High is the category suggested for most checks.I like the tight math, but think it's currently calibrated with a lower chance of success for PCs than is ideal. And changing this is very doable.I agree. Keeping the variance smaller than PF1 is a good goal and while I would prefer a variance that is slightly larger (~4 points more) the current range can work for my games. An adjustment to the difficulties I think can make this system robust and fun as opposed to robust and a bit punititive.
Let's look at a lv 15 character. At 15, the DC for a level appropriate skill check is 35, basically 20+level.Literally doing everything they could to be good at a skill gives them slightly less than half a chance to succeed. Anyone who hadn't focused every bit of available resources on that skill would have an even worse chance. Additionally, 11 or higher means that the +10 = crit rule is effectively meaningless to the character.To be fair, 35, is the High difficulty, but I agree with your point. In my opinion, if you have focused on a skill to the extent that you have done everything you are able to improve it, then the Extreme difficulty (which would be 40 at level 15) is what should be 50/50.
Citation needed.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
High is the category suggested for most checks.Citation needed.
page 274: "Often, a ritual requires additional secondary skill checks to represent specific facets of the ritual, with a high-difficulty skill DC of twice the ritual’s spell level.
page 295: "For monsters, the GM will use a high-difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level (see page 336)."
Page 327: "If you’re not sure how difficult something significant should be, use a high-difficulty DC for the party’s level."
Page 336: "Many tasks use the high-difficulty DC for their level, but circumstances adjust this. For trivial, low, and high DCs, a character with the amount of skill described in the following paragraphs likely has a greater than 50% chance of success, thus allowing more critical successes."
Also page 336: "A high-difficulty skill DC can be overcome by a character who has increased their proficiency rank in a skill but doesn’t have a high score in the associated ability (like if a typical rogue were attempting an Athletics check). This is the default difficulty in Pathfinder. High-difficulty DCs are a good choice for skill checks that require only one character succeed for the party to benefit." (emphasis mine)
Page 336-337: "For most tasks that low-level, everyday NPCs might attempt, the level of the check is 0–2. For example, using a log to cross a river is tricky but still reasonable for a normal person, so it’s a high-difficulty level 1 check (DC 14). Based on that, you might decide that Balancing across a rickety bridge, which is easier for an ordinary person, is a highdifficulty level 0 Acrobatics check (DC 12). If the bridge or log were covered in moss, you might adjust to severe."
Page 337: "When a character Crafts an item, use the high-difficulty DC for the item’s level as a baseline—for example, the DC for a common level 5 magic item is 21. If the item is uncommon, you might increase the difficulty to severe and rare to extreme."
Page 337: "The Performance skill details the different levels of audiences a character can perform for. When setting the DC for these checks, you’ll usually use the high DC corresponding to the audience’s level."
Page 337: "The Lore skill lets characters try tasks of various levels. These usually use the high-difficulty DC for the task level unless some external factor adjusts it."
Page 338: "Identifying monster abilities is one of the most common uses of Recall Knowledge. The monster’s commonality sets the difficulty: low for common monsters, high for uncommon, and severe for rare or unique."
High is the category suggested for most checks.Citation needed.page 274: "Often, a ritual requires additional secondary skill checks to represent specific facets of the ritual, with a high-difficulty skill DC of twice the ritual’s spell level.
page 295: "For monsters, the GM will use a high-difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level (see page 336)."
Page 327: "If you’re not sure how difficult something significant should be, use a high-difficulty DC for the party’s level."
Page 336: "Many tasks use the high-difficulty DC for their level, but circumstances adjust this. For trivial, low, and high DCs, a character with the amount of skill described in the following paragraphs likely has a greater than 50% chance of success, thus allowing more critical successes."
