StratoNexus's page

** Pathfinder Society GM. 133 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 17 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I outlined another option to make the Skill proficiencies more attractive in the linked thread (and copied below). The thread also has some options presented by other folks. These are sort of numerical options, but sort of not.
Making the higher proficiency levels have more impact

StratoNexus wrote:

I am still in favor of some way to eliminate the die roll out of combat.

Personally, I would prefer something like below:
Untrained: Level -4, any checks you are allowed to make, you must roll.
Trained: Level+0, Out of combat you can choose to Take 5, rather than roll.
Expert: Level+1, Out of Combat you can choose to Take 10, rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is a 2 (no autocrat fails due to a 1, although if your roll+your skill modifier is a crit fail then you crit fail).
Master: Level+2, Out of Combat you can take 10 rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is a 5.
Legendary: Level+3, Out of Combat you can take 15 rather than roll. In combat you must roll, but your minimum roll is an 8.

Draco18s wrote:
Joey Cote wrote:
You don't get 360gp on the treasure chart until level 11.
Or you select it as a 3rd or 4th level item, which you get at 4th or 5th level.

You must be thinking of Expert and/or +1 potency.

Master item level is 7th.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
We know that classes will grant bonus focus points, but we don't know the exact mechanism for doing so. Having it be Wis+Cha for monks, Int+Cha for wizards, etc seems like a decent guess. But we will probably have more information when the scenario drops tomorrow.

I am not sure we will have that answer until later. Mark seemed to indicate in the Stream that it might be possible non-CHA casters will get some Focus outside of CHA, but I do not think they have made up their minds or even if they are going to use this next version of magic item limitation. Mark also said all of the caster characters used for this limited test were characters who already had significant desire for CHA.

The playtest scenario we get will have an Alchemist, Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Sorcerer as options and it is likely to only have rules for those character types (and probably is intended to be used with only those pre-generated characters).

I am sure they want to give this a good test run before bothering with further rules.

How does using Intimidate compare to casting Call of the Grave, Dirge of Doom, Dread Aura, Fear, or Mask of Terror.

My limited high level experience playing PF2 and looking at the way the game is constructed leads me to believe it is a primary goal to allow more people to play high level games. I really think the intention is for players to actually make it to level 20 before the end of an AP.

Gloom wrote:

Any system that allows a player an 85% or higher chance to succeed in an equal level task is flawed and it should not be something that this system should aspire to be.

You want a 95% success rate on an even level challenge. The only thing I can say here is that I think that you are wrong.

There is no debate to that. We disagree on fundamental concepts of what makes a good game.

Apparently you also disagree with the designers since the 1-3 update says

A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

Now they may not have hit that goal with the current design and certainty may be 85 or 90 percent, rather than 95, but I believe they will adjust the game to meet the goal outlined and I am glad. I hope the certainty hits between 10-15, rather than waiting until 16, but my guess is 16.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I would love 1 action cantrips that are debuffs or buffs rather than damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Mechalas wrote:
Only when you are in that person's face and they are actively attacking. Right now, you can quaff a potion with no penalties while someone is actively swinging a sword at you, which is just silly.

Is it really? I always picture potions in a relatively easy to access belt pouch or pocket or something. Dodging away from a sword or even using a one handed weapon to parry (not a game mechanic parry, just the sort of parry we assume characters are always doing) while the other hand fishes into a pocket, flips open the lid, and then quickly drinking seems feasible.

On the other hand, using both hands to load a crossbow next to someone actively hostile does bother me.

I guess we all have different tolerances for when this becomes immersion breaking. I prefer they err on the side of not having a lot of AoO. I certainly don't want to see every martial in the game get them, but I'm not wholly opposed to some compromise.

Starfox wrote:
That said, I dislike how strongly you are incentivized to have an 18 in your class ability, and I mourn the ability to sacrifice your highest ability score to have an array that is more spread out. Some classes are more MAD (multi-attribute dependent) than others, and some concepts don't actually use your main ability score much at all - like all spellcasters who are going to cast spells exclusively on friendlies.

I like that the game guides players to make their main stat high, new players should have that lead. I do not see a need to mourn, as there is really no reason you can’t have it as a 16 or 14 even, especially if you choose a concept that doesn’t use that stat much. 16, 16, 14, 14, 10, 8 is a great array, in my experience.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I am so aware of that brother man (or sister lady). LIKE SO AWARE I've even said the same at some point. However in PF2 giving an extra 2 higher AC could have some powerful effects so I feel the DR is a good compromise.

I have been thinking the same thing. I have always liked armor granting AC, but in PF2, I think Heavy armor needs to add AC, but also needs more. Resistance seems like a great option.

Increasing max Dex by 1 might also work.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:
Really? In mine it's completely punishing. If you aren't maxed out in every way you can be (sometimes including items and spells), you shouldn't even bother trying.

I have zero issue with 16, 16, 14, 12, 10, 10 or 16, 16, 14, 14, 10, 8 or 16, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10.

I also have no issue with 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 or 18, 14, 14, 14, 10, 8. Nor any of the other possible combinations (even though everybody has to look exactly the same and all players will have the same stats :roll eyes:).

I would always want at least one 16 personally though. 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 10 seems unappealing.

You do not need an 18. There is nothing wrong with having an 18.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Now Paizo seems to make an effort to get away from both 'the big 6' and from having 'mandatory always-on' buff spells. Instead they seem to be aiming for buff spells that are only situationally useful, but are actually useful in their specific situation. So that casting them makes an actual difference instead of merely maintaining the status quo.

The question then is, did they succeed or did they overcompensate? If spells no longer have the staying power to last 'all day', then at least they can no longer define the new default power level. So far so good. Now it will be up to us to figure out if the spells still offer enough of an advantage, situational it may be, that casting them is better, IN THEIR SITUATION, then taking another action.

I love spell casters. Wizard is my favorite class and has been forever (although I always did like the Elven Thief/Mage version best, PF2e seems to make that a real possibility again). Druids are my second favorite. I love me some Merlin, Gwyddien, and other Anglo Saxon/Celtic myths (even if they are mostly bastardized versions).

I could be fully behind the idea that I am no longer able to buff my party defense for hours at a time, IF I am able to quickly buff them for 30 seconds or so when really needed.

The whole idea of making many defensive magics short duration buffs has an appeal to me, mostly due to the fact that fiction often depicts it that way. It is rare to read a book or watch a movie where they cast 12 buff spells that will last many minutes and then dive into the adventure. It is common to have magic users quickly throw up a defensive shield in response to an attack. It is also common for those shields to not last long. It is also common to not be able do it all day without getting too tired to continue doing it (but the author can use that last one narratively as they see fit, it is a bit more complicated when attached to a game).

