While +1 / level is a problem, removing it alone is not a solution.


General Discussion

301 to 350 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Greg.Everham wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Do monsters really need the generic "Skills: +x" in the bestiary?

It feels like we could just print the skills it is willing/able to use and just not have it roll anything else ever. If a GM is interested in having a marilith cook a soufflé or have a sewer ooze play the harpsichord, they can just work backwards and figure out the modifier.

If the argument is that PCs gain in skills by way of adventuring, what is the argument for +1/level for monsters? I get it that it's to maintain the rule of "neither auto-fail nor auto-success" but it does leave a rather comical issue with regards to Performace (and some other skill uses).

As far as Performance in particular, well, theoretically the creature worked its way up to such-and-such level too. And in doing so quite probably encountered it's fair share of Bards, since it's a not un-popular Core class. And of course Bards perform, some of them quite well. Maybe it picked up some tunes from those Bards as it was eating them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A bard that is focused on performance is going to have specialization beyond just having more proficiency ranks in performance. Right now, there are not a lot of great options or examples for it, but that 5th level Bard, that views herself as a performer, is going to have 2 to 3 (depending on background and ancestry) skill feats built up around performing, meaning that she might turn poor performances into good ones, or never even have to roll to impress pedestrian audiences when performing to earn money.

This is what everyone is talking about when they say that the numerical bonus is not as representational of "overall skill" as it was in PF1. The playtest is a work in progress, and for a lot of skills, this kind of specialization is not present in the game, but it is the kind of specialization that will be easy to build up with future material.

I think this is why the OPs concern about the bigger issue underlying many people's malaise over the idea of +level to proficiency is very valid in the present tense of the playtest, but is not a long term issue for next edition of the game.

The next edition of Pathfinder is going to have books and books and books of skill feats to help give players ways to specialize in skill usage, in ways that PF1 was not capable of imagining. Not all of the skill feats in the playtest did a great job of this, and I foresee a lot of terrible trap feats, but hopefully not too many broken "must have" options. As long as the ceiling doesn't start sliding too far into the stratosphere, or if it does, it does so in extremely restricted rare options that are campaign specific to mythic level play, I don't see how this game structure is going to fail to allow for very unique and well differentiated characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
I foresee a lot of terrible trap feats, but hopefully not too many broken "must have" options

And hopefully not too many normal things (that anyone ought to be able to attempt) gated behind skill feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just dropping in my standard reminder that if the main thing bothering you about +1/level is untrained skills, the devs have already said they are looking at addressing that issue...

Also wanted to mention that the comment about the kraken nearly made me snort hot chocolate out of my nose.


Maybe the kraken is a polymorphed bard?


"We need someone with superlative skills to hack into this computer system."
"Release the kraken!"


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

Just dropping in my standard reminder that if the main thing bothering you about +1/level is untrained skills, the devs have already said they are looking at addressing that issue...

First of all, just because Paizo has said they are going to address something, doesn't mean that they are going to have an acceptable solution.

Secondly, they already "addressed" that issue. They changed the Untrained modifier from -2 to -4. A level 20 untrained character is STILL better than a level 14 Expert, regardless of what that character has experienced.

Not to mention that this issue applies at ALL levels of Proficiency.

I expect an "Expert" to be significantly better than someone who is merely "Trained", even at tasks the trained individual could reasonably attempt. The problem is that the Expert is only 5% better than the Trained individual, all other variables being the same.

This same issue applies between Expert and Master, and Master and Legendary, and to a lesser extent, between all of the proficiency tiers.

Then there is the issue of characters with zero reason to have any skill in a particular area, being significantly better than people who have specialized in the same area, because they have killed more monsters.

For example, a grizzled old level 10 barbarian in a superstitious desert tribe that has been separated from civilization for generations knows more about the basic tenants of a religion he's never heard of than a lowly priest of that religion, knows how to swim better than a sailor, and knows more about basic magic than a wizard's apprentice.

Apparently killing giant scorpions teaches you more about religion, swimming, and magic than being a priest, sailor, or wizard does.

You want an example of a high level trained character vs a low level expert?

A fighter, who was taught as part of his training in the military about recognizing mages and spells, but has never actually seen a caster in action over the course of 5 levels, as a better basic understanding of magic than a level 1 wizard who spent 5 years of his life, casting spells and being around other spellcasters casting spells during his time at the Arcane University.

A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric.


thflame wrote:
A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric.

So the way we fix this is by gating things with proficiency and skill feats, as is the case here. Picking pockets literally requires the "Pickpocket" skill feat, because Palm and Steal Object requires the item to be "loosely guarded".

So the level 10 cleric who can pick pockets at all either chose to take the Pickpocket feat with one of their skill feats(a deliberate investment, requiring them to also be trained in thievery), or who took the "Urchin" background in which case they aren't that different from the level 1 rogue in question, just further along in life.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:
A rogue, who survived on being a pickpocket all his life, and received formal training from the local Thieves Guild, is worse at picking pockets than a level 10 cleric who hasn't stolen anything since before he became a cleric.

So the way we fix this is by gating things with proficiency and skill feats, as is the case here. Picking pockets literally requires the "Pickpocket" skill feat, because Palm and Steal Object requires the item to be "loosely guarded".

So the level 10 cleric who can pick pockets at all either chose to take the Pickpocket feat with one of their skill feats(a deliberate investment, requiring them to also be trained in thievery), or who took the "Urchin" background in which case they aren't that different from the level 1 rogue in question, just further along in life.

Or remove passive or "welfare" bonus to EVERYTHING so bonuses has to be earned.

Payed with general feats, or racial feats, or skill feats, or class feats, or just by having one class be better at attack by levels with cost to defese or spell DC, or better at will at cost of perception.

Numbers should rise with levels, but at a slower rate and at a different rate depending on class and on resources spent while leveling.

