| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the things I don’t like the look of in PF2 (full disclosure - I’m not playing it, just reading and listening to the odd twitch stream).
My biggest gripe would be removed, I suspect, if it didn’t apply to an untrained skill. Basically, I want to be able to suck at something (in a “cant swim, could drown in a deep bath” kind of level, not just a “probably fail level appropriate challenges” level).
The +1/tier structure seems really insignificant to me also, but I suspect that concern would go away with a little bit of actually playing the game - no doubt requiring expert/master proficiency for some tasks will provide big enough incentive beyond the +1/+2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the things I don’t like the look of in PF2 (full disclosure - I’m not playing it, just reading and listening to the odd twitch stream).
My biggest gripe would be removed, I suspect, if it didn’t apply to an untrained skill. Basically, I want to be able to suck at something (in a “cant swim, could drown in a deep bath” kind of level, not just a “probably fail level appropriate challenges” level).
The +1/tier structure seems really insignificant to me also, but I suspect that concern would go away with a little bit of actually playing the game - no doubt requiring expert/master proficiency for some tasks will provide big enough incentive beyond the +1/+2.
I agree 100%.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.
Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada.
Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4).
By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman.
People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way.
Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim?
My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10.
People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned to swim on the spot by being thrown in the water. I think people panic to much and flail swimming seemed easy enough to learn to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.
Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops. Those would be the most incredible people you ever met in real life. You know those people. The ones who have two degrees, know 5 languages, work out 2 hours a day, have traveled the world, never get sick and yada yada.
Now even THESE people would only have a +3 or +4 in an untrained skill with huge natural ability modifiers (+3 or +4).
By the time a character is lvl 10 they aren't by any means normal. They are practically super human. They are Captain America or Black Widow. They are Hawkeye or Ironman.
People seem to try and equate regular people into a fantasy game with fantasy characters and it just doesn't work that way.
Like I've heard people mention the desert witch. She's lvl 10 and she's only lived in the desert. She has 10 strength. So how does she have +6 to Athletics, so her Swim is +6. How can that be? She's never even seen a large enough body if water to swim in. How can she know how to swim?
My argument is how did she get to lvl 10 and only live in a desert? What has she experienced, overcome, and learned that made her practically superhuman? Cause I guarantee that just practicing her spells in the desert isn't going to get her to level 10 by any means. It just doesn't make sense. She would just die an old lady of MAYBE level 2 or 3. Which would still make her very strong to regular people but not near the sheer awesomeness that is lvl 10.
People trying to argue that someone who could literally one arm climb mountain, be able fall 50 feet taking no damage, or survive on a different plane of existence but can't swim is crazy to me.
I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.
I’m not arguing anything - I’m saying I don’t like it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I learned to swim on the spot by being thrown in the water. I think people panic to much and flail swimming seemed easy enough to learn to me.
Skill with music then. I’d like to slay dragons without developing perfect pitch (or mastering obscure knots, learning to cook, getting great at calligraphy....).
The actual skill doesn’t matter - I’d just like the option of being bad at something and staying bad at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.I’m not...
I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.
For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.I’m not...
I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.
For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?
There's a lot of roles from fiction you can't create if you're not allowed to be truly bad at things at high levels - you can't make a legendary warrior who is offputting to the average person, because they'll have huge social skills compared to level 0-1 people. You can't make a powerful but oblivious wizard, because their Perception will be enormous by any normal measure.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.
I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.I’m not...
It seems a little odd to come into a thread that isn’t making an argument to discuss other people’s use of it elsewhere, but okay. Hopefully you can understand why I thought you were speaking to me?
For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?
I’d like to play a nonnormal person with a weakness.
There’s no real world analogue to a level twenty wizard, so there’s no “expected” way such a character should be. To me, a knight in shining armor of legendary abilities won’t necessarily be very good at sneaking around. A wise and powerful wizard may still struggle to climb a cliff.
I get my inspiration from fantasy novels really - it doesn’t seem to me to be a regular trope of fantasy novels that as the heroes advance through the story and grow into their powers they also begin outclassing normal people at normal things (they don’t spontaneously become blacksmiths and get the ability to create clothes made by ordinary tailors).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of roles from fiction you can't create if you're not allowed to be truly bad at things at high levels - you can't make a legendary warrior who is offputting to the average person, because they'll have huge social skills compared to level 0-1 people. You can't make a powerful but oblivious wizard, because their Perception will be enormous by any normal measure.
