StratoNexus's page

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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'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.

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.

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.

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 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.

There is this annotated PDF.

*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.

Now after reading this CONSIDER THE CONCEPT NOT THE NUMBERS.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

My issue is that the examples given in the corebook don't go above level 5-8 for difficulty.

So when you diagnosize a "level 13 DC" you end up with a number but absolutely no idea at What it is expected to be.

Let's say you want some bridge to challenge a party and you found out that the DC should be 28.

Some of the harder to pin down challenges for higher level parties are really just scenery to level 13+ characters. Is a bridge really a challenge at that level? That isn't to say I wouldn't consider something bridge-like for the setting that could have challenge attached to it, but I would have the event in mind and then set the challenge based on that, rather than picking a DC and trying to fudge an event into it. Most environmental issues will be trivial at higher levels. Earthquakes and meteorites seem like a cool thing that could occur once in a campaign. I fail to see how getting "locked" into a difficulty for those is going to really be a problem?

Objective DCs give players the knowledge about the game world they need to make informed decisions.

So you would suggest Tables 10-3 through 10-6 should belong in the Skills section maybe?

If you are looking for a monotonic increasing function for the Max character, it would mean moving the double ups to levels when you model the Max character as buying new items.

I like the double ups in general, although I think there is one too many in each column and they hit a bit too early (I am ignoring the level 0 to 1 jump, that seems quite reasonable to me).

Not counting Level 0, there are 4 on the Medium chart, 2 of which hit quick at level 5 and 7. I think that extra one at 7 is hurting the concept of this being something a Trained person should feel reasonably good at (in addition to the large increase from Easy hurting that concept) as well as limiting the feeling of a focus character noticeably improving in the middle levels.

The Hard chart has 5 doubles, 3 occur by level 10, two right in a row at levels 7 and 8. I think these double ups should be pushed back a bit and that double double up be removed.

There are 7 on the Incredible chart (one of which is actually a triple up), 5 of which occur by level 10 (including the triple). Again I think this is one too many and front-loaded.

The Ultimate has 10 double ups (but no triples), half occurring by level 10, and a triple double at levels 5, 6, and 7. This seems like a couple too many and three double increases in a row is a bit much in the low levels (and there are 4 in a row at levels 12-15). I would think 3 from 1-10 and 5 from 11-20 is a better spread.

I think even with a better item/tool selection, the above transitions issues ought to be adjusted somehow. If carrying some extra tools to get the job done works well enough, then the numbers might only need a small additional drop or none at all (0 to 2 points at some intervals),

Let's consider a character with 14 in the stat for a skill, not maxed out. He starts with a 45% chance on the skill. He's not in a class with a prime stat for this skill, but he considers it his second skill priority, picking up Expert at 5th, Master at 9th, Legendary at 17th (second chance to do so each time) and grabbing a new item on the other odd levels for math convenience (so 3rd level before getting an expert tool/+1 item, then 7th, and so on through 19th level). Thanks to starting with a 14, he starts with a 45% chance at a Hard, basically a coin flip. Over the course of advancement, he raises his chances to a significantly better 75%, better than halving the chance of failing, which is a major improvement. Most of these increases in his chances don't happen at the high levels; 4 of the 6 increases happen between levels 1 and 11.

But how can that jive with the numbers in the post I quoted? They seem like they can't both be right. The differences come in three ways. Much of it is the levels chosen; choose 1, 4, 8, 12, 16

Level 1 Character would be Level (1) + Trained (0) + Stat (2) + Item (0) = 3; 45% vs Hard DC 15

I am getting 45, 50, 55, 60, 60, 70 after throwing everything I have at improving this skill (which seems like I am optimizing this skill, despite not starting at an 18 in the stat). I am sure I am missing something small, but I am not sure how you got to a 75% chance of success vs Hard. I also am not sure how the difference between an optimizer and a non-optimizer is simply not starting with a max stat and delaying max progression by 2 levels.
If I throw everything I can at a skill (even if it is the 2nd skill I do that to, rather than the first), I expect that skill to be considered optimized and I would consider it a signature part of my character and I would want a better success rate.

well, according to DC descriptions, adventurers often try things that other wouldn't.

