|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Edge93 wrote:
And that kind of interaction is the kind of opening of the design space that unified proficiency allows. Intimidation in PF1 was nonsense, you could bump your Intimidate modifier so high that you could unfailingly demoralize or coerce any monster or character, no matter how stalwart or powerful they were, because the DC that Intimidate is rolled against runs on a completely different track that can never be pumped in the same way.
Unified proficiency avoids interactions like that where an application of something has so much higher of a ceiling than the defense against that thing, like the above where you can make yourself unfailing at intimidation but can never become unfailing at resisting intimidation. But while it opens the design space of "another way to harm someone in combat", it irreparably closes the design space of "having a skill's modifier being meaningful outside of combat".
This is the issue.
Does the game actually get better with more ways to harm someone in combat?
in◆⃟ wrote: Edge93 wrote:
And that kind of interaction is the kind of opening of the design space that unified proficiency allows. Intimidation in PF1 was nonsense, you could bump your Intimidate modifier so high that you could unfailingly demoralize or coerce any monster or character, no matter how stalwart or powerful they were, because the DC that Intimidate is rolled against runs on a completely different track that can never be pumped in the same way.
Unified proficiency avoids interactions like that where an application of something has so much higher of a ceiling than the defense against that thing, like the above where you can make yourself unfailing at intimidation but can never become unfailing at resisting intimidation. But while it opens the design space of "another way to harm someone in combat", it irreparably closes the design space of "having a skill's modifier being meaningful outside of combat".
This is the issue.
Does the game actually get better with more ways to harm someone in combat? How is it closing that design space at all? They didn't give combat applications to skills at the cost of out of combat ability. They've added combat applications AND created space for powerful skill uses. Gaining a Swim speed isn't a pure combat ability. The fact you can scare someone to death is not a pure combat ability, and doesn't eclipse other potential Intimidate feats. Of the top of my head again.
Intimidating Reputation
You are so Intimidating that you don't even need to be in the room to make your presence felt. You can use the Coerce action through letters or intermediaries. In both cases the action must be targetted against a specific individual (or individuals upto your Group Coercion limit if you have that feat.)
Skills have always been useful in Combat, it was just a limited set of skills and the lack of a unified system meant you needed unwieldy individual DC calculations, imbalanced ability and necessity to invest in certain skills (+20 in one skill could be all you need, but trash in another.)
Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Malk_Content wrote: Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents? By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.
As I stated upthread:
in◆⃟ wrote:
Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".
On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.
in◆⃟ wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents? By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.
As I stated upthread:
in◆⃟ wrote:
Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".
On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.
That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems.
As we also see keeping these things in line has allowed them to [attempt] making representations of being well skilled less about the raw numbers. Your character good at stealth can break the stealth rules selectively, rather than needed +42 to be considered decent at it. My wifes Rogue was awesome at stealth, but didn't need a larger number to represent that. In fact it was much more rewarding for her to get abilities over raw modifiers.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Malk_Content wrote: in◆⃟ wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents? By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.
As I stated upthread:
in◆⃟ wrote:
Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".
On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.
That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems. The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.
Different scaling methods are required.
in◆⃟ wrote: Malk_Content wrote: in◆⃟ wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Can you give me a specific idea that allowing any two stats to be compared in a balanced way prevents? By forcing in-combat balance, you make out-of-combat modifiers less meaningful.
As I stated upthread:
in◆⃟ wrote:
Skill modifiers are required to be as "tight" as combat modifiers. In a single combat encounter, a single character might be throwing five or six "attack" rolls. In total, the players might be making in excess of thirty rolls. When that many dice are being rolled, the +1 or +2 proficiency modifier afforded by being more trained might become noticeable amid the d20 "random noise".
On the other hand, in a social context, at least in most of the Pathfinder I've played, the number of skill rolls is much fewer. To make a modifier more noticeable when rolling a single die, a much larger modifier is required.
That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems. The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.
Different scaling methods are required. I disagree. It has worked completely fine (we would just like Proficiency to be worth a bit more.) Part of the magic of it is MAP which provides a pseudo scale (over the course of an encounter your Average To Hit modifier will be 2 or 3 points lower.)
The DCs are a problem I will note (at least in Doomsday Dawn.) But that is easier to change than removing a unified system then having to create an exception formula each and every time the non unified systems dare to try and interact.
MAP is not new. If anything, it's a holdover from Pathfinder (from 3.5, and 3.0)...
You can't really use it as an example of a solution to an issue that it hasn't solved in the past.
in◆⃟ wrote: MAP is not new. If anything, it's a holdover from Pathfinder (from 3.5, and 3.0)...
You can't really use it as an example of a solution to an issue that it hasn't solved in the past.
Yes I can as it solves the issue. Doesn't matter if the solution existed before the percieved problem. It is still there.
in◆⃟ wrote: Malk_Content wrote: That isn't a problem of keeping things in a comparable scale, that is a problem with the scale chosen. Proficiency can be made more noticable without having to have separate subsystems. The problem is that the scale required to be significant on a single roll is significantly different than the scale required for the aggregate of multiple rolls.
Different scaling methods are required. Wouldn't the better solution then be to move the skill system to require more rolls just like combat does instead of piling on bigger modifiers to patch the current implementation? Which is exactly what the Playtest does for disabling devices and picking locks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The problem is that the way they go about multiple rolls for traps is that it devolves into rolling, waiting for the GM to confirm or deny and double check it isn't a crit fall, and roll again. Having to do that all the time for skill checks would be hell, and is a big gripe even just with traps.
It works fine in combat because success (defeating all enemy combatants) is broken up into smaller parts (dealing chunks of damage) with a complex subsystem built to be fun in itself. Even martials don't just roll dice, they're doing a variety of tactics that require strategic thought.
Skill checks, by their nature, just aren't the same fit. They're often singlw actions in themselves. Without a very interesting subsystem or initiative being rolled, it's hard to make it mechanically interesting enough to warrant multiple rolls.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion
|
