Please cancel all of my subscriptions. Working on my budget right now and unfortunately don't have the money for Pathfinder right now. Thanks.
Looks like they are actually having that debate in the PF2 Goblin preview on EnWorld over here: https://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6498-Here-s-A-Pathfinder-2E-Gobli n&page=2#comments. IMO, the 4e people are winning the debate.
The footnote only applies to those temperatures marked with an asterisk.
My campaign doesn’t assume a historical standard. It assumes not only that magic is relatively prevalent (and has a “trickle down effect” to those not fortunate enough to have their own magic, but also that people in general are smarter, hardier, and more efficient workers (which they’d have to be in a world in which zombies and monsters are real). So, not medieval Europe, but more like storybook and fairytale context (the hobbits in LotR, for example, are pretty much at the bottom of my scale, and they don’t look like they are in poverty, in general).
Even if you assume that the 1 gp income is before expenses are taken out for lifestyle rather than discretionary/savings (which is a reasonable assumption), in world the intake/outflow is not on a literal day to day basis, but monthly. The peasant takes his trade to the village market day each week and sells it for 5 to 10 gold, depending on how well he does that week (and this is born out by the mundane equipment prices in the PHB). He might immediately spend some of his gold at the village market, but at the end of some months, he might alternatively take the 30 or so gold he earned that month to spend at a larger city. And when the bandits jump him, it helps explain how they are able to outfit another of their band (or distribute the gold amongst their members for the PCs to loot later). A DM might only place silver pieces in the pouches of NPCs the players encounter, but I find that less realistic. Otherwise, how are the bandits affording their bow, arrows, armor, and sword, which together can approach 100 gp in value depending on whether they favor longbows and which type of armor they wear. I find it best to use the following analogue to our own economy: a copper piece is equivalent to $1, a silver piece is $10, and a gold piece is $100. So, worthwhile and desirable, but not something an average person wouldn’t encounter, even those living paycheck to paycheck so to speak. It also helps that I assume a lower level of wealth disparity in my campaign than the real world, and that your average farmer has a relatively acceptable lifestyle and standard of living and wouldn’t even necessarily consider himself in “poverty.” My NPCs are generally happy, well-fed, and due to magical curtailment of potential epidemics/pandemics or other widespread problems of the real Middle Ages, fairly healthy (that is when not being attacked by goblins or dragons, for which a great deal of villager wealth goes to “wandering security experts”).
Functionally, though, I don't think anyone has matched the initial DDI tools in terms of integration of new books and errata. Actually... as much as I like DDI, D&D Beyond for 5e is even better. The way the hyperlinking and pop-ups work not only between and within game elements, but also in their adventures (to jump quickly between art, maps, statblocks, and adventure text flawlessly and seamlessly, not to mention the blogs and articles and home brew tools). The big downside is the incredible cost, far more than DDI ever was. This train of thought now has me wondering... as value added as these types of tools were for 4e and 5e, their application in Pathfinder 2e would be a dream. Imagine reading an AP volume and being able to pull up in line stat blocks, have condition rules pop-ups in spell descriptions, make notes on the maps, reference the adventure text DCs against your PCs skill bonuses (as their characters would obviously have been built for your campaign file using the integrated PF2 character builder... character creation would be a breeze to search and cross reference what will no doubt be hundreds of backgrounds, Feats, spells, etc).
A World of Warcraft d20 game has already been done: World Of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game (d20 3.5) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1588467813/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Da7lDb4GYXZYP
You don’t have to buy it again in Fantasy Grounds. You can input that data yourself (this is true even of the rules and supplements). However, this can be labor intensive for full automation (although I’ve got pretty quick at inputting the effects that enable the automation). At any rate, for those of us that do use Fantasy Grounds it comes down to Do I want to spend several hours prepping this AP, or do I want to pay SmiteWorks $7 to do it for me?