I promise you I can remember that level twenty people in PF2 are not normal and that they can do everything. It’s not that hard.I’m not...
I wasn't saying you were arguing I was saying people in general.
For the record why is that you don't like it? If you can agree that higher level characters aren't normal then why is it a problem that they have all around good skills?
Social skills is an excellent illustration. I’d like everyone to please pretend that’s the example I used.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question from me as I don't fully understand the logic behind the +1 / level mechanic.
Is it supposed to ...
a) Give all characters some chance of success at everything as they level up? For example, I have a 9th level lion shaman druid with a Chr of 8 who has never put any levels in Diplomacy. I play him as inarticulate, tongue-tied, and generally bad at interactions with people. In PF1e, he has a Diplomacy of -1. In PF2e, he would have a diplomacy of 6 (1 per level, -1 for 8 Chr, and -2 for untrained), correct?
b) Limit crazy high skills, etc. which come from optimization and stacking all one's feats, archetype features, etc. on one or two things. The other night I played with a guy who has put together an overrun build that has a +20-something to overrun attempts at 6th level.
c) Both - if so, does it appear as if goal a) or goal b) are more important to the PF2e design team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The solution is roleplaying. If you want to play a Wizard who is level 10 and socially inept, play him as socially inept. The fact that he's got better Diplomacy than a level 5 character is only relevant if you want it to be relevant. Perhaps his high Diplomacy simply represents the fact that as annoying as he is, tales of his deeds generate good will. Or he has a palpable aura of strength and competence that makes it easier for onlookers to ignore the stupid things he's saying and see the message beneath.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The solution is roleplaying. If you want to play a Wizard who is level 10 and socially inept, play him as socially inept. The fact that he's got better Diplomacy than a level 5 character is only relevant if you want it to be relevant. Perhaps his high Diplomacy simply represents the fact that as annoying as he is, tales of his deeds generate good will. Or he has a palpable aura of strength and competence that makes it easier for onlookers to ignore the stupid things he's saying and see the message beneath.
My preference would be for me to be able to play someone who was brilliant at lots of things and bad at some other things - I'd like the rules to let me do that.
Sure, I can ignore the rules (and pretend that my PC who has relatively high skills compared to the population is just bad at some of them). That's probably what I'd do if I were to play PF2 as it currently stands. However, this is a playtest and the rules aren't set in stone yet, so I'm making my preferences known in case the designers can find a way to achieve what they're trying to achieve and still allow the kind of high level play I'm looking for to work too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question from me as I don't fully understand the logic behind the +1 / level mechanic.
Is it supposed to ...
a) Give all characters some chance of success at everything as they level up? For example, I have a 9th level lion shaman druid with a Chr of 8 who has never put any levels in Diplomacy. I play him as inarticulate, tongue-tied, and generally bad at interactions with people. In PF1e, he has a Diplomacy of -1. In PF2e, he would have a diplomacy of 6 (1 per level, -1 for 8 Chr, and -2 for untrained), correct?
b) Limit crazy high skills, etc. which come from optimization and stacking all one's feats, archetype features, etc. on one or two things. The other night I played with a guy who has put together an overrun build that has a +20-something to overrun attempts at 6th level.
c) Both - if so, does it appear as if goal a) or goal b) are more important to the PF2e design team.
I think the main point is to make level a really, really significant statistic.
It means an orc is never going to hurt a level ten character. An ogre is just not a threat to a level twenty. The lowly, local gang is never going to keep a high level thief out of their stash...There's other ways to do it, but an across-the-board increase in power with level bakes that in easily.
A second effect is that luck plays a larger part early in a PC’s career than it does in later parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.
The Midkemia stories are my go-to for what I'm looking to portray (I think that's part of why I generally prefer systems with a definite caster-martial discrepancy).