At high levels I am used to casting 1/3rd to 1/2 of my spells well in advance. I can easily switch to a different paradigm. But then the paradigm needs to switch. No longer am I casting a complicated spell matrix that will attach itself to my targets for possibly hours. Now I am rapidly throwing up the proper defense in response to an enemy action.

If that is the world we want to live in, then while casters no longer have the long term buffing power, then they need to have the flexibility and speed to defend the team.

This means 1 action / Reaction buffs, shields, or other types of defenses. And these things might only last 3 to 6 rounds, not even a full minute. But it also means you likely need to be able to activate them more often throughout an adventuring day.

Current PF2 buffs are not good in either paradigm and I have no idea what game table / scenario they actually fit into or would work well in? Perhaps if all boss fights are heavily telegraphed and all fights vs special enemy effects are foreshadowed and all regular fights are clearly just that? Not sure I want to play in that type of paradigm.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My GM experience for this encounter was pretty good.
My players were a dwarf fighter, human paladin of Torag, halfling Fey Sorcerer with Fighter Dedication, a goblin alchemist, and a gnome barbarian. The fighter had a magical flail.

The party had been climbing with their armor off to avoid the acp. Upon finding dead knolls killed by giant porcupines (failed to identify Manticore spines) they opted to re-armor.

My map was a shallow s shaped path roughly 20 feet wide. The one side was a cliff up, the other a cliff down (drop was 50-100 foot). The path also was slightly sloped, being 40 foot lower on the side the pcs started on. Players were not stealthing, but a few folks successfully perceived the Manticore, so I started it a bit further out on the map (although in the end not actually far enough to change much, although I was not able to attack the softer rear targets immediately). I used the same perception roll for initiative, and therefore a couple PCs act before the Manticore.

Most players were melee focused, but the fighter, sorcerer, and paladin had short bows, the alchemist had a crossbow, and the barbarian had ray of frost from Ancestry. The paladin moved forward, drew out bow, and raised shield. The gnome moved forward and readied to ray of frost if it got in range. It moved twice and threw two spikes at the barbarian and paladin, hitting both, denting the paladin’s shield. The readied ray of frost had missed. Alchemist moved forward once, drew out crossbow and loaded it. Fighter moved forward twice and readied shield. The sorcerer moved, drew out bow, and shot once, hitting.

Paladin moved forward, stowed bow, and readied shield. Barbarian hit with Ray of frost and moved. Manticore threw 2 spikes again hitting barb but missing paladin, paladin used Divine ward to take 8 of the damage. Manticore used two actions to fly up and away. Alchemist moved, fired and hit despite the range penalty, reloaded. Fighter moves forward twice and readied shield. Sorcerer moved up and cast heal on barbarian. Group is fairly gathered together at this point, only the Alchemist choosing to stay back from the other four. All of them are keeping at least 10 feet from the cliff edge, with the Alchemist tight against the cliff up.

Paladin moves and readies shield. Barbarian readied ray of frost and makes slight move. Manticore flies down. Attacks barb and sorcerer, hits both, then flies back up (not as far since double cost to fly up). Readied ray misses, divine ward directs 8 damage from sorcerer to paladin. Alchemist shoots misses, reloads. Fighter stows shield, pulls out bow, fires missing. Sorcerer casts reach Hideous Laughter, Manticore fails save (this turns out to be a huge debuff).

Paladin stows Shield, draws bow, fires and hits despite range penalty. Barbarian hits with Ray of frost. Manticore flies to 40 feet and 2 more spikes. Crit on barbarian but misses sorcerer. Divine ward moves 8 damage from barb to pally. Manticore cannot fly away, laughing too much. Alchemist moves forward, retrieves bomb, throws, misses. Fighter fires twice, hits once and moves to a better position. Sorcerer concentrates on laughter, one action heal on barbarian (they were right next to each other) and backs away.

Paladin 3 action heals. Barbarian misses with Ray and draws greatsword. Manticore tried to pin the paladin but misses, then flies away. Alchemist retrieves and throws bomb, missing. Fires crossbow, miss. At this point the group remembers they have a fly scroll. Fighter shoots once, missing, moves toward sorcerer, stows bow. Sorcerer moves toward fighter, concentrates, shoots bow, missing. There was a point where the Manticore was further than 60 feet from the sorcerer. I am not sure if that should have broken Laughter, but the sorcerer did get back in range for the concentrate action, so I allowed the spell to continue. Party is also aware that the Manticore is looking low on quills.

Paladin shoots twice, hits once, moves to keep himself closest to Manticore. Barbarian moves next to paladin and misses with Ray. Manticore drops to 20 feet above paladin and barbarian (and still 20 feet from edge of cliff). Shoots paladin and barbarian again, hitting both, paladin saves last spell point. Manticore laughs at his prey. Alchemist draws and throws bomb. Manticore now on Fire, Alchemist loads crossbow. Fighter draws shield, draws flail readies to move towards Manticore once fly is active. Sorcerer draws scroll, then realizes they don’t have enough actions to both cast it and keep up laughter. Chooses to concentrate.

Paladin shoots once, misses. Draw shield and raise. The closest space on the map and still on land to the Manticore has just a piece of land in it. The Barbarian asks if she can move into that space. I tell the player it will require an Acro check, failure could be bad. She moves in, and rolls very well, I allow her to stand there with no penalty. Rage and ready if it gets in greatsword range. Manticore burns a little but comes in melee. Barbarian swing and miss. Manticore hits bite hurts Barbarian. Alchemist double draws bombs and throws acid, hits. Throws tangle foot, hits. Manticore still has more than half health, but is on fire, melting, laughing, and hampered 10. Fighter delays. Sorcerer casts fly and concentrates. Fighter just barely has to sudden charge to get there. Hits. Second strike miss.

Manticore is now right about half hit points. Paladin drops bow, steps behind Barbarian, grabs back of gnome to make sure she doesn’t fall off cliff, raises shield. Barbarian tried to demoralize and fails, two strikes with greatsword, one hit. Manticore bites fighter, crit. Eww. Laughingly steps away from cliff edge to be out of range of gnomish greatsword. Burns a bit more. Alchemist draws bottled lightning. Throws, hits. Now it’s on fire, melting, hampered, laughing, and flat-footed. Alchemist shoots crossbow, misses. Sorcerer concentrates, two action heal on fighter (exactly 30 feet away). Fighter tries to demoralize, fails despite the circumstance bonus I had granted. Strikes. So close to the knocks prone crit, but just a regular hit. Raise shield.