Also AC should rise slower than attack as damage progresses more slowly than HPs


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having things grow faster or slower based on proficiency is a non-starter for me, since that's going to break combat (a fighter's accuraccy advantage over barbarians becomes massive instead of like +1-2). I like how the proficiency bonus being calculated is the same for skills as it is for attacks, saves, ACs, etc.- this is practically my favorite thing about PF2.

I would much rather enforce proficiency gates so that the only checks one can attempt untrained are things that basically anyone will have some idea how to do (like dog paddle if dropped in water, even if you spent your entire life in a desert being thirsty, or "be careful where you step to avoid making noise".)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having things grow faster or slower based on proficiency is a non-starter for me, since that's going to break combat (a fighter's accuraccy advantage over barbarians becomes massive instead of like +1-2). I like how the proficiency bonus being calculated is the same for skills as it is for attacks, saves, ACs, etc.- this is practically my favorite thing about PF2.

I would much rather enforce proficiency gates so that the only checks one can attempt untrained are things that basically anyone will have some idea how to do (like dog paddle if dropped in water, even if you spent your entire life in a desert being thirsty, or "be careful where you step to avoid making noise".)

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Having things grow faster or slower based on proficiency is a non-starter for me, since that's going to break combat (a fighter's accuraccy advantage over barbarians becomes massive instead of like +1-2). I like how the proficiency bonus being calculated is the same for skills as it is for attacks, saves, ACs, etc.- this is practically my favorite thing about PF2.

I would much rather enforce proficiency gates so that the only checks one can attempt untrained are things that basically anyone will have some idea how to do (like dog paddle if dropped in water, even if you spent your entire life in a desert being thirsty, or "be careful where you step to avoid making noise".)

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.

What gating does is provide a nuanced way to differentiate raw ability from expertise. It allows a much better overall system than your skill modifier being the one and only indicator of how you measure up in a skill. Gating is what makes +/level work much better for skills than it otherwise would. It allows everyone to have the raw ability appropriate for their level of overall power without having all the abilities of someone who has actually invested skill increases into a skill, thus allowing skill increases to provide smaller numbers where larger ones would screw up the math while gaining value beyond mere numbers.

I'd personally find it disappointing if all skill ncreases did was boost the number on your skill, I'll happily take more nuance in my skills than PF1 had. And it'd just get irritating to have higher numbers from skill increases for math reasons outlined many times before.

To put it simply it allows us to have our cake and eat it too by making skill increases valuable without shutting untrained individuals out of all application of a skill at their level wholesale.


I forgot this one when I was providing some other possibilities earlier in the thread...

Alternative option 5:

Keep +1 per level, but you don't get it if you're Untrained. Increase the number of skills PCs can gain basic proficiency in, so we don't have too many "Level 20 but can't swim" PCs.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.


ryric wrote:
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.

And who should be doing the work to stat up every NPC in the world?

Personally, I would much rather the GM spend time developing parts of the story that I will be directly interacting with rather than worrying about what feats and skill points the town bard put into perform, for the song they are singing in the 3 minutes I am in the local tavern.


ryric wrote:


The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.

NPC gallery makes no sense either if you refuse to buy into the logic of it. The 2 level beggars, the 14th level kings, it is all just as arbitrary as the GM puzzling it out himself with a simple system as his basis. You CANNOT make a believable world out of adventurer classes. It makes no sense for people to be random PC classes, beggar to have a rogue level just so he can sneak attack you. It just makes level 1 Rogues, player characters, seem even more pathetic if you do any kind of side by side comparisions. Or the fact that house cats overpower grown ass men and kill them easily.


ryric wrote:
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.

And what's the exact difference from the player's side?

Do players get handed NPC statblocks so they can go "oh, this person's an aristocrat 7, now that I know that I can suspend my disbelief because I know that they're built through in-game mechanics"? Do players identify monsters' Wisdom in-game so that they can go "oh, this stat is low so their force of will must be weaker"?

From a player's perspective, NPCs and monsters were always just random collections of numbers.

Edit: And how is it less 'immersive' than "a random cetus is stronger physically than the tarrasque because it needs that Str to meet hit/damage benchmarks, while also having less Con than a night hag because it can't have that much HP or it'll break that benchmark"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thflame wrote:
First of all, just because Paizo has said they are going to address something, doesn't mean that they are going to have an acceptable solution.

If you don't trust Paizo's game design unaided, I would suggest not supporting them any further. The vast majority of 2e content is going to have no playtesting at all.

thflame wrote:
Secondly, they already "addressed" that issue. They changed the Untrained modifier from -2 to -4. A level 20 untrained character is STILL better than a level 14 Expert, regardless of what that character has experienced.

Yes. And then some time after making that change, they said that they were still planning further changes to address that specific issue. Also I contest your definition of "better"; for one, it's entirely possible for the level 14 character to have a bigger bonus than the level 20 character. But more importantly, my next point:

thflame wrote:

Not to mention that this issue applies at ALL levels of Proficiency.

I expect an "Expert" to be significantly better than someone who is merely "Trained", even at tasks the trained individual could reasonably attempt. The problem is that the Expert is only 5% better than the Trained individual, all other variables being the same.

This same issue applies between Expert and Master, and Master and Legendary, and to a lesser extent, between all of the proficiency tiers.

This I agree with, but instead of "better numerical bonus" I want more of "can do things that the lower ranks can't even try" or "gets bigger benefits from the same feats". More feats like Catfall, please. I mean, "I am 15% more likely to succeed Acrobatics checks" is never going to be as cool or rewarding as "I can now jump off a mountain and not even care."

I'm also not sure it's a bad thing that the system supports the trope of the "highly talented amateur", whose natural skill surpasses that of the master, but who lacks the technical finesse to do things that come easily to the master.

thflame wrote:

Then there is the issue of characters with zero reason to have any skill in a particular area, being significantly better than people who have specialized in the same area, because they have killed more monsters.