Also page 336: "A high-difficulty skill DC can be overcome by a character who has increased their proficiency rank in a skill but doesn’t have a high score in the associated ability (like if a typical rogue were attempting an Athletics check). This is the default difficulty in Pathfinder. High-difficulty DCs are a good choice for skill checks that require only one character succeed for the party to benefit." (emphasis mine)
Page 336-337: "For most tasks that low-level, everyday NPCs might attempt, the level of the check is 0–2. For example, using a log to cross a river is tricky but still reasonable for a normal person, so it’s a high-difficulty level 1 check (DC 14). Based on that, you might decide that Balancing across a rickety bridge, which is easier for an ordinary person, is a highdifficulty level 0 Acrobatics check (DC 12). If the bridge or log were covered in moss, you might adjust to severe."
Page 337: "When a character Crafts an item, use the high-difficulty DC for the item’s level as a baseline—for example, the DC for a common level 5 magic item is 21. If the item is uncommon, you might increase the difficulty to severe and rare to extreme."
Page 337:...
Wow, that was a lot more than what I had assumed. Thanks for taking the work to compile it
I don't have the pdf right now, what does the quote from 295 refer to?
Still, I'm not sure how that translates to actual play. For example, and this is obviously pure anecdote, I'm playing a paladin, specializing in diplomacy, intimidate, craft (repair) and athletics (trip). Most of those are "opposed" checks, so the dc is set by the enemy (repair is the item's low dc). I'm just not so sure that you'll be making most of your checks against high dc through a campaign
Recovery Saving Throws
...
If damage that reduced you to 0 Hit Points came from something that doesn’t have a DC, such as an attack roll, use the attacker’s class DC. Though a class DC usually includes the key ability modifier for a character’s class, the GM might sometimes decide a different ability score is appropriate; for example, a wizard’s class DC usually uses Intelligence, but if he knocks someone out with his staff, the DC might use Strength or Dexterity. For monsters, the GM will use a high-difficulty skill DC of the monster’s level (see page 336).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, have we just become spoiled?
It depends.
As has been pointed out, PF2 math is mostly designed so anything you do has a 50% chance of success. Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*
As I said, it depends... on if you feel a 1.25% improvement in competence per character level is ideal or not. That is subjective.
PF1's model varied significantly in that - for instance - a 1st-level fighter had a very "swingy" chance of hitting a level-appropriate target with their single attack, because so much of their attack was based on the d20 roll. Meanwhile, a 20th-level fighter typically was almost guaranteed to hit with their primary attack roll because their BAB and ability scores plus other bonuses were very high, and typically their secondary, tertiary, and quaternary attacks would be the things that had decreasing odds of success. Characters were mathematically more competent, in a very visible and obvious way.
So again, it depends on if you feel visible competence is idea or not. Perhaps we were spoiled. Perhaps not. But this is the math behind the question.
*This summary ignore some variance for item bonuses or class abilities being used, but is not significantly inaccurate.
Or, have we just become spoiled?It depends.
As has been pointed out, PF2 math is mostly designed so anything you do has a 50% chance of success.
For good or ill, this base design assumption is proving to be a MAJOR stumbling block for a large percentage of the player base.
Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*
IMHO, this range is too narrow. But, the idea of limiting the range - and thus the "swinginess" of encounters and challenges - is a good one.
As I said, it depends... on if you feel a 1.25% improvement in competence per character level is ideal or not. That is subjective.
That is a problem. Gritty vs. Heroic are very different feels in a game. I have my preference, but I know a LOT of players DO prefer a gritty and dark game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, have we just become spoiled?It depends.
As has been pointed out, PF2 math is mostly designed so anything you do has a 50% chance of success.
For good or ill, this base design assumption is proving to be a MAJOR stumbling block for a large percentage of the player base.
Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*IMHO, this range is too narrow. But, the idea of limiting the range - and thus the "swinginess" of encounters and challenges - is a good one.
As I said, it depends... on if you feel a 1.25% improvement in competence per character level is ideal or not. That is subjective.That is a problem. Gritty vs. Heroic are very different feels in a game. I have my preference, but I know a LOT of players DO prefer a gritty and dark game.
