| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few reasons
1) You learn as you adventure. Ergo, you grow in all areas regardless of what you choose to soecializes in.
2) This keeps the game relatively balanced *at level* so you don't need to have a DC 500 for one PC and a DC 25 for all the rest. It makes it so for a same-level group they can all have a reasonable chance to succeed or fail, instead of one auto success and the rest auto failures.
3) It helps show a difference between high level and low level characters.
4) Numbers aren't everything. While an untrained and a legendary are close in numbers, it's their *features* and proficiency-locked abilities that truly make up the difference. Even though an untrained level 20 is better numerically than a legendary level 10, the legendary character has options that the untrained does not.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it makes little sense that a lvl 15 half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8 and that can´t read, never learned more that basic maths, still has an +12 to his Arcane knowledge and religion skills, making him able to discuss magical theory at the level of an int 18 level 6 elven wizard with expert training.
It breaks the character a bit, that he becomes incredibly skilled at EVERYTHING as he levels up. It smacks too much of a videogame.
You just can´t make an big dumb brute anymore, without him becoming an erudite in cultural lore and book-learning.
You can´t make a physically weak and frail wizard either, that guy will be able to run and jump at the levels of an olympic gymnast, when he is 98 years old, not to mention that he can see and hear ants dancing from 85 feet away.
So yeah, I get that it seems a little strange, I don´t care for it either.
Being unable to do something, and then finding a way to beat it or work around that limitation is sort of one of the great things about table-top rpg´s, and I am sad to see them change that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it makes little sense that a lvl 15 half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8 and that can´t read, never learned more that basic maths, still has an +12 to his Arcane knowledge and religion skills, making him able to discuss magical theory at the level of an int 18 level 6 elven wizard with expert training.
I don't exactly see this as an issue. Look at it another way.
A level 15 half-orc barbarian has seen a lot in his travels, from legendary smiths that forge his weapons, to the lairs of lichs he's helped smack down with his companions. His arcane knowledge comes purely from experience, as he's seen nine more levels worth of stuff in general than the highly booksmart level 6 wizard. It is a matter of how you choose to roleplay that knowledge.
"I was fightin' this thing and fire burst from his eyes and exploded all over the room. Weren't for this necklace I'd 'a been burnt to a crisp, cause it eats fire."
"He was casting a fireball you simpleton... And your necklace is an amulet of antimagic, it absorbs any magic that gets near it when you hold it."
"Nah, it definitely eats fire. You'll understand one day greenhorn."
Comparatively, your other example of your olympic wizard, it's the same thing. Experience. When he started his adventures he was tripping over himself he was so inept, but he learned fast he'd need to shimmy on narrow ledges with his teammates and be able to outrun dragon's fire when everything goes tits up.
The difference in the Playtest so far, is that investment. Instead of it being one or two points representating specialization it's skill feats. The difference betwen Untrained and Legendary on paper is +5, however the additional trained skill uses, and the skill feats giving even MORE uses is where the difference lies. That barbarian can't identify or read magic, he can just recall knowledge based on his experiences. That wizard may have the basics to stay alive down, but he's got none of the talent of running, jumping, climbing, or swimming provided by someone who took the feats and has climb and swim speed.
Yeah, it makes little sense that a lvl 15 half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8 and that can´t read, never learned more that basic maths, still has an +12 to his Arcane knowledge and religion skills, making him able to discuss magical theory at the level of an int 18 level 6 elven wizard with expert training.
Playtest Book says others may think barbarians "have bizarre superstitions and poor education and might be illiterate."
I guess you're not a barbarian. ;)
Seriously, though. This is a new game. Don't bring assumptions of prior games to it. There's nothing here that says a barbarian can't read and can never learn more than basic maths.
The arcana skill says, "This skill measures how much you know about alchemy, arcane spells, and the most common magic items. Further, it determines how much information you have on theories about alchemy and arcane energies as well as lore about the creatures associated with them."
A barbarian can absolutely learn about all that during adventures. They can learn through experience what alchemy is, what an arcane spell is, lean about common magic items, and even learn some basics of the theory. I know people who aren't very bright* who know the basics of evolutionary theory, despite the details of it being beyond them.
However, since they're not trained, they can never borrow an arcane spell, identify magic, learn an arcane spell, or read magic. They can never gain an arcane sense.
What about religion? Well, again, I know plenty of people who aren't very bright* who know quite a bit about religion.
If you're not trained, you can recall some lore about religions and divine entities, as well as creatures who call upon the divine. That can all be learned through experience as the barbarian adventures. Compared to the level 6, the barbarian has a lot more practical knowledge and the level 6 has a lot more book with a little bit of practical. But even though they equivalent in what kind of basic lore they can recall, the level 6 can do so much more.
The level 6 can identify learn divine magic and read secret scripture, amdayne even will never have false knowledge on the tenant of religion (can never critically fail). The barbarian will never be able to do those things, because he's not trained in religion.