Manticore has 29 hit points. Paladin delays. Barbarian leaps onto the back of the Manticore (jump was auto with powerful leap) but I require a dc 19 Acrobatics to not plummet off its back. She gets a 21 and hits once with greatsword. Manticore bucks gnome off back, gnome fails dc 21 acro check to stay on. Grab edge dc 19 to catch cliff before plummeting. A good roll and she is dangling 10 feet below the edge, one hand holding her sword, the other on the cliff. Manticore second action bite fighter, 22 damage on regular hit, mean gm dice, but shield absorbs a little and takes dent. Paladin comes out of delay. 2 action heal on fighter. Aid barbarian to climb. Manticore burns and melts (I also had the gnome take the fire damage which actually occurred at the beginning of creature turn). Under 15 hit points. Alchemist throws lightning, but misses. Loads and shoots Xbox, hits (looks like we messed up and allowed an extra action). Sorcerer concentrates, shoots twice, hits once. Fighter puts the final smack on it and it plummets past the dangling gnome. Paladin succeeds on aid check. Gnome easily makes dc 14 Athletics check to clamber back to ledge.

From what I understand, unless the monster has Drag, Grappling cannot move the grabbed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spellcasters get a lot of class abilities too.
I’d really like to see more customization possibilities, a Class Feat every level really seems like a good thing to me.

I definitely think that the Archetype system demands all classes get the same number of class feats.

Previous thread on this topic.
A fair amount of similar discussion exists in the linked thread.
There is also a developer response in that thread.

Mathmuse wrote:
Megistone wrote:

But you heal more HP. People keep forgetting (or just avoid considering) that.

I would still like an option to "undercast" Treat Wounds, but it's NOT like your DC increases for nothing.

I like the succinctness of this reply. One short paragraph explains the correct aspect of the math and the other short paragraph contrasts it to the fun aspect of the math. It fits right into the topic, "Correct Math vs Fun Math."

I really like the 4 tiers of success system and even basing that system on +- 10. I also think it is not always the correct way for certain checks to be handled. Sometimes a check of 18 should be better than a check of 14, even if the base DC is 10.

Meraki wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Might have to do with people there posting under real names (mostly), since that usually means you moderate yourself far more ;-)

Oh, you sweet summer child. :-) If only.

For multi-classing, I'm not so sure that it does feel the same in PF2 as in PF1, at least as it currently stands. I've made a theurge-type character for part 4, and she feels more like a wizard with some kind of divine archetype than a wizard/cleric. PF2 multi-classing seems to model the concept of a character with a primary class and a smattering of a second class quite well, but I haven't been having much luck trying to get a more 50-50 split. (For cleric abilities, she just has a few divine spells, and...that's it.)

My Animal Druid with Rogue Dedication felt OK after getting Trapfinder and Sneak Attacker, but that did take too many levels in my opinion and I am not sure Sneak Attacker is really all that good. I felt Rogue-like, and the skill options were fun (once 1.3 came out and I ret-conned into that version), but the combat option from Rogue was pretty weak at the level it finally came online (I bounced back and forth between Rogue and Druid Feats). Of course, I still had all my Druid spells and 3 Druid feats, so definitely not 50/50. In some ways it is nice to not lose spell progression. In other ways, i wish i could trade a bit of spell progression in order to get some of the Archetype stuff faster.

I should note that I felt plenty powerful, although I did miss some of the better buffs from PF1. But I also did not gain the Rogue stuff as early as I would have liked.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Gloom wrote:
In PF1 your Alchemist would not have been able to attempt it at all, as they would not have Trapfinding thus could not disable a magical trap. They would need to use Dispel Magic in order to do it.

What do you tell the 4th level PF2 rogue who put their expert skill increases into Acrobatics and Stealth?

"I'm sorry, it sure sucks that you managed to miss out on your first level PF1 class feature"?

In PF1, if you did not have Trapfinder, you also would not have been able to disarm this same trap.

Allowing every player party to beat every challenge the best way is not a requirement for adventure design. You want almost all player parties to be able to get through every (needed) challenge alive while being generally successful.

Since we are all learning the game together, I understand why you discovered you were not able to disarm the trap before rolling, but it is not true you're not allowed to roll. You were just not allowed to succeed. After we learn the system, a trap's required proficiency level is certainly not information players should have. You find trap. You attempt to disarm trap, you fail to disarm trap and it goes off. Whether it was because you failed the DC or your proficiency is not high enough, it really amounts to the same thing. Now, rolling a 20, and the trap still going off, would likely make even me cringe a bit. Perhaps a Critical Success on Disable Device could also allow you to treat your proficiency as if it were one level higher.

Core Feat (or preferably Core Ability)
General Feat
Skill Feat
Ancestry Trait (unless they plan to introduce an optional Trait system in the future, but with backgrounds, I figured that would not make sense anymore).

Data Lore wrote:

How I would fix Intelligence:

I think saves should be based off of one of two scores, whichever is higher. So something like this:

Reflex: Dexterity (quick movement) or Intelligence (quick thinking)
Fortitude: Constitution (hearty body) or Strength (strong body)
Will: Wisdom (stable mind) or Charisma (force of personality)

Next I would add something for Int regarding skill points like this:

Int 12 = An extra trained skill at level 1
Int 14 = An extra skill increase at level 1 (Up to Expert) and an extra Language
Int 16 = An extra skill increase at level 3 (Up to Expert)
Int 18 = An extra skill increase at level 5 (Up to Expert)
Int 20 = An extra skill increase at level 7 (Up to Master)
Int 22 = An extra skill increase at level 9 (Up to Master)

Skill increases can be allotted retroactively due to Int increases. I am not sure how to make the above less clunky but, either way, higher int should mean more skill increases (instead of more trained skills, which feels kinda 'meh' to me). Then people would want it for sure.

I generally like the concept. I was thinking the exact same thing for saves, although I do not really have an issue with the current Save system. I like your outline for skills based on Intelligence, but I prefer my outline below for extra skill increases based on Intelligence.

Intelligence still grants extra Trained skills at character creation just as it does now. Based on your Intelligence modifier, you also get an Intelligence based Skill Increase at the levels indicated on the chart below (capping at 6 extra increases).
You can use this increase to either become trained in one skill you’re untrained in, or to become an expert in one skill in which you’re already trained.
If you are at least 7th level, you can also use this increase to become a master in a skill in which you’re already an expert. If you are at least 15th level, you can also use this increase to become legendary in a skill in which you’re already a master.
If your Intelligence increases you also get a new Trained skill and compare the number of Intelligence based Skill Increases you already have to the new amount you would have at the higher score. If your new total is higher, you may apply the Skill increase in any way your current level would allow.. For example, if you use your level 10 stat increase to improve a 14 Intelligence to a 16 Intelligence, you gain a new Trained skill and you would now have two Skill Increases (from levels 5 and 10) instead of one increase (just level 6), so you can immediately apply that second increase.