Pug goes from kitchenhand to demigod, pretty much. I don't get the feeling he ends up being a brilliant rockclimber though. I agree that he's not the same kind of character in Magician as he is in Magician's End - his focus and scope of action grows exponentially throughout the books. I don't think that has to flow through to everything though. That's the bit I don't like.
(In case the above was directed to me, I don't think a level four character will behave the same as a level fifteen).
So it's largely a conflict between "certain high level scenarios aborted and unable to play due to individual liabilities" VS "certain abilities don't make sense to auto-scale", right?
Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not. Like how in GURPS you had "very hard" skills impossible to roll at all if you weren't invested. Actually, 3.0 ~ PF1 does have something similar in skills either allowing untrained checks or not (the latter usually including knowledge skills and other academic stuff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mostly stop at level 10. I like to play Heros *not* SUPER-Heros!
At level 15-20 you are travelling planes, maybe attacking demi-gods or something. You teleport around the world, own several Castles, whatever. I just find it lame.
By level 10 you've still only just overcome the -4 and likely low stats of a non trained skill. Basically the PF2E does not really scale very well over level10 for what you are looking for.
For me it's not too much of an issue, since I don't enjoy the super hero playstyle anyway. However, on a more positive note for you one of the game designers said in a twitch they could release a supplement which strips out the level scaling.
The designers are aware of the issue. In the twich he said something along the lines of, do you want to be a hero who is still threatened by a mob of 8 bandits (heroic) or do you want to be so powerful that a mob of 8 represents no threat at all (super hero).
This isn’t quite addressing what I’m looking for. I want to be bad at some things, even though the mob of eight bandits isn’t a threat to me any more.
For me, the +1/level as it applies to combat is neither here nor there (I don’t have a strong view as to whether low level enemies should remain a threat throughout a campaign - I don’t care one way or the other). Where it doesn’t suit me is in out-of-combat interactions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not.
This is the whole point of having proficiency levels in PF 2 instead of just telling you your bonus. PF2 is designed to allow the GM to take proficiency into account and not allow players to attempt to do things with skills that feel outside of what should be possible with their level of proficiency.
A good GM can more easily use this system to shape many different stories about what success and failure look like than the PF1 system that basically had only one gate (trained or not) and had to make all things meant to be challenging accomplishable only by the most focused of characters. With tiers of proficiency, it becomes really easy to let untrained success at a diplomacy check be grudgingly getting the town sheriff to interview the prisoner, but under direct supervision and not allowing any spell casting to "muck up the interrogation," to an expert character convincing the sheriff to let them have the a few minutes alone to talk to the prisoner, because the expert character is trained enough to have some ideas about why a sheriff could be convinced that such a plan is necessary.
In PF1, you would pretty much have to create a table of how much the players would have to exceed the DC to have more than the most basic successes, and if you had a party with enough of a focus in diplomacy, or worse, the ability to discretely cast the spell sow thought on the lower level guard, you might as well not bother trying to set DCs and make skill challenges at all because system mastery + casters would allow you to bypass anything remotely related to a skill check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's largely a conflict between "certain high level scenarios aborted and unable to play due to individual liabilities" VS "certain abilities don't make sense to auto-scale", right?
Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not. Like how in GURPS you had "very hard" skills impossible to roll at all if you weren't invested. Actually, 3.0 ~ PF1 does have something similar in skills either allowing untrained checks or not (the latter usually including knowledge skills and other academic stuff).
I’m not sure it’ll be possible to solve in that way (since my preferences for which skills I’d like the ability to suck at may not match someone else’s. In fact, even for me it’s not always the same thing I’d like to have as a weakness.
I’m not making a “realism” argument (I don’t think there’s a “should” when it comes to high level PCs).
I’m stating a preference and requesting some flexibility of playstyle at high levels.
It’s not that I think some things don’t make sense to autoscale, I just object to the inability to opt out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not.This is the whole point of having proficiency levels in PF 2 instead of just telling you your bonus. PF2 is designed to allow the GM to take proficiency into account and not allow players to attempt to do things with skills that feel outside of what should be possible with their level of proficiency.
