It was confirmed that all the math has been refined. It needed to just for the changes in proficiency. I believe it was stated that DCs will be loosened up so you don't have to be optimized just to be minimally competent, and you can actually be really good at things now, unlike in the playtest. Details beyond that are not known. We'll probably have to wait until the book is out to see the chart, but you might be able to pick up clues from watching Oblivion Oath.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The things that have been stated are as follows:
1. There will be only one listed DC per level in the chart, plus the ability to adjust it up or down by 2, 5, or 10 (so a Trivial DC might be Level DC -10, while a Hard one might be Level DC +5, or whatever terminology they decide on). This is much easier than the playtest chart.
2. DCs are generally lower as compared to a specialist, meaning a real specialist can hit a 95% chance of success at normal difficulty tasks at medium to high levels. This likewise, as Doktor Weasel notes, makes the odds for non-specialists better.
3. Proficiency matters more, while items matter less.
Other than that, as Doktor Weasel notes, we'll need to wait and see, though all of that sounds good to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah right. I forgot about the single DC per level chart and just adding or subtracting set numbers to change difficulty. That really should simplify things quite a bit. I wonder if the chart can be broken down into a fairly simple formula. Then a GM can learn that, and never have to consult the chart at all. I suspect it'd be something in the form of: Level + X + (level / y)= DC. Then you just keep in mind the guidelines for increasing or decreasing for difficulty. Although it very well may need to be more complicated than that to fit well with the proficiency scaling.
These math changes are one of the things I'm most optimistic about. I've been pretty harsh on the playtest, but honestly, fixing the math should probably fix a very large number of the problems it had in one swoop.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
These math changes are one of the things I'm most optimistic about. I've been pretty harsh on the playtest, but honestly, fixing the math should probably fix a very large number of the problems it had in one swoop.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Such a large percentage of my playtest issues were just the specifics of the math.
I'm thus quite optimistic indeed for the final game.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
These math changes are one of the things I'm most optimistic about. I've been pretty harsh on the playtest, but honestly, fixing the math should probably fix a very large number of the problems it had in one swoop.I agree with this wholeheartedly. Such a large percentage of my playtest issues were just the specifics of the math.
I'm thus quite optimistic indeed for the final game.
For me, these changes make it possible that 2nd edition will be a game that I want to play.
But I admit I'm not as optimistic as some. Not playtesting the final numbers seems to me to make the whole thing rather, um, exciting and risky. Maybe they'll get the numbers right. But they often get this kind of thing wrong (Playtest, Starfinder Space Combat, etc etc etc) and have a history of over compensating for problems.
I suspect strongly the problem of success chance being too low has vanished. What I'm afraid of is that they'll have brought back the problem of everything being too easy (as it often is in PF1)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn’t just the basic math though. It was also the restrictions that prevented someone from gaining full proficiency in something.
Feats like Iron Will set you at a fixed proficiency for Will saves. If your class already gave you that or better, it did nothing for you. It was the same for most classes weapon and proficiencies proficiencies. You could learn a new type of weapon, but your proficiency with it would not grow because it wasn’t granted by your class. Rogue even had a class feat that expanded their weapon proficiencies but then the way that it was done that proficiency level never increased.
I am really hoping they will go more towards allowing you choices on weapon and armor proficiencies. Allow the fighter to become legendary with light armor if they want, allow other classes the choice between expanding their options or getting better (higher proficiency) with what they know.
They had everything use the same scaling, but then failed to give players options to better control what they would specialize in. The class mostly defined everything.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn’t just the basic math though. It was also the restrictions that prevented someone from gaining full proficiency in something.
Feats like Iron Will set you at a fixed proficiency for Will saves. If your class already gave you that or better, it did nothing for you. It was the same for most classes weapon and proficiencies proficiencies. You could learn a new type of weapon, but your proficiency with it would not grow because it wasn’t granted by your class. Rogue even had a class feat that expanded their weapon proficiencies but then the way that it was done that proficiency level never increased.
I am really hoping they will go more towards allowing you choices on weapon and armor proficiencies. Allow the fighter to become legendary with light armor if they want, allow other classes the choice between expanding their options or getting better (higher proficiency) with what they know.
They had everything use the same scaling, but then failed to give players options to better control what they would specialize in. The class mostly defined everything.