High DC (that most adventuring rolls are) are not suppossed to be what an average, even trained, "commoner" would try.

The way i picture this, is like asking a gymnast to jump from the second floor. He'll probably flat out refuse, his livehood is his legs. But the adventurer will easily jump the same distance while running to escape *something*, fall, get injured, and brush it off "'tis but a scratch!" and continue to live another day.

I have no problem with high DCs being a bit difficult and not auto-success. I DO have an issue that the adventurer that has spend every single of his item, ability mods, skill ranks, skill feats, into something, doesn't clear stuff more easily though.

I agree Hard should be throwing challenge at 12 Stat Trained characters.

Hard is a challenge for the Optimized character (expecting to fail 35% of the time is challenging) and just plain out of the Average character’s league. Even Medium is rough for the Average guy. Medium seems like something an Average guy should succeed more often than fail, maybe a challenge but not a coin flip.

My opinion is those numbers should be:
For the Average character: 85% vs Easy, 65% vs Medium, 55% vs Hard, 40% vs Incredible, 25% vs Ultimate
Fully Optimized character: Guaranteed vs Easy, 95% vs Medium, 85% vs Hard, 70% vs Incredible, 55% vs Ultimate

One other thing I know I do not like about the current chart is how many spots Ultimate is only 1 harder than Incredible.

I guess, this can be alleviated NOT by changing the DCs, but by keeping them where they are, but increasing the impact of "master+/items/something" to show off that the one who overspecialized has something to gain. (something (the higher scaling), that funnily enough, i was against like a month ago)

This is true and it could work for skills, but it might throw off the combat math a bit.

I actually don't think you've gone far enough on toning down the Medium difficulty, since it still gets harder for people who don't invest stat-bumps (to the tune of 15% harder, actually). It shouldn't, given its premise of being checks that people who don't invest beyond Trained have a solid shot at.

That 15% is obviously coming from the “extra” increases at levels 7, 12, and 17. I can appreciate your point. However, I believe the higher level medium difficulty should at least expect higher level tools/gear if not higher natural ability (or some small combination of both). Thus I prefer the extra increases.

Contrariwise, I think you may have gone a tad too far on the Hard difficulty stuff, which starts with an optimal person having a 65% chance of success and peaks at a 95% (would be 100% if 1s didn't auto-fail) for a true specialist. That's a bit too good, IMO. A 60% at 1st level rising to 85% at 20th would be perfectly sufficient, IMO, assuming it scaled quickly enough at low levels. The higher difficulty stuff should likewise probably be a bit higher, though only a bit.

Possibly. My expectation is that higher level full optimization should be succeeding 90-95% off the time on Hard stuff, only starting to occasionally fail at Incredible and naturally fail regularly at Ultimate. ~50% failure rate on Ultimate seems ok to me, for a full optimization, but I could see other thoughts on that. I also may not understand full optimization and could be missing some optimization options.

Fully Optimized at level 10 should be Level (10) + Master (2) + Stat (5) + Item (2) = 19
Guaranteed Easy, only a 1 fails on medium, 15% to fail Hard, 30% to fail incredible, 45% to fail Ultimate.

Fully Optimized at level 20 is Level (20) + Legendary (3) + Stat (7) + Item (3) = 33
Guaranteed Easy and medium, 10% to fail Hard, 30% to fail incredible, 50% to fail Ultimate.

Ok. I am not sure how this passes the smell test.
First, the difference between Easy and Medium Difficulty (which are just one difficulty stage apart) is now assumed to be a massive FIVE point difference at the low levels and becomes a 9 point difference by level 20 (the old chart had it start as a 2 point difference at the low levels, but did ramp up to the same 9 point difference at level 20). Alright, I understand, to an extent, that we are covering the gap between Untrained and Trained here and really driving home the point how much Trained matters, which I appreciate.

However, even by level 10 we are looking at a 7 point difference. That does not even compute as a rational difference between two tiers with the way the math works in PF2.

Second, 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.
This is not going to accomplish the goal of characters growing into CertitudeTM.

