Lord Villastir

Ghilteras's page

58 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

albadeon wrote:
multi attack penalty wrote:
You take this penalty on all attacks after the first on your turn.

Seems pretty clear, why should Cleave be an exception? It doesn't mention being an exception anywhere. It makes an additional strike attack on your turn => it adds to your MAP.

The addition in Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows is likely in there to clarify that despite it being two attacks in a single action, you still need to increase the MAP after the first strike. Because it's a single-action "double-attack", people might otherwise mistakenly assume that the same MAP applied to both attacks.

With cleave, that wasn't neccessary to specifiy, because cleave is only one attack in the one (re-)action.

This is all interpretation, not RAW. The Feat description should tell you how the Feat works in regards of MAP, like Twin Takedown or Flurry of Blows. This leads to people giving their own interpretation on rules when worded poorly especially because Cleave is a single attack, it's just the same attack that kills the first creature then hits another one, you utilize another Strike roll to check if you hit it but it's not another attack.

It might be clear for you, but for most of others it's not, there is a discussion like this on Reddit and one on the Facebook group as well, which means it's not clear at all. I honestly don't know why the Errata did not address this.

Looks like the Errata came out but there is no patch for Cleave feat. The feat does not specify it contributes to Multi Attack Penalty like other feats that do similar things such as Flurry of Blows and Twinned Takedown. For those feats the description specifically says that they contribute to MAP, but in Cleave there is no mention of it. Everyone thought this was an oversight, but the Errata came out and it did not fix it so what do we do? By RAW Cleave is not affected by MAP, but by RAI it is because it's a reaction in your turn, not outside your turn and the feat says to make a Strike and Strike has the Attack tag which is affected by MAP.

I don't really like when things are left up to interpretation so can we have an official clarification about this and can we make this part of the Errata?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Added it to my digital assets but it does not show up there so I can't actually download it

John Lynch 106 wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Curerently unknown effect.

I am currently using it as "if you are trying to avoid notice with noisy armour it is dm fiat as to whether it works or not", that is to say... if it is quiet there is no chance your noisy armour will be quiet, regardless of how good your stealth score is.

But if the creature is deaf or in a noisy environment then it has no impact.

This is pretty much how I've read it. It's to give GM permission to say "you know what. I don't care how much you've munchkined up your stealth score your in armour that is reknowned for being noisy. You can't stealth while wearing it." Of course not all GMs are going to care for that sort of realism so it truly is going to have substantial table variance. If you want to reliably stealth while wearing armor, spring for the upgrade which has no benefit other than not having the noisy trait.

I am pretty sure that forbidding Avoid Notice or any Stealth checks entirely just because of an Armor Trait is absolutely out of the question. I think it's either a -1/-2 circumstance penalty or whatever the Check Penalty is for the Armor regardless of your Strength score, hopefully a DEV will see the post and chime in.

It would be great if one of the DEV could chime in and clarify this for us

the "Noisy" armor trait says "This armor is loud and likely to alert others to your presence when you’re using the Avoid Notice exploration activity." Does it mean we cannot use the exploration activity or that we can but with the Check Penalty regardless of STR score? How about other stealth checks not part of Avoid Notice activity? We just apply the penalty regardless of STR? The words here are very unclear and could use a better wording..

Can we get a link please?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Spamming Treat Wounds without limit makes no sense as Adventure Paths rarely takes into account time sensitive quests and it becomes an extra burden for the GM.

Stamina/Resolve is indeed a much better system so either they use that or they limit the number of uses of Treat Wounds per day. Another example of a much more elegant system is like short rests are handled in 5e: you can only use your hit die to heal a number of times equal to your level.

Spamming Treat Wounds without limits has to go away also due to the stupidity of rolling up to six times per use, it's unbearable. How could the devs expect players to like that?

Treat Wounds should just be limited to 2 times per every rank you have in Medicine per day so if you are Untrained you cannot do it, Trained you do it 2 times per PG per day, Expert 4 times per PG per day, Master 6, Legendary 8

Spamming it without limit and rolling up to 6 times per use makes no sense as it's incredibly boring and Adventure Paths rarely takes into account time sensitive quests and it becomes an extra burden for the GM.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally my issue with Resonance was the lack of out of combat healing. If mundane healing addresses that then I have no more concerns with Resonance. I still believe that PC should have a limited number of magic items.

I also love the Untrained being -4 now.