What you're asking for is basically the return of weapon focus as a feat option, and I reeeeally don't want that.
|
I am really hoping they will go more towards allowing you choices on weapon and armor proficiencies. Allow the fighter to become legendary with light armor if they want, allow other classes the choice between expanding their options or getting better (higher proficiency) with what they know.
This. If this isn’t done the system is unplayable in my opinion. I’m not going to regress to a system that class locks you to certain weapon / armor types based on your class with no option to make other weapon / armor types viable.
But in terms of skills I still don’t care for a level chart at all. It’s still the same old skill treadmill.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
re: skill treadmill:
The DC/level table is only for challenges presented by enemies of a given level. i.e. you want an NPC to lay a trap for the party... what should the DC be? If it is created by an NPC of a given skill level, use that chart to figure it out.
But if you're talking about something static... traversing a ledge... that DC is not to change, and the chart is not for that situation. The ledge is the ledge, no matter what level anybody nearby happens to be.
Where as the trap, if laid by an amateur, will be easier to overcome than a trap laid by an expert.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
re: skill treadmill:
The DC/level table is only for challenges presented by enemies of a given level. i.e. you want an NPC to lay a trap for the party... what should the DC be? If it is created by an NPC of a given skill level, use that chart to figure it out.
But if you're talking about something static... traversing a ledge... that DC is not to change, and the chart is not for that situation. The ledge is the ledge, no matter what level anybody nearby happens to be.
Where as the trap, if laid by an amateur, will be easier to overcome than a trap laid by an expert.
You have it backwards. If a trap is set by an NPC, you use that NPC's stats to determine the DC. If it's a static hazard like a ledge, you choose what level adventurers should see it as an average challenge and use the chart to determine the DC based on that (and if your party returns to the same ledge under the same conditions after they gained a few levels, they'll find the ledge easy to cross because its DC was set for a challenge a few levels lower)
These math changes are one of the things I'm most optimistic about. I've been pretty harsh on the playtest, but honestly, fixing the math should probably fix a very large number of the problems it had in one swoop.I agree with this wholeheartedly. Such a large percentage of my playtest issues were just the specifics of the math.
I'm thus quite optimistic indeed for the final game.
For me, these changes make it possible that 2nd edition will be a game that I want to play.
But I admit I'm not as optimistic as some. Not playtesting the final numbers seems to me to make the whole thing rather, um, exciting and risky. Maybe they'll get the numbers right. But they often get this kind of thing wrong (Playtest, Starfinder Space Combat, etc etc etc) and have a history of over compensating for problems.
I suspect strongly the problem of success chance being too low has vanished. What I'm afraid of is that they'll have brought back the problem of everything being too easy (as it often is in PF1)
Oh yeah, fully agreed. I was banging the drum asking for a second round of testing for some time. Sadly we didn't get it. And while this solves a lot of problems, there were still a whole lot of others. And it's still unclear how a lot of those will be addressed and many we still don't know if they'll be addressed, like the overly restrictive class structure. For everything I think is a terrible choice in the playtest, I see a lot of people jump out of the woodwork and insist that it's absolutely amazing. Even obvious stinkers like Resonance (seriously, someone saying they're sad to see resonance go is like someone telling me they wish a sandwich had more dirt in it. I can't even begin to understand the thought process). My biggest worry at this point, is that this game isn't made for me, but for people whose entire idea of what's good and bad is entirely alien to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, if armor and weapon proficiency made characters not viable and therefore rendered the playtest unplayable for you, I don't know how you played PF1. Weapon and armor proficiency were purely math enhancers that took the place of BAB and number tweaking class features like weapon training and armor training. A level 20 PF1 fighter had +10 accuracy over a PF1 Rogue. The playtest difference was +2. Even factoring in the increased crit chance that is still tiny.
The armor proficiency bumps for armor really only do enough to keep heavy armor viable by giving it a +1 max AC bonus over what you can get for medium armor and light armor with dex investment, and in exchange you are still slower and have a worse ACP. Legendary light armor would have meant light armor was the only optimal choice.