For example, a grizzled old level 10 barbarian in a superstitious desert tribe that has been separated from civilization for generations knows more about the basic tenants of a religion he's never heard of than a lowly priest of that religion, knows how to swim better than a sailor, and knows more about basic magic than a wizard's apprentice.

Apparently killing giant scorpions teaches you more about religion, swimming, and magic than being a priest, sailor, or wizard does.

Putting aside that it was possible to go from completely untrained to best religious scholar in the world from killing giant scorpions in PF1e: Yes, this is the exact thing Paizo has said they are looking to address. Again, I completely understand concern about whether or not they will address a particular issue, but if you don't trust them to address the issues they have said they are going to address, you honestly probably shouldn't support their games.

EDIT: I will also mention that I think part of the issue is the poor definition of the Recall Knowledge action. There should be better guidelines on what you can and can't Recall Knowledge about. It makes just as little sense that the cleric who gets unexpectedly shunted to the other side of the galaxy can Recall Knowledge about religions that didn't even exist in the world he's from.


Cyouni wrote:
ryric wrote:
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.

And what's the exact difference from the player's side?

Do players get handed NPC statblocks so they can go "oh, this person's an aristocrat 7, now that I know that I can suspend my disbelief because I know that they're built through in-game mechanics"? Do players identify monsters' Wisdom in-game so that they can go "oh, this stat is low so their force of will must be weaker"?

From a player's perspective, NPCs and monsters were always just random collections of numbers....

Much yes to this. I know I as a player didn't tend to ask for or question the specific stat blocks of NPCs, and my players don't either. Their versimilitude is not dependent on whether the NPC got the numbers the players shouldn't even know about by the exact same method as the PCs. Honestly it seems kind of petty to do so if you'll pardon my frankness.

And, as Cyouni asserts, it's not like PF1 always played by the rules with these stats. There was a whole thread debating this which ended with Mark and Jason B. coming in and saying the Bestiary basically really does fudge as needed in various subtle and less subtle ways to get the numbers it needs. PF2 is just a little more transparent about it to the GM, which helps us LOADS now that we don't have to finangle the frick out of things so much to get the results we need.


See, people always make these arguments, and then use really easy to pick apart examples. Swimming is highly focused on athletics, and a PF1 barbarian with high enough strength was better at swimming anyway.

Knowing more about basic magic for the superstitious barbarian probably translates to "enough to recognize when magic is afoot and what sort of dangers to be on guard for." Which is actually exactly the sort of knowledge you want if you're superstitious. You still can't actually identify a spell or magic item or read arcane text.

Religion is weird, but if you have a character that literally could never have heard of something the DM is empowered to say "there's no way you would know this, don't roll for it." And this isn't a new problem. A character could put ranks in knowledge religion and learn stuff about all religions no matter how many he was exposed to. And a character with low intelligence and few skill ranks (like most PF1 clerics) probably knows less about their god than the wizard does.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Edge93 wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
ryric wrote:
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

The "PF1 NPC gallery method" is precisely what I want out of an RPG game world. It ensures consistency and helps greatly with suspension of disbelief. No in-game test or experiment should be able to discern whether someone is a PC or NPC. A game world where NPCs and monsters are just random collections of numbers innately makes no sense; it's like a movie set where all the buildings are just facades painted on wood, but the audience can also see the wood on camera.

It just really hammers home that you are playing a game, the PC is your game piece, and the NPCs/monsters are the GM's pieces. It makes it so much harder to feel like you're telling a cooperative story because the arbitrary mechanics keep pulling themselves to the front.

And what's the exact difference from the player's side?

Do players get handed NPC statblocks so they can go "oh, this person's an aristocrat 7, now that I know that I can suspend my disbelief because I know that they're built through in-game mechanics"? Do players identify monsters' Wisdom in-game so that they can go "oh, this stat is low so their force of will must be weaker"?

From a player's perspective, NPCs and monsters were always just random

...

Honestly, I'd prefer they go ahead and define what numbers they fudged, rather than trying to do it under the covers.

Allow them to give some kind of inherent bonus or penalty to get them where it needs to be. That should make it easier if you change something... give them a different weapon, etc. so you would know better what the adjusted value should be. I'm all for not having all fey have to have a certain HD size, or all poisons on a 2nd level creature, having to have a certain DC, and a certain damage range. I love the idea of having a Poison with a really high DC, but lower damage. Or a 1HD creature that has a wide selection of spell like abilities that range from dangerous to little more than a nuisance, without having to feel like I have to give it more HP because I gave it extra magic and/or a long list of feats.

But honestly, damage should be some base die + the appropriate ability modifier + item bonus, etc. But there can be a process that determines if they got extra bonus dice. And even given that base, yes it can give them a bonus die or two of damage, or bonus hp damage per attack, simply because. But I'd like to go ahead and see that bonus listed, personally.

Sure, by default, make a 2nd level monster have 2HD, but you can allow a inherent bonus HD be able to make it 4HD, or 1HD based on what you need. Choose the size of the die based on how tough is should be, not because it is an animal, or an aberration, or an undead, or a construct, etc.


Loreguard wrote:

But honestly, damage should be some base die + the appropriate ability modifier + item bonus, etc. But there can be a process that determines if they got extra bonus dice. And even given that base, yes it can give them a bonus die or two of damage, or bonus hp damage per attack, simply because. But I'd like to go ahead and see that bonus listed, personally.

Sure, by default, make a 2nd level monster have 2HD, but you can allow a inherent bonus HD be able to make it 4HD, or 1HD based on what you need. Choose the size of the die based on how tough is should be, not because it is an animal, or an aberration, or an undead, or a construct, etc.