As of the March 2019 ICv2 report, covering the prior fall (https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/42620/top-5-roleplaying-games-fall- 2018): 1. D&D
I wouldn’t be surprised if PF2 debuts at number 1 for this Fall, but it’ll be at least #2 for sure. We’ll also be able to see the Core Rulebook ranking on Amazon, which will be an indicator, but obviously a good chunk of sales come from Paizo’s store, which wouldn’t be included.
However, 4e did make a ton of money *and* also led to the even more successful 5e. I suspect if WotC could do it all over again the only major deviation they would make would be to apply some sort of sunset to the OGL (or alternate protections against giving rise to a direct competitor). Peter Adkison, former CEO of WotC, has been quoted as saying that 4e sold very well. PHB1, 2, and 3 were all on best seller lists at higher spots for longer periods of time than any subsequent Pathfinder supplements (really one of the only metrics we have to compare). My 4e DDI subscription still indicates that there are over 70k unique subscriptions for the service (down from over 700,000 at its peak IIRC). Skipping 4e might have a butterfly effect that not only cost them the substantial 4e profits, but also kept them from creating the 5e they went on to create. Besides, DeadManWalking provided a handful of problems (from his point of view) that curtailed 4e’s ultimate success. I’m sure that he’d agree that he could enumerate a similar or longer list for Pathfinder that explains why PF was not only not able to prevent to rise of 5e as dominating the industry and market share of new and old players alike, but why PF hasn’t even been able to maintain a spot in the top 5 of tabletop RPGs. Imagine a scenario (though admittedly unlikely) where PF2 actually eventually displaces 5e at the top; I doubt it would be the sentiment of Paizo that “they’d jump right over PF to land at PF2.”
So if Craft checks cant be used for things like Ward Medic then doesn't that make Chirugeon initial ability useless. The ability would effectively be “Chirurgeons gain a +2/+3 to Medicine checks”, but if that’s the intent then I wish the ability had just been worded that way.
Focus powers are encounter powersI've seen this comparison made before, but I don't especially agree with it. How easy was it in 4e to use an encounter power twice in the same encounter? Because it doesn't look like it's going to be difficult at all to use the same Focus power twice or even three times in the same encounter in PF2. 4e Essentials characters had a pool from which they could use their Encounter powers, using the same power multiple times in the same encounter if desired. Some classes prior to Essentials also used this model, primarily most of the classes in PHB3, which similarly had pools of points to use their Encounter powers that they could recharge during a short period of rest.
Dynamic lighting is a core feature of Fantasy Grounds Unity, which completed a very successful (10x) Kickstarter a couple of months ago.
Probably the filming itself was just a fraction of the production day. My guess is 2 or 3 episodes filmed per day, with the portion that was filmed edited down a bit.
I second the pitch for Fantasy Grounds. The all in cost is cheaper, FG is more feature-rich (for sure as of Unity), and the ownership is more responsive to the customer-base.
So the chirurgeon can use Craft instead of Medicine as long as he or she is Trained in Medicine. My reading of this extends to use of Craft instead of Medicine when fulfilling prerequisites for Skill Feats. For example, a chirurgeon Legendary in Craft and Trained in Medicine would be able to take that Legendary feat that let’s you bring people back from the dead. Does anyone concur with my interpretation? If you disagree with the RAW, do you think it seems likely that the RAI is that Craft replace Medicine for all intents and purposes for the chirurgeon?
In the playtest, the trip trait allowed the following three things: -You could use the trip weapon's reach and add its item bonus to your Athletics attempt to trip (using an action as normal). -You didn't need a free hand as normally required. -If you critically failed your Athletics check, you could drop the weapon (if possible), rather than fall prone.
Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).
Ok, I lied, I’m back. :) Many people have noted the poor framework (flavor and distinctiveness) of initial 4e. I actually agree that the PHB1 in particular is pretty horrendous, having not only the least imaginative powers (like many have said, it seems they were spit out of a spreadsheet), but also least powerful (almost all of the options ended up *red* on the CharOp forums, meaning unplayable). However, as 4e went along, not only did the options become much more flavorful, but also far more powerful, more impactful, and more memorable (and not just damage-wise - many powers are similar to the legendary actions available in PF 2, even at lower levels). The stilted and uniform structure so often cited isn’t representative of 4e at all at this point, as each and every rule was eventually broken from top to bottom. That is partly why I am so excited about PF 2, which seems to be starting from a similar point 4e ended at... imagine the actions and powers that will develop as *this* system evolves.