Good job!

Ediwir wrote:

I understand bow it’s SUPPOSED to work, but that’s not how it’s EXPLAINED to work.

RAW and RAI here are extremely different, and people cannot understand the mechanic without referencing the demos.

The rest of the damage goes to the PC, the shield is not taking all the damage, only up to its hardness. With the current RAW I think you can only get one dent per shield block.

I think an item can get multiple dents with a single strike, but not shields under shield block usage as the extra damage past hardness goes to the PC. The shield only takes up to hardness damage, which means only 1 dent per shield block. With the current RAW breaking a shield with a single shield block seems not possible.

They should really post an errata if it's not like that

I don't think shield block is clear at all with the current wording. Since the PC gets the extra damage after the hardness the shield only gets damage up to its hardness so with the current RAW the shield can only get one dent per shield block.

The shield is taking the damage only up to shield block, the rest goes to the PC so I don't see how a shield can take more than a dent with the current RAW

The situation where the shield takes 2 dents is more a RAI than RAW

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The shield can never take more than one dent per shield block as the PC gets the rest of damage not the shield.

I'm going to +1 that :) sorry it's not easy to keep track of all the posting especially when they are in different sections..

- Initial Problem:
cheap items can be crafted/bought too easily (especially in PF Society) and spammed oversimplify out of combat healing.

- Initial Solution:
Resonance caps the usage of these consumables, but it forces players to play clerics or spend feats to get healing specs to recover between encounters otherwise the adventure day lasts 2 encounters.

Why are we not using the Stamina/Resolve of Starfinder for this? I would also say 5e short rests, but I know that copying stuff from d&d is taboo and people go ballistic if I say 5e so let's stick with Starfinder.

In Starfinder you can heal out of combat to a degree without consuming consumables and without using spell slots or spell points. Why you guys put Resonance in place without the Stamina system? Of course without ANY capability of naturally recovering HP out of combat PCs are forced to get battle medic or natural healing feats or to get the cleric class to keep the adventure day longer. Is that fair? In modern RPGs people are going away from the concept of the holy triad dps/support/tank. You should let people play whatever they want and the system should provide balance to any party. If a party wants more healing in place of DPS or the other way around it's up to them, but the system should never punish parties that are without clerics, so why not use the stamina/resolve system from Starfinder to fix some of the problems introduced by Resonance?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Resonance would work fine if you give us a Stamina system like Starfinder or short rests like in 5e.

The problem is not limiting magic items, that would be a good thing, I hate wand of CLW spam.. But the problem is how to heal out of combat. You force us to stick with clerics in party and even with that we struggle to keep the party going and prolonging the adventure day.

Just give us a way to heal out of combat and Resonance will work fine. Use medicine, short rests, Stamina, whatever. As long as PCs can heal out of combat without burning spells or using consumables that are restricted by Resonance the adventure day will last more than 2 encounters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unattended objects don't have AC afaik so critting them is out of the question

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Looks like the whole system was built on top of this bizarre aggressive scaling and I don't think they can go back without reworking all the hazards and monsters, which means the playtest paperback will become worthless.. They need to justify it and make it work or they would admit that they failed to design the very base of the new system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

So if someone can answer this from the thing that'd be awesome.

I raise a wooden shield hardness 3 and use it to block.
The attacker rolls 6 for his damage.
Is my shield destroyed or did it only take the 3 damage it blocked which causes 1 dent?

By RAW it can only soak up to its Hardness so you take the rest, which means a shield can currently never be broken in a single hit. Maybe Mark Seifter can clarify this point for us?

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

To be honest I hope that Resonance and +Level to everything stay right now.

The only situation where I think Resonance makes lots of sense is if we have short rests or stamina or any other mean to heal out of combat, otherwise if you cannot even drink potions to heal you NEED healbots and even with them your adventure days will be 2 encounters. Without healbots you'll probably need to do long rests every encounter which makes no sense to me as it force people to spec healers just to keep the party going for one or two more encounters.

The only thing Resonance needs to work well is to bring back short rests or stamina or any other mean to heal out of combat, otherwise if you cannot even drink potions to heal you NEED healbots and even with them your adventure days will be 2 encounters. Without healbots you'll probably need to do long rests every encounter which makes no sense to me as it force people to spec healers just to keep the party going for one or two more encounters.