I think in the vast majority of cases, it still follows standard base formulas, anyways. Things that have a +2 Str pretty much always have a +2 to melee damage, for example, and certain exceptions (manticore's jaws, for example) still follow similar rules (+5 Str, +7 damage mod equates to an effective 1.5x Str mod).

If you're going through all the effort to cheat the system by upping or lowering the HD as you choose, and changing the HD size, why are you still using that system in the first place? It's basically an extra step at that point, when you can have 2d10 or 3d6 by the same system, and you still have to go through the extra effort of picking extra feats depending on the HD number.
It just seems like a ton of extra work just to try and keep to a system that's really not being used at that point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Because with the attributes/hd/class/feats and such, you have legos. You have the building blocks that the rules use to build and define things.

Players are built with the same legos. However, for internal consistence between players, they have specific quotas of various pieces they are allowed to pick up over time. This is to help keep players with a reasonable selection of choices, but not leave one outright better than another.

I'm saying the monsters might as well be built with Legos too. But it isn't as important for all monsters to be fair against one another. Simply put, they aren't as important, and so the story beats out equity there. But there isn't that much to be gained from building your monsters from clay instead of legos. Use lego, but don't worry near so much about any block quotas or limits. Add decals if you want that flavor them. Throw some little blocks that allow them to fit in the exact spot you want them to be.

So, don't make a clay monster that you do an extra 2d6 damage when the opponent is flat footed. Instead give the monster 2d of sneak attack. It is simpler. It makes it easier to compare said monster against, say a rogue.

If you need your 2nd level monster to have an extra +1 or +2 to hit, just because. That's fine, that's a little Lego block that boosts their to hit, and helps them fit their niche. Admitting you just added those little blocks, because you need those little blocks, keeps someone from trying to wonder if they are forgetting something else that explains said little block, when they feel they want to tweak said creature to fit another, similar role. Say replacing the creatures melee weapons with some ranged weapons.

This doesn't mean you can't define something similar to sneak attack, but instead of being used against flat footed individuals, it instead works only if you've already moved at least a certain amount already. But only do it if that's what you need. Use the building blocks you have, and build new ones based on blocks that exist, defining the variations, and recognize that PCs have balance points/choices that are important for PC balance, but are not actually inherently important for monster balance.

My view is understanding the importance of the building blocks, and understanding the real purpose and importance for the balance between PCs and not trying to make things apply where they are no longer important.

I think there should be a building block to have damage dice increase naturally over advancement for PCs, because it makes sense for martial characters not to be absolutely required to use magic to be able to produce reasonable level based damage. Does a PC have to produce the same number of dice of damage as every monster of the same level? No. But a high level character shouldn't be required to be a wizard with a cantrip, to be able to do multiple dice damage on a round by round basis without a magic weapon. Again, use consistent blocks where you can, but scale them as you need to get the story that is desired.

I think being honest with what the blocks are and where they are important will get you farther than making monsters fit PC rules. But on the other hand, acknowledging you have a perfectly good framework, it is beneficial to build your monsters with the same general blocks.

Attribute bonuses are a block, the individual scores don't really matter until above +4 so don't worry about unnecessary details, they aren't relevant until you talk about +5 blocks, which is a PC scaling advancement concern, not so much a monster concern. To hit, is calculated a certain way. Keep doing that, but if you need it tweaked, feel free to tweak it as you need. Could be +2 innate to all attacks, or +2 innate to melee attacks, or +2 to attacking with their favorite battleaxe. Viola, I now know, the monster has a weakness if they can be separated from their preferred weapon, the PCs can leverage this weakness by them being less efficient combatant.

Yes, a PC might say... why does that Goblin have a higher to-hit than I can have as a first level fighter.

Well, the answer is, it isn't a first level fighter, and while it has a higher to-hit than you, it also has less hit points than you, and doesn't have all the action choices that you have, nor did it have all the general choices that you had. Is it completely balance against you, as far as advancement goes, no, but it wasn't designed to be. However, it also isn't probably entirely better than you in all ways.

Anyway, that is why I don't think monster creation rules should act like class progression rules, but I do believe they should be made from the same general building blocks, with specific special bonuses easily called out, and even encouraged, to help make the game flavorful, fun, and fundamentally the perfect amount of consistency.


Honestly, it sounds to me like you just want to see the monster creation rules for further details on how things are built, which I can definitely understand. I don't want to have to see them locked into something like HD, though, which is less a block than it is a weird interconnecting web that is attached to half of the other blocks.

On a side note, there are already guidelines for disarming an enemy, generally assuming that they have a +2 with their favoured weapon. I also agree that it'd be good to have natural scaling damage dice.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Giving me examples of bad PF1e monster design (arbitrary bonuses) isn't going to convince me that a completely arbitrary system is somehow better. Let's not take the worst examples of PF1e and make them the norm.

I want the interconnected web of monster stats. It means if I make a change as a GM - change weapon, change armor, select a different feat, add HD, etc. - I know where to make all the "trickle down" changes. It also means that as a player if I manage to do one of those things it has the same effect on the monster as it would on me.

I don't need to know that the shopkeep is a level 3 expert with a full stat block. But I do want to know that the various NPCs are all level something somethings, and that they interact with the world the same way my PC does.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's kinda my fundamental problem with that:

Why is it impossible for a human without class levels to exist, but a bugbear can just be a bugbear and nothing else?

PF1e monster design isn't consistent with PC rules. It's just slightly better at hiding the inconsistency.


Perhaps another "out" for proficiencies might be specialties within a skill/ability. For example, the Fighter already gets this with specific weapon groups.

Why can't other classes get more specialized specialties earlier? Like a rogue who wants to be especially good at pickpocketing can pick up that skill feat and they are +1 proficiency rating for pickpocketing (or it auto scales and starts at Expert -> Master -> Legendary without having to invest more skill increases)?