+1 - Levels 7 & 14
+2 - Levels 6, 12, & 18
+3 - Levels 5, 10, 15, & 20
+4 - Levels 4, 8, 12, 16, & 20
+5 - Levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, & 18

1 person marked this as a favorite.
dnoisette wrote:

1/ I don't get why Barbarians never get past expert proficiency.

They should get expert and master at the same level a Ranger does.

I agree that should get an increase sooner than 13, although not necessarily when the ranger does.

A slight delay makes some sense, 5th or 7th for expert. I do not necessarily think they need Master, just that Expert should happen sooner than 13th. I am not opposed to the idea of the getting Master in a Weapon group at level 15 or maybe rather a Class Feat at level 14 to allow Master in a group of weapons if someone really wanted it for the flavor.

dnoisette wrote:

Barbarians end up doing less overall damage in a fight than Fighters.

They have slightly more HP but they also suffer from very poor AC, due to the mechanics of Rage.

Normally I'd be OK with the Fighter out damaging Barbarians over the long haul. But that is old school thinking. Now that Fighter's get the same number of skills and nifty abilities like Master Perception and bonus initiative, I am not sure the Barbarian is keeping up all the way.

I like the flavor of the current Barbarian, but they do seem to be falling a little short. I might be discounting their resistance and Saves; also Mighty Rage does help with Action economy after 11th.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I mean, seriously, it is all but impossible to gimp a character unless you completely drop the ball on stats needed to use the weapon.
So, I’m not sure what you have in mind. But if you look at the expected damage calculations done here, you’ll see that (for example) a generic ranged combatant who uses a crossbow or a sling will do significantly less damage than they would using a composite shortbow. (In the “8-to-hit” version of the calculation, the composite shortbow user will do almost double the expected damage of a crossbow or sling user.)

Simple vs Martial weapon could be why. The Crossbow has several disadvantages compared to the Short Bow, perhaps too many (it does have better range though). The sling is in the same predicament. It is possible they need to be reviewed (I am not sure why the sling has a reload of 1 while the Shortbow is 0, myself).

If you are in a class that gets Martial Weapons, you should probably choose the composite shortbow. If you only get simple weapons, well then you probably aren't using the weapon all that much anyway? I don't think it is gimp to use a crossbow as a backup/range weapon if your class is not proficient with Composite shortbows. You should have other class features that make up for that lack of martial proficiency.

A Ranger who uses the Crossbow does come out a feat behind to only be almost as good as if they just chose the Comp Shortbow. I don't think that is gimp, but it surely is weaker unnecessarily.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
StratoNexus wrote:
generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype.
It makes sense. Archetypes are effectively feat chains that lock you out of other feat chains until you reach a certain point. So having fighting styles be an archetype certainly fits within the PF1e model. Depends on how much you enjoy feat chains (I personally only like them when the abilities directly improve and the earlier prerequisites are actually relevant. I definitely only like them when I can control how far I invest in them without being punished harshly, such as by not being allowed to multi class).

We already have one Archetype that is pretty much dedicated to simply adding combat feats. That Archetype is about as bland as I ever want an Archetype to get and I am sure it only exists due to longstanding legacy plus the real need for a flexible, generic Combat Archetype (I approve of the Fighter, because I like it's flexibility of concept).

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Problem is: you don't have to multiclass in PF1e to be a cleric that uses a crossbow well. It will take all of your combat feats (but clerics get 9-10 of those so that's okay) and you will sacrifice metamagic feats and improving your channel ability, but you don't need to mutliclass.

But in PF2e there really isn't multi-classing. You want to become better at using the Crossbow, you simply sacrifice metamagic feats and improving your channel ability in order to choose the Dedication that is better at combat. I grant you that means you are losing one feat before you get to the bow stuff, but that is not much different from PF1 feat taxes. That said, I am all kinds of a fan of improving our customization options via the current system. I am not opposed to a "Universal Feat" concept, although I also do not mind the current Class Feat method, if Archetyping becomes a bit more open.

I just do not like the idea of more bland Archetypes that simply exist for Mechanical reasons.
A Scout Archetype that contains abilities for stealth, speed, perception, and archery works for me. An Archery Archetype that contains abilities for Archery does not (that is what Fighter Dedication is for).

I do like your point about the Fighter Combat feat count and how that affects the rest of the game balance.

I would simply allow Specialists to use Drain Arcane Focus 1 additional time per day at level 5, 10, and 15 but they can only use it with a spell from their chosen school.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So I like the Barbarian, but one of the things I wonder about is classes who are faced with feat choices between "good at fighting" and "good at other stuff". Like Acute Scent, Raging Athlete, Furious Sprint are fine, but I find myself wanting to take fighting oriented feats (including archetype feats) instead.

I wonder if we wouldn't be better off siloing "directly combat applicable" choices from "general utility" feats. Like the fighter can easily spend all their feats on fighting basically, whereas for Monks and Barbarians you're weighing "moving around" feats against "fighting" feats.

To be honest, I find the three specific feats you mention very combat oriented, because getting there is often half the battle in campaigns I play and GM. Acute Scent should likely have a 30 foot range, but scent can be very useful in combat.

Swipe is great, but I will get a lot of use out of Raging Athlete as well.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I'm in strong agreement with StratoNexus, with the exception that I really hope there are ways to distinguish your character as "good with a specific fighting style" that doesn't require me to sacrifice key components of my class.

A character being good with every martial weapon, and just happening to pick up and use a bow doesn't fulfill my fantasy of "That person is an archer!". No, they're just a schmuck with a bow. A dedicated archer can do cool stuff with a bow that others can't.

So I'd like it if we could have a way to get all the cool class stuff and customize our fighting style.

I should say that I do agree you should be able to become even better with your preferred style. But it has to be approached carefully. As soon as an option exists to enhance a combat style, that option might become required to even consider using that style.

That said, I have seen a fair number of folks decry that you can't even consider playing X class without having the primary stat at 18, while I have found you can do fine with a 16 in the primary stat of most classes (likely all classes, but I haven't fully tested everything yet).