There's more to this game than the numbers. :)
*If we're using assumptions of previous games, 8 is still within the realm of "average" intelligence, so why assume that a person with average intelligence can't learn about basic theories of common fields like religion and arcana? (Note: PF2 hasn't told us what an average intelligence is).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it makes little sense that a lvl 15 half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8 and that can´t read, never learned more that basic maths, still has an +12 to his Arcane knowledge and religion skills, making him able to discuss magical theory at the level of an int 18 level 6 elven wizard with expert training.I don't exactly see this as an issue. Look at it another way.
A level 15 half-orc barbarian has seen a lot in his travels, from legendary smiths that forge his weapons, to the lairs of lichs he's helped smack down with his companions. His arcane knowledge comes purely from experience, as he's seen nine more levels worth of stuff in general than the highly booksmart level 6 wizard. It is a matter of how you choose to roleplay that knowledge.
"I was fightin' this thing and fire burst from his eyes and exploded all over the room. Weren't for this necklace I'd 'a been burnt to a crisp, cause it eats fire."
"He was casting a fireball you simpleton... And your necklace is an amulet of antimagic, it absorbs any magic that gets near it when you hold it."
"Nah, it definitely eats fire. You'll understand one day greenhorn."
Comparatively, your other example of your olympic wizard, it's the same thing. Experience. When he started his adventures he was tripping over himself he was so inept, but he learned fast he'd need to shimmy on narrow ledges with his teammates and be able to outrun dragon's fire when everything goes t!$# up.
The difference in the Playtest so far, is that investment. Instead of it being one or two points representating specialization it's skill feats. The difference betwen Untrained and Legendary on paper is +5, however the additional trained skill uses, and the skill feats giving even MORE uses is where the difference lies. That barbarian can't identify or read magic, he can just recall knowledge based on his experiences. That wizard may have the basics to stay alive down, but he's got none of the talent of running, jumping,...
Oh, I get that, an experienced barbarian might know stuff about stuff, sure, but he can still Identify several kinds of magical items and effects, just by looking at them and talk about advanced magical theories, discuss the mating rituals of the southeren Garundy Wyverns, Identify an Noble based on their heraldry and/or jawline and the many ways of how to create a golem.
The 98 year old Wizard can kick down a door that gives a healthy and hale young warrior trouble to budge, he can wrestle boars without trouble and swim upwards a damned waterfall, not to mention that the bookworm, that really never left his tower other than to find new books, can survive more or less indefinitly in the wild, thanks to an artifically improved Survial skill.I get that being a higher level should mean that you are more of a badass, give you more options and powers, but it should not make you better at EVERYTHING under the sun.
When high level characters dont have limits or weaknesses we end up with some kind of Anime-Levels of bullshittery OP characters.
Not that I hate those, they just dont fit my image of a fantasy game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what if I dont WANT my dumb-ass barbarian to know all this magical mumbo-jumbo, as well as all the other skills that I dont want him to learn? What if I like my un-educated brutes, that go hunt monsters and fight dragons by being just that level of bone-headed knuckle-dragger, dumb-but-capable that makes the villagers uncomfortable and nobles disgusted whenever I open my mouth
But now my stats are literally making me more book-smart than the royal archivist and able to talk circles around the aristocracy with my charms?
See the problem?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it makes little sense that a lvl 15 half-orc barbarian with an intelligence of 8 and that can´t read, never learned more that basic maths, still has an +12 to his Arcane knowledge and religion skills, making him able to discuss magical theory at the level of an int 18 level 6 elven wizard with expert training.I don't exactly see this as an issue. Look at it another way.
A level 15 half-orc barbarian has seen a lot in his travels, from legendary smiths that forge his weapons, to the lairs of lichs he's helped smack down with his companions. His arcane knowledge comes purely from experience, as he's seen nine more levels worth of stuff in general than the highly booksmart level 6 wizard. It is a matter of how you choose to roleplay that knowledge.
"I was fightin' this thing and fire burst from his eyes and exploded all over the room. Weren't for this necklace I'd 'a been burnt to a crisp, cause it eats fire."
"He was casting a fireball you simpleton... And your necklace is an amulet of antimagic, it absorbs any magic that gets near it when you hold it."
"Nah, it definitely eats fire. You'll understand one day greenhorn."
Comparatively, your other example of your olympic wizard, it's the same thing. Experience. When he started his adventures he was tripping over himself he was so inept, but he learned fast he'd need to shimmy on narrow ledges with his teammates and be able to outrun dragon's fire when everything goes t+!+ up.
The difference in the Playtest so far, is that investment. Instead of it being one or two points representating specialization it's skill feats. The difference betwen Untrained and Legendary on paper is +5, however the additional trained skill uses, and the skill feats giving even MORE uses is where the difference lies. That barbarian can't identify or read magic, he can just recall knowledge based on his experiences. That wizard may have the basics to stay alive down, but he's got none of the talent of running, jumping,...
In PF1E if I wanted to make an acrobatic wizard or suave barbarian, I could do that.
In PF2E I'm not given something. The rules take away the option to be true to archetype. (Unless I just ignore the rules, which isn't a defense of the rules)I want character who feel and play like the archetypes of novels and movies.
