A Dissenting View on 'Lean Math' Complaints.


Playing the Game

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, playing through part 3 as a level 7 paladin.

I decided 'I will be a mountain. None shall assail me!' and I focused on defenses. Heavy armor, heavy shield, put the spirit in the shield, of course. I went with the lion shield, cause why not? It's like a durable one with an extra option.

I also have a hammer, and I used ancestries to be good at that dang hammer.

Fight! I'm accurate with the hammer. I keep my shield up. I'm blocking attacks at my friends, shield blocking for myself. I block some attacks entirely, those feel super great.

Oh no, my shield is dented, what will I do?! Oh yeah, master crafter, quick repair, give me literally a minute. Alright, back in working order.

The GM was annoyed at how hard I was to hit.

There was a sorcerer next to me. He was much easier to hit. Didn't stop me from thrusting my shield in the way 1/rd, but he was much easier to hit.

Just saying, for all the talk, there is a difference between 'guy who specialized in a thing' and 'guy who did not' in actual play.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Attack rolls tend to be rolled against the PCs a lot of times over the course of the game, whereas you might only roll a handful of truly crucial skill checks per session. Thus, with the larger sample size, it's often easier to see the true meaning of the numerical gap between two characters via their disparate AC (as you did), whereas a lot of the examples you'll see of the time the guy who wasn't good at the check rolled really high are talking about skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Attack rolls tend to be rolled against the PCs a lot of times over the course of the game, whereas you might only roll a handful of truly crucial skill checks per session. Thus, with the larger sample size, it's often easier to see the true meaning of the numerical gap between two characters via their disparate AC (as you did), whereas a lot of the examples you'll see of the time the guy who wasn't good at the check rolled really high are talking about skills.

Isn't this a case for more disparate skill modifiers then?


Mekkis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Attack rolls tend to be rolled against the PCs a lot of times over the course of the game, whereas you might only roll a handful of truly crucial skill checks per session. Thus, with the larger sample size, it's often easier to see the true meaning of the numerical gap between two characters via their disparate AC (as you did), whereas a lot of the examples you'll see of the time the guy who wasn't good at the check rolled really high are talking about skills.
Isn't this a case for more disparate skill modifiers then?

But then if you start to increase the range of skill modifier increases you throw out a lot of balance being built around skill vs save and increase the range of skill vs skill and mess with class DC vs skill abilities etc.

IMO, the easily apparent difference in character skill competence needs lie in the proficiency gates being used more often, just just how they hit DCs. We need to proficiency gate more things, so its not just that that wall is DC17 athletics, its DC17(Trained), and navigating those royal social graces is a DC19(Expert) society check. Etc.

That way we can get away with some lower DCs ie Low DCs, but only the character of the required proficiency will do anything but "fail" and the question for the less than adequately trained will just fail or crit fail.


Zman0 wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Attack rolls tend to be rolled against the PCs a lot of times over the course of the game, whereas you might only roll a handful of truly crucial skill checks per session. Thus, with the larger sample size, it's often easier to see the true meaning of the numerical gap between two characters via their disparate AC (as you did), whereas a lot of the examples you'll see of the time the guy who wasn't good at the check rolled really high are talking about skills.
Isn't this a case for more disparate skill modifiers then?

But then if you start to increase the range of skill modifier increases you throw out a lot of balance being built around skill vs save and increase the range of skill vs skill and mess with class DC vs skill abilities etc.

IMO, the easily apparent difference in character skill competence needs lie in the proficiency gates being used more often, just just how they hit DCs. We need to proficiency gate more things, so its not just that that wall is DC17 athletics, its DC17(Trained), and navigating those royal social graces is a DC19(Expert) society check. Etc.

That way we can get away with some lower DCs ie Low DCs, but only the character of the required proficiency will do anything but "fail" and the question for the less than adequately trained will just fail or crit fail.

That is the last thing we need. That means that people without the appropriate skill might as well stay home. Adventures will grind to a halt because someone did not have the right skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
Zman0 wrote:
Mekkis wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Attack rolls tend to be rolled against the PCs a lot of times over the course of the game, whereas you might only roll a handful of truly crucial skill checks per session. Thus, with the larger sample size, it's often easier to see the true meaning of the numerical gap between two characters via their disparate AC (as you did), whereas a lot of the examples you'll see of the time the guy who wasn't good at the check rolled really high are talking about skills.
Isn't this a case for more disparate skill modifiers then?

But then if you start to increase the range of skill modifier increases you throw out a lot of balance being built around skill vs save and increase the range of skill vs skill and mess with class DC vs skill abilities etc.

IMO, the easily apparent difference in character skill competence needs lie in the proficiency gates being used more often, just just how they hit DCs. We need to proficiency gate more things, so its not just that that wall is DC17 athletics, its DC17(Trained), and navigating those royal social graces is a DC19(Expert) society check. Etc.

That way we can get away with some lower DCs ie Low DCs, but only the character of the required proficiency will do anything but "fail" and the question for the less than adequately trained will just fail or crit fail.

That is the last thing we need. That means that people without the appropriate skill might as well stay home. Adventures will grind to a halt because someone did not have the right skill.

Only if the adventure is poorly constructed and leaves only one way to bypass an optacle. Hinging the entire progress of an adventure in a single skill check is poor form, and no different that all the characters failing their roll etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Degrees of success. Just make it take longer/have more complications on a failure than on a success. This works in PF1 as well (many skills have the "for every 5 points", and it's easy enough to extrapolate to other checks).


sherlock1701 wrote:
Degrees of success. Just make it take longer/have more complications on a failure than on a success. This works in PF1 as well (many skills have the "for every 5 points", and it's easy enough to extrapolate to other checks).

I love using degrees of success. Even better, you can do proficiency gated degrees of success. Either succeeded without the desired proficiency is just a success, while succeeding on the same check with the correct proficiency provides something extra.

It kinds of stomps on the toes of critically succeeding, but maybe you shouldn't be able to critically succeed if you don't have the proper proficiency.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / A Dissenting View on 'Lean Math' Complaints. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game