I have little experience actually playing 4E, so I can't comment on this in any informed manner. Which is why I generally keep my commentary on 4E to how it was received (which I have more experience with) rather than how it actually functioned in play. Good discussion. I'll just make one more point and then bow out for now. How 4e was received on EnWorld, Penny Arcade, and the WotC forums (before they closed) was probably much different than the way 4e was received on the Paizo boards. Even at a FLGS level, the audiences became self-segregating for the most part(in many cases even before 4e released in June 2008, due to perceived disenfranchisement by WotC), and once that happened any feedback about the respective systems would have been within the confines of an echo chamber.
Just that enough were to make it an issue. Name 10. Since the 4e Compendium shows that there are well over 1,000 individual powers, the exercise should be easy. As a counterpoint, here are over a dozen powers from the Pathfinder Playtest that I might describe as "too flowery": Dragon Totem Breath
If I threw "Tide of Iron" in there, it would not be out of place. And not all of those powers, not even some of the martial ones, are "At-will" but rather limited to once per minute or other frequency. Listen, I obviously can't easily discredit all of your critiques against 4e (vis a vis PF 2), but this one in particular is low-hanging fruit. And I admit, although I see so many similarities between 4e and PF2 to be exuberant (try to tell me that PF2 multi-classing doesn't resemble more than a passing similarity to 4e multi-classing), if I limited my comparison to just the 4e PHB1 and first year 4e releases, I might not find them that equivalent. But once I take into account 4e's evolution through to Essentials, where 4e eventually got away from the AEDU framework, divorced martial classes from the daily and encounter structure, further differentiated true spell-casting from other pools of focus-like points, evolved the way skills and skill actions worked (including, yes, ensuring that a tree is just a tree), and improved so many other things that appear to have also materialized in Pathfinder 2e, PF2 may as well be D&D 4.5. I don't see what is so bad about that, other than some people do have a psychological interest in ensuring as few parallels as possible are drawn between the two. But to be honest, the more people try to demonstrate that the two are fairly differentiated, the more things I remember that I hadn't even considered, leading my conviction to increase even more that PF2 is a pretty good follow on to D&D 4.
DMW has a point. The 4e Powers Double Slice, Sudden Charge, or Point-Blank Shot would never cut it as the names of Pathfinder 2 powers.
In 4e encounter powers removed all choice from the game. You always opened with your most powerful encounter power, then worked your way down until you just had at-will powers left. I'm not surprised to see encounter powers being praised given the tone of the playtest, but I'll need to see it in action in its final form before I sing its praises. Between theme, racial, class, item powers, and consumables, you had dozens of choices to choose from each round in 4e. Many of which are move or minor actions that can be slotted in as needed (rarely on the first round), others of which are situational buffs, debuffs, or healing, others that are part of innerparty combos or need to be set-up, and few of which are obviously “the most powerful encounter power”, regardless of the level next to the name. Too often, a daily power, item power, or consumable would be a better choice, and for most classes, including the ranger from core and certainly psionics and essential classes, the encounter powers aren’t even competing with the at-wills in that manner, since they often engage the scenario from a completely different vector from the at-wills and often from each other. To say nothing of the specifics of the situation or scenario before the party, which may include a mix of minions and bosses or include multiple rooms of enemies, or might include reinforcements. Only the most tactically inept players would open with their most powerful encounter power and work their way down until they had just at-will powers left. This would be like suggesting that the player of a Pathfinder Wizard, in a fight that they (perhaps incorrectly) expect will be the only one of the day, start casting from their highest level spell slots and work their way down (when such slots may include things like dispel magic or freedom of movement or dimension door, all things also true of 4e encounter powers). As someone who played 4e once a week for years, I can confidently say that your view on encounter powers is not an accurate one, respectfully.