The idea that generic adventuring experience makes all individuals better at all (much less very substantially so) at *all things* has no narrative or archetypal value and seems to just be a gamist surrender.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what if I dont WANT my dumb-ass barbarian to know all this magical mumbo-jumbo, as well as all the other skills that I dont want him to learn? What if I like my un-educated brutes, that go hunt monsters and fight dragons by being just that level of bone-headed knuckle-dragger, dumb-but-capable that makes the villagers uncomfortable and nobles disgusted whenever I open my mouth
But now my stats are literally making me more book-smart than the royal archivist and able to talk circles around the aristocracy with my charms?
See the problem?
Not really. Roleplaying means more than numbers on a page, there's nothing explicitly saying that your numbers change anything about how you play, or what they explicitly mean.
You will also generally never be forced to use any of those skills. Statistically someone else in your party will be good at the things you choose not to be.
Comparatively to Pathfinder 1, there was a number of skills that needed 1 or 2 points. If you didn't have them you were looking at being unable to accomplish certain tasks (looking at you Climb and Swim). This pulled away from the few-skill classes already limited points. While you may not be happy about having minimal capabilities all around, it prevents a system with limited opportunities for advancement from having to spend them on necessities.
You can make the choice not to use a skill in the long run. It is decidedly not fun to have no choice in spending resources one way or else not be able to continue.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Roleplaying means more than numbers on a page, there's nothing explicitly saying that your numbers change anything about how you play, or what they explicitly mean.
Not true.
If my Barbarian has a +14 diplomacy and the DC is 20 those numbers explicitly mean that I will be successful on a 6+. I can choose to roleplay stupid and forego the roll. But now we are back to bluntly ignoring mechanics because they fail to deliver the appropriate result. Which says there is something wrong with the mechanics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Roleplaying means more than numbers on a page, there's nothing explicitly saying that your numbers change anything about how you play, or what they explicitly mean.You will also generally never be forced to use any of those skills. Statistically someone else in your party will be good at the things you choose not to be.
Comparatively to Pathfinder 1, there was a number of skills that needed 1 or 2 points. If you didn't have them you were looking at being unable to accomplish certain tasks (looking at you Climb and Swim). This pulled away from the few-skill classes already limited points. While you may not be happy about having minimal capabilities all around, it prevents a system with limited opportunities for advancement from having to spend them on necessities.
You can make the choice not to use a skill in the long run. It is decidedly not fun to have no choice in spending resources one way or else not be able to continue.
** spoiler omitted **...
Sure, I don´t have to use anything on my character sheet if I don´t want to, but that does not mean that I can´t.
When looking at the character sheet, my character is able to do almost anything that has nothing to do with his background nor with what has happened during his adventures.That does not grog well with me.
When the story can´t progress, based on the abilities and choices of the players, that is not on them, that is 100% on the GM.
It is kind of a dick move too, from the GM´s side.
Also, you still need to take feats to craft magical equipment in 2E, so that does not really change anything, nor make a point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When looking at the character sheet, my character is able to do almost anything that has nothing to do with his background nor with what has happened during his adventures.
That does not grog well with me.
The same was true in PF1. The vast majority of the time, your abilities and skills would grow regardless of what happened in the adventure.
People would multiclass all the time with complete disregard for what happened during their adventure, most of the time it wouldn't even make sense for them to all-of-a-sudden know how to use every single armor in the game or to just happen to suddenly gain a spellbook.
You'd get skill points which you could put in any skill you wanted, regardless of your characters in-game experiences.
This phenomenon isn't new to PF2.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When looking at the character sheet, my character is able to do almost anything that has nothing to do with his background nor with what has happened during his adventures.
That does not grog well with me.The same was true in PF1. The vast majority of the time, your abilities and skills would grow regardless of what happened in the adventure.
People would multiclass all the time with complete disregard for what happened during their adventure, most of the time it wouldn't even make sense for them to all-of-a-sudden know how to use every single armor in the game or to just happen to suddenly gain a spellbook.
You'd get skill points which you could put in any skill you wanted, regardless of your characters in-game experiences.
This phenomenon isn't new to PF2.
Are you truly suggesting you don't see any difference between the way PF1E worked and the "everybody is special at everything" approach of 2E?
I think most peoples' problem here just comes down to roleplaying. I've never limited my roleplaying (nor have my GMs) to strictly what's on the character sheet numbers-wise. I have plenty of times said "No, I don't know that" even when I had the skill bonus available to make the roll because it made no sense for my character.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The same was true in PF1. The vast majority of the time, your abilities and skills would grow regardless of what happened in the adventure.People would multiclass all the time with complete disregard for what happened during their adventure, most of the time it wouldn't even make sense for them to all-of-a-sudden know how to use every single armor in the game or to just happen to suddenly gain a spellbook.
You'd get skill points which you could put in any skill you wanted, regardless of your characters in-game experiences.
This phenomenon isn't new to PF2.