A good GM can more easily use this system to shape many different stories about what success and failure look like than the PF1 system that basically had only one gate (trained or not) and had to make all things meant to be challenging accomplishable only by the most focused of characters. With tiers of proficiency, it becomes really easy to let untrained success at a diplomacy check be grudgingly getting the town sheriff to interview the prisoner, but under direct supervision and not allowing any spell casting to "muck up the interrogation," to an expert character convincing the sheriff to let them have the a few minutes alone to talk to the prisoner, because the expert character is trained enough to have some ideas about why a sheriff could be convinced that such a plan is necessary.
In PF1, you would pretty much have to create a table of how much the players would have to exceed the DC to have more than the most basic successes, and if you had a party with enough of a focus in diplomacy, or worse, the ability to discretely cast the spell sow thought on the lower level guard, you might as well not bother trying to set DCs and make skill challenges at all because system mastery + casters would allow you to bypass anything remotely related to a skill check.
Yeah, I do see the UTEML structure as a plus for this reason. I just wish the U didn’t progress along the same curve as those who are putting effort into it.
I’d like to be able to have a blind spot/weakness.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the things I don’t like the look of in PF2 (full disclosure - I’m not playing it, just reading and listening to the odd twitch stream).
My biggest gripe would be removed, I suspect, if it didn’t apply to an untrained skill. Basically, I want to be able to suck at something (in a “cant swim, could drown in a deep bath” kind of level, not just a “probably fail level appropriate challenges” level).
The +1/tier structure seems really insignificant to me also, but I suspect that concern would go away with a little bit of actually playing the game - no doubt requiring expert/master proficiency for some tasks will provide big enough incentive beyond the +1/+2.
My wife likes to roleplay the weaknesses of her characters. The dwarf gunslinger has low Charisma and never invested in social skills, and she does not deal well with people other than her friends. The halfling rogue had high Intelligence but seldom invested in Knowledge skills (It was a high-fantasy campaign where everyone had strong stats), and she was never interested in book-learning.
My objection to the +1/level is the level-appropriate challenges. +1 is a lot, and the challenges ramp up ridiculously quickly. The playtest rulebook says on page 336, "For instance, when the PCs’ level is relatively low, they might be faced with climbing a stone wall with handholds, but later in the campaign they should encounter tougher obstacles, like a smooth iron wall." An iron wall? I presume that that is for the characters who can easily climb a smooth stone wall. Is a polished glass wall next?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife likes to roleplay the weaknesses of her characters. The dwarf gunslinger has low Charisma and never invested in social skills, and she does not deal well with people other than her friends. The halfling rogue had high Intelligence but seldom invested in Knowledge skills (It was a high-fantasy campaign where everyone had strong stats), and she was never interested in book-learning.This is one of the things I don’t like the look of in PF2 (full disclosure - I’m not playing it, just reading and listening to the odd twitch stream).
My biggest gripe would be removed, I suspect, if it didn’t apply to an untrained skill. Basically, I want to be able to suck at something (in a “cant swim, could drown in a deep bath” kind of level, not just a “probably fail level appropriate challenges” level).
The +1/tier structure seems really insignificant to me also, but I suspect that concern would go away with a little bit of actually playing the game - no doubt requiring expert/master proficiency for some tasks will provide big enough incentive beyond the +1/+2.
Me too. It was considerations of past PCs that really drove home to me what my objection is (hence this thread).
Often my PCs personalities are defined more by what they’re bad at than where they shine. This approach isn’t served well by including +1/level.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with PF1/D&D 3.x is that it has skill points. And you never have enough of them.
Why? Because to stay on the treadmill, you have to put ALL YOUR POINTS into the skills you want to be relevant in. Just relevant, not good. 'Good' requires investing feats. Or being a caster, but that is a problem they are getting at.
However, that means that all your skill points are spoken for, and even putting so much as 1 skill point into a knowledge skill for flavour (mostly being able to roll for more then a 10 and actually know something that isn't 'common knowledge') is basically 'gimping' you character elsewhere. /hyperbole.
The nice thing about the proficiency system is that you get to decide where you want to be BETTER, as automatic progression ensures you are always at least relevant with everything else. Yes, that means you can no longer be mechanically abysmal in anything. But that 10th level desert witch can still have a mental block - 'Oh gods, I can't swim, I never saw that much water in my life, please don't make me go in there'. You know, RP that at the very least the Character believes themselves to be incompetent.
