th3razzer's page

My order's payment authorization was 10 days ago and still no shipping. Does this order need to be bumped?

The sticky thread on this forum says they'll be handled by end-of-week hopefully, but the authorization will expire by then (I believe it lists the 20th as auth. exp.).

Any help is appreciated.

Why is it that I've posted three weeks ago AND emailed about wanting to cancel my Subscriptions and yet people posting they want to cancel orders/subs from a week ago are receiving answers and having their requests seen?

This is horse#$+!. Cancel my subscriptions.

In short, I've been pretty dissatisfied with my experience with this Subscription model for some time now, but recently has been the last straw.

I understand COVID-19 is a serious issue and threat, and (amazingly) that's not why I wish to cancel my subscriptions.

For years I've had various subscriptions in Starfinder and Pathfinder 2e, and with each product line I've had the same issues and I (stupidly) bore it with patience thinking it was just a level of dissatisfaction I'd have to expect:
-orders would continuously "disappear" INTO the dregs of, get this, OTHER ORDERS
-orders, if ever notified to me, would indefinitely stay as "pending" with no attempts to bill my payment method
-when restarting subscriptions (as for my job I move unfortunately quite frequently) I would be assured my subs would start, yet entire books would be simply "skipped" and I'd have to, yet again, reach out (even though I would be told that after all the paused/held items were shipped it would be business as normal)
-in the process of fixing one issue with an order, problems would be created for subsequent/future orders

I'm, quite frankly, done. I really only use PDFs, and now that I see (yet again) another order pending since July 10th, with no email/notifications, as part of a "fix order" for previous sub issues, INSIDE or PART OF another order, with no payment attempted at any time, it's ridiculous.

What's more, I wouldn't be able to enjoy a PDF copy unless the hardcovers ship, and the PDFs are anywhere from $10~$30 cheaper. Why am I subscribing if my orders will be lost, indefinitely pending, and more expensive?

Please cancel all of my subscriptions. I'd save nearly half the price of the order if I simply waited and I could guarantee I'd get something instead of patiently waiting for nothing.

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

To elaborate, this is a horrible typo in the sense it's performed multiple, numerous times. "Merovan" is not just in a single sentence, or here and there, but across maps and paragraphs, in descriptions and also makes reference to the city "east" in the Immenwood, meaning it very well could be referencing Meravon - which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building based on a canon foundation.

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

To elaborate, this is a horrible typo in the sense it's performed multiple, numerous times. "Merovan" is not just in a single sentence, or here and there, but across maps and paragraphs, in descriptions and also makes reference to the city "east" in the Immenwood, meaning it very well could be referencing Meravon - which is problematic as the entirety of the World Guide hinges on it being spelled with the 'a' and 'o' situated as spelled above.

Which urges the question does the "Merovan Road" lead to Meravon or Merovan? Kind of important when world building based on a canon foundation.

So, on the map, there is a road that goes south from Turpin Rowe called "Merovan" Road, not Meravon.

However, the World Guide calls it Meravon. Which is accurate? Or are they two separate places? It's very confusing and a horrible typo multiple times.

CRB states:
A character gains training in certain skills at 1st level: typically two skills from their background, a small number of predetermined skills from their class, and several skills of your choice granted by your class. This training increases your proficiency ranks for those skills to trained instead of untrained and lets you use more of the skills’ actions. Sometimes you might gain training in a specific skill from multiple sources, such as if your background granted training in Crafting and you took the alchemist class, which also grants training in Crafting. Each time after the first that you would gain the trained proficiency rank in a given skill, you instead allocate the trained proficiency to any other skill of your choice.

Does this apply also after first level? If, say, you take something like an archetype, feat, or otherwise that gives Trained proficiency and you are Trained, does that phrase above still apply? Or does it only apply at first level?

It doesn't specify either way it seems.

Hello,

This subscription order was placed Jul 10th yet it is still pending? Is something holding it up? I've yet to see any attempted charges on the associated payment method and I've also not gotten the initial email stating this order was placed.

Hello,

Apparently something must be wrong with my subscriptions. They do not show up under my name here in the forums like they did before.