ALSO: To be fair.... ** spoiler omitted ** *Ba-dum tssh* He’s here all week folks!
I very well might cast wall of force, true. But if the choice is between upcasting fireball or preparing/casting the 5th level spells cone of cold, conjure volley, or flame strike (which all deal similar damage to the upcast fireball), then the comparison is much easier to make. In that case, the question isn’t “is it suboptimal to upcast fireball” so much as it is “is it suboptimal to cast any type of high level AOE whatsoever.” As another example of a damage spell that is attractive at every level, I submit heat metal against a metal construct or a foe in mail armor. Another good example is a certain 1st-level enchantment upcast to 9th versus an actual 9th level enchantment. Power word kill takes out one (non-immune) foe with 100 hp or less. Sleep, on average, knocks out one (non-immune) foe with 104 hp or less. True, sleep only makes the 99 hp archmage (actual hp, btw) unconscious (no doubt setting up a round of finishing attacks), while power word kill takes them out fully without question, but sleep also has a variety of other use cases (ignoring death ward, being useful against a horde of minions, and only taking up a level 1 spell selection rather than one of your precious 9th level selections, among others). Really, cases where upcast spells truly are a bad idea (3rd level burning hands versus fireball, for example) are the exception rather than the rule. There are too many good examples, in theory and in practice, demonstrating this to be the case.
5e Fireball is not the best example of a spell that is supposedly not optimal when upcast. Fireball is one of the best in class damage spells and also one of the best choices for 3rd level spells. When upcast to 5th level, fireball has an average of 35 damage, while the 5th level Cone of Cold (one of the best damage spells at that level) averages 36 damage. The appeal of upcasting for fireball in particular is precisely because it retains acceptable efficiency and allows you to use limited spell selection on choices other than AOE. Anecdotally, fireball is very frequently upcast when a big AOE is desired and other utility doesn’t seem to be needed for that slot at the time. Sure, a 9th level fireball (14d6) pales in comparison to a 9th level meteor swarm (40d6), but that is because meteor swarm is also a best in class type spell. This is to say nothing of upcasting dispel magic, counterspell, invisibility, flight, aid, cure wounds, or many other valid choices. I’m not buying the argument that 5e upcasting is a suboptimal choice. It’s a strategic choice when planning your spell load-out (I’ll pick haste and counterspell over the higher level damage/healing spells because my lower level damage/healing spells can be upcast as needed).
Tell her to use unfathomable song for now and we'll look into it further. Glad she's enjoying the playtest so much! Wow, thank-you, Mark! I just told her about your answer and her amazement was worth the post alone. This just goes to demonstrate Paizo's great customer service. Thank-you, again!
First off, Paizo, I must fully commend you for the system you've put together. Although my wife is a gamer (and a great baker!) and plays Pathfinder and D&D with us, never before has she shown such investment and excitement in a new system. Typically, we build and level her characters for her based on her theme and feedback, but the Pathfinder Playtest has excited her so much that she went out to the local Books-A-Million to buy a paperback copy (as we had been using the PDF). Today was her first real day off in a while (she works at a bakery), and would you believe that she finished reading the Core Rulebook cover-to-cover. Not even 5th Edition was that approachable for her. Although she has thoughts and comments, she intends to save those for the surveys, after we do our actual playtest sessions. However, today when I got home, she did approach me with one question that I was hoping the fine folks at Paizo could help me with. :). You see, it wasn't enough for her to just build her 1st level Doomsday Dawn character (Dwarf Aberrant Sorcerer with the Mindquake Survivor background, named Rosy)- she ended up plotting her out all the way to 20th level - this coming from a gamer that has been playing with us since 3.5 that has rarely built or leveled her own characters from scratch! Finally, to the question: The aberrant sorcerer's 9th-level bloodline spell (granted for free) is shapechange. However, shapechange specifies that is gives you the ability to transform into any form you could choose from a polymorph spell you *know* of 7th level or lower, with the additional benefit of being able to change between those various forms you know during the duration of the spell. However, my wife's concern is that there are no other polymorph spells on the occult spell list. Thus, this spell appears to have no benefit for her dwarf sorcerer. I haven't fully researched into her claims, but when I mentioned to her that I could pose the question on the Playtest Forums, her eyes got wide and she said, "Do you really think they would answer?" I told her, "I have no doubt." So Paizo, please don't let me down. To be fair, though, we won't need the info for a while (17th level). But based on my wife's enthusiasm, we would like an answer at some point. Thank-you.
