Pandora's's page

But failure can certainly create difficulty.

A lower success rate on any d20 roll doesn't make succeeding on the check more difficult, it just makes success less likely. The distinction is that the player doesn't have any agency as part of the roll. Whether they are likely to succeed or unlikely to succeed, all they can do is make their roll and see what happens.

However, failing a roll does create difficulty in two ways. One source of difficulty is dealing with the consequences of a failed roll. A failed roll often results in a new problem (I slipped and am now at the bottom of the pit, I failed my save and now I can't hear what my allies are saying, etc) that requires a new solution. Having more problems to solve makes the game more difficult. The player/character has agency and shows skill by solving these new problems. The less likely a roll is to fail, the less likely it is to create difficulty. No chance of failure then means no chance of difficulty.

The other way failed rolls create difficulty is in the form of decisions and methods of achieving goals. A given problem often can be solved by many different methods that vary in how likely they are to succeed. A better plan should have a higher chance to succeed than a worse one (In PF1, for example, a plan that only required a minor request required a much lower Diplomacy DC than one that required a major request). Coming up with plans that are more likely to succeed is a form of difficulty, and deciding whether a given method of solving a problem is worth the risk is also a form of difficulty. A player/character has agency and shows skill by finding and choosing better methods that are more likely to succeed or have lower risk. If even a bad plan has no risk or chance of failure, then the quality of the method used to solve a problem doesn't matter and no difficulty is created.

As a character levels up, there are only three possibilities for their success rate relative to level-appropriate challenges: their success rate increases, decreases, or stays the same. A decreasing success rate relative to appropriate challenges feels pretty disheartening, so I think most agree that isn't a good idea. The two other possibilities imply different ways challenge can grow as a character levels.

If success rate stays the same, the number of challenges created by failure remains the same. It is likely that increasing difficulty will take the form of harder problems as consequences of a failure or increasing difficulty in finding low-risk solutions to problems.

If success rate grows higher, the number of challenges created by failures decreases. This usually means that an opponent's success rate has also increased, so the majority of challenges will be created by the opposition succeeding. When everyone has powerful abilities they usually succeed in using, rocket tag can result. However, I don't think it has to. What caused rocket tag in PF1 was that high level abilities didn't usually create new problems; they created endings. Dropping someone to -100 HP from full HP in a round isn't a problem that can usually be solved in combat. Failing a save against Phantasmal Killer, or worse, being hit with Power Word Death, wasn't solvable either. Baleful Polymorph having a permanent duration rendered it unsolvable. However, being polymorphed for a duration or being mind controlled were solvable problems (though possibly not solvable enough).

If success rate is going to increase with level, then counterplay must exist and be suitably accessible, both in and out of combat. Higher level foes would have more abilities and more challenging abilities to counter, and higher level players would have more tools at their disposal to solve problems and create problems for the opponent. This creates a feeling of advancement and increasing difficulty even with gradually increasing rates of success. One caveat, though, is that skill rolls are much less frequently opposed and so increasing success rates can potentially make combat the only real source of challenge.

Neither of these two possibilities for rate of success and their accompanying methods of increasing difficulty are inherently better, nor are they entirely mutually exclusive. It just a matter of what kind of game the designers want to create. I would prefer either of these possibilities, though, to a game where increasing difficulty is supposed to come from the numbers.

My ultimate point of this very long post is that when discussing difficulty, the numbers are largely beside the point as long as there is a chance of failure. As playtesters, we should focus on making sure the tools needed to create and solve difficult situations are a part of this ruleset because the numbers cannot give difficulty or depth on their own. If success rates are to increase, we also need to make sure adequate counterplay exists so that high level play isn't plagued by rocket tag like in the previous edition.

This topic is only slightly adjacent to the existing +1/level discussions, so please keep discussion along those lines in those threads.

The Sneak action says that invisible creatures become Sensed when they perform any action that isn't Hide or Sneak. That makes enough sense assuming they are still making an appreciable amount of sound. However, the silence spell causes you to create no sound. If a creature is invisible and silent while taking an action to pull something out of a pack, what is giving them away to make them Sensed? This is assuming the opposing creature has no special senses, like blindsense, tremorsense, or scent. If this interaction between invisibility and silence is too powerful, that's fine, make it somehow incompatible. The current interaction doesn't make sense.

Also, with the changes to the Sneak action, Sneak is pretty clearly about moving without being heard. If you stay out of cover/concealment for long enough (past the end of a Sneak action, normally) you are spotted, but you always must make a Stealth roll, even when cover/concealment haven't yet come into the equation. Why is it, then, that invisibility gives a natural 20 on Stealth checks (which once again allows a low level spell to mostly replace a skill; it'd be better for it to be removed entirely if there's no better alternative) and Silence gives no explicit benefit to Sneak? I think it'd be better if invisibility gave a bonus/automatic result on Hide and removed the need for cover/concealment from Sneak, and Silence gave the bonus/automatic result on Sneak.