I had suspended them while I was moving earlier this year, but started them back up after I settled in. I got many of the items I missed because of the suspension since they "pile up" and order all at once.

However, I never received an email or notification about Bestiary 2, and no order was created per my subscription.

I suspect some or all of my subscriptions were not reactivated correctly. The next item my subscription showed was the Advanced Players Guide, even when the Bestiary 2 came out.

While I have had an order placed and it will be shipping out to me whenever it is fulfilled, I ask the following:

Please cancel, and then add my subscriptions back to my account. If it is possible to reactivate them correctly, I would prefer it done that way.

I didn't even know it was releasing, and I have an active subscription (three, in fact).

Why was an order not automatically placed, paid, etc. etc.? Why am I only just seeing this when I saw a post on Archives of Nethys?

Please fix my subscription.

Hello, to preface this is all based on my memory of somewhere being written that if an attack or similar thing deals 0 damage (mainly in the course of it being reduced to 0 through resistances and such) that any abilities attached to it do not "go off" or activate/happen.

The situation is this:

My players were accosted by a roc. It has Improved Grab, which allows it to use Grab as a free action as part of its talon melee strike(s).

The roc used Flying Strafe and attacked two party members. It succeeded against 1 and missed against the other. It used Grab and then the Snatch ability activated automatically allowing it to move half its fly speed while grabbing or restraining a creature.

To the point, the player was able to use Shield, reduce the damage from 19 to 4 (15 hardness) before any resistances applied, and was under the effect of Inspire Defense at 6th level (3 phys. resist). That still meant 1 damage. She was carried up and away. (don't worry she lived)

However, I'd like to pose a hypothetical: say the res. was 4 and she took 0 damage. Technically Grab says only that the "previous Strike was a Success", not necessarily that it needs to deal damage. Would the Grab still go through, even though no damage was applied?

I want to say yes, but I'm unsure if there's an over-arching rule that calls attention to something like abilities where additional effects it only activate if at least 1 point of damage was applied per the ablity or attack triggering it.

The question is this:

Transmutation as a trait states that it alters the form of something (to varying degrees). Polymorph is a specific instance of Transmutation, and Polymorph specifically says any polymorph effects attempt to cancel each other out.
However, what about Transmutation and Transmutation? Or Transmutation and Polymorph? Say if a Druid wants to cast Fly on herself and then on the subsequent turn cast the focus spell Wild Shape and change into a bear. Can she then benefit from the first Transmutation effect and her new Polymorph?
Further, if the bear has a different speed than her base (for simple maths let's say base is 25 feet and her new bear is 30 feet) does her Fly spell only give her 25 feet of flying (since it's 20 feet or base, whichever is greater) or 30 feet since her new "movement speed" is 30 feet?

I don't see anything that states you cannot be under the effect of multiple Transmutation effects, only the instances of Polymorph. However, wouldn't a form-change still interact with Polymorph in some way?

RAW it looks like no, but I want to say that you couldn't cast Fly (or other transmutation effect) and then slap on a Polymorph effect (Animal Form, Pest Form, True Polymorph, Baleful Polymorph, etc) and gain the benefits/drawbacks of both? This sort of affects Alchemists' mutagens.

Per the GMG:

For a creature that can cast as many spells as a PC spellcaster, the highest spell level the creature can cast is half its level rounded up. It gets five cantrips. If the creature’s level is odd, it gets two spell slots of the highest spell level (plus three spell slots of each lower level), or three spell slots of that level (plus four spell slots of each lower level). If its level is even, it gets three spell slots of the highest spell level (plus three spell slots of each lower level), or four spell slots of that level (plus four spell slots of each lower level).

So... what ultimately dictates whether they get 3-4-4-4-etc, or 2-3-3-3-etc? The odd/even level makes sense to dictate whether you get 2/3 or 3/4 of the highest level the monster/npc can cast.

Am I missing something? Is there some paragraph that clearly explained which set is chosen? At first I thought it might be Spontaneous vs Prepared casters (Spont. being 2/3-3-3-etc, and Prep. being 3/4-4-4-etc), but that doesn't seem to hold water when I take a gander at other NPC stat blocks.

