to fail forward to say that a Critical Failure results in a loud noise that may attract attention.

There's a loud metallic snap from the door where the Rogue is crouched that reverberates through the ancient halls.

Footsteps sound from the other side of the door as the Rogue curses and gestures towards the others, "Quick! Hide!"

For the Crafting example... The current Failure and Critical Failure results are...

Failure You fail to complete the item. You can salvage the raw materials you supplied for their full value.

Critical Failure You fail to complete the item. You ruin 10% of the raw materials you supplied, but can salvage the rest.

Why not, instead, do something like the following.

Failure You complete the item but it's not up to your usual standards of quality. The resulting item is one proficiency level lower (min trained). If this is a magic or alchemic item, the GM makes a secret roll on Table [Random Fun Effects] and adds one to it.

Critical Failure You fail to complete the item. You can salvage the raw materials you supplied for their full value.

I like the idea of botching a batch of elixirs of life but the elixirs still heal people...just they turn everyone's hair blue for a week as well.

So this part in particular?

"The effects of a critical failure are often more detrimental than those for a failure and can be debilitating or even deadly. If an ability does not specify a critical failure effect, then the effect for a critical failure is the same as that for a failure. A critical failure counts as a failure for rules that have different effects depending on whether you succeed or fail. It might be possible in some situations to meet the DC even on a 1. If your roll would equal or exceed the DC even on a 1, you don’t critically fail, but you still fail instead of succeeding. You can’t succeed when you roll a 1 no matter what your modifier is."

So If I am understanding your point. You don't like the example critical fumbles presented (for the most part?) and would like it to be left open so you can make up your own crit failure results yes?

I feel like a lot of this debate would be solved by reworking Assurance and having it be actually useful and worth taking

Concerning the nails and legendary blacksmiths...

You'd not make a skill check for every. individual. nail. You would make them for a group of nails. And given that I've had screws, which are manufactured using automation so humans don't actually get involved at all and the chance of error should be 0%, actually end up being broken or otherwise defective... yes. Even a legendary blacksmith should occasionally screw up on making a nail. You could consider it as "I'm so good at this task that I'm not paying any attention at all and let an error slip in as a result."

I feel like a lot of this debate would be solved by reworking Assurance and having it be actually useful and worth taking

Thus far I have seen very little testing on that, since everyone who has looked at it, regarded it as a trap option.

Dragonriderje wrote:

I feel like a lot of this debate would be solved by reworking Assurance and having it be actually useful and worth taking

Thus far I have seen very little testing on that, since everyone who has looked at it, regarded it as a trap option.

I've had a few players take it - misunderstanding it as Take 10/15/etc - but no one has actually used it after they realized how it actually worked.

@graystone: For the reasons I talked about before, I feel like take 10 cannot come back to the system because it limits the range of acceptable challenges too much.

However, I would be in favor of natural 1s not being in automatic failure, especially in it was provided in the same conditions as take 10 - i.e., if you are not rushed or distracted, then nat 1s don't autofail and you succeed anything bonus+1 or less.

However, I would be in favor of natural 1s not being in automatic failure, especially in it was provided in the same conditions as take 10 - i.e., if you are not rushed or distracted, then nat 1s don't autofail and you succeed anything bonus+1 or less.

That still seems weak to me (though I'd love it as an automatic feature you gain at Expert or Master proficiency. I'd be in favor of something like...

Shift the degrees of success by five points in your favor for this specific skill.
--| You critically succeed on DC +5.
--| You succeed above DC -5.
--| You fail below DC -5.
--| You critically fail on DC -15.

Or I guess that could be worded more simply as "For this skill, treat the DC as 5 lower."

To me, part of the problem is a natural desire for characters to be very good at their invested skill set versus too many darned required rolls. Rolls should only be required when the outcome is in doubt and meaningful. What sense is there in making a Legendary acrobat walk a tightrope in a light breeze? It makes the person who fails the roll (despite having invested a major portion of their character resources) feel frustrated, and even more frustrated if the person who only invested minimal resources in a skill rolls a 19 or 20 and blows it off spectacularly. As one poster said on these forums a long time ago, it leads to a temporary moment of humor, but it also hurts both drama and suspension of disbelief every time it happens.

The more I think about it the more I'd like to see some types of skill use auto-succeed without a roll, given sufficient proficiency (similar to the examples under Recognize Spell). I think the skill target numbers are actually pretty good as-is and if not perfect, are very close, but one thing to get rid of the consistent complaint about omega-skilled characters failing basic rolls is to gate auto-success behind proficiency levels and have everyone else just roll.

...but one thing to get rid of the consistent complaint about omega-skilled characters failing basic rolls is to gate auto-success behind proficiency levels and have everyone else just roll.

That would work for me. Remove Natural 1 Critical Failures for Expert, treat Critical Failures as Failures for Master, and treat Failures as Success for Legendary (unless it fails by 10 or more). Probably a bit overpowered in some cases...but it would make the proficiency advances feel meaningful.

MaxAstro wrote:

However, I would be in favor of natural 1s not being in automatic failure, especially in it was provided in the same conditions as take 10 - i.e., if you are not rushed or distracted, then nat 1s don't autofail and you succeed anything bonus+1 or less.