And because I can't help it, switching Stat Bumps to 3 increases at levels 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 allows someone who starts at a 16 or 18 in a stat to end up in the same place. Just one more benefit to that Stat Bump layout.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe Mucchiello wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
If I wanted to, say, create an archetype that was all about fighting with a two handed weapon effectively, I could do so in a way that it packages all the pieces you would need to build that character in one tidy place, one that could then be taken by everyone. The old system allowed us to do this.. kinda, but it was all over the place, and was easily seen as bloat, especially as the years went on.
But that would be cool. A two-handed weapon archetype that any class (yes any class) could take (along with bowmen archetypes, sword and board archetypes, one-handed archetypes, etc) would be higher in flexibility and customization and allow you to fix the stuff that "all over the place". This was a paladin would be a warrior for a patron god. If that god likes backstabbing dagger wielders, he isn't locked into heavy armor, sword, and shield native to the current class. The ranger becomes an outdoorsman. Whether that involves bows or dual-wielding or just a big ol' greataxe is up to the player, not the class designer.

First, let me say that I LOVE the general concept and setup of the Archetype. In my opinion, this could be the best way to branch outside of your chosen class in any class-based game I have played.

That said, generic combat styles should NEVER be used as the basis for an Archetype. It is perfectly OK for an Archetype to feature a single combat style (Cavalier and Mounted Combat, for example). But the Archetype should be about something else primarily. The Gray Maiden is a great example, there is definitely a strong element of the armor, but there is equal focus on other forms of hardiness. As an example of close, but not great, there are some things about the Cavalier I think ought to be adjusted due to this (despite the root word meaning horseman, it certainly has not connotated only Cavalry for some time). First, Cavalier's Banner should not require a mount. Second, he should get some kind of Team rallying/buffing power set to Level 6 in the line of Tactician from the PF1 class (and probably an advanced version at level 10). Cavalier also heavily connotes exhorting allies to their cause. I would expect Cavaliers to generally focus on Mounted combat, but having abilities outside of that is vital to the Archetype.

I think the system already does a decent job supporting most generic combat styles with Zero investment as is. If it does not, then that should be fixed. Two-hander vs. Two Weapon vs Sword and Board vs Single blade (axe, hammer) vs Polearm vs Archery vs Thrown should all be equally viable without any investment of a feat (obviously they will not be equal, but the trade-offs should work out to equally viable characters). If any one of those styles stands well above or below the others at the base, that should be examined really close before deciding it is acceptable.

As far as Feat names. I like Skill Feats. I like General Feats. Class Feats is OK, but part of me thinks maybe they should be called Core Abilities or Core Feats. Core sounds like something that would work for both Class Abilities and Archetype Abilities. Core also denotes importance, which could help with our innate understanding they are likely more powerful.

I am ambivalent on the Ancestry thing. I am not a fan of the current implementation, likely mostly due to not feeling Elven or Dwarven enough at level 1. Trait does sound better in my ears. Feat doesn't really work for me with Ancestry. OTOH, this is not a big issue to me.

PF2 Archetyping is such a great concept, I just hope it gets implemented well. I do believe for the system to work all Main Classes need to have the same number of Core Feats (trying the term out to hear it more). I am a huge fan of customizable parts, so the more the merrier for me, but I understand that some of the stated goals are at odds with each other (customization vs simplicity vs balance). A Core Ability every level, that could be swapped between the Main Class and one or more Archetypes would likely be my personal favorite, but I think I could deal with the 11 most classes get (how about 14? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18).

And I like Core Ability best I think.

Snickersnax wrote:

I'm in the middle of the survey questions about update 1.3. I haven't been following this thread so maybe this has been already brought up, but this question #5 doesn't seem to be true. I'm looking at the two 10-2 tables and DCs were lowered at the lowest levels of the game. Am I missing something? Am I even posting this in the right thread?

Rules Survey wrote:

5. Update 1.3 also changed the table used to generate DCs of skill checks against opposing forces of various levels. Generally speaking, this raised the DCs a bit at the lowest levels of the game and lowered the DCs at the high levels of the game by a greater amount. How appropriate was this change at different parts of the game?

There is this slightly snarky post that talks in detail about the 1-3 Skill DC chart. Quick summary hitting your question below.

Below is the layout of what changed from the original system to the new. Positive numbers indicate when the DC went down and negative numbers indicate that the DC went UP in the new system (backwards thinking am I). The Easy (trivial) DCs all dropped. Low level Medium and Hard DCs actually increased and even in the middle levels of 7-13, looking at Medium to Ultimate, 20 of the 28 DCs increased or stayed the same.
Where they did decrease, it was not by much, until you get to the very top tier of challenges that are above 20.


Azarius2010 wrote:
How does one increase these things? Particularly Perception and Saving Throws. Or Armor to Legendary.

Generally, your class might advance some of these automatically as you level (Fighter's Weapon Proficiency improves as they level, Paladins get improved Armor proficiency, Monks can increase a saving throw to Master, etc.)

There are few General Feats that can improve some proficiencies as well. Alertness can increase Perception to Expert if it is only Trained, there is a feat for each save that can also bump them to Expert if it is only Trained. Armor Proficiency can get you Trained in an armor type you do not already have. Weapon Proficiency can get you Trained in Simple weapons if you are not already, if you were you get Trained in all Martial Weapons, if you had Marital as well, you can pick one Exotic Weapon to be Trained in.

7 people marked this as a favorite.

The negative penalty appeals to me more, precisely because it feels worse. It emphasizes to the player that these are aspects her character is bad at. Starting at 0 makes it seem more like the character is simply not as good as someone else and I think it is important the player realize they are unlikely to succeed unless they have significant other advantages (like a very high stat in that skill and favorable circumstances).

That said, if the math for everything was adjusted up by four, I am having trouble seeing what would be different mechanically.

James Fender wrote:
The wizard not being aloud to wear armor was a way to balance power with the fighter.

Since they significantly reduced wizard spell power, they might not need to further balance wizards by restricting armor. I think they should be allowed to wear armor and I would start them with light armor proficiency.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I am not positive I am a fan of the shorter duration buff spells, I do think it should be considered that they be 1 action or possibly even reaction spells and if they are not already, they should be 60 foot range.

Resist Energy at 1 minute duration is a reactive spell. You cast it as a defense, on the spot once you see something that will deal energy damage.

I am not feeling the level of resistance as being all that useful mind, but if you could cast it in 1 action on your turn or as a reaction when the energy type first appears, the small duration and the low protection could still be worth it.

I mean a 7th level spell that gives 5 folks 15 resistance to one energy type and it is Touch range and it lasts 1 minute?

Ice Devils Cone of Cold averages 52 damage before saving throws are calculated, but you would be mostly immune to its extra cold damage from melee attacks.

You can do well against the Slime Demon's melee acid, but it won't protect you from Smother.

A Valkyrie only averages 19 damage with it's electric spear attack and you will stop its cantrip.

An adult green dragon's breath weapon... oh wait, just suck it up. You're taking the 46 average damage before a save and you'll like it.