The design assumption that is causing problems is that the absolute best person in the world, for that level, has a 60% chance of success at his specialty.
Swinginess has not gone away. Since everything is a coin-flip (at best) randomness is the overriding factor, not build.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*
This is not really true. It's sort of true within a particular level (though I don't think calling anyone 20th level an 'abject amateur' is really appropriate), but in reality even there it's subject to Ability modifiers making the real difference between someone specialized and someone not specialized more like as much as 10 or 12 points at high levels. More like 15 or 16 with items.
This actually makes things worse in some ways since the rules are predicated on the people at the very high end of those numbers having a 60-65% chance, and that makes the 'average' chances lower than 40% for many people.
But it also makes it easier to fix them in some ways, since the variance is plenty big enough most days, it's just the DCs themselves (and thus the chance of success) that are the real issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At 1st level the biggest swing is 7: 5 from stat and 2 from proficiency.
At 5th level the biggest swing is 9: 5 from stat, 3 from proficiency, and 1 from item.
At 10th level the biggest swing is 12: 6 from stat, 4 from proficiency, and 2 from item.
At 15th level the biggest swing is 16: 7 from stat, 5 from proficiency, and 4 from item.
At 20th level the biggest swing is 18: 8 from stat, 5 from proficiency, and 5 from item.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Games like Pathfinder are very vulnerable to what one might call the "potion sponge" problem. New rules are coming out all the time (it eventually gets very overwhelming, frankly). Sometimes those are cool new classes, or new fun items. However, sometimes it's a new feat, or a new item, whose description suggests that something people have been doing all along wasn't actually possible, and you have to have a specific item or a feat to be able to do it. (It's worse when it's a feat, because that's a very limited resource.) The potion sponge in Advanced Race Guide suddenly made us all think that we weren't supposed to be able to drink potions under water, even though many of us had no problem with that beforehand.Barricade, from Starfinder, is one of the worst examples of a feat gating what should just be something anybody might try. Quickly stacking a few loose objects to make some temporary cover that won't last very long is a creative action that you might expect a player in an RPG to try. But, now, it looks like you need a feat before you can do that. (What's next? Requiring a feat to suggest in the middle of combat that we could call a temporary truce?)
Perhaps at some level this is just what happens when you have a very rule-heavy game. There's a rule for so many things that if you don't...
I think you're right, RKNOP. This may be a problem with all rule-heavy games that continue to publish rule-content. I've always thought of it as the Prestidigitation Problem.
However, I think that's what they were trying to get at with the Gamemastering section, specifically table 10-2 and associated text. There were many GMs who were of a mind that unless you had rules text from a skill or from a feat that expanded an option to you, the player could not perform said act. By incorporating this language in the game mastering section, and through self-discipline, hopefully the writers can write up better player options (additive vs restrictive) in the future. Though I do see the need to beef up sub system mechanics at later dates (i.e. library research).
Honestly, my biggest want in PF2 is disciplined writing in terms of both rules grammar (because breaking play to have diagram a rules sentence is not fun) and player option creation (long chains [i.e. combat styles] tend to create one trick ponies, while over powered options will really blow up the "tight" math described in this thread).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At 1st level the biggest swing is 7: 5 from stat and 2 from proficiency.
At 5th level the biggest swing is 9: 5 from stat, 3 from proficiency, and 1 from item.
At 10th level the biggest swing is 12: 6 from stat, 4 from proficiency, and 2 from item.
At 15th level the biggest swing is 16: 7 from stat, 5 from proficiency, and 4 from item.
At 20th level the biggest swing is 18: 8 from stat, 5 from proficiency, and 5 from item.
And to put this in perspective, the swing due to levels from 1st to 20th is 19.