5e nailed this perfectly with short rests as HP and some cooldowns are recovered like that and while it makes sense to catch your breath in a dungeon it does not to sleep 8 hours in it or exit/re-enter, which screws up the adventure forcing the DM to respawn mosters or hazards.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

I actually like it. I'm really over the whole magic mart setup of 3.5e and would much rather have a single feat the party can invest in and give them sufficient downtime to make their own magic items.

Most people don't. See how many threads against crafting we have already and how many people marked them favorite. I guess we just don't see any appeal on the fact that a single PC with crafting can craft anything. To be honest and I'm surprised that Mark Seifter in the last Friday podcast said they are not considering any changes to crafting. Maybe they are not reading the forums?

I'd very much rather have crafting specialization: dwarven blacksmith that knows how to forge armors and swords, the ranger that skin animals and makes arrows/bows/leather armors, the mage that crafts ring and wands, the druid that crafts potions instead of having a single PC that can do all of that and more. It really makes no sense for me for a single PC to ingest all the formulas. What if 2 PCs have crafting? Without specialization they just would end up being redundant. I'm pretty sure this will be a common problem especially in Pathfinder Society.

FInally the Item quality problem highlighted by my example is still a mystery..

Looks like we have to wait for the next playtest twitch stream

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nightwhisper wrote:
in 3.5e and PF1e, AC did not rise by level. Instead, it rose by magic armor (+5), natural armor (+5), ring of protection (+5), and probably a couple of other sources of +5 that I'm forgetting.

Itemization you can always control, the +1/lvl you can't. It just goes up regardless. There are no mob rules in pf2e so the low lvl monster will always critical miss, while on 5e I can still effectively use them as minions as mob rules are statistical. Also we lack variants of monsters that are elite, no orc or goblin elite. A mid level PC can literally kill hundreds of them without ever being hit.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Before rolling initiative you are in exploration mode so if you beat the opponent Perception DC (10+modifier) with your Stealth check you are unseen and there is no seek action. Why would anybody be actively seeking me if they are unaware of my presence?

What is not clear is whether you can attack directly or if you need to roll again for initiative when you are standing behind an unaware enemy ready to backstab him and whether beating their Perception DC is enough or if you need to roll again for Initiative before being able to attack.

Rolling again seems redundant. Think of a Rogue that beats the guard Perception and sneaks up behind him. Why does he have to roll again for initiative? And what if the guard beats this roll? The rogue is suddenly detected? So basically that would mean that rogues need to beat TWICE the perception of anybody to surprise them, once to move behind them and another one for initiative? It makes no sense, I'd rather give the rogue a free attack and then roll initiative, if the rogue beats it then it can attack twice against flat footed. I think RAW needs to clarify this asap.

DerNils wrote:

For me it actually taught me how to interact between Perception vs Stealth.

Players enter the room. Perception rolls for the Searchers.
"There is something in the Sewer."

Someone Closes on the Sewer, Initiative time.

Players that were faster than the Ooze could take Seek Actions to find the Ooze in the Sewer Grate and Point Out for the others. Some attacks with some misses due to Flat Checks.

I don't understand this Perception vs Stealth interaction. The moment the players search the room they roll for initiative as the ooze will attack once a PC will be within 10 foot from it. That being said the ooze can pass for a pool of mud when it's inactive, but it is visible when it manifests, it does not require any seek actions or flat checks, unless there's no light.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

out of combat healing must be addressed otherwise adventure day will be restricted to 1 or 2 encounters. I hate when players want to sleep as soon as the spell slots are spent or keep exiting/re-entering the dungeon.

It screws up the adventure as it forces me to have the villains to move or act or restock or respawn.

Resonance made it worse as you cannot even drink potions or use wands, which makes a group without healer impossible to handle and a group with a healer only possible to handle when the spell slots are not consumed, which forces clerics to only cast healing spells to not burn precious spell slots.

We need out of combat healing back in the game asap, being it with short rests or stamina system like Starfinder.

Mark Seifter just answered this on the official Paizo Twitch. It does not look like they will change crafting for now, which is a really underwhelming answer as this thread clearly showed how incomplete the system is, but I guess they have bigger fish to fry considering the major problems stirred by no out of combat healing, +1/lvl to everything, resonance etc. etc.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mark Seifter just answered this on the official Paizo Twitch. You just need to beat the Hardness to make a Dent. Twice the Hardness, two Dents in a single blow. Damage is NOT supposed to be subtracted with Hardness first. So there you go, it's official now.