Yeah, just saw that they addressed it in the Twitch stream. Bloodline skills are not supposed to be automatically trained.
The system is amazing. The content and individual elements are uninspiring.
No. It means if a creature uses any action with the move trait, which includes not only stride, but Climb, Swim, Fly, Balance, Leap, Crawl, and even standing up from Prone or mounting a horse.
The scaling doesn’t change for cantrips, whether or not from a primary source or secondary source. A 9th level character casts 5th level cantrips, regardless of source (half your level, rounded up, just like all spells).
Well you know what they say: There are two types of countries in the world - those that use Celsius, and those that have been to the moon.
How to ambush (pseudo surprise round): Sneak into the goblin hall. Assuming you are not seen and the GM doesn’t have you roll initiative immediately, ready an action to shoot the goblin when he picks his nose (ready is an action that only has the concentrate trait, so it shouldn’t break stealth unless the GM decides focusing in this manner is particularly noisy). When the goblin picks his nose, you shoot (he immediately sees you and is not flat-footed, but initiative is not rolled until after the reaction is resolved per the rule on page 331). After you hit the goblin (hopefully), roll initiative as normal. If you win initiative, you can shoot three more times! If the GM insists that the above is not possible outside of initiative, here is what you do: Assuming your Stealth initiative beats the goblin’s Perception initiative, don’t immediately attack and give away your position. Instead use your actions to continue sneaking and get into a better position (depending on whether or not you are in a position where the goblin has any possible chance to see you, you may get an automatic natural 20 on your sneak roll versus his Perception defense). On his turn, since he is unaware of your presence, he presumably won’t be using his actions to Seek and try to sense you. Even if he is (say he is on watch and explicitly using the action once per turn), he still may not succeed. Even if he succeeds, he still wasted one or more actions just to sense you. Once you are ready to act, sneak into a good sniping position and ready an action to shoot the goblin (trigger: he ends his turn. If you don’t think you can get away with that, choose a more concrete action - like he walks past a certain point - that doesn’t leave him a lot of actions to respond to your shot. Since readying doesn’t change your initiative in PF2, you immediately get to follow up your ambush shot with three more actions.
Casting mage armor also grants an item bonus. Suggest that clarifying language be added here as well that the a shield can be used with mage armor, if that is the intent. Interestingly, the Shield spell grants a circumstance bonus to AC when using raise a shield, so it not only stacks with armor, but also stacks with actual shields and parry weapons.
The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s. According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.
I think the people wanting an upgrade to the 3.x model (beyond what they already have) is such a small sliver of the market that it is not worth pursuing. A system that is watchable and playable via streaming, interesting and accessible to discuss and engage with via online media, and highly compatible with VTT is much more likely to be successful, and the archaic PF system just doesn’t seem to be a good match for those.
The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder). 4e DDI subscription revenue alone for the first 3 years after release exceeded all of Pathfinder’s sales during the same time frame. 4e may be considered distasteful by a few enthusiasts in corners of the internet, but to try to argue that it didn’t have products reach the Bestsellers list for multiple years is just alternate facts. Beyond sales, guys like Matt Colville, the Penny Arcade creators, Nerdarchy, etc. extol 4e’s virtues. PF2 would be lucky to say the same.
but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it. I’m not sure that an initial impression from the consumer who gets vibes that Pathfinder 2 looks like 4e/5e is a bad thing. These are two of the best selling RPG systems of all time. Paizo should be ecstatic that the book is giving off this impression. They should be trying to impress people like Matt Mercer and Matt Colville if they want to compete, and I think PF2 as currently presented will impress the influential people in the hobby.