By comparison, the core PF1 fighter could eventually get a max dex bonus of +7 in mithral fullplate with 0 armor check penalty or speed reduction, on top of its base +9 armor bonus. That means heavy armor eventually becomes the clear choice even for archers or other dexterity based combatants. How does that make lightly armored fighters less viable than the playtest? This was the status quo until you started swapping out armor training with class archetypes, which won't be in PF2 core (just as they weren't in PF1) but are specifically noted as existing in the CRB and will certainly be coming out. Archetypes for lightly armor fighters are all but guaranteed. If for no other reason than it can save them the trouble of remaking the swashbuckler class.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have it backwards. If a trap is set by an NPC, you use that NPC's stats to determine the DC. If it's a static hazard like a ledge, you choose what level adventurers should see it as an average challenge and use the chart to determine the DC based on that (and if your party returns to the same ledge under the same conditions after they gained a few levels, they'll find the ledge easy to cross because its DC was set for a challenge a few levels lower)
Yes and this system will break down just like it did for PF1. Your level 1 players come up to a castle and decide to scale the wall. Not wanting to be a terrible DM and say that’s impossible, you determine with proper equipment it should still be a DC 20 for the scale (the PC can secure a rope for the rest). Still a decent chance of failure for a specialist. Fast forward 5 levels. Due to number bloat that PC is now significantly more capable at scaling that wall. Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers. It gets even worse for a world like golarion where PCs are amongst a sea of heroes. The number bloat shatters verisimilitude.
But skills in general had some really strange design decisions. For instance in a different thread Mark admitted he doesn’t like the no bonus to untrained and will likely houserule... why is a core designer of the game houseruling a major component?
I understand the ship has sailed on this one but the both sides understood one thing: untrained skills/saves/weapons become useless at higher levels. Those for level to everything knew it solved that issue. Those against level to everything knew it solved that issue and drastically simplified DCs (they become static). No one wanted a mixture of the two because both sides knew that did nothing to solve the problem.
As for armor and weapon proficiency in PF1, with investment yes you could be great with one. But for fighters their armor bonuses were generic for all armor.. it wasnt until archetypes / hybrids started specializing. Which is totally fine just not for the base class to be focused around one thing. I understand if they make light armor legendary it will make it “the only” option or obsolete heavy armor... but that’s a huge flaw with the AC system. Everything in the world should be legendary possible and everyone should have some way to become legendary on what they want regardless of class (some should of course have a much easier time than others, abilities can still be locked such as spell casting in armor and what not)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because feedback disagreed with his personal view of what makes an enjoyable game. That feedback is the best data on player preferences they had so it makes sense to adopt it as the baseline and design systems to make the most of it and then provide deviations from that as options rather than the other way round.
I mean it’s not really a personal view. Go back and look at those debates. I was decently involved in them, others more so on both sides. Both sides clearly understood the problem being addressed (untrained becoming obsolete due to number bloat). One wanted to raise all the numbers while the other lower all the numbers at the top. Not a half and half that does nothing to solve that issue. So I question what data lead to that decision.
What you're asking for is basically the return of weapon focus as a feat option, and I reeeeally don't want that.
I mean if we bring back Weapon Focus, we're also going to need to bring back Weapon Training to represent how fighters are better than other people at using weapons. Proficiency advancements now replace a whole bunch of "baked into the class" math bonuses that PF1 had- like monks having the best unarmored proficiency replaces "Wis to AC".
Everything in the world should be legendary possible and everyone should have some way to become legendary on what they want regardless of class (some should of course have a much easier time than others, abilities can still be locked such as spell casting in armor and what not)
This is one simplified theoretical approach that could have been taken, but it was not, especially for armor. Probably, the idea that ACs between heavy and light armor could vary dramatically had to go out the window with the +/-10 critical system and there really isn't room for legendary light armor proficiency with the additional spread of proficiencies from +1 to +2. It doubled down on that problem.
The only way a legendary light armor proficiency could make sense mathematically and not destroy game balance, (but not make any sense conceptually or by lore) would be to give it to a character that could not afford an 18 Dex to start, nor to boost it at every opportunity, but with 4 stat boosts every five levels, that really isn't possible.
To bring this back to balancing the difficulties, Armor, attacks and Saves just cannot fall outside of a +/-4 really (as far as just from proficiency, not from any other bonus) at equal levels or critical results start happening so often that the game returns to PF1s hyper focus on the specialized character dominating the game and encounters in published adventures end up impossible to write that feel balanced for both experienced players and new players.
