ereklich's page

That being the case, the biggest thing I'm looking for in 2e is that the core chassis is solid enough that I don't feel the need to rewrite the whole system (looking at you, Exalted).

A bit off topic, but have you looked at the 3rd edition of Exalted? They did a lot to improve the chassis there.

And I absolutely agree with your overall goal - as long as you aren't playing PFS, this just needs to be good enough to start from rather than it being better to start from scratch.

How often is damage greater than or equal to hardness?

While it depends on how leveled and geared you are, shield blocking *is* more effective against lower-leveled monsters, both in a relative and an absolute sense.

I honestly would advocate for removing the roll entirely, and having the result scake with your Proficiency in Medicine.

Trained: as written for the normal success
Expert and above: as trained, and add your level to the hp healed for each step above trained you are.

"But that's unlimited!" Sure. But it still takes that 10 minute action to do, just like all the other post-combat actions.

And in cases where the party isn't on a timer, there'd be nothing stopping the 15-minute workday anyway, so if letting them heal up means they don't retreat to recover their other daily resources I'm all for it.

As of errata 1.3, it works like so:

I use a shield of hardness H to Shield block an attack of D damage

If D < H, the shield absorbs it all and everything is fine.

If D = H, the shield takes a single Dent and I'm fine.

If D > H, the Shield takes a single Dent and I take (D-H) damage.

Multiple dents can only ever happen if someone deliberately attacks the shield itself, but I don't think there are rules for that yet.

One could make the sorcerer’s Spontaneous Heighten feature into an action, costing 1 spell point and granting 2 when gained, that would allow to choose 1 spell and cast it at any level for 1 minute.

Class-exclusive, feels spontaneous, has more or less the same effect as current, Bard keeps the daily prep because he’s not master of all magics.

No?

I'd much rather have it as a Free Action that only applies to one spell per Spell Point. The action cost seems excessive for something that you won't usually want to use more than once, maybe twice, in that minute timeframe (since you only have so many of the higher level spell slots anyway)

Regarding the OP's topic:

I do think the "treadmill" need to be adjusted more towards a middle ground to keep non optimized skills better, but other than that I think the design philosophy is functional and I personally like it. So I would just adjust numbers a bit so that the truly mastered aspects with max attribute, feats, proficiency increase would get a higher % to success as the game went on.

This! The treadmill effect is fine by me except when it comes to skill checks. The hard DCs are explicitly calibrated for a fully optimized character, which means that unless you're a rogue your overall skill results actually cannot keep pace with the treadmill.

MaxAstro, thank you very much for your reply. Having only been a player to this point, it now makes more sense to me, and I think I now see the real root of the dissonance between designer intent and player experience.

Put simply, the designers are asking GMs to set DCs in a very non-intuitive way.

If the players are doing something the GM never planned for, most GMs will not think, "okay, that wall would be easy/medium/hard for a level X party", they will simply think, "yeah, that wall should be easy/medium/hard".

Based on this, I have an even more radical proposal: ditch the adjectives altogether. Collapse the chart into a single column, and simply refer to a "level X DC". As with creatures, an at-level DC is a significant challenge, so most should be a bit lower than the party level. This makes it consistent for mod designers/gms planning, and doesn't require the GM to consider a non-intuitive 2-dimensional difficulty setting when adjudicating on the fly.

+1 to the idea of a General Feat that gives, say, 3 or 4 Spell Points. Regardless of whether the Sorc becomes best at Spell Points (which *would* be cool) giving anyone the ability to simply get more fuel would be welcome.

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.

ereklich wrote:

is talking about how mystified they are that walls magically get slicker as you level up

That's because those people read that section wrong.

Walls don't magically get slicker as you level up; as you level up, you are likely to encounter slicker walls.

This is critically different because if you go back to the walls you climbed at a lower level they are no harder to climb.

In which case Paizo really needs to rewrite it, from the ground up, to make how setting DCs work be vastly clearer.

Also in that case, the '50%' benchmark should not, should never be, calibrated based on a fully optimized PC! That's punishing failure to optimize, rather than rewarding pcs who do optimize. Calibrate your dc so that a Trained pc with average stats for their level has a 50% chance.

Playtest Errata wrote:
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.

This entire paragraph, that you first quoted at me, says the exact opposite of what you say it does.