What you do once she falls overboard? Well... I guess you need to talk to your fellow players. If she panics, and thus intentionally fails her rolls so to speak, so the guy with actual proficiency in swim has to jump after her to save her (and be awesome in the process), this is a different thing from her just rolling... and succeeding 'Uh... seems like I actually can swim after all...'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there should be two kinds of skills that differ like whether you add anything at all if untrained or not.This is the whole point of having proficiency levels in PF 2 instead of just telling you your bonus. PF2 is designed to allow the GM to take proficiency into account and not allow players to attempt to do things with skills that feel outside of what should be possible with their level of proficiency.
A good GM can more easily use this system to shape many different stories about what success and failure look like than the PF1 system that basically had only one gate (trained or not) and had to make all things meant to be challenging accomplishable only by the most focused of characters. With tiers of proficiency, it becomes really easy to let untrained success at a diplomacy check be grudgingly getting the town sheriff to interview the prisoner, but under direct supervision and not allowing any spell casting to "muck up the interrogation," to an expert character convincing the sheriff to let them have the a few minutes alone to talk to the prisoner, because the expert character is trained enough to have some ideas about why a sheriff could be convinced that such a plan is necessary.
In PF1, you would pretty much have to create a table of how much the players would have to exceed the DC to have more than the most basic successes, and if you had a party with enough of a focus in diplomacy, or worse, the ability to discretely cast the spell sow thought on the lower level guard, you might as well not bother trying to set DCs and make skill challenges at all because system mastery + casters would allow you to bypass anything remotely related to a skill check.
Yeah, I do see the UTEML structure as a plus for this reason. I just wish the U didn’t progress along the same curve as those who are putting effort into it.
I’d like to be able to have a blind spot/weakness.
I understand your point but the skill rank matters as well. For hazards (traps) for instance, it does not suffice to just have a high skill bonus. It does not matter if you are untrained +10 if the DC15 hazard demands you to be trained to overcome it.
You just have to make a certain skill rank a prerequisite for a skill check to succeed and even the highest untrained skill bonus won't help you there.
Understood. My objection isn’t to level appropriate challenges and I like this added nuance of the PF2 skill system.
My objection is that some things (nearly everything the PCs had to do in their first adventure, for example) automatically become trivial for everyone as the campaign progresses. I’d like the ability to portray a character who never learns to swim, or tie complicated knots, or climb trees, or charm innkeepers, or...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with PF1/D&D 3.x is that it has skill points. And you never have enough of them.
Why? Because to stay on the treadmill, you have to put ALL YOUR POINTS into the skills you want to be relevant in. Just relevant, not good. 'Good' requires investing feats. Or being a caster, but that is a problem they are getting at.
However, that means that all your skill points are spoken for, and even putting so much as 1 skill point into a knowledge skill for flavour (mostly being able to roll for more then a 10 and actually know something that isn't 'common knowledge') is basically 'gimping' you character elsewhere. /hyperbole.
The nice thing about the proficiency system is that you get to decide where you want to be BETTER, as automatic progression ensures you are always at least relevant with everything else. Yes, that means you can no longer be mechanically abysmal in anything. But that 10th level desert witch can still have a mental block - 'Oh gods, I can't swim, I never saw that much water in my life, please don't make me go in there'. You know, RP that at the very least the Character believes themselves to be incompetent.
What you do once she falls overboard? Well... I guess you need to talk to your fellow players. If she panics, and thus intentionally fails her rolls so to speak, so the guy with actual proficiency in swim has to jump after her to save her (and be awesome in the process), this is a different thing from her just rolling... and succeeding 'Uh... seems like I actually can swim after all...'.
I’m hoping the designers can find a way to broaden the play styles PF2 supports. I like my PCs to retain weak points throughout their careers.
I appreciate that everyone doesn’t want to have that style, nonetheless it’s a major sticking point to me and maybe the boffins at Paizo will be able to solve the problems they’re trying to solve without making me lose interest in my PCs as they develop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance:
Poisened Lock, a level 1 hazard has the following entry:Disable: Thievery DC 18 (trained) on the spring mechanism
If you have Joe the Fighter level 20 with DEX 14 he will have an untrained skill bonus of +18 (+20 level -4 untrained +2 DEX).