Rameth wrote:

Also as I just pointed out in another thread it has to work this way because items no longer have HP. So if the only way to know if an item is damaged or not is if it has a dent then what exactly would the hardness be reducing? Like in the example of a door with 10 hardness using your method.

The door is dealt 11 damage so it takes a dent. So then it reduces the damage by 10 so it takes 1 damage... To what? Where do we add that damage? It has no HP.

The way that I say it makes sense according to the rules presented. It's dealt 11 damage. It reduces that damage by 10 so it TAKES 1. Then you go okay was that equal to its hardness? No? Then no dent. The remaining HP actually matters cause it tells you if it got a dent or not.

The RAW are pretty clear on Bestiary p.12

"Damaging a mechanical trap or another
physical hazard works like damaging objects. An attack
that deals at least as much damage as the hazard’s Hardness
dents it, and an attack that deals twice as much damage as
the Hardness dents it twice (usually breaking it)."

It does not say you must subtract Hardness from the damage or whatever.

No I did not say that NPC does not roll initiative.

1) By RAW passive perception exists in the playtest, it's called Perception DC. You should only roll Perception if they actively seek.

2) For initiative if the Sneak beats the Perception DC you should be allowed to attack and get flat footed bonus under Errata. The NPC then rolls Initiative with Perception to determine who goes first, but the PC does not re-roll. He/She uses the Stealth roll already made, why roll again? If the NPC beats the previous Stealth roll then he goes first, otherwise the PC goes, but the NPC is not flat footed, unless the PC is a Rogue.

Where would be the house rule in that?

The only scenario in which it makes sense for Untrained to only be 5 points away from Legendary is if you gate lock most of activities with ranks, which is pretty hard to do as people can be very creative and you'll never find a way to gate lock everything. Even if they manage to do that imagine how a character that can sport a +20 at Untrained skills would feel frustrated because that large bonus would be effectively useless.

Volkard Abendroth wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
What is gone forever is the option to keep the status quo. Revolution is coming, be it one way or another, I feel.

That revolution may be a repeat of the one that took place with 4e.

A substantial percentage of the player base leaving for another company.

In case you have not noticed this is what's been going on in the past 2 years with people leaving Pathfinder for 5e. PF2e needed to come out a year ago, but they needed to finish Starfinder first, which is opinionated, but still a success, mainly for the fact that there are no competitors in the sci-fi niche. It's not too late to fight back before 5e gets the whole pie and the only way to do it is to provide feedback so PF2e can become better. It won't change dramatically of course and why should it? It has some excellent ideas. It need work and tuning, sure. We need to help.

Formulas can't be the gatekeepers because any magic item can be reverse engineered to get the formula.

A PC that select the crafting must choose which kind of stuff he/she wants to craft, they cannot just craft everything. It makes no sense. Potions must be separate for instance from swords and armor. Wands and Rings can go together, but not with boots or leather armor or bows.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This has been patched in the Errata.

Now when you are sneaking and you strike the enemy is flat footed to you (+2 attack). That's the surprise, but not a full surprise round anymore.

Also remember you don't roll twice for stealth and initiative, you only roll once. If you declare you sneak up to an enemy you just roll stealth AND THAT IS ALSO YOUR INITIATIVE ROLL. You don't even need to roll Stealth twice like somebody suggested, it's just one roll.

If you beat the perception DC of the NPC then you go first and the NPC is flat footed to you, if you fail he noticed you and can decide to attack you instead.

This has been patched in the Errata.

Now when you are sneaking and you strike the enemy is flat footed to you (+2 attack).

Also remember you don't roll twice for stealth and initiative, you only roll once. If you declare you sneak up to an enemy you just roll stealth AND THAT IS ALSO YOUR INITIATIVE ROLL. You don't even need to roll Stealth twice like somebody suggested above, it's just one roll.

If you beat the perception DC of the NPC then you go first and the NPC is flat footed to you, if you fail he noticed you and can decide to attack you instead.

Rameth wrote:
You have to subtract the damage from hardness first.

Again no. By RAW you are wrong. Check Bestiary p.12 and Rulebook p.175

"An attack that deals at least as much damage as the hazard’s Hardness dents it, and an attack that deals twice as much damage as the Hardness dents it twice (usually breaking it). In most cases, breaking or destroying the hazard also triggers it."