Many undead currently have a quality called negative healing that is not defined in the playtest rulebook, as has been pointed out elsewhere. More problematically, most but not all undead have the ability. Mummies, ghasts, and wights all have it, so I figured that the accidentally-omitted ability must be what makes undead heal from negative damage and be damaged by positive. When I got to the poltergeist in the playtest, I thus thought that it must not take damage from channel energy, because every other undead so far had that quality. This ended up badly derailing my playtest session. It turns out that that healing information is actually in the undead trait, when most of the traits are purely descriptive flavor text. If the negative healing quality is meant to be a reminder about the interaction with positive and negative energy, please make sure it is on every undead for clarity. Currently at least the poltergeist, shadows, and ghouls are missing it (despite ghasts having it, somehow).

The Sneak action says that invisible creatures become Sensed when they perform any action that isn't Hide or Sneak. That makes sense in most cases for corporeal creatures. However for an incorporeal creature that cannot physically interact with most objects, it makes little sense. Makes even less for a poltergeist. It attacks with telekinetic projectiles that are presumably taken from the environment. What part of telekinetically picking up an object at range while invisible gives away the location of your square? Is there some sound effect that plays from the creature's space?

Either I play the creature in a bogglingly nonsensical way or I slaughter the PCs with an unbeatable god-assassin that can't be found unless they happen to be packing See Invisibility that day. I think that for this reason, it may be a bad idea to make naturally invisible incorporeal creatures.

The difficulty of challenges for a given level currently seems to take into consideration a player character's proficiency bonus, ability score, and item bonus. I don't think that your bonus due to level of proficiency (the bonus from trained/expert/master/legendary) should be taken into account when creating those difficulties. It should be ignored so that proficiency increases result in an greater success rate relative to challenges of your level.

There are two reasons I think this important. First, it makes the small numerical increases from proficiency feel more meaningful. If your fighter with Expert proficiency at first level had a 55% chance of succeeding with their first attack, they have a 65% chance of succeeding with their first attack when they become legendary. Those proficiency increases taking up important slots in your list of class features actually made you better at facing level appropriate challenges rather than simply moving you along the treadmill.

Second, it feels way better for the classes that don't get as many proficiency increases. If a class that gets many proficiency upgrades, like Fighter, is only keeping up with level appropriate challenges, that means everyone else is falling behind. Especially for martial classes like Barbarian and Rogue, that can feel really bad, where you're missing 10 percentage points more often than you were at first level or getting hit way more often. Becoming less effective at level appropriate challenges as you level up does not create a satisfying feel of becoming more powerful, even if you are more powerful relative to challenges from earlier levels.

If my understanding of the current math is incorrect and proficiency already increases your success rate relative to your level, then I apologize for the confusion. From various math threads, that was not my impression.

This has been mentioned, but I wanted a thread to discuss it specifically and maybe get some developer insight if they have the time.

The developers have shown how, mathematically, a +1 bonus from proficiency is not trivial in this new system. The problem is that while it may be very good, it can be hard to get excited by incremental numerical increases, especially when that upgrade is meant to represent mastery or legendary status.

My suggestion would be to pair simple numerical bonuses from proficiencies with some kind of non-numerical upgrade: either a restriction removed or, preferably, something new you can do. These wouldn't need to be especially powerful, since their purpose is a more satisfying feel rather than raw power. An example idea would be to have Expert spellcasting for Wizards give benefits similar to the Spell Mastery feat from 1st edition; it's a handy ability that represents expertise well but wasn't very attractive to many people as a standalone feat.

This suggestion is particularly important for martial characters. In 1st edition, your saves and base attack bonus were part of the numbers section of your class table. They didn't take up spaces in your special abilities column. In the playtest, they effectively do, since proficiencies have replaced those numerical columns. Many martial classes have many levels where a proficiency increase, a +1 bonus, is their class feature for the level. Receiving only a numerical bonus that feels small, regardless of how effective it actually is, when a party member is pouring over their exciting new spells doesn't feel very good.

I like the proficiency system a lot, I just think it's a bit underused right now and could be tweaked to feel more exciting without throwing off the math.

The current format for dedication feats interacts oddly with class proficiencies in a way I don't think is very intuitive. I'm going to use multiclassing archetypes for my example, but the issue applies equally to all dedication feats that give proficiencies or signature skills.

If a Paladin multiclasses into Fighter, they receive no benefit from the dedication feat; they already have all of those proficiencies. The dedication is a pure feat tax for that class. However, this multiclass choice is one that you'd expect to synergize well, both in flavor and mechanics.

A Wizard who multiclasses into Fighter, looking to be Magus-like, gets immense benefit out of the dedication feat. While I want this combination to be a viable, fun character, it feels weird that a Wizard gains so much more from a Fighter multiclass than a more martial character does.

My suggestion is to replace proficiencies and signature skills in dedication feats with effects that are unique to that archetype (or class), ensuring that every character who takes an archetype fully benefits from the one mandatory feat. For multiclass dedication feats, this unique effect could be either the iconic first level ability (Attack of Opportunity, Lay on Hands, etc) or a level 1 class feat. Another optional feat would contain the related proficiencies and signature skills, so characters who have use for them still have them available.