Jeffry the recruit, proud in his shiny new chainmail, brought the tray to the room of the elderly halfling ambassador Lady Lightleaf. Opening the door, he almost dropped it in surprise. Sir Halifax, the ambassador's bodyguard lay bleeding on the floor and Lightleaf herself was fending off an assassin with Halifax's greatsword. Before Jeffry could draw his own weapon and charge into the fray, the ambassador made a perfect strike through the assassin's heart, and the cloaked man dropped. The small, white-haired woman looked up at the recruit, the assassin's blood spotting her wrinkly cheeks, and said, "Alert the guard, boy, if you please. I might not be the only target."
After Jeffry did so, the captain assigned him to guard the ambassador. As they kept watch together for more assassins on the prowl, the ambassador having switched to a more elegant dagger, a few calming words from the ambassador got Jeffry's entire life story out of him. Then Jeffry dared ask, "You used to be a soldier or maybe a ranger?"
"No," she answered. "Not at all."
"But you handled that greatsword like a master. Sir Halifax was a master at greatsword."
"I never picked up a greatsword before. The things are darned heavy, and I am weaker than most halflings. Dagger is my style, it uses my natural agility. But I have seen many things over the decades and learned from watching."
Jeffry as a human fighter recruit (1st level), would have a +6 to hit with a regular greatsword.
Sir Halifax, as a veteran human fighter (6th level), would have a +14 to hit with his +1 greatsword.
Lady Lightleaf, as a top-rank commoner (20th level), would have a +18 to hit with Sir Halifax's +1 greatsword. She would be much more likely to make a critical hit than he would.
The strangest thing about the tight math is that Paizo built it on a very steep level-based curve. A few levels add a bigger bonus than class abilities add. Most encounters will hide the steep slope by using a foe and environment of the same level as the character.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no NPC Classes (like Commoner), and it seems like (from Doomsday Dawn) NPCs exist who are terrible at combat but have good skills, so an ambassador would likely be one of those.
PC Classes, however, all assume a certain degree of combat training, which makes pretty good sense.
Now, some more details on how NPC scholars and specialists work would be great, but they do seem to exist.
Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*This is not really true.
Please follow the pretty asterisk.
|
|
Please follow the pretty asterisk.Further, it's designed so that the difference between abject amateur and legendary hero is a range of 5 on a d20, meaning 25%. So the variance of success really is from 40% (amateur) to 65% (legendary).*This is not really true.
As a matter of fact, I did precisely that. I simply found it irrelevant to my response and thus didn't quote it. To quote it now for clarity:
*This summary ignore some variance for item bonuses or class abilities being used, but is not significantly inaccurate.
I do not mention Class Abilities in my response at all and agree with them not being relevant. I mention items, but note that the difference in bonuses is pretty big even without them, and seem to find them vastly more significant than you do.
I find the initial statement to be significantly inaccurate and thus responded to it. Nothing in the footnote changes that conclusion at all, or refutes any of the points I made, and I thus didn't originally feel it relevant to quote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jeffry as a human fighter recruit (1st level), would have a +6 to hit with a regular greatsword.
Sir Halifax, as a veteran human fighter (6th level), would have a +14 to hit with his +1 greatsword.
Lady Lightleaf, as a top-rank commoner (20th level), would have a +18 to hit with Sir Halifax's +1 greatsword. She would be much more likely to make a critical hit than he would.
I think one of the biggest pushes to get away from having every NPC have a definable class to build a full stat block around is the absurdity of the level 20 commoner. Leveling up commoners really makes no sense as they cease to be common at the point they get even a couple of levels.
As much as I had with 3.x systems use of NPC classes, they kind of made a mess of things. by trying to make table top RPGs work too much like a sandboxy videogame RPG where there is a program running the thousands of characters behind the scenes. It is a detriment to narrative story telling to force the GM to consider the Matrix of rules that might define every living thing in the world they are creating rather than giving them one or two easy charts for pulling numbers out of a hat when the story goes off script.