It NEVER says you have to subtract damage from Hardness first and no example supports it. Just because the introduction on Hardness says "An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness." it does not mean that you have to subtract your damage, it just means you have to beat the Harness, which is exactly what RAW says.

Monsters and Hazards have been already scaled properly with the +1/lvl to everything bonus by Paizo. The only thing left to GMs is the skill DCs. 10-2 table gives some guidance, but IMHO it's not enough.

Also I don't like that some of the iconic low level monsters will be absolutely useless even in waves when you take into account the +1/lvl to AC as well. In 5e I can still use goblins and orcs as minions to a party mid level effectively (especially thanks to mob rules). In PF unless you publish some elite version of low level monsters like orc/goblin captains or whatever you will only use them at first levels or they would crit-failure most rolls even against a mid lvl party.. It was not like this in previous editions where the AC did not scale.

Just look at 10-2 table in the Rulebook at p.337. As long as a GM can establish what is trivial/low/high/severe and extreme then you are all set. The rest just scales up due to the +1/lvl to everything.

Trivial tasks should not even be rolled.

shroudb wrote:

You forgot the sentence above the one you quoted.

"Subtract hardness from damage first"

Nope. That sentence says "An item reduces any damage dealt to it by its Hardness." which only means that in general items use their hardness to soak damage. Then in the specific the sentence after it clearly states that if you damage EQUAL to hardness or more the item takes a dent so it's indeed 10+ for a door, not 20. The examples in the Bestiary clearly corroborate this at p.12 as Cantriped said.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's a good idea, it's probably better to change the +1/lvl to everything and make it half level rounded down for Untrained and introduce more gatelocking for Legendaries and Masters so there's actually meaning in specializing

Seems pretty clear to me on p.175

If an item takes damage equal to or greater than its Hardness it takes a dent, twice the Hardness 2 dents:

so if a door has Hardness 10 and you hit it twice for 8 and 10 dmg you make 1 dent, if you hit it twice for 10 and 11 dmg you break it. If you hit it once with 20+ dmg you break it with one single hit.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:
Nope, you Need 20 Damage to cause a dent. As you ignore the first 10 Points of damage, the door only takes damage after that. That means in order to cause 10 damage to the door (and cause a dent), you Need to cause 20 damage initially.

"If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item's Hardness, the item takes a Dent." p.175

Doors have 10 hardness, 10 damage in a single hit will dent them, 20 damages will break them in a single hit. Taking 10 damage twice in 2 separate attacks (just roll for damage, doors have no AC) will also break them.

Ironeyess wrote:
Crafting as a skill is arguably reserved for polymaths (such as PCs) rather than any NPC capable of making something of value. Presumably, the same can be said about Performance. Your average NPC should instead have a Lore specialization.

I don't think PCs should be allowed to craft everything without a Lore.

Crafting can be the catchall skill, but Lore can be the gateway to only craft what you got Lore training into. This applies especially to the Craft Magic Items talent otherwise you can craft swords, armors, rings, staves, wands and potions with a single skill, which makes no sense.

You should select a Lore skill to craft specialized objects or you can take Crafting multiple times (like you do with Lore). I certainly don't expect the crafting catchall without lore gatekeeping to make it to release.

8 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Why is "untrained characters stay behind" ever a good thing?

I'm afraid It's the other way around. Paizo should explain to us why having everybody good at everything should be better and not the opposite. It's never been like this and it's always worked fine since the dawn of rpg, no system made everybody godlike even at untrained stuff. I don't find a good justification for this choice. Actually t forces GMs to scale DCs for skill checks so it's more work for me. That's why I want to know why this is a good change. I don't need to justify for opposite because it's always been the opposite and it's always worked! This is introducing more overhead for GMs so it's a price we pay for +1/lvl, is it worth it? Why? What does this +1/lvl gives us that is so hot and good that is ok to have scaling DCs and 20lvl characters with 20+ modifiers to everything? How is that any good?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is not the crumbling wall vs the smooth wall. The problem is that if a challenge does not scale everybody will succeed because at higher lvl all players will have 20+ in all skills, making every DC less than that an automatic success. I don't like that. I don't want to scale my DCs just because of level. It's an added labor and there is no guidance on how I'm supposed to set it.

In PF 1st edition and D&D 5e untrained character stay behind so if I decide my wall is hard to climb and set DC20 then only the trained ppl will succeed. In PF2e everyone will, forcing me to add vampire bats to the climb and change the DC to 40. I don't see how anyone could like this system to be honest, how are you supposed to pick the new DC? Tables 10-2 and 10-3 would need to be constantly consulted to find a use case close to what you need. It's such a useless overcomplication.