Either that, or you are the only person I've run across on the entire internet who has correctly divined the developer's intentions. When basically every source, including, for example, the YouTube channel "Complex games apologist" (and doesn't that name just say it all!) is talking about how mystified they are that walls magically get slicker as you level up, if they don't intend table 10-2 to be the baseline they really futzed up on presentation.

Because either table 10-2 is not in line with their own written guidelines, or they wrote those guidelines very very wrong.

ereklich wrote:

...

The design is to literally keep an ability and proficiency appropriate PC at 50% success. Not factoring in mundane or magical items or spell effects.

If they adjust to make proficiency increase the chance of success that is the medium DC track.

In what way is keeping the chance of successat 50% "ends up almost certain to succeed at higher levels"?

I think I'm just asking their DCs to live up to their own guidelines. If you think that's me asking for a change, then I am.

ereklich wrote:

I feel like the current setup is punishing failure to optimize rather than rewarding optimization.

You say you want my base %chance to be 50% far an at level challenge and difficulty? That's fine and dandy. But taking Expert, Master, and Legendary should then slide that up to 55, 60, and 65%. Spending my gold/feats/skill bumps/etc should improve my odds of success, not simply prevent them from going down.

This is where we disagree. You are arguing that against an at Level, HARD DC (the one we have been discussing), you should have a greater than 50% chance of success from skill bumps and ability increases. This goes directly against the stated intent of Hard Difficulty Challenges. Hard challenges are by design supposed to be a challenge for the specialist. It says so in the description:

Playtest Errata wrote:

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.

Asking to ignore built in ability bumps and skill proficiency increases for the DC set to challenge your specialist character seems counterproductive. At that point they should make the default DC medium, which is what you are asking for, even if indirectly.

I'm asking for no such thing. The relevant text is right there in what you just quoted!

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 fact that my percentage chance of success doesn't increase as I bump things is in direct contravention of the designers own stated goals for these checks.

I feel like the current setup is punishing failure to optimize rather than rewarding optimization.

You say you want my base %chance to be 50% far an at level challenge and difficulty? That's fine and dandy. But taking Expert, Master, and Legendary should then slide that up to 55, 60, and 65%. Spending my gold/feats/skill bumps/etc should improve my odds of success, not simply prevent them from going down.

While we're at it, can we please get back to fixed DCs for things like jumping pits? Jumping a 5' pit should be an objective DC that doesn't give a flying flip what level/stat block/feats you are.

So I'm confused. I have an email saying I have updated downloads, but every time I try to download the new update file it keeps giving me the 9/10 update.

Is anyone else having this problem?

So Sorcery is supposed to all be about your bloodline, right?

Then here's an idea to consider:

First of all, make the sorcerous bloodline abilities into class feats with appropriate prereqs and give the sorcerer a class feat at each relevant level, so that they aren't actually the most locked in class.

Second, allow all Sorcerers to take any Bloodline class feat as an Ancestry feat! It would allow for a sorcerer to focus on his otherworldly heritage at the expense of his "demihumanity".

graystone wrote:

What do we want Martial characters to be capable of?: I want them to start an 'anime' and get better from there. I could care less what is realistic. What I want is what would look awesome in a movie/show I was watching. 'move, swing sword, swing sword' isn't exactly nail biting, edge of your seat excitement. Now let me grab a goblin by the neck and beat another goblin to death with the still struggling first goblin and that's something I'd want to watch.

Yes, please. More of this.

I want to kick a door open not just as a means of entry but also a surprise ranged attack on something inside the room that I might not have even known was there until I kicked the door.

I want to sleep with my hand on my sword and bound to my feet in a flurry of attacks if an enemy comes near before they even notice I've spotted them.

I want to suddenly stop in the middle of a tunnel and crouch down, shield raising and my eyes set on a blank spot in space. I can hear it breathing/feel its energy/notice the ripple in the air/whatever.

I want to grab a portal that's disgorging demons and try to brute force it shut. A wizard or cleric is likely a better call for the job, but I'm there, and I'm doing it. It may take ten times the effort and three times as long, but I'm doing it, because I'm a badass martial who will win by his own hands.

Why can't we embrace this?

I gotta be honest, it sounds to me like you should be playing Exalted, not Pathfinder.

I really don't want to see a system where you can rest and recover for all or half your wounds. That blows realism out the door for me.