_L__E__M__H__I__U
00__2_-1_-1__0__1
01__2_-1_-1_-1__0
02__2_-1_-1_-1__0
03__2__0__0_-1__1
04__2__1__1__0__2
05__2__0__1__0__2
06__2__0__1__0__1
07__2_-1__1_-2__0
08__2_-1__0_-1__1
09__2__0__0_-2__0
10__2__0__0_-2__0
11__2__0__0_-2__0
12__2__1__1_-1__1
13__2__1__2__0__2
14__2__1__2__0__1
15__2__2__2__0__0
16__2__1__2__1__1
17__2__2__2__0__0
18__2__2__2__0__0
19__2__2__2__0__0
20__2__2__2__1__0
21__4__4__4__2__1
22__5__5__4__2__1
23__6__5__4__2__1

I would suggest the following chart. First, you generally want to avoid the double step difficulty increases at levels 5, 10, and 15, since those are the same levels as the Stat Bump increase (unless we can convince Paizo to have an alternate Stat Bump process). Players should be able to enjoy the fruits of that bump for 2 or 3 levels, before it gets harder. Second, the difference between Easy and Medium should be much less pronounced. Let us be the Master of Our Domain!

_L___E___M___H___I___U
00___7___9__11__13__15
01___8__11__13__15__17
02___9__12__14__16__18
03__10__13__15__18__19
04__11__14__16__19__21
05__12__15__17__20__22
06__13__16__19__22__24
07__14__18__20__23__25
08__15__19__21__24__26
09__16__20__22__25__28
10__17__21__23__26__29
11__18__22__24__28__31
12__19__24__26__30__33
13__20__25__27__31__34
14__21__26__28__32__36
15__22__27__29__33__37
16__23__28__31__35__38
17__24__30__32__36__40
18__25__31__33__37__41
19__26__32__34__38__42
20__27__33__36__40__44
21__28__34__37__42__46
22__29__36__38__43__47
23__30__37__40__45__49

Sometimes TPKs happen. See the beginning of Infinity War. The end was pretty rough too.
You can spend a hero point to do something cool, it doesn't mean you get to live.
Off course, that villain certainly qualifies as Most Vicious.

Since the Material Casting action lists that Sorcerers can replace this with a Somatic component, they don't need to say it in the Dedication feat, but they probably should (much like they mention it in the Sorcerer class).

Last paragraph of the Material Casting action on page 196 of the rulebook:

If you’re a sorcerer Casting a Spell from the spell list that matches your bloodline, you can draw on the magic within your blood to replace any Material Casting actions that require material components with Somatic Casting actions. You can’t replace a Material Casting action that requires a spell focus.

I really like Level - 4. It works great at the low levels, very much simulating that the character doesn't have any experience (but could still get lucky if the d20 is blessed).
At higher levels, it keeps the character well enough below the Trained to really matter, but still models the idea that by level 10, she has seen and experienced enough things to not be totally inept.

oh you cast a fireball? "because i know how magic works, i somehow stop you even though I'm a rogue at 30ft away" doesn't seem good to me from either balance or thematic viewpoint.

in order to "stop" magic you should be using "something" not just your brainpower. That's why I personally tied it to SP and Powers.

Stopping magic just because you're good at knowledge arcana is equal plausible to me as stopping a sword cutting you because you're expert at Lore(swordsmanship)

Hmmm. I wasn’t thinking of counter spelling, but more like the way Rogues can thwart magical traps. I didn’t picture you could use it in combat either, requiring too much time and intricacy.

It seems interesting to me that with strong understanding of the way magic works, a character could use that skill to end ongoing effects. I would think this type of skill use would take 1 minute to attempt. Could be a way to bypass a magical barrier, counter magical traps, end a discovered illusion, activate/deactivate a magical lock, close/activate a magical portal, etc.

It makes sense to me that the person could somehow disrupt or slightly manipulate the flow of energy that is keeping the magic going. It could be roleplayed in a lot of ways, whether it is disrupting runes, an innate sense of magical flow, an understanding of some magically disruptive phrases or gestures (which is the classic form of Dispel Magic as a spell, sans the 1 minute), or some odd disruptive effect of your characters aura that you have learned to unlock.

Great topic that I had not thought about. The question in the title is perfect - why is it a spell at all? Interesting to think about Dispel as a class feature instead of a spell.

