Skull

Lucid Blue's page

75 posts. Alias of Zachary Herbert.




4 people marked this as a favorite.

Would it be possible to change a few conventions in the errata documents? As is, they are unnecessarily difficult to use...

1. Can we please use "replace [sample text]" instead of "replace the 5th sentence." Scanning and counting periods not only takes longer, it makes it much more likely that we replace the wrong passage!

2. Similarly, could we use "delete the sentence beginning with [sample text]" instead of "delete the final (or nth) sentence." Particularly in the case of "final," that gets difficult for those of us who are actually updating our pdf's.

3. Related to #2, would it be possible to separate or otherwise highlight errata from previous documents? (Or maybe * the new ones?) I know this one doesn't affect as many people, but for those of us updating our documents, it would save a TON of time since we wouldn't have to keep going back through the entire list. (Or wondering if we already deleted the "last sentence" of a passage!)


So one of the main issues I've had with 2E is the lack of verisimilitude in the skill system. (Everyone knows everything, anyone can fix anything, master basketweavers forge master katanas, but expert swordsmiths can't, etc.)

Now, I get that a bunch of people like the new system and don't care about "realism" and that's fine. But it looks like there's a very easy way to cater to both sides on this... and that's the already existing rarity system.

For those of us who value in-fiction realism, it turns out that the only two major issues with skills are:

1. Parceling out Craft and Perform to be more in line with Lore. (That way every musician can't play EVERY instrument, and not every stonemason and cobbler can use an alchemists lab to identify potions.)

and

2. Control which activities are available untrained.

Number one is an easy houserule. So if the book stays as it is, so be it. It's an easy fix for those of us who care.

Number two is actually an amazing way to tailor the game world to each individual campaign ... which is also the exact purpose of the rarity system!

For my game, I just edited the p143 skills summary table in Acrobat and moved the lines around to match the in-fiction particulars of my game world. For example, I have an urban monotheistic world. So I allow Religion and Society to have untrained Recall Knowledge checks. But not Nature. (And I moved Repair and a few others.)

It's a perfect fix for me, so I'm all good. But it just occurred to me that, if the devs just used the Rarity System colors on skill activities, it would highlight the ability for EVERYONE to bake in their own brand of realism.

1. Make untrained skill activities COMMON. ie. That's what MAKES then available untrained!

2. Make trained skill activities UNCOMMON. You can still use them, but you need to have an in-character reason that you can. (ie. You have the skill.) It's already the very definition of access to uncommon items!

Then, if you have a low magic world, like I do, you just make all the Arcane/Occult/etc untrained knowledge checks be uncommon (trained).

If you have high magic, maybe bump a few trained uses into common.

Same thing with all the others. Everyone gets to tailor their perfect setting. And all Paizo has to do is color code the skill activities to the rarity system!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it seems that allowing untrained use of certain skills creates all kind of weird in-world side effects... (Anyone can Repair anything. Everyone Knows everything.)

I get untrained attempts at physical activities. (Anyone can try to Balance.) But it gets weird with specialized skills.

So what about taking away untrained use of those skills and gating broad-spectrum actions like Repair and Recall Knowledge behind general feats?

For example...

Handy: You can use an artisan kit and attempt to repair items as an untrained activity. The usual untrained penalties apply.

Know-it-all: You can attempt Recall Knowledge actions for untrained Lore skills. The usual untrained penalties apply.

At least that way it's a character design choice. "I want to play a handy/know-it-all character." Rather than some random default ability of everyone in the world.

Edit: And that also rebalances/grounds the whole +1/level thing... My handy character gets more handy... My know-it-all gets more know-it-all-y...


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Wanted to point out bits of Dissociated Mechanics that show up here and there in the playtest.. The Planar Survival feat is the worst offender I've seen. But there a few others as well.

There's been a lot of talk about whether 2E is/isn't like 4E D&D. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, with class powers and such, I'd argue that the main thing that made 4E unpalatable to a lot of people was it's fetishization of balance and reliance on Dissociated Mechanics. Meaning, mechanical game effects that had no grounding whatsoever in the fiction of the world.

Balance and options are all good. But a lot of 4E mechanics were simply bits of math that got applied to the world, without ever explaining HOW or WHAT was going on. It was just a catalog of powers that applied math to a situation.. Which made it feel very video-gamey because it lacked any explanation or way to mitigate the effects. (But what kind of damage is it? How did I take it? What if I was protected situationally? Doesn't matter. Math is math. World be damned. Mark it on your sheet.)

For the most part, it seems that Pathfinder has taken pains to avoid doing that. (eg. A DC10 tree is a DC10 tree. It doesn't get harder to climb as the PC's gain levels. Making the tree adjust it's DC for the climber feels video-gamey because there's no in-world explanation for why it should change.)

But then we get to things like Planar Survival... Where "you can forage for food [on another plane of existence] EVEN IF THE PLANE LACKS FOOD THAT COULD NORMALLY SUSTAIN YOU."

I can't think of a worse example of Dissociated Mechanics.. And it's exactly the DC10 tree issue. The plane DOESN'T EVEN HAVE FOOD. But you can forage for it anyway. The plane suddenly has food BECAUSE THE PLAYER LOOKED FOR IT. "Elemental plane of fire? No problem. I have Planar Survival! Let me scrounge up some berries. Negative Energy void? Pfff. There's small game around here somewhere."

Combat Medic is another. I can literally wipe away severe sword wounds in two seconds flat with a bit of gauze! How? Who knows? The math said I can do it.

Legendary skill feats are basically ALL dissociated. But they're also intended to be a little silly. And at least they're well-grouped and easy to disallow.

Really, it's all stuff that can be houseruled away. (Which I will.) But I wanted to call it out as a problematic design philosophy. It appears so infrequently that it can still be resolved.

So can we please reconsider? And limit Dissociated Mechanics to the gonzo legendary feats? Let the DC10 tree be a DC10 tree always. In every incarnation.

Magic is magic. But it PALES beside the power of dissociated math blocks. And I can't think of a quicker way to ruin the spirit of an otherwise excellent rpg.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Am I understanding correctly that Craft no longer has subcategories like Lore? So if I'm trained in Craft, I can forge armor and weapons and work leather and blow glass and bind books and build bridges and do woodwork and make boats and bows and horseshoes and houses and absolutely anything else anyone has ever thought of...?