Bastille's page

N N 959 wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

OOTS #126

Awesome, thank you.

Ragni, please read this strip as it totally applies to your question

The biggest flaw with the strip is that it assumes that it takes a long time under normal circumstances to become a wizard. There is no age restriction for being a wizard.

You can have the backstory of, "I found this old spellbook yesterday, and after reading it for a few hours, I was able to prepare and cast spells", and that's completely valid.

Given that an INT of 10 is all you need to be able to comprehend cantrips and 10 INT is average, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that a 14 or 16 INT character could learn how to cast a few spells in a day or two.

Classes did have age minimums in Pathfinder. Based on your race and class, there was a minimum age that you had to be. Using humans as an example, 16 was the youngest you could make a Barb, Sorc, or Bard but you would have to be at least 17 to be a cleric, monk, or wizard. Intuitive classes were 15+1d4, Self-Taught were 15+1d6, and then Trained were 15+2d6 as their randomized starting age.

Here's an example of each of these situations:

** spoiler omitted **...

Perception DCs are probably one of the hardest thing to handle, both numerically and for discouraging repeated attempts.

When it comes to the DC, you'll often have one player who makes themselves the living embodiment of Perception. If you try to make it so the checks are still a threat to them, then them failing means no one else has a chance probably. If you don't take them into consideration, you may as well not make anything hidden to begin with.

If time loss is the only major repercussion for searching til the cows come home, players will go to town on searching a location. They will often try until they reach some suitable result, moving on if it doesn't trigger anything.

"Oh, I didn't find anything on a natural 18? Guess there's nothing here. Let's move on, guys."

Bastille wrote:

Is taking 10 no longer a thing? I feel like so many concerns about low/trivial DCs are moot in the face of taking 10.

Taking 10 is no longer a thing.

You can take a feat called "assurance" that gives you a *final result* of 10 (not 10+ modifiers) but in general there will be no longer situations where you simply take 10 and laugh at every skill check. As you rank up (expert, master, etc) your assurance result gets higher.

Ah, I see... I feel Assurance would be useful for covering the situations that taking 10 would have not applied to, at the very least. Removing taking 10 entirely feels like a design omission, given how many of the cases brought up in earlier comments could be fixed with "They take 10 when making breakfast so they avoid the situation where they burn their house down".

My group will still give it the ol' college try during the playtest though and see how the new system plays out before harping on it too much. My initial gut reaction to hearing that however is "Oh boy, something that should've been available to everyone requires a feat to access!". Those carryovers from 3.5 into PF were often subject to house rules to try and fix them. Would've been nice for PF2 to remove them entirely.

Is taking 10 no longer a thing? I feel like so many concerns about low/trivial DCs are moot in the face of taking 10.

Will Spell Kenning still potentially be a thing? That was my favourite addition to the Skald. It felt like something Bards should have had from the start.

I have an issue with the Armageddon Orb as a trap. If its a thing just sitting there on a pedestal, sure. But if the bad guy has it in their pocket and the trigger is their death, do you even have a chance to notice it?

Simple solution: Shatter any semblance of mood/atmosphere by asking the Big Bad "Is that an Armageddon Orb in your pocket or are you just happy to see us?"

Has anything been mentioned yet for knowledge rolls on monsters? Will that wind up being laid out in the fluff for each monster?