Adventure modules and Paths are the thing that makes pathfinder special. It is pretty important that the new rule set prioritize the simplification of adventure writing, not player expectation for design elegance, for the success of the game. Which is difficult for me personally, because I like getting nerdy on the game design side, but that is why I agree with Mark, and would probably run untrained -4 house rule or the no +level to any proficiency for any future pathfinder game I run.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because feedback disagreed with his personal view of what makes an enjoyable game. That feedback is the best data on player preferences they had so it makes sense to adopt it as the baseline and design systems to make the most of it and then provide deviations from that as options rather than the other way round.
But skills in general had some really strange design decisions. For instance in a different thread Mark admitted he doesn’t like the no bonus to untrained and will likely houserule... why is a core designer of the game houseruling a major component?
Yep, sometimes the game logic mouthfeel of something is so important to people's experience that it changes the right choice from the one that might play best to the one that provides people the best overall experience for the group, considering both the play experience and the feel together. Ultimately, the number of people who had a problem with advancing in their untrained skills was high-ish (often fueled by comparisons that wouldn't come up in gameplay but you can still imagine and feel to be off), but the number of people who wanted a 5e-style bounded math without level advancement was quite low.
The importance of feel/hypothetical situations vs gameplay comes up a lot in game design, and it's one of the skills that's hard to develop without working on the game (whereas clever homebrewers can and have come up with solid understandings of hard rules mechanics). Here's another example: Data shows that the percentage of play that occurs at level 20 is incredibly tiny; most gamers actually never reach it at all, even when they start an adventure that goes all the way to 20, since real life butts in eventually. However, the amount of energy we all spend making comparisons at level 20 is disproportionately high (it's one of the most common levels for people to do so, you can see it on the boards) because one of the values of level 20 is that people like to aspire to it and imagine themselves there. So, for instance (to use an example that didn't come up for PF2 since we feel we hit both), if you were a game designer choosing between an option that made level 20 play better versus one that made level 20's feel and comparison better, the latter is probably going to be better for most people. Ultimately, the best solution is to find an answer that appeals in as many dimensions as possible, but many games have been great and successful games with problems in high level play but good feel for those levels (PF1 is an example of this).
As for armor and weapon proficiency in PF1, with investment yes you could be great with one. But for fighters their armor bonuses were generic for all armor.. it wasnt until archetypes /...
No. Armor training applied to all armor, but it stopped mattering for light armor quite quickly. Light armor got no benefit from ignoring speed penalty, and masterwork light armor would get no benefit from the ACP reduction past the first armor training. You could get your max dex bonus up to +10, but that's incredibly high for even a dedicated dex build and you still get better raw AC from wearing medium armor and better still from wearing full plate. Wearing heavier armor becomes the optimal choice quite quickly any way you slice it for the core PF1 fighter.
In PF2 there is actually a trade off for the fighter to wear any given armor type. People get too hung up on what is written on their sheet and ignore the fundamental math of this.
|
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and this system will break down just like it did for PF1. Your level 1 players come up to a castle and decide to scale the wall. Not wanting to be a terrible DM and say that’s impossible, you determine with proper equipment it should still be a DC 20 for the scale (the PC can secure a rope for the rest). Still a decent chance of failure for a specialist. Fast forward 5 levels. Due to number bloat that PC is now significantly more capable at scaling that wall. Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers. It gets even worse for a world like golarion where PCs are amongst a sea of heroes. The number bloat shatters verisimilitude.
This bolded part? This is the source of your problem, and it is entirely the GM's fault and debatably bad GMing. You have allowed a meta-concern, and a particularly iffy one to even care about (not wanting to tell PCs 'no', even when that makes sense), to dictate the rules in contravention of the in-game logic. Yes, following up on that will result in the game's verisimilitude breaking down.
By all logic, you should've said in the first place 'This is Golarion, high level characters are decently common, this is a castle. It's gotta be at least a hard Level 5 check to scale. Minimum.' The hypothetical 'you' didn't, and that makes for problems with verisimilitude.
But guess what? That happens no matter what the game system is like if you make decisions like that.