It seems that we have had some vastly different experiences during play, we normaly dont have that kind of unorganic character-progression, that´s just how we roll, we try and explain it with training during downtime or the wizard getting tired of being shanked and taking a self-defense course through astral projection, that sort of thing.
But, whaddaya know?Now, we can discuss this back and forth an never agree, I think, but this is a playtest and Paizo needs feedback and some of us do not agree with this kind of omni-progression in skills, we prefere something that is less "balanced" so to speak, where we can make characters that does not become savants in every aspect as they grow in their power.
When I read a book about a character that can do everything great, where the MC is constantly Mary Sue´ing it all the time, I have a hard time getting invested.
This is what the skill system feels like to me, Mary Sue, no flaws, only greatness.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most peoples' problem here just comes down to roleplaying. I've never limited my roleplaying (nor have my GMs) to strictly what's on the character sheet numbers-wise. I have plenty of times said "No, I don't know that" even when I had the skill bonus available to make the roll because it made no sense for my character.
Ok, thats cool.
I have a game that gets it right when I use the rules as written.Why choose to go to a game where I'm asked to ignore the rules because the rules don't work right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping back, it isn't about "winning" a debate here. If you like the game "as is", what is your strategy for getting me and people who share my opinions to help keep your game of choice market viable?
Are you truly suggesting you don't see any difference between the way PF1E worked and the "everybody is special at everything" approach of 2E?
No, I'm saying that the concept of "I improve regardless of what happened during the adventure" is true regardless of the edition. At least, that's what I'm saying in that particular post. It's one of the things I enjoy about Shadow of the Demon Lord and Witcher RPG - your improvement is based on what you did in game (and if it isn't, you need to work with the gm to explain why.
Earlier, I was saying that the difference isn't defined by the numbers, but rather the unlockables you get by being trained and more.
Stepping back, it isn't about "winning" a debate here. If you like the game "as is", what is your strategy for getting me and people who share my opinions to help keep your game of choice market viable?
Frankly? Bring in new people and let you play whatever game you want. If you like PF1e, play PF1e. I'm looking for a significant departure and so far I'm quite happy. I know plenty of people looking for a way in to TTRPGs, and PF2e is looking like a great way to introduce them (once they do some edits on the current PT rulebook because dear god there are a lot of inconsistencies and obvious missing statements).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping back, it isn't about "winning" a debate here. If you like the game "as is", what is your strategy for getting me and people who share my opinions to help keep your game of choice market viable?Frankly? Bring in new people and let you play whatever game you want. If you like PF1e, play PF1e. I'm looking for a significant departure and so far I'm quite happy. I know plenty of people looking for a way in to TTRPGs, and PF2e is looking like a great way to introduce them (once they do some edits on the current PT rulebook because dear god there are a lot of inconsistencies and obvious missing statements).
Ok
Thats what the 4E fans said also.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping back, it isn't about "winning" a debate here. If you like the game "as is", what is your strategy for getting me and people who share my opinions to help keep your game of choice market viable?
Introducing new players mostly.
Whilst I cannot speak with any degree of scientific certainty, the forums here represent I would say maybe... 30% of the playerbase, using my table as a reference point (7 players, 2 of whom use the forums at all, one being me). That is a very generous estimate, but if we assume that 30% of forum goers, of them let's assume 50% like the game as-is for one reason or another, that's 15% here willing to whine and express childish things like "keep your game of choice market viable?".
The game will be fine losing 15% of forum goers. 4e D&D managed to survive for 6 years despite losing a large chunk of the 3.5e "hardcore" audience to Pathfinder. Whilst that 15% are the loudest voices here, they are not the only voices. Plenty of people have fun, and are fine with change, and they will share that game with their friends, and in their communities.
Paizo, or any company, doesn't need to bend to the will of loud voices, because if they do they will stagnate. They would lose more changing nothing and building more and more complexity into an inaccessible system, than that liberal 15% estimate of entitled "as is" audience.
That said, this is but the first draft of the game. It is 12 months of fine tuning away from final release. They opened the doors to give their community a voice in how things move forward. If more than that supposed 15% have an issue, then it will likely see change. Most voices though don't feel the need to constantly complain to whoever will listen, and in the end the supposed 85% will have a game that may not be perfect, but will be one they enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you truly suggesting you don't see any difference between the way PF1E worked and the "everybody is special at everything" approach of 2E?No, I'm saying that the concept of "I improve regardless of what happened during the adventure" is true regardless of the edition. At least, that's what I'm saying in that particular post. It's one of the things I enjoy about Shadow of the Demon Lord and Witcher RPG - your improvement is based on what you did in game (and if it isn't, you need to work with the gm to explain why.
Then that means you really haven't contributed to the point of dispute.
Earlier, I was saying that the difference isn't defined by the numbers, but rather the unlockables you get by being trained and more.
Yeah, and I wish this was true. I was expecting it would be. But now that I have the book in front of me, it is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stepping back, it isn't about "winning" a debate here. If you like the game "as is", what is your strategy for getting me and people who share my opinions to help keep your game of choice market viable?Introducing new players mostly.