Dispel Magic could even be an Expert use of Arcana, Nature, Occultism, and Religion, rather than solely in the purview of spell casters.

It might be nice if they made this medic stuff a thing rangers could be really good at with their class feats.

You know, some kinda healing poultice thing like Aragorn chewing on some King's Foil and shoving it in Frodo's stab wound. It doesn't have to be more hit points healed (though it could) but maybe like some ghetto mundane Restoration he could use some limited times a day. Or a stew pot he could have going to have everyone heal a tad bit more when they turn in for the night.

It should probably be more like Natural Medicine though (based on Nature vs. Medicine).

Dunno, just spit ballin'.

While I am not sure it needs to be limited to Rangers, I do think it needs to be a thing that Medicine (and/or Nature) can be used not just to fix Hit Points.

Alternatively, if Spell(s) that Removed Disease also took awhile to take effect, then you would not need to buff Medicine to not make sense. The spell could still only take 10 minutes to cast, but it would take 8 hours to actually counter the disease. That would also be consistent with most examples of magic curing diseases in most fantasy I have read, the recovery of the sick person still takes time after the magic is cast.

Pixie. Catfolk. Ratfolk. Aasimar. Don’t remember.

Things I like:
1) I like the action/reaction system, although I am not sure reactions should stay as limited as current.

2) Archetyping. I love this system both for picking up abilities from "standard" classes as well as for creating more specific and flavorful options.

3) Scaling cantrips work for me, although they may not quite scale as much as they should.

Things I do not like:
1) Stat bumps at 5, 10, 15, 20. Too many at once, too far apart.

2) Lack of Take 10 and Take 20. Out of combat scenarios are fun enough without requiring dice. IMO, we should be encouraging GMs to suggest players Take 10 or even Take 20 if time pressure does not exist. This makes people who invested in a skill feel special and places value on skills. Too many times have I sat at a table where the GM disallows Take 10 and the player who wants their character to appear good at a skill with +12 rolls a 2, forcing other players to roll and someone who doesn't really care about a skill rolls an 18. Yay, the party gets to move on with a success, but instead of a player feeling good about their investment in a skill, they feel upstaged by someone who knows nothing about that skill. Instead of a role-playing game it became a roll-playing game.

3) Difficulties too high. Too many difficulties for skills start at a place that is just too hard. Not by a ton, but ~5 points.

Perhaps anytime you increase a skill to Expert, Master, or Legendary you should also get a Skill Feat.

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

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 an 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.

I like the tight math, but think it's currently calibrated with a lower chance of success for PCs than is ideal. And changing this is very doable.

I agree. Keeping the variance smaller than PF1 is a good goal and while I would prefer a variance that is slightly larger (~4 points more) the current range can work for my games. An adjustment to the difficulties I think can make this system robust and fun as opposed to robust and a bit punititive.

Let's look at a lv 15 character. At 15, the DC for a level appropriate skill check is 35, basically 20+level.

Literally doing everything they could to be good at a skill gives them slightly less than half a chance to succeed. Anyone who hadn't focused every bit of available resources on that skill would have an even worse chance. Additionally, 11 or higher means that the +10 = crit rule is effectively meaningless to the character.

To be fair, 35, is the High difficulty, but I agree with your point. In my opinion, if you have focused on a skill to the extent that you have done everything you are able to improve it, then the Extreme difficulty (which would be 40 at level 15) is what should be 50/50.

Currently, the Ready Basic Activity uses up three out of four of a character's total actions per turn (2 during their turn, plus your Reaction) in order to properly time one action. Losing two actions is an awful steep price to pay and severely limits readied options. I feel the ratio of using two actions to properly time 1 action makes more sense.

This could be accomplished by making Ready a single Action instead of an Activity, but I feel the opportunity cost of spending two actions on your turn is an important factor to balance the timing option Ready gives. This also still severely limits readied options, as we can only ready one Action and we lose any of the nifty class ability Reactions we get.

