Proven's page

At the end of the day, everything is GM fiat.

Fighter wants to attack something with an axe. Rolls against the monster’s AC, a type of DC the player doesn’t know.

Player wants to look like every other villager in a crowd. Rolls Deception against a DC that the player doesn’t know.

Player wants to sneak into a base. Can be a heist against DCs they don’t know. Can be a simple exploration activity/skill challenge against DCs they don’t know. Can be a full blown stealth encounter that a GM worked the environment just right forward instead of a combat encounter where the GM worked the environment just right for a different purpose. In all three cases, player at some point ends up rolling Stealth against a DC they don’t know.

Admittedly, I don’t know a lot of other TTRPGS besides D&D and PF2e. But at the end of the day these games all seem like they’re designed for you to build a character that has the skills you want to be good at, then go through an adventure adjudicated by a GM with DCs you don’t know about, but your build choices decide how good you are at something. You do have to ask a GM if you can attack something, because sometimes the DC is so high that it’s not worth rolling, or the creature is incorporeal and you don’t have a Ghost Touch weapon, or your attack is invalidated because of a levels of resistance, or many other ways that a player wanting to attack can have all of the numbers they put together invalidated.

And if you’re a player, you either play a board game or find a GM that will run a game you want to play, allowing for the scenes you want to run. Pathfinder 2e can run those scenes with the right setup or narrative reasons. This is a fact, even if you don’t like the methods involved. And it doesn’t sound like any version of Pathfinder or D&D will ever help.

Gaulin wrote:

Agree to disagree, I guess. I just like to play the game as devs intended - if they want a creature to destroy my equipment, that's something I'll have to deal with. It wouldn't feel right to me to just ignore things I don't like if I like the overall game. Even if I dislike that part of it. And again, if others want to do apb, then by all means. I'm not about to tell people how to play their game.

Mark Seifter, the lead designer of PF2e, prefers APB and if it were for him it would've been the standard, but the surveys during the playtest resulted in players wanting mandatory illusory items.

So, in a way, the APB is the intended rule set, even though most players wanted +X magical weapons and armor to be kept. That's why the Automatic Bonus Progression rules came as fast as possible.

I'm not telling you how to play your game, I'm just pointing out that you have no reason whatsoever to not adapt the game to your table, specially when the rules are official, because you did voice that you didn't like the mandatory item system in place.

You can look it up in this very forum you want, it won't be trivial, but you'll find the discussions.

As someone who usually feels very similarly to how Gaulin described feeling about alternative rule sets, this is the excuse that I needed to give ABP a try in the next campaign I run.

I’d ask for some middle ground between those that feel like shields are useless without Sturdy and the trade-offs Paizo designed into shields with their current stats and abilities.

My only contribution to the discussion is that the next time I get to make a shield block using character, I’ll probably attempt to buy non-sturdy shields at a tier behind my character’s level in order to make replacing them less of a sting.

Proven wrote:

I see. But it makes me want to flip that on its head though. If a level 10 DC is balanced around being a Master at something, then why not use the easy or very easy DC adjustment if it’s something easy enough that a less proficient person has a decent shot at it?

My problem with this line of thinking is that most PCs will have at least 5+Int modifier skills (plus a Lore) in which they're trained (except wizards, who are somehow penalized for their high Int when it comes to skills). But you're never going to max out more than three of those unless you are a rogue or specifically dig into an archetype that boosts your skills. And the third one generally only comes online at level 11–13, assuming you focus (which, again, is what the game expects you to do).

In other words, you can't expect the 10th level character to be a master of stuff, because they're only a master of about a third of the stuff they're trained in.

Isn’t the point still party coverage and giving individual members their own thing? Given the numbers we used before, if the person in the party who is the best at that skill is still only Expert at that skill and has a +2 item they would still have a 60% chance to succeed. It doesn’t sound like the game is assuming they’d be a Master yet, but if they are a Master they get a healthy boost to their success. At least that’s how it’s coming off to me.

And then the GM still has to consider if the challenge should be a Master level challenge anyway. Maybe I’m a bit wary after some of the PF2e vs. PF1e dicussions and how people felt about the math differences. In either case, whether the baseline is lower or higher, this is another case where I as a GM need to be more aware of what the numbers are balanced around in the system, or else follow all the apparent recommendations (in this case making sure items are obtained) and hoping the players aren’t spreading their skills too much.

Proven wrote:

I’m guessing this has been argued to death before? Seems like it’s a preference thing. The point of level based DCs at higher level is to be something that’s a challenge for someone that’s a Master or Legendary, not just Expert or Trained, and like a lot of things in Pathfinder 2e they expect you to scale it down if necessary instead of the other way around.