An adult blue dragon's 52 damage before a save is gonna hurt, but while its chewing on you, the electric damage won't hurt.

You will not be cold vs an Ice Yai Oni. The Fire Yai, on the other hand will burn you in several ways. The 22 average damage from its missile will hurt a little. The 35 average damage before saving from its at will Fireball will sting, but the 49 from its 7th level Fireball will sting more, but its Fire Shield is unlikely to hurt. The 21 damage from walking through its Wall of Fire is not too bad.

Adult red dragon fire, it burns. 52 average before the save, but your mostly OK from the heat while it nibbles you.

If for some reason a Deh-nolo opts to use energy damage with its crystal, your mostly OK.

I think I'd rather use a Heal in that 7th level slot. 13d8 to one target is pretty much guaranteed to be way more mitigation that Resist energy and the 7d8 AoE is still very likely more mitigation.

I did not realize there were not checks like this until it was pointed out to me when I was suggesting a Treat Wounds change based on what I thought was how Athletics worked for jumping.

I thought Athletics Long Jump let you jump a distance equal to a certain result of your skill check. But in reality, you say how long you want to jump, and that determines the DC of your check.

I still think Treat Wounds should use a mechanic like the original poster suggested:

If you use a static DC, then your level already has a good influence on the amount healed, since higher level characters will get higher check results.
DC 10 - You heal the target an amount equal to your level. For every 3 by which your check exceeds 10, the target also heals an amount equal to their Con modifier (min 1).
You can still Crit Succeed on a 20 for x3 healing and Crit Fail on a 1 for Bolstered.
This method can heal for more at low-mid levels as well as healing modestly less at high levels.

Vic Ferrari wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I didn't think the stat boost items were going to be doing that much this time around?
Yea, I believe it's only +2, so the highest ability score you can get is 24.

Indeed. You can only have one and assuming you put it on your best stat, it is only a +1 modifier you are gaining. You could put it on that 8 stat and have an 18 instead without losing a whole lot from your main focus.

LuniasM wrote:
The point I'm making is that, even when compared to an unoptimized Fighter, Cantrip damage falls behind. I personally feel it should be a little higher - perhaps starting at 1dX+MOD and scaling to 5dX+MOD - but I need to do more math to determine if cantrip damage is actually falling behind too far. How does it compare to other classes with lower Proficiency? What about cantrips that target a save, or hit multiple creatures? How does Persistent Damage affect it? These are all questions that should be answered, which is what I aim to do.

I'd include this question as well: At what point does Cantrip damage exceed the damage dealt by a 1st level spell slot?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still think Intelligence should also grant extra Skill Increases as you level up. Guaranteed house rule in games I GM if it does not make it into Core.

2 to 6 extra Skill Increases, some of which can be used to add more Master or Legendary skills.
That makes Intelligence attractive.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is this annotated PDF.

My opinion is you should generally assume no AoO exist (unless you have some in game reason to know about it). I like that Recall Knowledge will not easily grant that information (but I am also OK that it will grant that on a 20).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamemasterbob wrote:

*So, when you reach 20th level your AC might be 24 NOT 54 and still within the range of a creature with a +9 to hit. This low experience enemy most likely won’t come close to defeating you but it can hit you. So, if I use this enemy, I’ll use 5 or 6. But If I use it or not it’s a Practical and Organic decision NOT imposed by a 9-level limit.


It is true that in a system without +level you can use low-level critters more. It is not objectively true that will necessarily be more fun.

Simply making low level monster math work to hit a PC, does not necessarily make that an interesting challenge. Higher level critters usually also have cool abilities and interesting features that make them more fun and tactically interesting.

I am not saying it isn't fun to occasionally fight 20 orcs whose tactics are limited. But I am also not convinced the math matters at that point. Whether a PC stands amongst them and they only hit on a 20 and deal 10 damage to a 120 HP character or that same PC stands amongst them and they can hit on a 16 and that PC takes 50 damage. The story is pretty much the same. Who really cares about the maths at that point?

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with this. I always thought the weapon, armor, and other special abilities were way cooler and more fun than attack bonuses, save bonuses, or armor bonuses, while those numerical bonuses were simply required.

I don't necessarily want all the extra dice to come from proficiency, because I do like the idea that a wizard can swing a staff and not be inept and I am not sure it makes much sense for them to have a high proficiency in weapons (although maybe just one weapon isn't that odd).

I am currently trying to wrap my brain around items that grant numerical bonuses to skills. I have always liked the idea of high quality thieves tools and even magic items like Boots of Elvenkind, but I do wonder where the line between cool story and boring numerical bonus is drawn. These items seem fun to me even though they are just numbers, but maybe that is because they have more story and a little detail, but I am not sure what mundane high quality thieves tools or Boots that make you more nimble on your feet could do besides small numerical bonuses.

I still don't understand why you don't just heal a larger amount based on the check, similar to how you can jump farther with a higher Athletics check.
If you use a static DC, then your level already has a good influence on the amount healed, since higher level characters will get higher check results.
DC 10 - You heal the target an amount equal to your level. For every 3 by which your check exceeds 10, the target also heals an amount equal to their Con modifier (min 1).
You can still Crit Succeed on a 20 for x3 healing and Crit Fail on a 1 for Bolstered.
This method can heal for more at low-mid levels as well as healing modestly less at high levels.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Here's another problem I have; compare the DCs for these two related tasks:

Tracking a tiny animal (level 0) through the woods.
Tracking a gargantuan lumbering beast(level 12) that smashes its way through the same woods.

Objectively, the first one should be a tougher task by far. But how many PF2e GMs would look at the first situation and call it an extreme level 0 DC, while the second one is a trivial level 12? But the problem is that that makes tracking the super big lumbering beast harder then tracking a mouse. In a vacuum each individual call makes sense, but when you compare them you realize the results are nonsensical.

Ironically, your example, in my opinion actually demonstrates that the system is pretty close to a good spot.

First, without even bothering with the numbers the GM should apply the actual rules to this scenario.
"Some tasks are always trivial and have no need to be rolled, like climbing a ladder in ordinary circumstances. You can allow automatic successes at lower levels than listed if that makes your game run more smoothly."
I have never experienced a situation where we couldn't track the Gargantuan lumbering beast. As a matter of fact, I would expect the GM to use the swath of trampling to impress the danger the beast poses (not to say I wouldn't have it be difficult to track a Gargantuan Green Dragon who is not lumbering, but the word lumbering generally takes this out of needing a check at all). Obvious things are obvious. You do not make PCs roll a perception check to notice the blood in the blood splattered room, you describe it. You do not make the PCs roll a check to track the Lumbering Gargantuan beast. The challenge comes elsewhere.