To be fair, 3rd edition went through a complete revision just 2 years after release, and the substantial changes to the ranger in that case were just a small sliver of the overall changes to the core.
Perhaps bulk also takes into account fragility. Glass or ceramic vials would have to be packed with more care. You definitely just couldn’t throw a bunch of them loose into your backpack together. This could be considered a version of “unweildiness.”
I don't feel the need to justify anything - just providing an explanation of how it could actually work with verisimilitude instead of against it, depending on perspective.I mean, that rule was so heavily criticized that it was changed a month after launch, so there isn’t a need to justify it at this point You’re right, of course. It is a pretty good explanation. Still not necessarily satisfying from the players’ perspectives when they are trying to resolve their action and failing even with a natural 17.
Hard relative to the world and other DCs, not the PCs capabilities (which the system doesn’t assume at any given time, unlike PF/4e). After all, impossible DC 30 is actually impossible for the vast majority of creatures in 5e, but certainly within the realm of possibility for high level PCs and monsters. What I’m saying is that the 5e Adventure Paths use the same range of DCs all the way through, rather than scaling them with the party like in PF and 4e (as demonstrated in Paizo’s AP, and understandably so). It’s just by virtue of this that advancement in 5e feels like substantial advancement relative to the rest of the world and even the challenges we are facing. Because the range of DCs never change, and 5e still has an assumption that you’ll run across meaningful encounters with lower level challenges, it is the system that has the least of that treadmill feel we were talking about. Sandboxes in 5e are especially engaging and immersive, because you aren’t gated out of content (high or low) simply by virtue of your level, while still feeling like more of a badass with each level gain.
John Lynch’s specific concern was that GM’s would be encouraged to come up with their own DCs using the table rather than the recommended static DCs. How can the following sentence from the blog be interpreted in any other way (genuinely curious): “We give guidelines here for GMs crafting their own adventures, but it's ultimately up to them what level and DC tasks are.” Also, for those saying that I’m accusing them of being wrong about 4e because they didn’t understand the rules (or, I guess, because 4e fans have morphed the intent in the rules over time), I’d have to say that it seems quite probable that those that like a system and those that do not care for a system obviously have different interpretations of the rules. And if they somehow do share the same interpretation, then obviously they have different tastes (though any arguments that the system must be “gamist” for me just because it is “gamist” for them seems innane). I’m not (nor would I ever) arguing that the system worked for you or that it could work for you. I’m refuting the contention that the system is somehow objectively “bad” (outside of opinion) for me and others like me (or that we somehow tolerate gamist or unrealistic or bland or unversimillistic or “disassociated” rules, when I don’t tolerate anything of the sort). How someone can argue that my interpretation of the rules I am using somehow still leads to these things for me or my groups is beyond me. I’m not arguing that your interpretation of the rules is incorrect. I’m just pointing out that my interpretation of the rules undeniably works for me, regardless of how you feel about them. Thus, my advocacy of their continued inclusion in PF2.
DMW keeps giving this tree example. Climbing your standard multi-branched tree is DC 10 in 4th edition. It's DC 10 at 1st level. It's DC 10 at 30th level (when PCs can't even fail on a 1 due to the level bonus being added to all of their checks and defenses). It doesn't increase at the DM's whim any more than in does in PF. If John Lynch's concern is that the very existence of the "page 42" in PF2 will cause some to argue that the chart will be used to scale what should otherwise be static DCs, he is undeniably right, since in this very thread there are people (like DMW) that are saying the exact same chart was inappropriately used in 4e despite 4e using the same explicit instructions that PF2 will apparently include. However, as I know how to read the rules and have always used 4e's skill system properly, it is not a concern for me one way or the other. I just get the feeling that people (such as Voss) want to mentally distance the PF2 mechanics from the 4e mechanics as much as possible, because otherwise, when PF2 inevitably is a major hit, it just provides further evidence that the 4e rules weren't the worst thing ever. Thus you get arguments like, "I don't see that they are that similar," even in cases where the rules are provably identical.