In fact, even in the GMG it doesn't follow the "rules" or "guidlines". Take a look at Zealot of Asmodeous on pg. 213:

Divine Prepared Spells DC 19, attack +11; 2nd harm (×3), restoration, see invisibility, shield other; 1st detect alignment, magic weapon, spirit link; Cantrips (2nd) detect magic, divine lance, forbidding ward, read aura, sigil

That's 6-3-5! Nowhere close to what is recommended.

Priest of Pharasma is a tiny bit closer as far as Prepared Casters go, but still far off the mark:

Divine Prepared Spells DC 24, attack +16; 3rd circle of protection, heal (×3), searing light (×2); 2nd gentle repose, silence, spiritual weapon; 1st disrupting weapons, mindlink, spirit link; Cantrips (3rd) detect magic, disrupt undead, light, read aura, shield

That's 6-3-3-5, but still nowhere close to the build rules (unless, hopefully, missing something).

Any help here?

Order 19164545 has been pending since last Sunday. It says expected to ship 1~5 business days, but now says "Was expected to ship" instead. Moreover, my card has not been charged. Not even a hold for the funds and drop.

It's just sitting there pending. I'm sure that's what's holding it up is getting the funds so that it can begin shipping.

Order 19164545 has been pending for around 4 business days. Isn't it supposed to ship within 5? The order was placed Sunday, but I haven't seen movement?

Question for the community.

I am trying to figure out the relative strength of a monster that possesses a level equal to a PC. As far as I can tell, a monster of, let's say, level 7 fought a PC of level 7, the monster would almost always win (barring environmental effects/bad rolls/random interactions/etc). A monster of similar level to a PC being superior is certainly not new, and in fact it's something I've been able to count on as a GM.

However, the question I want to ask is: just how much stronger is the monster than a PC? (Note: I use the term "monster" in this discussion as a stand-in for any non-player character/adversary.)

Using the resources available to me, the difficulty/encounter table assumes that a "Moderate" challenge is effectively a "50/50" battle (meaning there is some risk of failure, but not significant enough to be truly terrifying). Most battles should, arguably, rest at this tier (with higher and lower tiers used at GM's discretion). When I observed the Moderate threat XP budget, a GM can reasonably employ 2 monsters of levels equal to the PCs. What this effectively seems to mean is 1 monster of level X is as strong as 2 PCs of level X (again, environs/out-of-the-norm hazards/bad or unlucky rolls/etc not factored in).

I say a 1-to-2 ratio because all encounters assume a party of 4 player characters, with an XP bump/reduction based on the number of missing party members.

I ask all this because I'm not entirely sure what type of effect adding an NPC or two to the adventuring party to help them out would have. I'm not sure what level I should set them at, since it seems 1 monster of the party's level effectively acts as "two" PCs.

Does this seem accurate? Is there any official word as to the power relativity between monsters and PCs?

What's more, I'm not sure what effect building these NPCs as PCs first and then applying the monster building rules after would have vs. building them from the ground-up per monster building.

Let me preface: I've been viewing the threads for quite a while now since the temporary suspension of the phone lines.

Why is it that more recent threads are being resolved, but threads like mine are slowly moving towards the bottom with no resolution? Supposedly it's going from bottom-up, meaning that older threads will receive their resolutions first (makes sense, clear the back-log and all), but more recent threads are reaching their resolution, whereas I've sent multiple emails (spaced apart by many business days) with only an automated response to the email after maybe the 4th email?

I then decided to post here, since it seems resolutions are coming faster than email, and yes, I did bump my own thread, but before reading the above linked post. However, even then, newer threads are being resolved within hours of posting, and they're for roughly the same thing that I need help with.

How does this make sense? I wouldn't imagine reactivating suspended subscriptions is all that difficult? Why do threads above and below mine have resolutions, but I'm all but ignored?

Hello,

I've tried emailing several times, and my order-cancellation email was received and responded to, but not the emails regarding my subscriptions.

I would like all 3 of my suspended subscriptions reactivated, please, as my move is complete and new address added to the account.

If possible, please list the products that will be in the coming shipments, as there was an issue before where my subscription skipped over a book, and I would not like to miss any since the subscriptions' suspension.

Thank you.