Whilst I cannot speak with any degree of scientific certainty, the forums here represent I would say maybe... 30% of the playerbase, using my table as a reference point (7 players, 2 of whom use the forums at all, one being me). That is a very generous estimate, but if we assume that 30% of forum goers, of them let's assume 50% like the game as-is for one reason or another, that's 15% here willing to whine and express childish things like "keep your game of choice market viable?".
The game will be fine losing 15% of forum goers. 4e D&D managed to survive for 6 years despite losing a large chunk of the 3.5e "hardcore" audience to Pathfinder. Whilst that 15% are the loudest voices here, they are not the only voices. Plenty of people have fun, and are fine with change, and they will share that game with their friends, and in their communities.
Paizo, or any company, doesn't need to bend to the will of loud voices, because if they do they will stagnate. They would lose more changing nothing and building more and more complexity into an inaccessible system, than that liberal 15% estimate of entitled "as is" audience.
That said, this is but the first draft of the game. It is 12 months of fine tuning away from final release. They opened the doors to give their community a voice in how things move forward. If more than that supposed 15% have an issue, then it will likely see change. Most voices though don't feel the need to constantly complain to whoever will listen, and in the end the supposed 85% will have a game that may not be perfect, but will be one they enjoy.
Are you *really* bringing up 4E as a positive example?
You don't have a clue as to what the %s are. Neither do I.
But I do know that there is a whole lot of controversy and splitting of the fanbase (well beyond this one issue) and that has never lead to success. And these EXACT "we don't need you" comments have been thrown around before. It doesn't end well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plenty of people have fun, and are fine with change, and they will share that game with their friends, and in their communities.
And, let me just point out this one statement as total bunk.
The "you don't like change" thing is another big sign that something is deeply wrong.Not all change is good. There are a lot of great changes in 2E. But each change must stand up to critical evaluation and if you are down to saying that dislike of the change is simply fear of change in general then you have conceded that you can't rebut the actual reason for dislike of a given change.
Then that means you really haven't contributed to the point of dispute.
??
I literally quoted the complaint that said character growth without explanation in game doesn't make sense. That was literally the complaint.
How did I not contribute to the point of debate by showing that this complaint is also not true in PF1?
Yeah, and I wish this was true. I was expecting it would be. But now that I have the book in front of me, it is not.
And again, I have literally provided quotes and examples of how this is true in this playtest in this very thread.
I'm completely baffled by the response session here. Are you simply not reading what is being written and making an honest mistake, or is there something nefarious going on despite the comment about "not winning" a debate?
It bothers me that I would get a response like that when it's so blatantly not true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then that means you really haven't contributed to the point of dispute.??
I literally quoted the complaint that said character growth without explanation in game doesn't make sense. That was literally the complaint.
How did I not contribute to the point of debate by showing that this complaint is also not true in PF1?
I asked if you believed those two points were comparable and you said "No..."
And they are not, so quibbling about trivial tangents doesn't add anything.
Yeah, and I wish this was true. I was expecting it would be. But now that I have the book in front of me, it is not.And again, I have literally provided quotes and examples of how this is true in this playtest in this very thread.
I'm completely baffled by the response session here. Are you simply not reading what is being written and making an honest mistake, or is there something nefarious going on despite the comment about "not winning" a debate?
It bothers me that I would get a response like that when it's so blatantly not true.
I have the playtest book and the depth of distinctions provided by far short of significant.
I don't have an answer to how to resolve this, but I much prefer the blanket increase. Mostly for practical reasons rather than roleplay reasons. Then again I always want to roleplay the big damn hero, so never voluntarily have a weakness.
Now I don't have to hope that the skills I chose will be relevant or that someone has tricked out a skill and makes me look like an amateur even though I've max ranked it and have a solid relevant ability score. Then there's the 'the whole party can get involved' point.
I asked if you believed those two points were comparable and you said "No..."
And they are not, so quibbling about trivial tangents doesn't add anything.
Ah. I see the disconnect. That's not what you asked. You did not ask if I believed those two points were comparable.
This is what you asked:
Are you truly suggesting you don't see any difference between the way PF1E worked and the "everybody is special at everything" approach of 2E?
You asked if I was suggesting that those two things were comparable. I was not suggesting that. I was saying something completely different.
I had thought you were asking for a clarification of my point, to which I tried to clarify. I wanted to ensure you understood what I was actually trying to say.
So I'm not "quibbling" tangents here. I'm directly responding to the actual conversation in question - that conversation being how power increase doesn't correlate with what happens in game (the main complaint of the person I responded to.
Although, now, technically I'm quibbling the tangent of trying to explain what the actual conversation was. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the problem people currently have is that they are only seeing total bonus and are not understanding what the proficiency levels mean.
Imagine the following, a party contains 5 characters each with a different level of proficiency in Religion. They encounter a magic pool and all Succeed on the (lets say DC 20) Religion check to identify it.
- Untrained - The character identifies it as a holy pool, identifies any untrained uses for the pool and has an idea if there might be something those Trained might be able to use it for, but not the pool's name, the god or holy spirit it is consecrated to, its more esoteric uses, its intended purpose, nor its history.