But will Joe succeed here? Nope, because he has to be trained in thievery to disable this simple hazard 1 lock. You see, even the highest leveled char cannot succeed no matter his bonus in the skill check if the prerequesite is to be trained in this very skill.
All the while a level 1 rogue might disable this lock because he is trained in Trickery.
This is what I love most about the new skill system, you can still gate the succeed behind a skill rank, so being untrained in a skill does matter tremendously. Let yourself not be discouraged by petential high skill bonus. Always see them in context to the skill rank.
I understand. I like the UTEML structure too. It doesn’t solve the problem I’m alluding to here unless they vastly increase the amount of “trained” prerequisites in tasks.
I’m hoping the designers can find a way to broaden the play styles PF2 supports. I like my PCs to retain weak points throughout their careers.
I appreciate that everyone doesn’t want to have that style, nonetheless it’s a major sticking point to me and maybe the boffins at Paizo will be able to solve the problems they’re trying to solve without making me lose interest in my PCs as they develop.
But that's the thing. You CAN retain weak points, even though you are basically faking it.
It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.
But to have the skill, in theory, and then deciding not to use it for RP reasons? That's different. That is voluntary on your part and doesn't cost anybody else a thing. Unless we talk spending resources to save the PC in question from their self-imposed peril. Again, ask your fellow players if they applaud the dedication to RP or hate the drama queen.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m hoping the designers can find a way to broaden the play styles PF2 supports. I like my PCs to retain weak points throughout their careers.
I appreciate that everyone doesn’t want to have that style, nonetheless it’s a major sticking point to me and maybe the boffins at Paizo will be able to solve the problems they’re trying to solve without making me lose interest in my PCs as they develop.
But that's the thing. You CAN retain weak points, even though you are basically faking it.
It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.
But to have the skill, in theory, and then deciding not to use it for RP reasons? That's different. That is voluntary on your part and doesn't cost anybody else a thing. Unless we talk spending resources to save the PC in question from their self-imposed peril. Again, ask your fellow players if they applaud the dedication to RP or hate the drama queen.
I’m hoping Mark, Logan, Stephen and Jason might be able to come up with a way where I don’t have to fake it.
Edit:did I forget someone? It feels like there should be more names there...
I can always take a ruleset and ignore the bits that don’t fit for me. Maybe they’ll have a way to make that unnecessary. It’s possible they didn’t consider “can I make my PC suck at something?” as the kind of question some players routinely ask. If there’s a lot of people who share my tastes, maybe it’s worth trying to enable that as an option too.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with PF1/D&D 3.x is that it has skill points. And you never have enough of them.
Why? Because to stay on the treadmill, you have to put ALL YOUR POINTS into the skills you want to be relevant in. Just relevant, not good. 'Good' requires investing feats. Or being a caster, but that is a problem they are getting at.
I guess this is where I part company from many of the folks who like PF2e in its current form. I think that being forced to make decisions on what to prioritize and what not to should be an important part of character creation. If you choose to play a cleric with a low intelligence score, then you're going to be hurting for skill points. However, you are presumably getting other benefits, abilities, etc. Characters with strengths AND weaknesses are far more interesting to me than those who are more-or-less good at everything.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.
Why, and what does "fair" have to do with it? I have an 11th level sorcerer, the Contessa Eyre'hed, and there is no reason what so ever for her to have survival skills. That's for servants and the other "little people." On the other hand, she has a crazy high Diplomacy score, particularly when interacting with aristocrats, nobles, and other "individuals of quality."
My characters do not come from Lake Wobegon and are not above average at everything, and I think that's a good thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand, I am not a fan of the +Level deal (removed it in SWSE and 4th Ed), so, I simply omit it, and adjust where the other bonuses (item and potency runes) come from.
Based on Trained proficiency and Level.Trained Proficiency Bonus (Extra Weapon Damage Dice) by Level: Armour Class, Weapon Attacks, Saving Throws, Skills.