Any way to allow players to both choose what they are specialized in and make the specialization more meaningful (and less buried within the depths of the skills section).


ryric wrote:

Giving me examples of bad PF1e monster design (arbitrary bonuses) isn't going to convince me that a completely arbitrary system is somehow better. Let's not take the worst examples of PF1e and make them the norm.

I want the interconnected web of monster stats. It means if I make a change as a GM - change weapon, change armor, select a different feat, add HD, etc. - I know where to make all the "trickle down" changes. It also means that as a player if I manage to do one of those things it has the same effect on the monster as it would on me.

I don't need to know that the shopkeep is a level 3 expert with a full stat block. But I do want to know that the various NPCs are all level something somethings, and that they interact with the world the same way my PC does.

I mean, in PF2 they already are. NPCs ARE something level somethings, many are clearly modeled after a class, others may be just level something somethings, with something #2 being NPC. They're essentially level x classless or level x generic or level x whatever-they-are-supposed-to-be. They do interact with the world in the same way, they have stats and modifiers and make skill checks like anyone else. They just may get their numbers in slightly different ways, usually at cost of having the full gamut of feats and features a PC does. An unfavorable trade I'd call that, I'll take my PCs slightly differently numbered NPC blobs, thank you very much..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Igor Horvat wrote:

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.

I think proficiency gating is great. PF1 had proficiency gates in "can't attempt this untrained" so we're now just making that system more granular and useful. I think "an obscure fact which is nonetheless simple" is better represented by a high proficiency requirement and a lowish DC than "just set a high number to model the obscurity."

Like "What is the name of the principal Serpentfolk deity" can be an expert-gated religion check with a low DC (since most people will have never heard the name, but if you've heard the name before it's not hard), and "perform rites for that same Serpentfolk deity" is an expert (or higher) religion check with a higher DC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.

I think proficiency gating is great. PF1 had proficiency gates in "can't attempt this untrained" so we're now just making that system more granular and useful.

Except that the "gates" in PF1 were, "put a point in it" and "do you have a high enough bonus to succeed".

I also chuckled a bit when you said 5 proficiency tiers are more granular than 20 Skill Ranks.


thflame wrote:

Except that the "gates" in PF1 were, "put a point in it" and "do you have a high enough bonus to succeed".

I also chuckled a bit when you said 5 proficiency tiers are more granular than 20 Skill Ranks.

It's more granular with like 10-30 DCs, we now have 100 different potential options instead of 20 because we're in a 2-dimensional space now instead of on a line.

Requiring a "high bonus" for everything that is obscure, tricky, or confusing (even though "doing it" isn't hard) is far worse than how PF2 can do it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Like "What is the name of the principal Serpentfolk deity" can be an expert-gated religion check with a low DC (since most people will have never heard the name, but if you've heard the name before it's not hard), and "perform rites for that same Serpentfolk deity" is an expert (or higher) religion check with a higher DC.

Exactly this.

"Know the Big 20 for your part of Golarion" - doable Untrained.
"Know an uncommon deity for your part of the world," such as the Tien Xia Big 20, empyreal lords, racial deities, etc - requires Trained.
"Know extremely rare or absent deities, including the dead ones," such as Ydersius, the Peacock Spirit, or Damoritosh - requires Expert.

The DC for knowing these gods would all be pretty much the same, but by proficiency gating, you can restrict them to people who should actually know them. In PF1, being able to take 10 in order to know about Deskari required a total +10 modifier for Knowledge (religion), something that a lot of paladins fighting in the Worldwound might never see, despite facing off against his cultists on a daily basis. Switching a low DC and making it proficiency-gated allows the paladins to know about demon lords while not simultaneously making it auto-knowledge for every Tom, Dick, and Merisiel who comes along.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
thflame wrote:

Except that the "gates" in PF1 were, "put a point in it" and "do you have a high enough bonus to succeed".

I also chuckled a bit when you said 5 proficiency tiers are more granular than 20 Skill Ranks.

It's more granular with like 10-30 DCs, we now have 100 different potential options instead of 20.

Requiring a "high bonus" for everything that is obscure, tricky, or confusing (even though "doing it" isn't hard) is far worse than how PF2 can do it.

If 5 proficiency tiers and 20 levels grant you a range of -3 to +23. That's nowhere near 100 different potential options.

If you still want to count that, then there are probably thousands of possible options in PF1.

For any given level, you can have a rank from zero to your level in a given skill. And this varies from skill to skill. Then there is the possibility of feats that grant extra bonuses, and class/cross class skills (which I'm actually not a fan of, TBH).

Not to mention that, past Trained, ranking up does nothing aside from a +1 bonus. You have to grab feats to utilize your increase in skill.

Saying that PF2 is more granular than PF1 is laughable. It is the exact opposite. It's a "one size fits all" solution with a handful of choices that do almost nothing.

Heck, at least in PF1, you can actually FEEL like you are good at something skill without having to comb the multiverse for a special artifact while min-maxing your stats. You also get a nice sense of accomplishment when your 20 ranks in a skill pay off, as opposed to your piddly +3 getting swamped by your 3 untrained party members rolling because, "why not".

So long as the Skill check in question does not require a special Skill Feat or Training, it's MORE likely for 3 on level stooges to pass a skill check, than the specialist in the party in PF2.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
thflame wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Igor Horvat wrote:

Gating proves how dumb +1/level is.

it says your +9 is worse than my +6 because if 9 would be better than 6 it would not make any sense.

I think proficiency gating is great. PF1 had proficiency gates in "can't attempt this untrained" so we're now just making that system more granular and useful.

Except that the "gates" in PF1 were, "put a point in it" and "do you have a high enough bonus to succeed".

I also chuckled a bit when you said 5 proficiency tiers are more granular than 20 Skill Ranks.