- Trained - The character identifies it as a holy pool consecrated to a general type of god or holy spirit, identifies trained and untrained uses of the pool, learns its common name and history, and has an idea if there are things a Expert might better understand.
- Expert - More specific and uncommon knowledge and uses.
- Master - Esoteric and rare knowledge and uses
- Legendary - Know pretty much all there is to know about the holy pool and how to use it.
That's certainly how it was advertised in the blogs, and how I think it should work. But it's not how the rules work. Apart from gating feats, levels above Trained don't do anything (according to the Skills rules themselves) apart from the numerical bonus. So it doesn't matter how Legendary I am, I can't actually do things someone merely Trained can't do. For example, a critical success in Survival provides food and shelter for 2 people, even if untrained. Exactly the same for Legendary - only 2 people. And so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
hang on a sec but Why do you need to add level to Skills in the first place?
XP isn't determined by Level but by challenge
Minor = 10
Moderate = 30
Major = 80
If you don't add level to skill rolls, then you don't need a 20 row chart of skill level difficulties. You just need 1 set of difficulties.
Your Rank in the skill is the full extent of the Training you have.
Yeah we use Monster level to determine the Challenge of an Encounter but you don't really need to come up with Level 7 Skill challenges.
Just "This is a Moderate Skill challenge and is thus 30 XP"
If a Skill bonus is just Attribute bonus + Proficiency Rank you can just Lock the DC of a Moderate test and do away with the long table.
hang on a sec but Why do you need to add level to Skills in the first place? .
Because players like to feel their characters getting better each level, probably.
And also because it keeps all (well most of) the 'checks' in a similar band for a certain level. Eg; attacking a high level monster has similar numbers (both on bonus and DC(AC in this case) to grappling a monster using the Athletics skill. Consistency is helpful for many reasons.
If we were to remove level from skill proficiency, we'd probably need to do it for all proficiency checks. So no +level to attack, +level to AC etc. Player progression would feel MUCH less as a result, and all monsters would feel MUCH more similar difficulty.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
hang on a sec but Why do you need to add level to Skills in the first place? .Because players like to feel their characters getting better each level, probably.
And also because it keeps all (well most of) the 'checks' in a similar band for a certain level. Eg; attacking a high level monster has similar numbers (both on bonus and DC(AC in this case) to grappling a monster using the Athletics skill. Consistency is helpful for many reasons.
If we were to remove level from skill proficiency, we'd probably need to do it for all proficiency checks. So no +level to attack, +level to AC etc. Player progression would feel MUCH less as a result, and all monsters would feel MUCH more similar difficulty.
but it's rediculously redundant.
Not only do we have levels for skill challenges but then we also have multiple difficultly with in each level for them
If "Swimming a Stormy Ocean" is a level 5 challenge, dose that mean players can simply Out-level nature. If I want them to have to swim out to a pirate ship when they are level 15 how dose it make sense for nature to suddenly jump the difficulty up
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If "Swimming a Stormy Ocean" is a level 5 challenge, dose that mean players can simply Out-level nature. If I want them to have to swim out to a pirate ship when they are level 15 how dose it make sense for nature to suddenly jump the difficulty up
By level 15, bad weather in water shouldn't be the challenge focus.
Level 15+ should be world ending challenges, possibly even challenges which alter the multiverse. Swimming in a storm is not something that should challenge a level 15 character.
If you want to have them swim to a pirate ship at level 15, make it in a maelstrom with giant sea serpents all around, as the pirates are all Spellcasters with a wall of force around the ship, and the true target is an invisible underwater cavern system where the "walls" are actually the inside of a Cthulhu monster trying to emerge into this world. And maybe also add a storm for visual effects. And I could be underestimating Level 15s for this edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's certainly how it was advertised in the blogs, and how I think it should work. But it's not how the rules work. Apart from gating feats, levels above Trained don't do anything (according to the Skills rules themselves) apart from the numerical bonus. So it doesn't matter how Legendary I am, I can't actually do things someone merely Trained can't do. For example, a critical success in Survival provides food and shelter for 2 people, even if untrained. Exactly the same for Legendary - only 2 people. And so on.I think that part of the problem people currently have is that they are only seeing total bonus and are not understanding what the proficiency levels mean.
Imagine the following, a party contains 5 characters each with a different level of proficiency in Religion. They encounter a magic pool and all Succeed on the (lets say DC 20) Religion check to identify it.
- Untrained - The character identifies it as a holy pool, identifies any untrained uses for the pool and has an idea if there might be something those Trained might be able to use it for, but not the pool's name, the god or holy spirit it is consecrated to, its more esoteric uses, its intended purpose, nor its history.
- Trained - The character identifies it as a holy pool consecrated to a general type of god or holy spirit, identifies trained and untrained uses of the pool, learns its common name and history, and has an idea if there are things a Expert might better understand.
- Expert - More specific and uncommon knowledge and uses.