Absolutely, it is an aspect I do not like in 3rd/PF1 (AD&D was better about this sort of thing), but 4th Ed cranks it up an uncomfortable notch. I went with +1/2 level in 3rd/PF1, to replace BAB, Save bonuses, and spell DCs, which helps.Just to verify that your criticism could also be leveled against PF1,Yeah if every lock is like that. If your PCs never seek out greater challenges though (like breaking into ancient vaults made by the fabled Undermountain Twins, finest dwarven craftsman of the second age) then I'm curious why you'd play to the level where those sorts of challenges are appropriate. There is nothing wrong in saying "this is a grounded campaign so we are playing at slow progression speed and expect to cap out at level 5."Malk's got it; I am not saying higher level characters should not encounter higher level threats/DCs, or be in locales/situations that they couldn't handle at lower levels. 4th Ed does not present it that way, it makes the contrived assumption that at X level you will be on the outer planes or something, fighting gods and trying to bash down adamantine doors at all times. But in the case of City of Locusts (as an example), your house rule wouldn't really change anything (assuming you also base the challenges on +1/2 level as well). All those DC 40 checks would now be smaller, but the party would still need the same number on the d20. All your change does is allow the inclusion of lower level challenges (which only helps in City of Locusts if you go out of your way to include lower level stuff, since the AP obviously doesn't assume it by default). So the house rule you are proposing would make it more like the 5e adventures, which is cool, don't get me wrong, but be carfeul that you don't take it too far. One trivial encounter at level 13 is cool. A bunch of them is boring. And I'd also add that although PF and 4e rarely do it, there is nothing stopping the DM from adding a trivial encounter or two in each adventure just to demonstrate the power of the PCs. But Paizo obviously wouldn't wanted to have included wordcount in City of Locusts for a pack of dretch, for example, when they already had to apparently cut cool things as is to get within the page limits.
Just to give one example, page 137 of the 4e Rules Compendium (under Athletics): Climb: Make an Athletics check to climb up or down a surface. A creature that has a climb speed (page 203) doesn’t have to make Athletics checks to climb. Action: The check is usually part of a move action, but it can be part of any of the creature’s actions that involve moving. DC: See the Climb table. If a creature can brace itself between two surfaces, it gains a +5 bonus to the check. Ladder - 0
Success: The creature can climb on the surface for the rest of the action using squares of movement from the action. The creature must spend 1 extra square of movement for each square it enters on the surface. While climbing, a creature grants combat advantage and might fall if it takes damage (see below). When a climber moves from from a vertical surface to a horozontal surface, such as when climbing out of a pit, the climber chooses to arrive either standing or prone. Failure by 4 or Less: If a creature was already climbing, it doesn’t fall. If the creature was trying to start climbing, it fails to do so. Either way, the creature can’t move any farther as part of the current action. Failure by 5 or More: If the creature was already climbing, it falls (see “Falling,” page 209) but can try to Catch Hold (see below). If the creature was trying to start climbing, it fails to do so. Either way, the creature can’t move any further as part of the current action.
I feel like Paizo has learned NOTHING from 4e and I am very disappointed that you have decided to go this route. This will get a gut reaction that is strongly negative. People will not see how the game is actually trying to work and are the DC's not only going to be reviled as arbitrary, but you are going to do a poor job of teaching new GMs how to create DC's as they will simply do the lazy option and go to this table. The way it is explained in the blog is exactly how it is presented in 4e. The two are not different. 4e undeniably has guidelines, a table, and reference points for things that don’t magically scale. 4e has static tables under every ability and skill description that grounds the DCs and provides a frame of reference alongside the raw numbers (which is a reference table for what a trivial, easy, medium, etc. challenge is at every level point). I can either provide page numbers or full text if necessary.
4e has a scaling table and static tables as well. For example, all the static DCs for strength checks are on page 175 of the Essentials Rules Compendium, starting with Break Wooden Door at DC 13 and ending with Adamnitne Portcullis at DC 35. The static challenges do not scale with character level, just things like lore checks for high level challenges or general hazard DCs, exactly as explained i this blog.
|