So to this example, it is a bad story for the hero to walk in the room and have the diplomat fighting off the assassin beat the assassin readily. Why does the diplomat need to be 20th level? Is she a character that is going to be in the story until the hero is 20th level? Can't she grow as a character as the story goes a long and start much lower?
As easy as it is to make up examples of things that make the math seem ridiculous in PF2, it seems like the vast majority of the examples (Barbarian Professors and singers as another example), are taken care of rather easily by intelligent narrative design, without which every RPG falls apart right away because without good story telling, good rules are pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to this example, it is a bad story for the hero to walk in the room and have the diplomat fighting off the assassin beat the assassin readily. Why does the diplomat need to be 20th level? Is she a character that is going to be in the story until the hero is 20th level? Can't she grow as a character as the story goes a long and start much lower?
Yes, it is a bad story because I constructed it as a one-shot example without planning the long-term plot. Lady Lightleaf is a professional diplomat rather than a peasant commoner, but Pathfinder lacks a Courtier class (it exists in some other systems), so I used a Pathfinder 1st Edition NPC class. Aristocrat is trained in greatsword, so I avoided that.
And we can have a game where 1st-level characters interact with high-level characters in Pathfinder 1st Edition. Perhaps Lady Lightleaf becomes the sponsor of a 1st-level adventuring party that handles investigations for her while she is busy with diplomacy. Perhaps the high-level characters are causing grand events to happen around them and the regular 1st-level characters are finding their own adventures in the aftermath.
Sixteenth level would make more sense than 20th level, but then weak, elderly, untrained Lady Lightleaf would have only the same +14 to hit as strong, hearty, weapon-master Sir Halifax, which is not as effective for my one-shot example.
In a better narrative than Pathfinder 2nd Edition provides, Lady Lightleaf as a sponsor would look to the young, energetic adventureres with few skills because she is not young, not energetic, and lacks those few skills personally. Pathfinder 2nd Edition lets all skills piggyback on the levels she needs to be a top-rank diplomat, and Pathfinder can reflect age only through lackluster stats and a few penalties. The narrative that would work in a novel falls apart in the game. Instead, if I built a campaign around Lady Lightleaf, I would have to sideline her as too busy rather than as too specialized.
I'd normally recommend just keeping her low level, but without feats or anything to pump up her professional skills that doesn't work out that well. The Pathfinder 2 system would pretty obviously use monster rules and just stick her with whatever she needed completely outside the normal system. That's not very satisfying if she is a recurring character and continues to fight off assassins as she may need to progress as a normal party member at some point. She also sounds like the sort of NPC that a new player or dead player would be interested in taking up later in the game, so it'd be nice to have proper stats for her.
I'd normally recommend just keeping her low level, but without feats or anything to pump up her professional skills that doesn't work out that well. The Pathfinder 2 system would pretty obviously use monster rules and just stick her with whatever she needed completely outside the normal system. That's not very satisfying if she is a recurring character and continues to fight off assassins as she may need to progress as a normal party member at some point. She also sounds like the sort of NPC that a new player or dead player would be interested in taking up later in the game, so it'd be nice to have proper stats for her.
In a home game I would just house rule a special feat for her (either a static +5 to certain skills or an additional +1/lvl in exchange for either a static penalty or penalty/lvl to actions with the attack trait). Make it a NPC only feat and be done with it. If a dead player wants to take over her, then re-balance things (while discussing it with the player) then. Not saying that there isn't issues with the skill system (because I believe there is) but I feel like NPC are not the way to draw attention to it because the DM can easily say "these are her numbers, make it so!"
[QUOTE="Deadmanwalking"As a matter of fact, I did precisely that. I simply found it irrelevant to my response and thus didn't quote it. To quote it now for clarity:
*This summary ignore some variance for item bonuses or class abilities being used, but is not significantly inaccurate.
I do not mention Class Abilities in my response at all and agree with them not being relevant. I mention items, but note that the difference in bonuses is pretty big even without them, and seem to find them vastly more significant than you do.