Incorporeal

An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.

...so, they're immune to melee attacks from corporeal creatures that don't have the finesse trait? It states that said creatures can't even *attempt* Strength-based checks against them (and for those of you who want to point out Strike is what a creature is attempting, it states that Strike uses the appropriate attack roll as per the Attack Roll rules, which call out ranged vs melee rolls, and that they are checks (much like AC is a special type of DC, but it *is* a DC), and specifically that they are Strength-based checks).

It doesn't help that every incorporeal monster has finesse trait for their melee attack(s) or sometimes they don't have melee attacks at all. The only exception to this seems to be the Adventure Path monsters, which are the only ones that don't have the finesse entry to their melee attacks.

So, now not only can incorporeals maybe hover/not hover/are affected by gravity/aren't affected by gravity, but now you can't even attack them and they can't attack you unless it is a ranged attack, magic, or finesse.

Ghosts. Flying. How am I supposed to interpret this?

Technically the Fly action states that a monster/creature may hover (i.e. move 0 feet) to Hover in place. This is all fine and good, and I get that, but I have a few sticking points:

1) If a ghost/shadow/incorporeal creature has *only* a fly speed, what happens if they don't use a Fly action to hover? Do they then proceed to plummet 500 feet per round? That seems a bit excessive.
2) If they possess any abilities that require 3 actions (perfect example is a Greater Shadow's innate divine spell darkness which is a 3-action Cast a Spell activity). Does he need to allow himself/itself to plummet 500 feet just to cast darkness? Is he always burning an action simply "existing" in the same spot?
3) Incorporeal creatures have no bodies to speak of (or rather, no physical bodies), so does that mean they aren't affected by gravity? Can they "stand" upon the ground, since they aren't able to make any Strength-based check to interact with objects/things?

This Fly rule seems to be a hilarious (and admittedly, simple) oversight to make. Why not simply add in the Monster Rules that monsters/creatures that possess a fly speed only need not use that Fly action to "move 0 feet" to hover?

Or, on the flip side, why not simply modify it to allow it to be a Free Action so that they are able to "follow the rules as written" by tying it to the action economy?

It just seems ridiculous that we haven't heard anything regarding a glaring rule that seems to plague Paizo from PF1, SF, and now PF2e.

Further? It gives an example of "Manuever in Flight", with Hover being listed under expert. Does this then indicate creatures must be Expert or better to hover? It says no such thing in the base Fly action. What is this referring to?

Moreover, monsters are not "trained" in skills, they simply receive bonuses/modifiers representing anything from "low" to "high" scores (the full variation being something like 'terrible' and 'extreme' if I recall).

So what gives, Paizo? How is this such a hard question to answer? I know how I'll homebrew or adjucate, but it shouldn't require GMs to sit down and ponder 5 different rules interacting with each other to figure out.

The title says it all.

The way I see the entries in the book, it sounds like the intention was to allow Cantrips, Focus Spells, etc to automatically heighten, not that they are required to actually be cast at that Heightened level.

Otherwise Wildshape, Ferocious Shape, and MANY more Cantrips and Focus Spells would be unusable after a certain point. If you are forced to cast it at its maximum possible level you have access to (typically character level/2 rounded up) then you're trying to sell me on the idea that your Cantrip, what, spirals out of control? You can't cast it at lower levels? Pull back on the reigns a bit?

"Hey, knock him out with just a tiny bit of fire."

Sorcerer proceeds to cast Produce Flame. Somehow loses control of faculties and must cast it at his highest possible. Unleashes level 6 Produce Flame, only intending to singe a little off the top.

Back to the point though.

If anything you would have a **much better** handle on the spell as you get better at it. Cantrips are your bread and butter, requiring little effort and minimal concentration. Getting better at something doesn't mean you then need to focus on doing less of it.

A marathon runner doesn't need to concentrate overmuch to run slower. A craftsman doesn't need to work extra hard to make a poorer quality product. You don't need to prepare to make ***less*** of a sandwich - just put fewer toppings on it.

Really stumped here. I've never had these things interact this way, and they stem from one source.

One of my players has a level 12 weapon, plopped in *mental block* spell gem (item level 11), and also has Technomantic Dabbler as a general feat.