My thinking is that that's what the "hard" and "very hard" DC modifiers are for. The 10th level druid should basically auto-succeed on IDing a mammoth, but might have to rack their brains a little if they're facing a Quintessivore or Water Orm (Rare, +5 DC). Extra boosts get you ahead of the curve, they shouldn't be required to keep up.

This particularly goes for abilities that use phrasings like "a very hard DC of a level equal to that of the highest-level target of your composition" (from Inspire Heroics).

I see. But it makes me want to flip that on its head though. If a level 10 DC is balanced around being a Master at something, then why not use the easy or very easy DC adjustment if it’s something easy enough that a less proficient person has a decent shot at it?

Other than another argument I remember reading months ago, about how it always feels better to start from normal and scale up rather than start from hard and scale down, in regards to AP encounter difficulty and some other things.

I’m guessing this has been argued to death before? Seems like it’s a preference thing. The point of level based DCs at higher level is to be something that’s a challenge for someone that’s a Master or Legendary, not just Expert or Trained, and like a lot of things in Pathfinder 2e they expect you to scale it down if necessary instead of the other way around.

If it’s something you invest in, then you do get above the 55% chance. In the above case, if you’re level 10 and if you’re Expert in the skill and have a +2 skill item then you’ll go from 40% to 60%. If you’re a Master, then it jumps to 70%. If it’s 55% for someone Trained, then if you have the +2 skill item and are Master, your success chance jumps to 95%.

But a lot of the game seems designed to make it hard for a party to have coverage for things, in order to make those that invest in their skills to feel more rewarded in their decisions. When using Level Based DCs, it’s because someone is buying into the idea that tasks should be gated for those that are Experts and Masters, rather than someone just rolling with minimum investment and beating the Master.

Anyway, this post was mostly for me. Assuming this has been argued to death before, it was good for me to see the other perspective and to think out the math a little bit.

There is also this in the rules: "If a character’s level is higher than the settlement’s, that character can usually use their own influence and leverage to acquire higher-level items, as they convince shops to place specialty orders or artisans to craft custom goods, though it might take a bit of time for such orders to be fulfilled."

Combined, this means PC's don't have to run into issues with being higher level than the settlement they are in unless the DM really wants them to.

This definitely looks like a release valve for players that don’t take crafting, but that along with the other options you and others have mentioned for creating downtime choices all end up being methods for seasoning to preferred taste. At least that’s what I’ve concluded since my last post. You have options for whether your player wants to invest in crafting or not, just as you have options for loot depending on whether players are willing to give other weapons a try with different runes or if they’ll always just want to stick with their single weapon until they can upgrade the runes on it.

Isn’t there a line in the GMG where they state that settlement levels in Golarion are generally capped around level 10 or 15? What about outleveling a settlement during an adventure that takes 2-4 levels? That right there would be a simple reason before any large GM fiat that players would need to craft over buy. Even something like Fall of Plaguestone chaffed at my players because the settlement level, and then in Age of Ashes where I’m a player myself at the end of Book 2, there’s been issues with Breachill’s settlement level for a few levels now.

But maybe I’m biased because I’m exactly the type of GM who would design adventures with players receiving recipes above settlement level often. If an adventure in a specific area lasts 2-4 levels, the settlement level would likely be set in the lower half of that range. It gives a sense of outgrowing the old town and the new town having new options more relevant to your current and near-future power level.

I can also see options for higher level Earn Income happening in a similar way, but it would definitely be for less used skills and Lore options.

Proven wrote:

Not for discounts unless the party is taking a many month downtime between adventures.

There is NEVER a discount: whatever money you make per day at crafting is the exact same money you could put in your pocket for Earn Income. At no point does the crafter make any ground by making the item vs buying it.

PF2 at least for now has no way to get a discount when crafting outside of daily alchemical reagents.

Exactly.

It’s all on the same downtime-for-money formula, so it’s all a wash. You don’t go looking to craft unless you have a recipe to make it worth it.

(Now I’m thinking about what type of town or special situation might have a reason to mess with the Earn Income or Crafting formula, although mechanically that could also be represented as earning shopkeeper discounts or solving short in-town quests if flavor isn’t a concern).

Although, don’t forget the times when you’re in a place that doesn’t have any jobs at the item level you’re going to craft. Crafting your high level items for yourself then becomes better income than Earn Income. But then it’s still just semantics, flavor, and arbitrary adventure or GM restrictions made to try and obtain a certain feel during.

Ruzza wrote:

If the AoA thread is any indication, level 8 versus a level 9 boss, which should put his DC at 26 and the bosses saves between 18 and 16. Very far from "bosses don't fail saves."

If this is about a certain book 1 encounter, that's a whole 'nother story that has nothing to do with wizards and everything to do with the wonkiness of that encounter.