I find the initial statement to be significantly inaccurate and thus responded to it. Nothing in the footnote changes that conclusion at all, or refutes any of the points I made, and I thus didn't originally feel it relevant to quote.
Fair enough, I guess, sort of.
The footnote was included to demonstrate "yeah, yeah, yeah, there are a couple sources of bonuses that somewhat alter the overall range of success percentage, but they're not significant enough to substantially change the scale of the effect being discussed."
Since your examples didn't substantially change the scale of the effect being discussed, I didn't engage them either, given that as far as I can tell, they don't make a significant alteration to the summary's accuracy.
Look, in PF1 it's fairly easy to get some abilities/checks/rolls to 95% reliability or higher. A strong person with a martial class and one rank of Climb can automatically succeed at climbing a knotted rope at 1st level. PF2 is designed very, very differently, and an exhaustive list of ways to not change that very, very different design into something else don't change that.
I'd normally recommend just keeping her low level, but without feats or anything to pump up her professional skills that doesn't work out that well. The Pathfinder 2 system would pretty obviously use monster rules and just stick her with whatever she needed completely outside the normal system. That's not very satisfying if she is a recurring character and continues to fight off assassins as she may need to progress as a normal party member at some point. She also sounds like the sort of NPC that a new player or dead player would be interested in taking up later in the game, so it'd be nice to have proper stats for her.
1) Lady Lightleaf was a one-shot example. I am not planning a campaign involving her. Never.
2) On the other hand, my players do have a habit of inviting NPCs into the party. When my wife ran Rise of the Runelords, the party persuaded locals Ameiko and Hannah to accompany them on a 3rd-level quest to save the town. Ameiko was 5th level. Hannah's high Perception spotted the underwater cave that was supposed to be the secret exit point for the dungeon, which led to a comedy of inappropriate encounters as we went through the dungeon in reverse order.
In Jade Regent, I forstalled the PCs inviting Ameiko again by introducing her sister Amaya, at the same level as the party. The module assumed Ameiko would tag along but be impaired by circumstances whenever she would overshadow the party.
In Iron Gods, the party was heading off to search for the lost wizard Khonnir Baine (no spoiler--that's the plot hook). The module introduced his 13-year-old daughter Val Baine as an unstatted sympathetic character. Due to Local Ties campaign feat throwing two of the PCs into Khonnir Baine's background, Val aged to 17. I should have seen it coming, but I was suprised when the party recruited her. I statted her out as a bloodrager to accompany them. She stayed with them as a GMPC for all 17th levels, despite me offering to retire her, because they liked her.
3) Because of (2), I really need NPCs with stats that balance properly if the party invites them along. If the PCs have tight math, then the NPCs have to fit in the tight math, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really we just need rules for NPC generation. See if they follow the same rules as PCs.
We have rules for making NPCs. If it is a character exists to interact with the PCs one time in a specific context, they need exactly that many skills and abilities. Instead of rolling that character up, you can just decide an appropriate DC for that ability based upon what you feel like the general level of the character is and how good they are at it +/- and specific circumstantial bonuses that feel appropriate to the situation.
If the players start interacting with them more, and they start to become a more permanent part of the party, then they should fully obey PC rules and be built as PCs.
If they are +/- 5 levels than the party, the story is going to radically suffer as the NPC becomes a major liability to keep alive, or overwhelm the party with effectiveness, unless the GM creates a very specific set of circumstances that balance that character for the duration of their interactions with the PCs. Usually, that is not worth doing on the fly, and it is better reserved for when you, the GM, are creating your story in the first place and come up with the characters that will most likely be important to it.