In addition to making sure that no feats in archetypes are ever purely or mostly a feat tax, this also makes archetype choices more intuitive. The more similar your class is to an archetype, the easier it is to realize that archetype. If your class is very different from an archetype, such as a Wizard multiclassing fighter, another feat or two may be required.

I really like the new archetype and multiclassing system; I just think this change would make it that much better.

As a first note in this sea of negativity, I really like the core systems PF2 is built on. I think the devs have done an excellent job and I'll enjoy them a lot.

There's another thread about the systems being good but the content being bland, and I think a big part of that is due to proficiencies.

When I read about proficiencies in the blog, I immediately liked them. I lliked the idea of removing skill ranks that only gave a bland +1, baking numerical progression into the system instead, and making each proficiency rank improvement a big deal. You're more excited about improving proficiencies because they mean something more than just another +1.

Unfortunately, the playtest as is doesn't achieve that excitement in practice because, besides master and legendary rank in saves, proficiency increases are usually a +1 and nothing else. For skills I somewhat understand that, with an entire pool of skill feats that are progressively unlocked by higher proficiency. For weapon, armor, and spellcasting proficiencies, proficiency is pretty much just a number. This problem also extends into feats too, with Alertness, Incredible Initiative, and the saving throw boosting feats all giving a +1 and nothing else. Some class feats, like most of the Paladin Oaths, remove small penalties in very niche cases and do nothing else.

I don't think these abilities are necessarily mechanically poor. Increasing the chance of success on something you will do hundreds of times by 5 percentage points may actually be very good mechanically, but it feels underwhelming and boring to me, and I feel like that may be a contributing factor to the thread I mentioned earlier.

I also agree with the design decision to reduce total bonus differences between characters of a given level. I get that larger quantitative bonuses might be mechanically inappropriate. In PF1 you had quantative bonuses so large that they effectively became qualitative bonuses; they enabled you to play the game differently. For example, Greater Shadow Armor's +15 to Stealth usually allowed you play a stealth character way differently than without it. The ability for quantitative bonuses to become qualitative through sheer weight made them much more palatable. While I liked some of these abilities, I also understand the issues that numerical differences that wide cause so I understand why they aren't present in PF2 and am not advocating that bonuses be made larger.

My suggestion is instead that small quantatative abilities, especially proficiency increases, should always be accompanied by a qualitative portion of the ability: some passive or active benefit that allows you to do something new. It doesn't need to be all that powerful if that would be inappropriate. Something fun and flavorful that wasn't very good as a feat on its own could work. For example, a wizard's expert spellcasting proficiency could allow him to prepare a few spells without his spellbook like the often ignored Spell Mastery feat. It's fun, occasionally useful and good in a pinch, and takes some of the sting out of losing a class feat at 12th level. That's even more true for martial classes, for whom a +1 to weapon/armor proficiency is a frequent class feature. I think this relatively small change would make proficiency increases much more exciting and would do a lot to curb complaints of blandness.

I'm looking for some nice looking rulebook-style templates that I can use to make reasonable-looking PDFs out of my homebrew efforts. I'm not actually looking to publish, so it doesn't have to be something I have legal rights to sell. Anyone know where I could find something like this?

Format doesn't matter unless it's something truly arcane. Just needs to be printable. I don't really care what editing software is required either.

Most spell trigger items can only cast one spell. To cast that spell, you must have it on your spell list. Staves, however, have multiple spells in them. Do I need each individual spell to be on my list in order to cast it from the staff? For example, if I learned the Heal spell as a Pathfinder Savant using the Esoteric Magic ability, would I only be able to cast Heal from a Staff of Life, or could I cast Raise Dead as well? Thanks for any help :)

I have two questions. First has to do with Blindness/Deafness. I had a player pull out this spell and cast it as a 2nd level bard spell against a major boss. The boss failed the quite substantial DC for the saving throw and was permanently blinded. The fight was almost instantly over. I don't feel like designing every encounter to have a 5th level cleric on hand to use the Remove Blindness/Deafness counter-effect spell, and feel that a save or die (essentially) at that level is unbalanced. The only other blinding effect is Power Word Blind, a 7th level spell that while it doesn't have a saving throw, has an HP limit. It seems this 3rd level spell (for full-caster classes) does more than it should. Am I missing anything here?

The second question has to do with the druid spell Call Lightning. It has a duration of 1 min/level, but says the following:

"You need not call a bolt of lightning immediately; other actions, even spellcasting, can be performed first. Each round after the first you may use a standard action (concentrating on the spell) to call a bolt. You may call a total number of bolts equal to your caster level (maximum 10 bolts)."

I read this spell as you can begin to use the effect any time you like during the 1 min/level duration, and that after your first bolt, may use it again once per round per caster level. The reference to that reuse being concentration makes me believe that the spell ends if, after you call the first actual bolt, if you do not continue to use the effect every round, the spell ends. The player who used it believes he has the option to use it up to one time per caster level, but may choose to take another action instead and then return to using the effect in a subsequent turn. Which is correct?

Thanks to anyone who helps :)