If a stamina/hp system were implemented, I'd be fine with healing all your stamina overnight (not a long rest), and maybe half in an hour, with hp natural healing being slow (maybe Con mod per night), but with just a single hp pool, it doesn't make sense to recover from multiple major injuries just by resting a bit.

Ah, but that's just the thing - taking hp damage isn't meant to represent a "major injury" - it's meant to reference your luck and gumption, staving off major injuries or downgrading them to glancing blows. Taking 30 damage from a troll's club represents you being grazed, or a near miss that exhausts you, not letting the club bounce off your chest.

Personally, I'd remove charges from wands. Using it costs resonance, but it never runs out. It's now part of your kit, and you thus want the biggest one you can get to maximize effeciency per resonance. There's an effective cap on wand related healing based on how much resonance you have available, but groups without a healer have access to more than nothing. Also make it an item you have to attune to for the day so a party can't just pass one wand around (but everyone could bring their own if they wanted to invest the resources into it).

No more CLW spam, any party can have access to healing, and a GM can at least expect a minimum amount of healing available based on level with some certainty (a party with an actual healer would have more of course, but we already have that).

This! please, take all the +1s! Just do this, and remove resonance costs from one-shot consumables, and then the system works just fine!

An interesting idea! That said, I have to agree with CommanderCoyler that some of things should be "at all times" while others could be "while raging".

a) For take 10 it is more serious than in general. In general it is mitigated by the crit system giving more weight to the pluses and also by proficiency gating skill uses. But with take 10 you will never have a situation where a legendary character critically succeeds where an untrained one would fail.

b) I suspect the designers purposefully do not want normal bonuses to apply without rolling (again to prevent people from bypassing or exploiting the crit system). But I think if we at least set a low result it should be OK. Subtract 5 from your proposal and then it's unlikely to break the game while removing a good chunk of meaningless rolls.

The problem with it is that I'm spending a feat to be able to remove meaningless rolls... that I shouldn't be making anyway, because the GM is advised to not make me roll trivial checks. "Take 3" is not worth the feat slot; I'll just roll. I honestly think that the difference between untrained and Legendary should be (but currently is not) in the Skill Feats, not in your modifier.

I have a concept.

Assurance:
Select a skill to which assurance applies. If the skill is untrained, you may never critically fail any check in which the DC is equal or below a trivial DC for your level. If this skill is trained, you may never critically fail a check which is equal or below a Low DC for your level, or fail a task which is trivial. If the skill is expert, these limits become High and Low DC for your level. At master, you may not critically fail a Severe DC for your level, and at legendary you may not fail a High DC for your level.

Now the lowest mark for your assurance feats scales to your character and the DC of the tasks they might attempt and consider trivial, but also rewards putting more effort into the skill. It's useful for athletics for swim check for a fighter who has it at trained because they can't possibly drown in calm water, and probably won't drown as quickly in moving water. It's also very useful for a legendary rogue in acrobatics, because they can accomplish many impressive tasks without any effort and can at least avoid severe harm during all but the most insane stunts.

That could also work, though it is more complex than either the feat as it exists now or taking 10.

Just replace the entire text of Assurance with "You can always take a 10 on the die instead of rolling with the chosen skill".

Problem solved!

As I read it, you need the feat once, and can Trick items that match any tradition whose relevant skill you are Trained in.

This is one of many reasons why I feel that Untrained should only add 1/2 level to your roll; that way the Bard still feels best at social stuff (unless the party Rogue also goes Social).

Your proposal makes the penalty pretty much irrelevant. It should stay as it is.

It's unplayable as is. And with your Charisma penalty you'll be overspending Resonance a lot more than anyone else, so a penalty to that is hardly irrelevant.

So Ancient's Blood is really cool, but the drawback is very harsh - especially given that you definitionally took a -2 to Charisma already!
Add in that it requires a reaction to get the +2 on the save and the drawbacks very much outweigh the benefits. I propose a slightly different take on it - instead of -2 Resonance, you increase the DC of the flat check for overspending Resonance by 3 (so you effectively have a DC 13+overspent points, instead of 10+overspent points). This still acts as a penalty to magic, but in a much more manageable way.

Honestly, I'm with you here. Preparing Spells is just about the only thing where I think 5ed is flat out superior to not just PF2e, but all other versions of D&D!

Honestly, just rewrite Assurance to be "you can always take 10 with the chosen skill" and both problems are solved! Assurance isn't substandard and take 10 exists, but is gated behind a Skill Feat.