Actually there were more than one type of gate.

There was a gate based on Trained only use. It was a pretty well skill doesn't exist unless you are trained.

There was a gate for if you aren't trained, you can roll, but you can't succeed at anything higher DC than 10. (the knowledge checks)

And then you had people having to set a DC, and those DCs varied wildly between skills and party members participating, to determine what would actually be reasonable levels to set them to without either becoming trivial, or impossible.

In general, I prefer DC not being the end-all, be-all number that dictates success or failure. I like the concept of skill feats helping you get specific benefits or focuses from skills. (especially if they improve as your rank does)

I wish that having a higher rank than is required, gave you some sort of statistical improvement such as a re-roll option, or rolling twice and taking higher roll. That would help keep DCs down at more reasonable levels, but allow having more advanced training help make the simpler tasks even more simple for those with the right training.

There were a variety of skills rolls that were pretty broken, rather frequently. It is pretty obvious that they are trying to fix that, and create a new mechanic. Granted, the old pathfinder mechanic was better than the original method in most ways, so it isn't hard to understand people hesitant to move from it, but I think they really want to get to put more of their own signature to more aspects of the game, and so I think trying to unify things like AC, BAB, Saves, and Skills into a Proficiency is why their doing it, and it is not bad.

Could you potentially swap the old pathfinder skill rank system in here and things be workable? Yes probably. Of course, modules built for P2 will assume full progression for skills so if you don't put your ranks in the same skills every level, they will get to a point where they fail to preform adequately in adventures. That was sometimes true anyway in P1, but it didn't stop me from spreading skills out anyway.

Oh... just had a thought. What if someone is preforming a skill they are trained at least one rank higher than required for the task, they can take ten on the roll? Separate from assurance, difficulty any conditional modifiers would affect the roll. (or if this feels like it endangers the assurance mechanic, make any item, conditional or circumstantial penalties apply, potentially skipping bonuses if that is needed to balance things.

An expert person could take 10 on a income roll, but it would only use the trained column to determine income, not the expert column. (since that would require an expert roll)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:

Sorry if I take the bad doctor approach to this, but first step if the game world makes no sense if you construct it out of "lvl x class npcs", stop making it out such elements.

I know Paizo compromised and told that NPCs made with PC rules are legit, but do not do it. A town demographic no longer is a distribution of many low level npcs and then few higher level npcs. Infact, majority of the world will never be statted, only the exact pieces that end up interacting with the PCs do and they will have arbitrary numbers made up by the GM.

Level 10 cleric was not born level 10, but became level 10 after adventuring to that point from level 1. Everyone ought to kill the idea from their heads that the PF1 npc gallery method is still legit.

That doesn't fix the issue. A level 5 bard is supposed to be, at the least, pretty damn good at Performance. Whether or not the NPC's actually have levels is irrelevant, when they do get a stat it's generally not going to be as high as any level 5 PC that's invested in that skill. That's just consistency, the PC's are supposed to be special. So when something then dwarfs that level 5 bard, the transitive property of inequality states that they would then be better than even the best musical talent in town.

The issue is that the monster generation rules will give blanket +1/level even when it makes no sense. Mechanically, that makes for balanced math when the monster needs a skill DC for a player to roll against to do something unusual, but it comes at the expense of stronger monsters being somehow appropriate challenges for things that should be glaring weaknesses. If a level 11 Bard had something that well and truly needed to check the Sea Serpent's Performance DC, either that roll shouldn't happen (the sea serpent can't understand what's happening and therefore is immune) or the roll should virtually automatically succeed (sea serpents ain't got no swing). A Sea Serpent with a big fat +0 to Performance and a DC 10 Performance DC is perfectly fine... on the assumption that nothing that targets skill DC's like that would be horribly imbalanced if they worked every single time on appropriate targets.

I think the solution, at least for monsters, is that they should have some weaknesses in skills. A will-o'-wisp should basically not have an Athletics check, a +0 with a -5 from its STR should make it supremely easy even for gnome wizards to keep ahold of if they grab it, even if they're only a level 1 wizard. The thing's barely even there, it shouldn't be escaping grapples with the Fighter just because it's being used as a boss monster for a level 4 party.

Ideally those weaknesses should be spelled out in the monster statblock, so that the GM doesn't necessarily need to be familiar with the mythos of that particular monster. As a backup, some guidance about making educated assumptions about the capabilities of a monster would be helpful - "cultured" skills like Society or Performance should be blanket inaccessible to anything with animal-level intelligence, for example.

Lantern Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is the PF2 ruleset is contrived to make the +10/-10 mechanic and the 3 action system function... but that just isn’t a fun system. I don’t think a majority of gamers are excited to see gated skill proficiencies / feats. Also,it’s an unnecessary complication. Now GMs have to remember what you can and can’t do as a trained, master, or expert for each skill? This ontop of creating an artificial treadmill to keep skill checks relevant.

People used to say there are set DC across player levels but that is flat out not the case. There are certain abilities that call for an easy DC which means scaling for the sake of scaling. I would hate to tell my players nope sorry can’t swing from the chandelier you aren’t a master in acrobatics despite +10 acrobatics. Or nope can’t do it you don’t have the skill feat to chandelier swing.

This was brought up in the beginning of the playtest and I’m not sure why it was never explored. Many people voiced their opinions for either a +1/2 lvl skill bonus or a 5e skill bonus, nix the concept of master / legendary skills (your bonus determines how “legendary” you are), nix the +10/-10 crit failure system across the board, and set static DC. This would fix a plethora of problems with PF2.


kaisc006 wrote:

The problem is the PF2 ruleset is contrived to make the +10/-10 mechanic and the 3 action system function... but that just isn’t a fun system. I don’t think a majority of gamers are excited to see gated skill proficiencies / feats. Also,it’s an unnecessary complication. Now GMs have to remember what you can and can’t do as a trained, master, or expert for each skill? This ontop of creating an artificial treadmill to keep skill checks relevant.