- Master - Esoteric and rare knowledge and uses
- Legendary - Know pretty much all there is to know about the holy pool and how to use it.
Yes you can look at, at least for now, Locks and Traps both have levels of Prof. to even attempt to bypass them with thievery. That's where the problem they didn't do enough in the playtest book to outright show Gated checks they only mention it once or twice. I haven't read the adventure yet but I hope it does a better job of highlighting this feature of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes using a skill in a specific
situation might require you to have a higher proficiency
rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even
though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could
reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the
breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM
might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper
theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath
weapon might be something beyond the scope of the
barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge
about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a
task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained
all the way up to legendary.
Page 142.
Sometimes using a skill in a specific
situation might require you to have a higher proficiency
rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even
though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could
reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the
breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM
might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper
theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath
weapon might be something beyond the scope of the
barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge
about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a
task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained
all the way up to legendary.Page 142.
So it's only use is DM fiat? Isn't that something that could be done without that quote? IMO, that doesn't really add anything to a debate about actual uses of proficiency ranks IN the playtest book/PDF.
So it's only use is DM fiat? Isn't that something that could be done without that quote? IMO, that doesn't really add anything to a debate about actual uses of proficiency ranks IN the playtest book/PDF.Sometimes using a skill in a specific
situation might require you to have a higher proficiency
rank than what is listed on the table. For instance, even
though a high-level barbarian untrained in Arcana could
reliably use Arcana to Recall Knowledge regarding the
breath weapons of the various colors of dragons, the GM
might decide that Recalling Knowledge about the deeper
theories behind magical energy of a dragon’s breath
weapon might be something beyond the scope of the
barbarian’s largely utilitarian and anecdotal knowledge
about how to fight dragons. The GM decides whether a
task requires a particular proficiency rank, from trained
all the way up to legendary.Page 142.
I think that we had a big failure in not highlighting this in play better in the current playtest. We only see it in Hazards and Locks right now we honestly do need to see some better examples of "Proficiency Gating" in the higher level adventures.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was really unpleasantly surprised not to see any defined uses of skills locked behind expert or master proficiency. Everything is either available trained, untrained, or behind a specific feat.
Skills improve at higher levels across the board because as your character is adventuring they should pick up some knowledge on a wide variety of things. At level 20, my barbarian with 8 intelligence, who only learned basic maths and how to read and write about 5 levels ago when the wizard decided they were done dealing with my crap, is still intelligent enough to remember how last year when they fought a dragon that looked kinda like this one they're fighting now, the wizard said something about it's breath being ice and some mumbo jumbo and that they needed to hit it like so. Ergo, they need to hit this dragon like so...right?
A real world equivalent would be how I, a biology major, know preciously jacksquat about nuclear physics. My friend, a nuclear engineer, knows a ton. Some jerk is rambling about how houses emit radon radiation and it's bad. I'm able to recall a conversation my friend and I had a couple weeks ago, in which they explained that radon radiation is only a problem if you're exposed to high quantities for an extended period of time, thus allowing me to tell that the jerk doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
That being said, I WOULD like something so that if I want to play an absolute idiot with like 2 intelligence it still works at high levels WITHOUT me having to essentially tell the GM that the numbers are wrong because backstory.
Perhaps provide us with some sort of cap on untrained skills? Example, my level 20 barbarian has an 8 intelligence so they CAN'T get more than a 20 on an Arcana Recall Knowledge check since they aren't trained in it. They can still recall a bunch of stuff from either experience or conversations with the wizard, but they're completely incapable of recalling in depth ideas about how [insert magic theory here] works. The GM should be setting DCs appropriately based on how easy it'd be for an untrained, vs trained, vs expert, etc to recall said knowledge.
I'd also like to see something akin to dubious knowledge be automatically applied to any recall knowledge checks for skills one isn't trained in. Considering how often I get to have conversations in which engineers with 4.0s can't remember if it was X or Y for something they finished the class for a month ago...it'd make perfect thematic sense for someone who's never studied something to know that it had something to do with X, but that something might have been Y or Z.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because higher-level people aren't normal.
As a high level person, I take umbrage at your insult. I choose pistols at dawn. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If "Swimming a Stormy Ocean" is a level 5 challenge, dose that mean players can simply Out-level nature. If I want them to have to swim out to a pirate ship when they are level 15 how dose it make sense for nature to suddenly jump the difficulty upBy level 15, bad weather in water shouldn't be the challenge focus.
Level 15+ should be world ending challenges, possibly even challenges which alter the multiverse. Swimming in a storm is not something that should challenge a level 15 character.
If you want to have them swim to a pirate ship at level 15, make it in a maelstrom with giant sea serpents all around, as the pirates are all Spellcasters with a wall of force around the ship, and the true target is an invisible underwater cavern system where the "walls" are actually the inside of a Cthulhu monster trying to emerge into this world. And maybe also add a storm for visual effects. And I could be underestimating Level 15s for this edition.
This is not a sales pitch that I find compelling.