To track the level 12 gargantuan lumbering beast, "You can usually skip rolling and assume the characters succeed against easy DCs unless it’s necessary for everybody to try the check."

The numbers will not make sense when applied to situations the rules clearly call out should not use the numbers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
It would be nice if the Climb skill had objective guidelines for how difficult it is, like before. Not just "The GM will look at table 10-2 and pick one".

You mean like they spell out on table 10-4 (also see 10-3, 10-5, and 10-6) and in the Ordinary Tasks subsection?

I do think we firmly identified that they ought to put the generic chart LAST in the rulebook and on the same page as the more specific examples. That way you can't stop at the generic table without finding the specific tables.

Use the specific tables first. If nothing there makes sense and only if you feel it would add excitement to the scenario, consider using the generic table to assign a DC either based on something similar in the specific charts or possibly the player's current level.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Not really, it's pretty much what I said it was; the "treadmill", as it it is known, came about with SWSE, and thereafter 4th Ed, it doesn't work out so hot in the former, but works fine in latter. HP and damage have always been a part of D&D, the "treadmill" has not.

It is funny how perception colors our logic.

Now, instead of speaking about a treadmill as representing how our character's abilities increase, but so do the challenges we face, there is a this concept of "The Treadmill", that did not exist in D&D before some specified time as determined by our own perception.
In AD&D 2e
Calculated THAC0 was a treadmill, although AC was at least bound, but as your THAC0 went down, so too did many of the enemy ACs.
Your HPs increased with level, but so too did damage from enemy attacks. Enemy HPs went up, but so too did your damage (neither of these things increased by nearly as much as in 3.x, but they were still a treadmill, unless you chose to never face higher level threats).
Saving throws were not on a treadmill, you just generally got better and better at those (but what you were avoiding often got much, much more important to avoid).
Skills (non-weapon proficiencies) were not a treadmill, but you also never really got better at them.

There is very little in PF2e playtest that is inherently more of a treadmill than PF1e and 3.x
For skills, most of the static checks from PF1e still exist in PF2e. Most of the checks that do become harder are due to harder creatures increasing the difficulty (this is no different than in PF1e, it was more difficult to Acro past a creature with a higher CMD, it was harder to stealth past a critter with higher Perception, you need a higher Diplomacy check vs the nobleman than the merchant, etc.).

That said, I am all for pointing out where they have used the treadmill in a way that could be bad. Treat Wounds and Lingering Composition as designed are examples of what I perceive as an issue. Scaling HPs, to-hit, saves, and AC by level do not bother me personally.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I created a character build layout to compare to the DC chart and see how well everything lined up with the below goals stated in the Update 1-3 document.


A medium DC provides little challenge for highly skilled characters and a decent chance to succeed for low-skilled characters who don’t have a good proficiency or a high ability score. This DC is good to use when each PC will attempt the check and when it matters how many PCs succeed or fail. Except at low levels, a medium DC will be a challenge only for characters who aren’t keeping up with the skill. Medium DCs become easier and easier for characters who have invested in the skill to succeed over time.

A hard skill DC, the most common in the game, represents something that an average commoner might not try but that adventurers attempt frequently. This DC challenges even characters who have strongly focused on the skill and can often be overcome by a character who has increased their modifier or proficiency rank. A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

The bolded is a change from the actual 1-3 update, but I am pretty sure it was intended to say Medium rather than Easy.

The below summary assumes a non-Rogue character with items and Character Wealth as presented in the rules. There are some magic items that give +3, right around Level 9 or 10 (which would generally mean you get them at 10-12, based on current assumed treasure), however I did not include them, because they are not ubiquitous yet, but a +3 item the character gets at level 11-12 (so a level 9-10 item) would help smooth out progression nicely, but will not affect the end game values, since we eventually assume the +4 item.

The Specialist skill was bumped as soon as possible in all cases, except items, instead getting a combat item first, then the skill item a level or two later (in some cases the skill item might be a combat item, think Armbands of Athleticism, but I did not assume that).
The Focused skill was bumped regularly and eventually all the way to Legendary, although not necessarily as soon as possible. A level or two after getting a skill item for his main, he picked one up for this.
The Dabbler skill was bumped to Expert eventually and the stat was increased regularly. This stat could start out at 12 or 14, but will eventually be bumped to 18 either way (I started at 12 in my example below). Items were definitely bought eventually.
Skill Increases were laid out as follows: Level 3-Expert A, 5-Expert B, 7-Master A, 9-Expert C, 11-Master B, 13-Expert D, 15-Legend A, 17-Master C, 19-Legend B
This gives 2 Legendary, 1 Master, 1 Expert, a few to several Trained depending on class and Intelligence.

Specialist roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 8,8,7,6,7 | 7,7,7,6,5 | 4,5,6,6,4 | 3,3,3,3,2
my chart 6,6,5,4,4 | 4,4,4,3,2 | 2,3,3,3,1 | -,-,-,-,- (from 15 on, only a 1 fails)
Specialist roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 10,10,9,8,9 | 9,8,9,9,8 | 8,8,7,8,7 | 5,6,6,6,5
my chart 8,8,7,6,6 | 7,6,6,5,4 | 4,5,5,5,3 | 2,2,2,2,2

Focused roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 10,10,10,10,9 | 8,9,9,9,8 | 6,6,7,7,7 | 8,6,6,5,4
my chart 8,8,8,8,6 | 5,6,6,6,5 | 3,4,4,4,4 | 4,3,3,2,1
Focused roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 12,12,12,12,11 | 10,10,11,12,11 | 9,9,9,9,10 | 10,9,9,8,7
my chart 10,10,10,10,8 | 8,8,8,8,7 | 5,6,6,6,6 | 7,5,5,4,4

Dabbler roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Medium Difficulty.
1-3 chart 11,11,11,11,11 | 11,12,11,11,10 | 10,10,9,9,8 | 9,9,9,7,7
my chart 9,9,9,9,8 | 8,9,8,8,7 | 7,8,6,6,5 | 5,6,6,4,4
Dabbler roll needed for success from level 1-20 vs. same level Hard Difficulty.
1-3 chart 13,13,13,13,13 | 13,13,13,14,13 | 13,13,11,11,11 | 11,12,12,10,10
my chart 11,11,11,11,10 | 11,11,10,10,9 | 9,10,8,8,7 | 8,8,8,6,7

All three Skill types above show gradual improvement from levels 1-20. Using the 1-3 chart, more of that improvement occurs at the later levels, outside of bumping skills to Master ASAP. My opinion is 1-3 is too harsh in the low levels, which also affects the end result not getting to the stated goals. My chart starts a bit easier than the stated goals, but I believe, at first level, a maxed stat, Trained skill should be better than 50% chance for Hard, while a 12 stat, Trained person should be right about 50%.