Level
3-4: +1 (+1 weapon damage dice)
5-8: +2 (+2 weapon damage dice)
9-12: +3 (+3 weapon damage dice)
13-16: +4 (+4 weapon damage dice)
17-20: +5 (+5 weapon damage dice)
Please Vic, you have been spamming this little table everyone lately. As much as I consider it a viable solution for a problem I consider one of the biggest of this playtest, it's off-topic here.
The matter of +1/level has been discussed a lot of times already. The arguments are more or less always the same.
I like that it's quite easy to remove that rule, or tone it down, so every group can have the game it likes.
It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.Why, and what does "fair" have to do with it? I have an 11th level sorcerer, the Contessa Eyre'hed, and there is no reason what so ever for her to have survival skills. That's for servants and the other "little people." On the other hand, she has a crazy high Diplomacy score, particularly when interacting with aristocrats, nobles, and other "individuals of quality."
My characters do not come from Lake Wobegon and are not above average at everything, and I think that's a good thing.
You misunderstand. The noble lady not bothering with 'commoner skills' is befitting her character.
The adventurer who, after years of travelling the wilderness is no better at survival then when he started out, because 'mechanically' he felt he could not spare skill points to actually reflect that experience in the numbers on the sheet, on the other hand, can either eat crow and suck it, or just complain and whine about it until the GM caves and tosses him a bone. Which is unfair to those players who actually did bite the bullet and put points in survival, for whatever reason, and are now weaker elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its like TTRPGs are destined to have crappy skill systems.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question is Do you guys think that the reason none of the designers ever discuss the numerous objections to +1/lvl is that they have no intention of changing it?
It’s weird how silent they are on an issue so many people call a dealbreaker for them.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The solution is roleplaying. If you want to play a Wizard who is level 10 and socially inept, play him as socially inept. The fact that he's got better Diplomacy than a level 5 character is only relevant if you want it to be relevant. Perhaps his high Diplomacy simply represents the fact that as annoying as he is, tales of his deeds generate good will. Or he has a palpable aura of strength and competence that makes it easier for onlookers to ignore the stupid things he's saying and see the message beneath.
Telling some to ignore mechanics that don't work right is not a defense of mechanics that don't work right.
It is a known issue.
It can be fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest gripe would be removed, I suspect, if it didn’t apply to an untrained skill. Basically, I want to be able to suck at something (in a “cant swim, could drown in a deep bath” kind of level, not just a “probably fail level appropriate challenges” level).
Speaking as a clear anti +level guy, I do think that skills is the easiest area to house rule away.
It is combat past ~level 5 that truly kills it for me.
Now, honestly, houseruling it for skills is easy, but it is a huge departure from everything else "official". So it would still be a pain and not worth it compared to other options on the market. But it can be done.
But look at the bestiary. Go through and see what % of all combat scores is represented by the level of the monster. The reasonable and expected progression is completely overwhelmed by the math fudge factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For instance:
Poisened Lock, a level 1 hazard has the following entry:Disable: Thievery DC 18 (trained) on the spring mechanism
If you have Joe the Fighter level 20 with DEX 14 he will have an untrained skill bonus of +18 (+20 level -4 untrained +2 DEX).
But will Joe succeed here? Nope, because he has to be trained in thievery to disable this simple hazard 1 lock. You see, even the highest leveled char cannot succeed no matter his bonus in the skill check if the prerequesite is to be trained in this very skill. So this situation is not trivial to this mighty warrior at all.
All the while a level 1 rogue might disable this lock because he is trained in Thievery.
This is what I love most about the new skill system, you can still gate the succeed behind a skill rank, so being untrained in a skill does matter tremendously. Let yourself not be discouraged by petential high skill bonus. Always see them in context to the skill rank.
If this was applied a lot more liberally it would help significantly with skills.
(Other issues would remain). But the things which are wide open dominate the field. And this is praised by the pro + level side.Sneaking, climbing, acrobatics, diplomacy, it goes on and on.
As an aside, I had a debate a few week ago with someone here that complained that skill point dumping in 1E was a problem because it suspended disbelief. I proposed that a simple house rule solved that problem. I also pointed out that your Joe the fighter could become trained and suddenly go from being unable to try to a super mater locksmith with a snap of his fingers.