As a game master, I don't want to take normal environmental challenges off the table and I certainly don't want to be concocting ludicrous situations. This kind of stuff leaves me flat. It is jumping the sharknado.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that limiting, to be honest, insofar that it limits the range of characters I can play.
My Human Wizard might be an atheist and not believe in Gods, nevertheless at a certain level he knows exactly what Desna had for breakfast that day and when Rovagug changed his underwear the last time...bang goes the concept of an atheist character.
My mute Half-Orc Monk learns how to sing over the course of a dungeon dwelling adventure and can talk fluently in 4 different languages...despite being mute.
My lame Gnomish Cleric might need help to walk around with the rest of the party, but only for one level or two, because then his Acrobatics are as good as those of the Barbarian.
I want my heroes to be heroes that overcome their flaws in certain fields through other means, not to automatically get better without reason
I am a okay with the auto progression.The way I see the way to gate character is to hit is to make certain checks avaible only to those with high enough training. We already know that is how some trapes and rituals are going to work. Also with scaleing DC the proficeny modifers are going to matter as we don't have the issue getting so good at a skill that you are guaranteed to auto screed if it is up to your appropriate level. Though I do agree I do think we should be given at least one free option as far sigbature skills are concenred. I dont however believe it should be tied to int though given that all of sudden you could become legendary in a metric bootload of skills that may sort defeat the purpose of really picking
My mute Half-Orc Monk learns how to sing over the course of a dungeon dwelling adventure and can talk fluently in 4 different languages...despite being mute.
I mostly wanted to point this one out as not the case. Being mute or otherwise impaired is an entirely different section of the book. You would have the Sign Language and Read Lips feats, and any language he learns to speak would be sign as per those rules. As a mute character he cannot perform actions with the Auditory trait which would include singing. While he would be able to hold his own on the dance floor, he will never be able to sing. So that statement is just wrong.
Atheist is a how you play, regardless of stats. His disbelief doesn't stop Gods from actually existing in the world, and religion also covers identifying undead, something a wizard who's ever seen Necromancy used probably knows at least a little about.
Your lame gnome would still be lame. How you want to play that mechanically is up to you, however never tell someone in a wheelchair they can't do something. Most will just smack you, cause most of them would love to prove to you they overcome that and do Acrobatics.
As Mr(s). Wyvernspur mentioned though, which had me look more into it,
As a game master, I don't want to take normal environmental challenges off the table and I certainly don't want to be concocting ludicrous situations.
Nowhere in the book did I find a set DC table for anything beyond a few ordinary trivial tasks for Acrobatics, Athletics, Society, and Survival. The highest of which was DC 13. Everything else the GM sets based on what's appropriate, and can also by the GM be gated behind a set required skill level. Not based on value, but on rank. This game is one where the GM has more responsibility and control over the rules.
So the DC for anything can be "it's of roughly this level difficulty, and requires at least expert". Discussing magical theory as keeps coming up, most GMs would gate behind at least Trained Arcana, but a high level adventurer has probably learned enough about low level Arcana identified threats to know the basics. In the case of your lame gnome, that lame can easily be labeled a circumstance bonus that makes his Acrobatics checks 1-2 levels higher.
The Playtest has moved away from the set tables of "this is this hard" and favored a level system. The things high level characters are trying to do, have high DCs even if they're technically the same types of things they were doing before. Swimming the seas to that pirate ship may be Severe or Extreme difficulty for a low level team, but labeled as Trivial on a high level team. The DC isn't static between those two instances, meaning that a GM running a game doesn't need to make up outrageous circumstances like tornadoes and sea monsters to have a difficulty that will challenge the players.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Playtest has moved away from the set tables of "this is this hard" and favored a level system. The things high level characters are trying to do, have high DCs even if they're technically the same types of things they were doing before. Swimming the seas to that pirate ship may be Severe or Extreme difficulty for a low level team, but labeled as Trivial on a high level team. The DC isn't static between those two instances, meaning that a GM running a game doesn't need to make up outrageous circumstances like tornadoes and sea monsters to have a difficulty that will challenge the players.
I think there is a question of consistency though. If adventure 1 features the characters having to swim in rough seas after their ship capsized in order to reach a rescue vessel, the players will have a sense of how hard it is to do that thing. "I needed total of 15 or better to make it".
Now, lets skip ahead 10 levels and the characters encounter a similar situation after adventuring in forests and subterranean regions. Character's will look at the situation, see that they now have a +14 to the check and figure.
"oh, this isn't a problem, I will automatically make the check"
The players will then scream bloody murder if I try to tell them that the dc to do the check is now 25 instead of 15. If I want it to be a challenge I now have to artificially inflate the situation in some way in order to justify the increase in the DC.
This is all because everyone got better at swimming even though that hasn't been an aspect of their adventuring careers. So, either rough seas are now not an issue for no explainable reason or the DM is forced to make it more than just "rough seas" in order to justify the inflated DC.
If DCs are just going to be Character Level + some modifiers. Then take character level out of both sides of the equation. It might make characters feel like their skills aren't really progressing but at least it's honest, instead of tricking them into thinking they are getting better at things, when they aren't.