I have a few questions:

1) Does Technomantic Dabbler make him a spellcaster, and I mean overall? The sentence that contains the spellcaster bit is also the same one that mentions what ability modifier to use for the spells. I'm hesitant to say yes, since it makes those spells spell-like abilities, and sounds like the intention is to use the CL only for calculations, not to qualify for prerequisites and whatnot.

2) The spell thrower fusion says you can cast the spell "as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class's spell list", but does that make you a spellcaster for that moment if you need to overcome SR? So if he is level 12, does he roll 1d20+12? Or does he just roll a d20? Also, because some spells can be both Mystic and Technomancer, which ability mod is added to the spell DC if it is a spell gem which can be both (if any)?

3) Technomantic Dabbler gives those spells as spell-like abilities, does this mean they are actually a caster? The same argument goes for equipment/items; using something that allows you to use an ability that is like a spell doesn't make you a caster, so why would this feat or feats like it?

After looking at various things (splash page for Starfinder still mentioning the release of the Beginner Box - a 4-month old piece of news, the release schedule - most being PF1e even before 2e's release, Paizo Blogs being saturated with Pathfinder with very minimal Starfinder presence - again, even before 2e, and lastly a huge 1 year and more lapse in any word on rules for the errata and tons of dead threads on the the Starfinder Forums asking valid questions and seeking help with the game) I can't help but feel Starfinder is losing momentum, and sadly it *did* have momentum - so much so that CRBs couldn't even be placed on shelves fast enough when it first was release.

Fast forward to only a few months later after its release. The dust hasn't even settled and Paizo drops the big 2e release bomb, and now it seems like a slap in the face to anyone who wanted to invest in "Paizo's new product" and I think it was even a more potent slap because the hype from the Paizo team follows 2e, not Starfinder.

What I would like to stress is not that I feel there is a drought of content for Starfinder. There are tons of hardcovers and APs and whatnot. What makes this system feel like it's going to fail is that it is such a LAUGHABLY small team of dedicated people, as opposed to the numbers working on 2e, not to mention that with the not even 10-or-so people on the SF team I can imagine that doesn't leave much room to interact with the community.

Paizo, seriously, wake the hell up. You've been running an iconic RPG for over a decade, why haven't you figured out that a community needs interaction? Hell, it would make a world of difference if we could just get answers to questions about rules and whatnot.

Yet, we keep getting money thrown at us for content, and that just makes problems worse. Now the new stuff breaks the old stuff, questions about rules and how things are intended to interact are again raised, and the cycle continues.

What's more is that all it would take to quell a lot of fears of this system would literally be some simple interaction and a few more bodies on the SF team. I don't understand why that is such a difficult thing to understands.

While I understand that Pathfinder is what put Paizo on the map, doesn't it seem like Starfinder got put on the backburner somehow? Am I going crazy, or does it seem like aside from APs we aren't really getting any "spotlight"?

PF2e has not even been released yet and their deployment/rollout schedule overwhelms the front page. Meanwhile, Starfinder's page still says Beginner Box "coming this April"... a mere 4 months later?

Not to mention we still don't have solutions to some fairly obvious rules conflicts/rules questions. Does anyone think this system will make it as long as PF1e did or how long PF2e will?

In AP7 the Drone Launch Tube expansion was introduced. I really only have one question:

I understand it launches up to 2 drones per round, but how does one build these drones?

Are they the Klokworx Drones you see on the following pages? Do you simply get 5 of those drones?

They don't give a basic blank statblock for drones as a whole. Is this supposed to be built and split from the party's BP pool?

It's worth noting that the drone weapons work wildly differently from the launch tube. The drones used in Large/Captial weapons look to merely be specially-flavored missiles/torpedoes/tracking weapons.

I'm hoping someone from Paizo can answer this for me, but anyone with the information I thank in advance. My question is this: will the content in the Adventure paths be reprinted down the line and appear in Core Books? For example, the APs have already shown several new playable races, tons of new gear and a few new connections and spells, not to mention gazette entries for locations.