People used to say there are set DC across player levels but that is flat out not the case. There are certain abilities that call for an easy DC which means scaling for the sake of scaling. I would hate to tell my players nope sorry can’t swing from the chandelier you aren’t a master in acrobatics despite +10 acrobatics. Or nope can’t do it you don’t have the skill feat to chandelier swing.

This was brought up in the beginning of the playtest and I’m not sure why it was never explored. Many people voiced their opinions for either a +1/2 lvl skill bonus or a 5e skill bonus, nix the concept of master / legendary skills (your bonus determines how “legendary” you are), nix the +10/-10 crit failure system across the board, and set static DC. This would fix a plethora of problems with PF2.

To the acrobatics thing, that's really a crap example. That's fairly clearly an untrained level task.

To the various systems and nixing thereof, a LOT of people really like the skill gating and skill feats, and the +/- 10 system. I know my entire group has, and Paizo seems to have indicated the surveys have borne out such as well.

The forums aren't necessarily an accurate gauge of how well received something is or isn't. People are more likely to create long rants about something they dislike than something they like, and vocal minority is very much a thing that can happen.

Not to say there aren't people who dislike these things, but they really don't seem to be the majority as you imply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:
To the various systems and nixing thereof, a LOT of people really like the skill gating and skill feats, and the +/- 10 system. I know my entire group has, and Paizo seems to have indicated the surveys have borne out such as well.

Define "a LOT", and not "a lot", but "a LOT".

You are right about forums. But, seriously, your entire group trumps the forums? Really?

And the survey is the worst possible source. It is implicitly based on people who like it.

Where is the real hotbed of enthusiasm? The answer is: Nowhere. It is worse than widespread dismay. The response is widespread contempt and lack of attention. People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.

It is a serious problem. This isn't to say that there is not a faithful core who love it. But a tiny group getting together and echo-chambering their way certainty is just a path to pain.

Show me where I can find a real "LOT" of people who are really liking where this game stands. It isn't out there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure Paizo knows the size of their market better than you do, no matter how many times you want to say otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.

[Citation needed]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Edge93 wrote:
To the various systems and nixing thereof, a LOT of people really like the skill gating and skill feats, and the +/- 10 system. I know my entire group has, and Paizo seems to have indicated the surveys have borne out such as well.

Define "a LOT", and not "a lot", but "a LOT".

You are right about forums. But, seriously, your entire group trumps the forums? Really?

And the survey is the worst possible source. It is implicitly based on people who like it.

Where is the real hotbed of enthusiasm? The answer is: Nowhere. It is worse than widespread dismay. The response is widespread contempt and lack of attention. People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.

It is a serious problem. This isn't to say that there is not a faithful core who love it. But a tiny group getting together and echo-chambering their way certainty is just a path to pain.

Show me where I can find a real "LOT" of people who are really liking where this game stands. It isn't out there.

I actually really like the changes despite my s#&%posting, and I've done a bunch of posts gushing about it on Mastodon. +10/-10 crits have been a hit, they're super fun. I may have specific criticisms about how to make the system work better with fewer bugs like the Kraken's unnatural gift of pizzazz, but overall I love the absence of skill points and at least the idea of trained/untrained gating.

Which, by the way, is something a lot of GM's did anyways by only allowing people who put in skill points into something to do things like recall knowledge. Same deal in 5e, it's fairly common for someone to restrict a knowledge check to just those with proficiency. PF2 extends that to all skills, so that everyone has certain things only they can attempt.

And for the most part it makes fairly intuitive sense - if you needed specific training to do something, it's trained. There's no need to figure out if something is expert or greater, those just give you +1's and make skill feats do more absurd things. I think skill feats are currently way too mild and should at least be on the par of level-appropriate spells for trained/expert/master/legendary and I think almost all skill feats should scale as a rule (or otherwise be trivial to swap out later when they stop being useful), but otherwise I have plenty to praise about it.

Like I've had a lot of things to criticize about PF2 but overall the game is probably my favorite thing to happen to tabletop since 5e, it addresses a lot of my frustrations with PF1 that eventually led me to drop that system and still manages to enhance the crunchy depth that made 3.5-esque systems attractive to begin with. The end of caster supremacy as a hard rule alone makes me estatic, even if the balance isn't entirely there yet. I'm pretty sure all of PF2's classes would sit in the same PF1 tier, to give an idea of how dramatically better balanced the game feels.

I'll definitely be bummed if the things I criticized don't really see changes in the final product. I particularly loathe mechanical shoehorning dieties and alignment push on the cleric and paladin respectively as I don't want myself or my players to be choosing something so thematically relevant based purely on what bonuses it grants them. But overall I'm extremely excited for the game, it's liberating not dealing with 95% of PF1's b+$*!~%$.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Find some Youtube videos/Reddit posts (that don't link here) talking about PF2 in the last week.

Compare to the DnD Next/Pathfinder 1 buzz around the same time in their developments.

BryonD is right. Virtually nobody outside of these forums is talking about PF2, and that's a REALLY bad sign.

I'm pretty sure Paizo knows this, but it is too late to fix the system without delaying it significantly(especially since the main point of contention is the core of the system), and Paizo needs a return on investment.

My prediction is that PF2 will have a burst of book sales when it releases, and then will pretty much die off afterwards, just like 4e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:

Giving me examples of bad PF1e monster design (arbitrary bonuses) isn't going to convince me that a completely arbitrary system is somehow better. Let's not take the worst examples of PF1e and make them the norm.

I want the interconnected web of monster stats. It means if I make a change as a GM - change weapon, change armor, select a different feat, add HD, etc. - I know where to make all the "trickle down" changes. It also means that as a player if I manage to do one of those things it has the same effect on the monster as it would on me.