Level 7, spell DC 25. I know everyone keeps saying, "the math is very tightly tuned," but around what value? If a caster targets a spell at the boss's worst save, the odds of beating him should be around 75%, not 50/50.

Getting everything exactly right with all factors in my favor shouldn't be the expected bare-minimum break-even point; it's a a rare and lucky occurrence that should result in extremely high likelihood of success.

The problem is the balance against enemies of various levels.

If you make it 75% against an enemy’s weakest save that’s Party Level+2, then it’s around 90% against an enemy that Party Level+0, and 100% against an enemy that’s Party Level-2.

So Paizo made it that it’s closer to 50% for Party Level+2, since they’re a boss, and then around 65% against Party Level+0, since they’re your equals and it feels good to be hitting around that percentage of a time given enough rounds, and then you get to the 80% against Party Level -2.

And if the boss has a legitimate Terrible Save and not just a Moderate-to-Low save, then you will have that 60-70% hit chance on their lowest save. Otherwise, you need someone else to help debuff with Demoralize/Bon Mot/etc. to help increase your success chance to that level.

I am not sure I see the full value of concealment. Maybe we just had poor rolls but flat DC 5 to miss doesn't seem so good ?

I shouldn’t have used “line of sight”. Rather, the concealment acts as cover, as adding a 20% miss chance on top of any successful attack averages out to some amount of +AC.

Compared to 1st edition, what is a good focus for a 2E wizard in an adventuring party? Taking on bosses is out, because range is gone and bosses don't fail saves any more. Defensive and offensive buffs have largely disappeared or dwindled in duration to nearly zero. More types of enemies are vulnerable to more types of spell effects (enchantment, mental, etc.), but the fact that save DCs remain fixed means you're still not going to have an impact using offensive spells in combat.

"Battlefield control" doesn't seem to exist any more, and summoning is still more of a headache than it's worth. Maybe AOEs vs. large numbers of low-level thugs could still be an option? It seems kind of dull to just load up on Fireballs and Magic Missiles every day, though. Former transport and utility winners like Teleport and Invisibility aren't reliable either. I'm kind of stumped for a good, fun niche for a 2E wizard to occupy.

Buffs are good. Haste and many other buffs last 10 rounds. Magic Weapon is probably the strongest spell in the game until around 3rd level. Blur and Mirror Image can help increase anybody’s survivability. At higher levels there’s both regular and Heightened versions of Jump, Invisibility, and Fly to help you and your party get around in and out of combat. I saved my party from a TPK once by just having enough casts of 2nd level Invisibility (admittedly, as a Sorcerer).

Debuffs are good. Fear and later Slow are spammable and become AoE once you get to higher levels. Slow is probably the strongest non-Incapacitation debuff in the game.

Depending on the encounter map, battlefield control is good. Darkness and Obscuring Mist are both ways to disrupt line of sight, Grease is excellent at first level, Illusions can cause distractions, and at higher levels you get Wall of Stone/Fire/Ice/etc.

Ray of Frost has excellent range and gives you an option in a pinch. Acid Arrow is the spell slot version of this. Eventually there are spells like Disintegrate. Dispel Magic also has 120 feet range which can matter in certain instances like disabling a trap from afar or an enemy buff.

Wizards feel like their niche is to have all the spell options, and the hard part is just understanding when to apply them in this system.

At the risk of venturing into a heated argument, I very much get the lack of options to manipulate the action economy for spellcasters. And for the most part, I do like 2e.

Most martials have options that let them combine what would be multiple actions into fewer ones. And these are low-level abilities that give them lots of flexibility right off the bat. Fighters and Barbarians have Sudden Charge, 2 actions for 3 (stride, stride, strike). Rangers are king of this with Hunted Shot, Twin Takedown, and Monster Hunter all taking 1 action for two strikes or a Hunt Prey+Recall Knowledge. Investigators have Known Weakness. Monks have Flurry of Blows. Rogues impose conditions, which can be similar. For instance, a Ruffian has Brutal Beating, which is like a strike+demoralize. Champions have an awesome reaction, which is like having a 4th action.

Spellcasters don't really have these options. The one exception I might say is the Bard where Lingering Performance allows you to "save" actions in future rounds. While I enjoy my Druid, it's often a straight turn of 2 action spell + 1 action. What if a feat let you move while sustaining a spell? Or cast a spell + Recall Knowledge? A Sorcerer's bloodline ability could be cast a non-cantrip and get a free demoralize out. Or a feat could let you do a metamagic action + move. Multi-action spells would be interesting, but require thinking up new spells. These types of combination feats would just add some dynamics to a spellcaster's turn.

This is the best summary of the issues I’ve seen brought up in this thread over the past few days. And I agree, it would be cool if spell casters got some of these types of feats. The most we get are things designed to cast multiple spells in the same turn.