Mathmuse has pointed out to us that the example given, Lady Lightleaf, is not one that he would try to build a campaign around. Why? Because the situation of her introduction is not a good long term story to build around. Nobody makes it to level 16, much less level 20 as a commoner. Probably no one makes it past level 3-4 as a commoner. There may not a pure "diplomat" class in PF1, but by the time she becomes a diplomat, Lady Lightleaf is probably advancing as an aristocrat (if she is still in the NPC classes) and could probably easily given levels in investigator or rogue or bard or cavalier.
Which is what you would do if you were building her character to be someone that is going to be a major part of the on going story and be someone who expects regularly to be attacked by assassins. The developers of Adventure paths always give central NPCs class levels for this reason.
The 20th level NPC class was a mistake in 3.x, it should probably have stopped at 10 at the highest, possibly level 5.
What PF2 does with monster is so much better than trying to build everyone up with class levels because it was never important that such and such (diliberate hypothetical) guards were level 12 warriors for the sake of the role they played in the world. They were made level 12 because that was the right level for them to be in terms of the story that the writer was trying to create and the rest was retrofitted into place to make those 12 levels sensible.
There should not legendary smiths who have done nothing but forge swords in the castle their entire life. Expert maybe, but A legendary smith earns the title by surviving through legendary circumstances.
A diplomat doesn't need to be level 20 to be the best diplomat in the kingdom. If they are level 20, with a legendary rank in diplomacy it is because they have survived many difficult, nearly impossible situations and learned how to negotiate from them. If that character is able to pick up a sword tossed to the ground and defend themselves long enough for the PCs to save the day, it does not shatter the plausibility of the story.
We have rules for making NPCs. If it is a character exists to interact with the PCs one time in a specific context, they need exactly that many skills and abilities. Instead of rolling that character up, you can just decide an appropriate DC for that ability based upon what you feel like the general level of the character is and how good they are at it +/- and specific circumstantial bonuses that feel appropriate to the situation.
If the players start interacting with them more, and they start to become a more permanent part of the party, then they should fully obey PC rules and be built as PCs.
I once made an NPC's abilities based on how she was going to interact with the party. That is what I did with the wizard's daughter Val Baine. I gave her a homebrew archetype, Savage Spellslinger, so that she could have a combination of the party's abilities yet still fit the background outlined for her.
And the first version was overpowered. Oops. I tweaked the archetype, got it balanced, and found that the character was not using her abilities as I intended, because the tactics were awkward. I fixed that. More issues arose at higher levels, and I fine-tuned the archetype more. Fine-tuning adds complexity, so I dumped entire non-core features to simplify. I like playing with design, so I found the process fun, but other people would be perplexed.
I am an amateur, so let's look at a creature designed by the professionals: Sewer Ooze, creature 1, page 103 in the Playtest Bestiary. It has extreme weaknesses for the proper alien feel of an ooze: AC 5 and Speed 10 feet. Its slow speed is balanced with an attack that slows its opponents. Its low AC is compensated by immunity to critical hits, which also feels appropriate for an ooze. Its low AC is also compensated by a strong to-hit value and extra acid damage, which also feels appropriate for an ooze. Its low AC is thirdly compensated by 40 hit points. Wait, that feels like overcompensation. The sewer ooze is an overpowered challenge for its level, unless the party can exploit the speed limitation.
Freeform balance is very difficult. Standardized builds are much easier.
In addition, my players like to exploit their opponent's weaknesses. A combative enemy will be stealthed. An elusive enemy will be bluffed. An insightful enemy will be quickly battled. In Jade Regent they outmaneuvered enemies via diplomatic methods and made them a better offer than their previous masters. My playtesters in The Lost Star neutralized four goblins by diplomacy, too, but they went for tactical brutality against Drakus and clever tactics against another pair of opponents. I cannot predict how the PCs will interact with hostile NPCs. I need NPCs that are both balanced and well-rounded. I need them to be like PCs.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with wanting to play Angel Summoner? Since this is a fantasy anyway, I like being able to really shine on something.
There is a place for a grim & gritty roleplaying game, but that's definitely not what Pathfinder is now.