I don't need to know that the shopkeep is a level 3 expert with a full stat block. But I do want to know that the various NPCs are all level something somethings, and that they interact with the world the same way my PC does.

Because the GM can literally not play the same way as a player, NPCs cannot interact with the world like a PC does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Find some Youtube videos/Reddit posts (that don't link here) talking about PF2 in the last week.

Compare to the DnD Next/Pathfinder 1 buzz around the same time in their developments.

BryonD is right. Virtually nobody outside of these forums is talking about PF2, and that's a REALLY bad sign.

I'm pretty sure Paizo knows this, but it is too late to fix the system without delaying it significantly(especially since the main point of contention is the core of the system), and Paizo needs a return on investment.

My prediction is that PF2 will have a burst of book sales when it releases, and then will pretty much die off afterwards, just like 4e.

Or maybe...it's connected to the fact that there hasn't been any new news for a month and a half. There hasn't been a blog direct from Paizo in a month. Perhaps that could have a connection.

Turns out when you've exhausted all the things you can talk about, a lull comes in conversation.


Shisumo wrote:

"Know the Big 20 for your part of Golarion" - doable Untrained.

"Know an uncommon deity for your part of the world," such as the Tien Xia Big 20, empyreal lords, racial deities, etc - requires Trained.
"Know extremely rare or absent deities, including the dead ones," such as Ydersius, the Peacock Spirit, or Damoritosh - requires Expert.

I still don't get the distinction between "difficult DC" and "requires expertise".

Let's try to apply that to simulate knowledge for a modern American in the real world:

Able to tell the difference between Moses and Noah on a stained-glass window: anyone can try to do this. Hard to do at low level, easy to do at high level.
Higher DC might be to know about past schisms, early popes, minor bible characters. It's your own religion, so special theological training won't make much difference, but the DC is higher, so you might not be able to remember anything about it until you level up.

Able to tell if a picture on a vase is Thor or Zeus: impossible unless your have special theological training, no matter how clever or high level you are, because these gods are from far away and no longer worshipped. There's no way you can pick this up from general knowledge. If you have received training as a theologist, this is easy for you, because they are well-known gods in their own areas, so the DC is low.

Shisumo wrote:
The DC for knowing these gods would all be pretty much the same, but by proficiency gating, you can restrict them to people who should actually know them. In PF1, being able to take 10 in order to know about Deskari required a total +10 modifier for Knowledge (religion), something that a lot of paladins fighting in the Worldwound might never see, despite facing off against his cultists on a daily basis. Switching a low DC and making it proficiency-gated allows the paladins to know about demon lords while not simultaneously making it auto-knowledge for every Tom, Dick, and Merisiel who comes along.

I'd handle that by giving a circumstance bonus for anything relevant to the character; things they've seen with their own eyes, things they've been specifically taught about for the job they're doing, things that are locally famous, etc.

Lantern Lodge

To clarify I don’t see a problem gating certain skills like disable device or knowledge (x) to require training. It’s when you pile on a master / legendary with more gates that they don’t make sense for a d20 system. It should simply be trained or untrained like it’s been since 3x. I don’t think this is some revolutionary concept for master / legendary skills, I think other devs in the countless editions since 3.0 have probably tried it and realized it doesn’t work in a d20 system.

Classless systems commonly use terms like this because being a master in something means you have a higher bonus / die pool than you would if you were trained. Those systems are generally ability + skill training + item. D20 replaces skill training with level which adds such a significant bonus at a fast and prolonged rate you can’t put a title to a particular bonus. Not to mention the DC should be static across the board not adjusted based on level or training. Otherwise it’s an unnecessary step when the training could’ve just amounted to a static bonus meaning the same thing as lowering the DC.

As for interest in PF2 you might not hear much talk against PF2 in the forums because many have moved on or “watch from a distance”. As others have said it was apparent PF2 had core issues that don’t function well. It’s frustrating when all the updates have tried to make those rules work at the cost of creating a totally arbitrary, Unnecessarily restrictive world.

Skill gates and +1 / level were a problem outlined day one of the playtest. And we are nearing the end with another 300+ thread on the matter...


kaisc006 said wrote:
To clarify I don’t see a problem gating certain skills like disable device or knowledge (x) to require training. It’s when you pile on a master / legendary with more gates that they don’t make sense for a d20 system. It should simply be trained or untrained like it’s been since 3x. I don’t think this is some revolutionary concept for master / legendary skills, I think other devs in the countless editions since 3.0 have probably tried it and realized it doesn’t work in a d20 system.

In some cases like which traps can be disabled it does seem to make some sense with added gates. But more than that I think it's just because the system needs more than just a +1 to be fun and interesting for the players to pick. There are skill feats, and with more cool ones like Cat Fall that may be enough, but currently you don't get enough skill feats and most seem rather lackluster for it to really make the extra proficiency feel worth it.

Another solution could be to have certain "skill feats" that you gain automatically whenever you get an expert, master or legendary rank in a skill thus giving you cool new features for your trouble.

Btw I am not saying it isn't worth it to get this extra numerical boost for the skills you specialize in, I am just saying it would be more fun and cool if you get the feeling you can really do something else with the skill when you increase in it. Otherwise a larger numerical boost might be required, but due to -10/+10 I don't see that as the best possible solution. (and I do like the -10/+10 system, so I would prefer if that stayed)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
BryonD wrote:
People, by and large, have looked, shrugged, and moved on.
[Citation needed]

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

The fact that there is nothing to "cite" is a huge concern.

The claim that the ruleset in its current form is generating any widespread enthusiasm is the claim that requires demonstration.

If it was then the links debunking me would fly left and right.

301 to 350 of 490 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / While +1 / level is a problem, removing it alone is not a solution. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.