Thinking about some of those feats again, I can see spell level being a particular gating. But things that work like Bespell Weapon or the Magus’ slide casting, where you siphon off an extra effect after casting a spell, would still be awesome to bring more motion to spell caster turns while allowing them to cast every turn.

Of course, the primary argument I’ve had while reading this whole thread has been, why does a spellcaster need to cast every turn? This is particularly tuned to specific encounters, but what if there were more times where you needed to do some other action to win the encounter (disable a magic device, disrupt a ritual, prepare for a counter spell). A spellcaster that doesn’t cast every turn because they’ve used a single key buff or a sustainable spell the turn before, freeing up the rest of their action economy for the battle, still sounds excellent and reminiscent of a beast master.

This also reminds me of the playtest discussions with the Gunslinger and wanting ways to free up action economy wrt reloads.

They do mention in the blog post that the Gunslinger isn't exclusive to Firearms and can use Crossbows.

Malk_Content wrote:

The whole point of level in PF2 is that is an accurate descriptor of an entities power. Dedicating page space to an option which undermines one of the core concepts of your game just seems silly.

That's a fair point. I still see the utility in such a system, but as I said I'd prefer it as a system, with fewer movable parts than a normal class and more passive abilities that are baked into the chassis.

The primary objective for me would be a character that is simpler and narrower than a normal PC, not necessarily less powerful. Sort of how a Martial is less complex at high levels than a caster, I'd like to have an option that is even less complex, that you can hand off to a player to run as a second character without too much trouble, or give to someone on their first game, taking place at level 17 instead of level 1, allowing them to contribute meaningfully while mostly watching instead of trying to figure out the rules on the fly.

Edit: Thinking more on this, I would want what abilities the class/system/whatever does have to be ones that focus on actions/activities that any character can take. This would double down on the concept of a training wheels class, as you can take your knowledge from playing this character and apply it to any class down the line.

...I'm talking myself into homebrewing this, aren't I? I'll add it to the list I suppose, once I finish my current round of class feats.

I don't understand how this isn't what the GMG does for PC-style NPC creation? They give you some default choices for making an NPC with a PC class at X-level, and then you can just adjust the stats or keep them one level lower.

A moderately statted NPC at X-level is similar to a player at X-level, but with less options than a player character to make them faster to run, right?

For a player's first session I literally gave them an NPC Sorcerer that was at the same level as the party, but without any feats except one custom one related to the NPC's story. All they had to worry about was moving, attacking, casting a spell, or using a free-action feat with a subset of spells.

I haven't played or GM'd PF1e so I don't know how much easier it was beforehand, but it seems pretty straightforward right now. I currently limit hirelings to a single level lower than the PCs, given how important level is.

The problem with requiring magical crafting is that the feat requires Expert in Crafting, something almost no one in your party outside of a Rogue or Alchemist will probably take. That means that at best you have to wait till level 4 to be able to transfer runes.

Practically speaking though, even if a PC is going to take Expert in Crafting, it's not their level 3 increase, that goes to their primary class stat like Arcana or Stealth. Maybe level 5, but most PCs will have a secondary skill that is more important. Not level 7 since that's your first Master skill. So now you are looking at level 9 or 11 before it is practical for a PC to waste a skill increase on a skill they don't really use so the next level they can take a feat they don't really want so they can transfer runes. Oh, except by then you have to be a Master so you can transfer level 9 or higher runes.

As an admittedly new GM, and given my own reading of intentions, this seems to be purposeful. Either you make crafting important in your build (and you plan to get to Master and such to craft rarer items in the higher levels) and the GM responds in kind with recipes and such in your loot, or you’re traveling back to town a lot for a hireling or bringing one with you. And adventurers can always take the risk in reverse-engineering a rune formula, right? Assurance can help with this.

In my own campaign, I’m doing a combination. By making it somewhat difficult and painful to transfer runes, I get people to try other weapons (extra important for me with new players to get to try other parts of the system, and makes it easier to introduce creatures with different resistances and weaknesses), but in a few in-game days they can still reach someone who can help transfer runes for them. In the future if they don’t want to invest in doing it themselves they will have options to recruit the NPC if they wish. And if they go on a longer quest they may need to.

And I’d assume that any Magical Crafting NPC in a town would know the recipes for several if not all of the the common runes that are craftable by an Expert or Master. They could teach or give the recipes as part of a reward or for a cost, and if they’re in a recipe book then the recipes could technically be stolen or copied without their knowledge...

Encumbrance, formulas, activities, and other things are all looked at to me as ways to provide trade offs to player choices during and between adventures. And they’re part of what makes a town or city a valuable location.

But that’s just my interpretation, which looks to be the minority position around here.