I agree that these talents are not a viable option. I'd rather have characters get their own healing mechanics even if it's not in combat.

On this the short rest of 5e is working flawlessly.

I'd rather have class talents that refresh every fewer hours or that scale better or that'd don't inflict damage on crit failure. This playtest is basically forcing at least one player to get a support archetype..

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
What is wrong with a 20th level barbarian being able to sing? Nothing is broken you just don't understand what high levels means.

Everything is both wrong and broken about this. A high level PC untrained can NEVER EVER be better than any expert/master/legendary PC no matter the level gap, especially if the statistic tied to the check is negative for the high level PC and positive for the low level one, otherwise you create paradoxes like an old wizard level 15 with strength 7 more athletic than a barbarian lvl 5 with str 18 (+11 vs +9). IT MAKES NO SENSE

Unicore wrote:
10th level expert bard is getting nervous when that 20th level barbarian walks into the room and starts singing a little ditty that includes an actual tale of them beating a level 19 monster that would have destroyed the entire village, even if they miss the occasional high note.

This also makes no sense, the Barbarian does not know how to sing or how to recite, especially if he has low CHA. I don't care if he is Conan the Barbarian, he does not have a clue on how entertain a crowd and certainly not better than a low level bard!

About the DCs I get it that mundane tasks like climbing a tree should become automatic for high lvl characters. I don't like it, but I can understand it. The problem is not mundane tasks. This will apply to everything except contested checks between PCs and NPCs and Hazards like Traps and stuff. These are the only things that scale. For the rest GMs can only gatelock the check using ranks, like lock picking: no matter the bonus if you don't have expert you can pick that lock, it does not matter if you have +20.

But think of all the time you as GM will spend checking tables 10-2 and 10-3 trying to figure out the baseline DC based on the level of the party or figuring out if you can/should gatelock a check instead of using the old easy=10/medium=15/hard=20/very_hard=25/impossible=30+

As a GM I want a smooth game, I don't want to waste my time scaling the DCs, I don't want to look at the tables every single time to find the DC by level baseline and I absolutely don't want to change challenge just to adjust the DC!

Some of you are suggesting that challenges change, even the manual say so at p.336

For instance, when the PCs’ level is relatively low, they might be faced with climbing a stone wall with handholds, but later in the campaign they should encounter tougher obstacles, like a smooth iron wall.

So according to this for low level players players climbing my wall is hard DC20, but it magically becomes harder DC40 for high level characters because the campaign must scale so it's like the wall would become smoother, less climbable the moment a high level character approaches.

It's such a ridiculous approach, how do you even do it if you have a party with mixed characters? Maybe some sidekicks low level or followers, what do you do then? The wall just becomes a hybrid to accomodate both tiers?

This is why the system is utterly broken and needs to change before pf2e hits release.

Nope, I said to simplify not oversimplify and yes 5e current strength is indeed how the game runs smooth without constantly musing bonuses and maluses. PF2e can be more tactical, but too many rules will scare people away.

In 5e there is only ability and talents modifiers, which is flat and always applies so they are easy to remember, the rest is handled by the DC and ADV/DISADV.

Also you cannot sum up circumstance and conditionals just with spells and conditions. Circumstance is very generic and can apply to most situations. But it's redundant to how the GM sets the DC, as the DC should take care of the circumstance already.

If I try to listen to what people are saying beyond a closed door as a GM I can decide that it's a DC of 15 on the check, but maybe lower if there is no background noise and higher if there is music or racket/ruckus instead. The DC is all you need.

What if somebody is helping you? Aid is pretty much useless in PF2e as multiple checks are always better vs +2 circumstance bonus since skills scale with level, so even an untrained can have high bonuses, while in d&d Aid gives ADV so it's much better to aid a skilled PC rather than checking on your own.

It gets worse at high levels when all players have high 15+ bonuses to ALL skill checks due to +1/lvl growth. At that point you either scale the DC with level (which makes no sense as a task can be hard or easy, it does not scale) or you have to gatelock the tests by sayin "no only trained or experts upward can roll on this check"

So this in the end this system is not simpler than 1st edition, scale worse and makes the GM works more to determine the DCs and gatelocks of checks

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>