That still seems weak to me (though I'd love it as an automatic feature you gain at Expert or Master proficiency. I'd be in favor of something like...

I think that particular post was separate from the Assurance discussion, just being an alternative basic mechanic.

Speaking personally, I do find that assurance is marginally better after the DC Table update from 1.3, but... yeah it's still almost worthless. You can auto-make the best possible use of the new Battle Medic with it if you're Legendary though. So... 1 good use, and otherwise it's mostly making Easy difficulty checks, which don't come up super often.

The biggest problem with Assurance, honestly, is that it goes against what the devs have said repeatedly is a core rule of the new system: Not to have character abilities get worse as you level up.

Assurance not only most of the time gets worse as you level up, it also tops out in power at level 15 and then only gets weaker from there.

It'd be fine if Assurance insured you would never fail challenges which are beneath someone of your level and expertise, but things like treat wounds scaling sort of highlight its shortcomings (a legendary medic autopasses at level 15 and never thereafter).

MaxAstro wrote:

However, I would be in favor of natural 1s not being in automatic failure, especially in it was provided in the same conditions as take 10 - i.e., if you are not rushed or distracted, then nat 1s don't autofail and you succeed anything bonus+1 or less.

That still seems weak to me (though I'd love it as an automatic feature you gain at Expert or Master proficiency. I'd be in favor of something like...

Shift the degrees of success by five points in your favor for this specific skill.
--| You critically succeed on DC +5.
--| You succeed above DC -5.
--| You fail below DC -5.
--| You critically fail on DC -15.

Or I guess that could be worded more simply as "For this skill, treat the DC as 5 lower."

Isn't this the same as giving a flat +5 to the roll? It would be extremely overpowered, don't you think?

The Once and Future Kai wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

However, I would be in favor of natural 1s not being in automatic failure, especially in it was provided in the same conditions as take 10 - i.e., if you are not rushed or distracted, then nat 1s don't autofail and you succeed anything bonus+1 or less.

That still seems weak to me (though I'd love it as an automatic feature you gain at Expert or Master proficiency. I'd be in favor of something like...

Shift the degrees of success by five points in your favor for this specific skill.
--| You critically succeed on DC +5.
--| You succeed above DC -5.
--| You fail below DC -5.
--| You critically fail on DC -15.

Or I guess that could be worded more simply as "For this skill, treat the DC as 5 lower."

Isn't this the same as giving a flat +5 to the roll? It would be extremely overpowered, don't you think?

You're right. I realized afterwards that I was being absurd. Perhaps if it shifted the DC by 5 but only for Failure and Critical Failure?

ELH is Epic Level Handbook from 3.0/3.5 the +10 for a 20 instead of auto success and vice versa was an optional rule in that book.

Ah, I forgot about that little gem; I find most of that book to be atrocious. Some cool monsters, though (Atropal is disturbing).

As for auto-success, 5th Ed has a variant, that if your ability score = the DC + 5, you auto-succeed. PF2 could do something similar, but maybe tied to your Skill proficiency, or something.

I outlined another option to make the Skill proficiencies more attractive in the linked thread (and copied below). The thread also has some options presented by other folks. These are sort of numerical options, but sort of not.
Making the higher proficiency levels have more impact

I am still in favor of some way to eliminate the die roll out of combat.

Personally, I would prefer something like below:
Untrained: Level -4, any checks you are allowed to make, you must roll.
Trained: Level+0, Out of combat you can choose to Take 5, rather than roll.
Expert: Level+1, Out of Combat you can choose to Take 10, rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is a 2 (no autocrat fails due to a 1, although if your roll+your skill modifier is a crit fail then you crit fail).
Master: Level+2, Out of Combat you can take 10 rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is a 5.
Legendary: Level+3, Out of Combat you can take 15 rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is an 8.

My favorite was the sentient black hole. (umbral blot.)

So far the best I idea I have for the issues I think is just for a certain level of proficiency to make it so 1's don't automatically downgrade your roll to a fail. I think that's fair.

Okay, so in addition to having to gradually become a dwarf over time, now some the things that used to be innately dwarfish are gated away behind your single heritage feat choice and therefore you'll literally never become as much of a dwarf as you were in first edition.

Really not what I was hoping to see happen with ancestries...

(Also, the dwarf feat which causes you to have two fewer points of resonance might sting all the more if the resonance playtest winds up becoming official errata, as both resonance and focus points are more heavily limited.)

Concerning the nails and legendary blacksmiths...

You'd not make a skill check for every. individual. nail. You would make them for a group of nails.

My point would be if that blacksmith wanted to make only ONE nail, they have a 5% failure rate... You aren't forced to use batch rules after all.

And given that I've had screws, which are manufactured using automation so humans don't actually get involved at all and the chance of error should be 0%, actually end up being broken or otherwise defective... yes. Even a legendary blacksmith should occasionally screw up on making a nail. You could consider it as "I'm so good at this task that I'm not paying any attention at all and let an error slip in as a result."

All I've agreed with: failure is a possibility, but not 5%. IMO, that legendary blacksmith should fail when the conditions are bad that produce penalties large enough to produce an actual failure chance by the dice.

For instance, if you're using inferior materials, you're sick, in the rain, during a earthquake and cursed... Sure, THEN maybe you've got a 5% failure chance.