Will all this (eventually) show up in Core Books down the line? I don't know if I can shell out $10~$20 per AP module (each being a small sum of 60~70 pages, which is admittedly not that much when you consider if you're not using the story 80% of that is now irrelevant to you).

Is that the draw of the Adventure Path sets? 100% unique information that will not appear anywhere else? I find it hard to swallow if very important information (much like this last module containing very important information about the Drift and its properties and characteristics) like this secreted away in modules people may not be interested in purchasing.

TL;DR The DC scaling as of the moment (most predominantly in starships) is utter horsesh!t -- to be blunt. How does a DC = 10/15/20 + 2 x tier even make SENSE?

I tried thinking this over and got nowhere. When you have text, such as stated in the CRB page 322:

Repairing damage to the hull (restoring lost Hull Points)

is more difficult. You must first stop the starship completely,
usually at a safe location (for instance, a world with a nonhostile
atmosphere or a dock on a space station), and the repairing
character or characters must have access to the outside of the
hull. On most of the Pact Worlds, the crew can pay mechanics to
repair the starship; the cost and time needed are up to the GM. If
the crew is on its own in uncharted territory, it can still repair the
starship’s hull. Doing so costs 10 UPBs (see page 233) per point
of damage to be repaired and requires 5 hours of work regardless
of the number of points repaired. A character who succeeds at
an Engineering check (DC = 15 + 2 × the starship’s tier) can cut
either the cost or the time in half. For every 10 points by which
she exceeds the DC, she can reduce one of these factors by half
(or by half again), to a minimum of 1 UPB per point of damage and
1 hour. Any number of allies can use the aid another action (see
page 133) to assist with this Engineering check. Failing the check
to reduce the time or cost instead increases the cost by 5 UPBs
per point of damage.

Are you serious? You scale this, not even to 20, but to 10, 15?, and your DCs are already in the 35~45 range? Then you say you want that character to beat that DC by an additional 10? Like you're saying "Good job at not sucking, but only barely"?

Let's not even GET into the APL vs Tier debate. How does it make sense that someone of relatively higher level (say even just 1 level higher) walks aboard your ship, and somehow you guys all are incapable of performing your checks? You go up one level and your DC spikes by 5? Are you sh*tting me right now?

What's more, let's say that the PCs are completely content with their ship modifications. Maybe the only difference they do with their BPs is to upgrade a ship's computer, or to make living arrangements more comfortable, or merely increase their Drift Drive output -- how does this suddenly translate to being completely unable to perform the same maneuver the pilot made not but a few days ago? The SIZE of the ship didn't change, in my example the BULK of the ship did not change dramatically enough, and furthermore the ENGINES/or THINGS ALTERING MANEUVERABILITY did not change -- so explain to me how the hell this makes sense that my pilot suddenly became a complete and utter retard overnight?

The way the DC currently scales doesn't match with NPC ships, and whats more, even if you theory-craft and number-crunch, optimal rolls will NOT happen at a consistent enough rate for players to feel that the odds truly are "balanced" (as some people incorrectly have posted).

I don't care who you are, the roleplaying aspect of the DC scaling simply doesn't add up.

My simple solution is I'm going with this revised formula:

DC = 10 + [1.5*Tier]
DC = 15 + [1.5*Tier]
DC = 20 + [Tier]

Out-of-Combat Starship checks:
DC = 10/15/20 + [.5*Tier], as the "beat by 10" wouldn't mean sh*t unless you could ACTUALLY attain it.

This means that your DC checks still scale, but are reasonably attainable by players NOT hellbent on min/maxing their characters. This results in some fairly even checks, with the assumption that even with players maxing a skill with 20 ranks, class trained, and some extra toppings on the side.

A Tier 10/15, with original DCs of 30 and 45, respectively, now stop being nearly impossible, and now look like 25 (with PCs having 10 ranks, +13 with basic class training, and now need to roll slightly higher than a coin flip at a minimum of 12) and 32 (with a base of 15 ranks, +18 with basic class training, now needing to roll 14, meaning it starts to show that you'll need to get slightly more dedicated if you want to roll reliably well).

This is just MY homebrew solution, and is not saying this is how it should be solved; but come on, no one else thinks this is just downright embarrassing and frustrating as a GM or player?