At this time items are necessary to achieve the goals at higher levels. I am still pondering and weighing my opinions on Skill items, but plan to post more on that in the future. At the moment, I think skill items can be a fun and cool way to build a character. I have always generally liked them conceptually and rarely found them burdensome mechanically. I think Skill items should probably range from 0-3 (0 exists for the skills where you should need an item just to attempt the skill). The more I look into the system and the more sessions I play, the less enamored I become of +5 to a skill and even +4 seems a bit much.

There is one other type of Skill advancement I want to discuss briefly, and that is the simply Trained skill. If you spend no other resource as you level up, you will fall slightly behind on higher level challenges (but still easily accomplish most static DCs by mid-levels, and Easy DCs will be easy all the way to 20). Spending one or two relevant Stat Bumps and getting an Expert or Master item will keep you close to even on the 1-3 chart and definitely keep you even on mine for Medium and Hard. In my opinion, it is fine to require this very minor level of investment to keep pace.

Below are the build layouts I used to get the above values. I figured I’d include it for anyone who wanted to reference it. Obviously there will be variation on the below from character to character, but I think this hits a general average expectation.

Specialist should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 05
Specialist should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 06
Specialist should be Level (03) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (00) = 08
Specialist should be Level (04) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 10
Specialist should be Level (05) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 11
Specialist should be Level (06) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 12
Specialist should be Level (07) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 14
Specialist should be Level (08) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 15
Specialist should be Level (09) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 17
Specialist should be Level (10) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 19
Specialist should be Level (11) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 20
Specialist should be Level (12) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 21
Specialist should be Level (13) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 22
Specialist should be Level (14) + Master (02) + Stat (05) + Item (02) = 23
Specialist should be Level (15) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (02) = 26
Specialist should be Level (16) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 29
Specialist should be Level (17) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 30
Specialist should be Level (18) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 31
Specialist should be Level (19) + Legend (03) + Stat (06) + Item (04) = 32
Specialist should be Level (20) + Legend (03) + Stat (07) + Item (04) = 34

Focused should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 03
Focused should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 04
Focused should be Level (03) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 05
Focused should be Level (04) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 06
Focused should be Level (05) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (00) = 09
Focused should be Level (06) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 11
Focused should be Level (07) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 12
Focused should be Level (08) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 13
Focused should be Level (09) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 14
Focused should be Level (10) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (01) = 16
Focused should be Level (11) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 19
Focused should be Level (12) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 20
Focused should be Level (13) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 21
Focused should be Level (14) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 22
Focused should be Level (15) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 23
Focused should be Level (16) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 24
Focused should be Level (17) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 27
Focused should be Level (18) + Master (02) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 28
Focused should be Level (19) + Legend (03) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 30
Focused should be Level (20) + Legend (03) + Stat (05) + Item (04) = 32

Dabbler should be Level (01) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 02
Dabbler should be Level (02) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 03
Dabbler should be Level (03) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 04
Dabbler should be Level (04) + Trained (00) + Stat (01) + Item (00) = 05
Dabbler should be Level (05) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 07
Dabbler should be Level (06) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 08
Dabbler should be Level (07) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (00) = 09
Dabbler should be Level (08) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (01) = 11
Dabbler should be Level (09) + Trained (00) + Stat (02) + Item (01) = 12
Dabbler should be Level (10) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 14
Dabbler should be Level (11) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 15
Dabbler should be Level (12) + Trained (00) + Stat (03) + Item (01) = 16
Dabbler should be Level (13) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (02) = 19
Dabbler should be Level (14) + Expert (01) + Stat (03) + Item (02) = 20
Dabbler should be Level (15) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 22
Dabbler should be Level (16) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 23
Dabbler should be Level (17) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 24
Dabbler should be Level (18) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (02) = 25
Dabbler should be Level (19) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 28
Dabbler should be Level (20) + Expert (01) + Stat (04) + Item (04) = 29

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Syndrous wrote:

So far, that's a great thing, because folks have been ignoring the rest of the picture which is the Ordinary Task charts (10-3/4/5/6) and how they relate to Chart 10-2. Chart 10-2 gives an arbitrary list of DC's and tells use what level they are appropriate to. It gives us no idea of the tasks we will have at those levels. That's where the other charts come in, and believe me they still need fleshing out.

I don't necessarily disagree with you guys re:hard not needing to be the default difficulty, but someone has to make sure we are understanding this right, and right now there is a lot of misunderstanding happening.

Indeed, I think a lot of the static DCs are pretty good and overall they give solid guidance. I do agree with another poster who said it would be nice if the actual DCs were listed in those tables, rather than just a level reference, but I also understand they were trying to let the DM use the level as a reference, because the DM might decide it was a Low challenge, and if the chart had the High challenge on it instead, that would be more confusing.

I am actually OK, with Hard (old High) being the default for a lot of game elements that our characters will face. That gives specialists an opportunity to shine and emphasizes those who only dabble have a solid chance to either succeed or fail, while the untrained will only succeed if they get lucky.

However, I think Table 10-2 is much more important as a guide to adventure design, rather than an on the fly tool for DMs (not that the latter is not useful, just that I would generally use the chart in my session prep/adventure design more often than during the game, I think).

Therefore, the chart very much needs to model the target success rate, because I expect all AP and scenario designers will be heavily referencing the chart when creating the game elements of their story.

ereklich wrote:
Nope, they really want you to have a 50% chance to succeed an on-level Hard Task, because, well they are hard, and require a GM to put some actual thought into designing them.
But if a *fully optimized* character only has a 50% chance? That's not hard, that's insane. Because that means the rest of the party is screwed if they have to make the check too.

That is NOT the intent of the system as we level.

The intent for Hard is clearly stated to be as follows:

A character who’s really strong in the skill starts at around a 50% chance of succeeding but ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels.

I have been working on a larger post, but it shows that even with the current 1-3 chart, on the Hard column fully optimized you start at 55%, but as you level you slowly improve over the 20 levels to succeed 80% of the time. While I do not think that is quite enough improvement, there is definitely character growth and your character does improve. I am hoping to get it posted Soon(TM)

I obviously think it could be.

That said it does add significant complexity to leveling up by vastly increasing choice. Also, all other cases would need to be re-worked so they also got Class feats basically every level, rather than just baked in abilities.

I think it is worth exploring the idea, but it might be better as an option in a book after Core.

1 to 50 of 133 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>