Skojar's page

Organized Play Member. 14 posts (74 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Organized Play characters.


GM Silbeg wrote:
It is definitely assuming that someone will pick the lock.

Ironically, lock-picking is specifically called out in the core rules as something that is likely to be proficiency-gated. Now that it's not likely to occur, do you might revealing if the module gives a DC for picking it?

I now understand where you're coming from and it makes perfect sense, but I'm wondering. From a design perspective, it might make sense to have the untrained check more difficult than the trained check, but by how much?

The difference is the Simple DC list is taking an attitude of "this is the world and the rules are simulating it" while a significant portion of the rules, especially combat, take the attitude of "this a story and the challenges should be appropriate to the characters." While I think your and Tanaka's interpretation of how to use the simple DC table is technically correct, it's still basically saying that none of your characters should be reliably forcing open doors (except for some freakish door-forcing-open specialist) until the party is level 10, but I would venture to guess that this is not the expectation of a typical player.

I fall firmly in the camp that wants characters to do cool things, so I go directly to the level based DC table. Other DMs lean to simulating a world in which it's actually pretty dang hard to force open a door. I think PF2e has made an uncomfortable compromise between the two that doesn't quite work. For example, there's the -2 for not using a crowbar, but if the DC is 30, then the -2 is inconsequential, but in real life a crowbar would make a HUGE difference.

Basically, the crowbar rule says use the DC by level table, while the proximity of the Force open task list by proficiency says use the simple DC table. From there it's guesswork.

Again, just curious for future reference. My instinct is to look at the sample locked door obstacle and see that it's a hard or very hard athletics check, and base the DC on the party level (so, like 15 or 16) then add the +2 for hard difficulty.

I'm just wondering if I'm missing something or if it's just a table variation thing. I wouldn't care, but the variation between DC 18 and DC 30 is a pretty big one and I want to make sure I'm doing things in a reasonable way when I run.

EDIT: I see now that the example use of level-based DC makes the confusion even worse, because it implies that the level of the guy who built the door makes a difference! Nevermind, I don't think there's a way to definitively interpret these rules.

I mean in connection with force open. It's an untrained action, so I was wondering what would lead you to believe a certain level of proficiency would be required to attempt it. Does the module say "Expert Door" or something?

Just out of curiosity, can you help me understand where you're seeing these proficiencies?

I admit that I overreacted to the tone of Kain's response, for that I apologize.

I accept your interpretation of the rules because you are the DM; that's not a problem. I also accept that my understanding of the situation was different from that of others; I'm cool with not doing anything and just watching Tanaka.

My problem was with the method used to express concern that I was making a mistake. Imagine sitting at a organized play table in person at your FLGS and having those two posts happen IRL. Contrast that with an OOC aside of "are you sure?" and I suspect you can understand why.

It wasn't a big deal but I'm afraid I took the response badly and, as I said, over-reacted. I don't think he meant to be condescending, but it really reads that way. Again I apologize.

Also, with all due respect, although damage is explicitly mentioned in the rules it's hard to deny that, for example, counter-spelling a party member's spell during combat would both be considered PvP even though it does no damage. There is a whole slew of non-damaging conflict that should be avoided in the name of harmony between players.

This wouldn't be a bad deal, anyway. Compare with Abjuration Wizard's protective ward which costs focus and only gives the +1 AC over a smaller area.

If that's the case, then the rule can read something like:


Earning Income is the most common Downtime activity. If you are using your Downtime for any other purposes, they must be completed first before you attempt your check to Earn Income. After completing all other Downtime activities, roll once for Earn Income and apply that result to each day spent Earning Income for that Chronicle Sheet.

There's a lot more going on in the existing rule for some reason. It may be a good reason, but I don't know what it is. The eight day units seem pretty important to the author, not just as an example. The part about including other activities in those 8-day unit seems important for some reason as well.

(This also still doesn't allow for Stan pausing work on his shield, but that's a different issue.)

Everyone in this thread seems fine with ignoring those parts; I say that instead they need to either be clarified or removed.

Kevin Willis wrote:

Step two is the part that might be confusing at first. It doesn’t explicitly say “you can’t split a block into 8 separate checks.” And it doesn’t say “If your downtime isn’t evenly divisible by 8, use the remainder as a unique block.” But after a few read-throughs I’m sure that’s correct.

My concern is that while your interpretation seems sensible, I think the actual text pretty clearly doesn't support it. It does say to break things into 8-day blocks even if those blocks would include other activies. It says you do the process after 8 days have been spent (not when you run out of DT). And it says the result can't carry over to future sessions. Those clauses only appear to make sense if they're included with the intention to contradict the process you describe in #2.

Kevin Willis wrote:
Can you walk me through the math on this? I’m not seeing how characters would get to a +19 (what you would need to critically succeed on a Level 0 Task while rolling a 5).

He's saying that some people thought the DC was 0, which means 10 or higher is a crit success. Clearly wrong, but an easy misunderstanding if you're not used to translating task levels to DCs, which seems to maybe be new with 2e?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hetherington wrote:
Here's how it works:

You're very confident, and what you and Gary describe seems like how it should work, but it's not what the rule you quoted actually says. For one thing, there's nothing in there about fractions of an 8-day unit.

This section of the guide really needs clarification. The existing language isn't clear on a few points. Specifically,

A. it's not at all clear that a field commission character can earn income with those spare 4 days; Stan hasn't spent a second 8-day block of DT, which is what triggers a check. Since you can't save up DT across chronicle sheets, it seems like maybe that means those stray days can't ever be used to Earn Income.

B. while "crafting tasks can be continued across as many Downtime days as necessary," it's not clear that the task can be somehow paused to Earn Income. It in fact explicitly states that "If you are using your Downtime for any other purposes, they must be completed first before you attempt your check to Earn Income." It looks like the proper interpretation might be that you can't Earn Income instead of reducing the buy-off cost of the item. Stan has to finish the shield before he can Earn Income.

Your example certainly seems more forgiving, but it doesn't jibe with document; I'd be curious what the original author intended, because the eight-day thing about including other activities seems like an unnecessary complication unless they wanted item A above to be true, and the clause about completing other tasks seems unnecessary unless they wanted B. to be true, too. If A. and B. aren't intended to be the case, then the whole section can be dramatically simplified and made more intuitive, so my inclination is to assume that they are meant to be the case.

Syries wrote:

By the way if you haven't looked over all the uncommon spells- just spells alone, not even other options- you'll see a good number of spells that were commonly found in PFS.

This list appears to contain the focus powers for all the classes, which are perfectly accessible without a chronicle sheet to characters who made the appropriate choices during creation or level up.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Where is official Paizo Organized Play Team member blog post or something about Organized Play Foundation being legal source of PFS rules?

There is a blog, but I couldn't find it. I'm not invested enough to read through all the monthly OP update blogs.

...but who do you think the OPF is?

Until this weekend, when I dug into the forums to try to find out the ETA for the guide, I had exactly zero idea about the OPF.

Frankly, a document that includes a section explaining what organized play is---and is at least in part intended for an audience of new players-- shouldn't require so much effort to find.

A single link on the paizo page where I'm used to getting the 1st edition guide would have made all the difference. I guess I've learned more about PFS in the process, but it hasn't left me with a positive impression.