The problem is the combination of those two statements, because it inevitably leads to the thinking, that people who don't want to play the Angel Summoner automatically play the game wrong.
When Paizo presented their Iconic characters back in the day, when 3.5 was still a thing, they were agressively attacked for presenting suboptimal characters, because they hadn't optimized the heck out of those characters and even dared to give them flaws (like Merisiel having a negative INT modifier). And just look at how discussions go when talking about un-optimized characters. I'm not saying suboptimized because even characters that are easily able to stand up to the challenges of an official adventure might be considered to be failures to at least part of the optimizer group. You'll never hear, "oh that's another style of gaming that just happens to not be mine". It's basically "You're playing the game wrong!" every time. (and to be fair, the other side does the very same, which is equally stupid).
The truth is that D&D 3.5 (and by extension PF 1) included both styles of play the way it was built. You could easily have a game that was a bit more grim and gritty based on the way you built your characters and how much optimizing you would do. At the same time it was very easy to let your characters shine with Power if you wanted to do so. Not sure what Pf 2 is doing at that front as I kinda stopped caring for the playtest due to all the nice people participating in it, but while I personally prefer the grim and gritty approach very much over the Angel Summoner way (especially given that Golarion is a very grim and gritty place in my mind), I don't want to take other players' game away.
But to be perfectly honest, if Pathfinder loses those players that would tell me all the time that I'm playing the game wrong and rather should go looking for another system? I won't miss them for a second.
|
My stance on the math is that every DC should be based on the assumption that the character began with a 16 in the relevant skill, and is trained, and should never take magic into account. Magic should make things easier, not be required for competency.Yes, this is why some like me would like extra weapon damage dice to come from your character, not your magic item.
Agreed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'd really like if for optimized characters to have about a 75% chance of success, 50/55% just feels to low for someone has has "specialized" at doing something.
I feel non specialized character should probably sit at the 50% range of success.
And when it comes to skill success, increasing proficiency levels and skill feats should open up a lot more options with those skills then those who don't have them. Otherwise only a 25% increase over a non-specialist can feel like it wasn't worth the investment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess what I really want is for a competent character that is not optimized to the gills to have a reasonable chance of contributing meaningfully to an adventuring party. I think the ABCD character creation method is a good start, but basing all DCs on the assumption of an optimized character is faulty. 16 should be the base, not 18.
I guess what I really want is for a competent character that is not optimized to the gills to have a reasonable chance of contributing meaningfully to an adventuring party. I think the ABCD character creation method is a good start, but basing all DCs on the assumption of an optimized character is faulty. 16 should be the base, not 18.
Do keep in mind that 16 vs 18 is only a 5% difference in the result. Yes there is a difference, but that difference is small all the way throughout the characters existence. 55% is the minimum variability of the die.
There are things that are impactful on your character stats, but only starting at a 16 is completely viable.
What's that with this Angel Summoner reference? Is this something American that I don't get because I'm European?
What's that with this Angel Summoner reference? Is this something American that I don't get because I'm European?
They're referring to this, a comedy sketch.
Ah thanks.
What's that with this Angel Summoner reference? Is this something American that I don't get because I'm European?They're referring to this, a comedy sketch.
That was awesome!
Well I get the gist, but isn't comedy supposed to be funny?
Sorry to disappoint, I own no such shirt, and the only beer I drink is, of course, Kölsch. :-)
OK, so "tight math" I understand as distinct from particular success %,
for example it seems Paizo is planning adjustments to Skill DCs + maybe monter numbers, but range in PC modifiers is still "tight".
Relatedly, I'm curious if anybody has compared playtesting PCs vs Class-built NPCs to PC vs Monsters?
That might remove some current miscalculation of DCs, with both sides using same math,
and simply have CR/APL+X based on class level differnces and size of PC/NPC group....
...Leaving more clearly the base assumptions of success rate etc. ....???