A better option would be to have the two Action Ready Activity grant an additional Reaction. This allows for an interesting array of options. A Paladin could Raise a Shield and Ready to Attack and get both the readied Strike and a Shield Block. Your Fighter standing next to a doorway could get his readied Strike and if the enemy tries to then keep moving take his AoO (and maybe a second AoO on the next enemy that wanders in, if he has Combat Reflexes). A cleric could Ready a touch range Heal and still be able to use Divine Ward just before using the Heal spell.

Another interesting option this opens up is a Ready which can be two actions. I haven't pored over all the possibilities, but spending 3 actions to get 2 as well as the opportunity cost of losing two of those actions on your turn still seems like a reasonable cost to me (admittedly it is half the cost of the current design, but I think the current is significantly too steep).

A Paladin could Raise a Shield and Ready to Attack a creature she expects to move into melee and get both the readied Strike and a Shield Block. But the enemy instead moves to a spot out of reach of the Paladin, but within a stride. The Paladin could use her regular reaction to Stride into melee and then the Ready can now trigger (or maybe an ally moved the enemy into Stride range). Of course the Paladin no longer has any reactions to Shield Block nor Retributive Strike.

The Fighter holding a melee weapon who readied to attack an enemy that comes in range can now opt to Sudden Charge as soon as the enemy gets within that range, rather than just melee range, but without other Feats, can no longer AoO.

This also opens the possibility to ready two action spells. You could Tanglefoot or Acid Arrow something when it first comes into range. Throw a Fireball into a room once the door opens. Range Heal if prepared.

Not sure the two action ready is viable, but it is an interesting thought.

Wild shaping can be improved greatly if they:[list]

Reduce the number of spells / feats and give the ones that remain meaningful and more frequent heighten options. There shouldn't even be a Dinosaur Form spell for instance, it should be folded in as options of a heightened Animal Form spell.

Reduce the spell tier of Animal Form to 1st and present some decent 1st tier options, so a druid can have a combat form at 1st level.

Yeah, dinosaur form should just be a heightened version of Animal Form.

Clerics could be battle clerics pretty easily. They could choose:

* Heavy Armor Proficiency or Combat Casting (level 1)
* Power Attack (level 3)
* Furious Focus (level 5)
These options exist in PF2e, they're just not options available to the cleric either at all or at these levels. Instead you've got "Cleric feats" you have to take and that's that.

I actually very much like the way PF2 does this type of build with Archetypes, whether simply taking Fighter Dedication and then using your class feats for fighter feats or building a Battle Cleric archetype or maybe be Paladin Dedication once it is available.

Proposal:

Master proficiency in a skill would allow you to roll 2 D20 dice and choose the highest when making checks for that skill.

Legendary proficiency in a skill would allow you to roll 3 D20 dice and choose the highest when making checks for that skill.

That could be fun and I like the way it smoothes out some of the chance.

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 an 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.

Personally I think that, for attack rolls at least, 50% on the first hit, 25% on the second, and 5% on the third for a same level challenge sounds like the right number -two attacks gives you a (1-0.5*0.75)*100% % chance of hitting, which sounds pretty good to me. I'll admit that it is potentially more of a problem with 2 action attack roll spells that miss on a fail.

I have less strong opinions on skill DCs etc. here, but I think attack rolls seem good.

I think 50/25/5 is fine for low levels. But in my opinion, by level 5-7 it should be more like 75/50/25.

On Skills, if someone focuses on a skill, I still don't see why, outside of combat, most tasks involving that skill are not just auto-succeed by level 7. Only the extremely hard uses of a skill should be something that requires rolling and even then only if there is a tight time constraint or noticeable penalty for failure.

Conversely, if you have spent no resources on a skill, I believe you should fail all but the most trivial of tasks and in most cases not even bother trying.

And this sort of thing is a big deal because it saves us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 pages of space, which is a lot more spells or flavor we can add to the chapter.

You only need to have the Spells per day chart one time and just have all the classes reference the one chart.

This will also help eliminate any confusion as to thinking the charts are different.

How about the fact that Sorcerer's gained new spell levels a hell of a lot slower than Wizards.

One level slower. I don't think that is a hell of a lot. YMMV.

I generally prefer Wizards and only ever played 1 sorcerer for long. The one level delay was certainly noticeable, but in the long run not terrible.