As a GM, you need to make a choice, and preferably a reasoned and consistent one, about whether you're going to care about verisimilitude or decide you don't care, and need to make decisions on that basis. I have literally never played any RPG where decisions like this don't screw it up for those who care about verisimilitude, and indeed I'm not sure you can make such a game (the Amber Diceless RPG still gets screwed up if you violate in-world logic like this, and that game is, y'know, diceless).
In short, PF2's DCs by level do not cause this problem. The GM causes this problem, and can do so in any system with divergent capabilities between characters, especially those that involve character capabilities increasing over time.
Now, simply not caring about verisimilitude at all is a totally valid game style, but not one I personally prefer (indeed, I'd refuse to play in such a game), and if you don't care this problem doesn't matter, so all of the above is from the perspective of someone who does care.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and this system will break down just like it did for PF1. Your level 1 players come up to a castle and decide to scale the wall. Not wanting to be a terrible DM and say that’s impossible, you determine with proper equipment it should still be a DC 20 for the scale (the PC can secure a rope for the rest). Still a decent chance of failure for a specialist. Fast forward 5 levels. Due to number bloat that PC is now significantly more capable at scaling that wall. Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers. It gets even worse for a world like golarion where PCs are amongst a sea of heroes. The number bloat shatters verisimilitude.This bolded part? This is the source of your problem, and it is entirely the GM's fault and debatably bad GMing. You have allowed a meta-concern, and a particularly iffy one to even care about (not wanting to tell PCs 'no', even when that makes sense), to dictate the rules in contravention of the in-game logic. Yes, following up on that will result in the game's verisimilitude breaking down.
By all logic, you should've said in the first place 'This is Golarion, high level characters are decently common, this is a castle. It's gotta be at least a hard Level 5 check to scale. Minimum.' The hypothetical 'you' didn't, and that makes for problems with verisimilitude.
I agree, though it is more an inexperienced GM mistake rather than a bad GM mistake. The GM gave 1st-level characters a reason to break into a castle without giving them an easy way in. Not a goblin village with a stockade made of sticks, not a townhouse with a walled courtyard yet several taller buildings nearby, not a ruined castle with crumbling walls, but a fully-maintained castle. First-level characters are beginners, less capable than the guards inside the castle. Castles should be saved for later.
However, by TABLE 10-2: SKILL DCS BY LEVEL AND DIFFICULTY on page 9 of Rules Update 1.6, a hard level 5 check is DC 20, the same number that kaisc006 picked. A Strength 18 character trained in Athletics using a Climbing Kit and removing armor gains +4 to the roll by Rules Update 1.6 rules (using them because the table came from them), so succeeds on a roll of 16 or higher. That character will climb a 15-foot wall slowly and maybe fall once or twice. A passing guard would spot the party if they take too many tries. The athlete could climb the wall eventually, but the high DC makes the passing guard matter.
I am amused by the clever ways that the Paizo adventure paths find to make the low-level characters relevant. I remember one PF1 module that did involve breaking into a castle at 3rd level, but the party could have walked up and tried social interaction with the castle's master, talked to the locals and learned of the secret tunnel, fought the guards at the front gate, or--as my party did--climb the barely-guarded wall in the middle of the night, a mere 15 feet and DC 20 Climb check. Spider Climb is a 2nd-level spell, too.
But guess what? That happens no matter what the game system is like if you make decisions like that.
As a GM, you need to make a choice, and preferably a reasoned and consistent one, about whether you're going to care about verisimilitude or decide you don't care, and need to make decisions on that basis. I have literally never played any RPG where decisions like this don't screw it up for those who care about verisimilitude, and indeed I'm not sure you can make such a game (the Amber Diceless RPG still gets screwed up if you violate in-world logic like this, and that game is, y'know, diceless).
In short, PF2's DCs by level do not cause this problem. The GM causes this problem, and can do so in any system with divergent capabilities between characters, especially those that involve character capabilities increasing over time.
Now, simply not caring about verisimilitude at all is a totally valid game style, but not one I personally prefer (indeed, I'd refuse to play in such a game), and if you don't care this problem doesn't matter, so all of the above is from the perspective of someone who does care.
Verisimilitude leads to strange decisions occasionally. In one Pathfinder adventure path, the 7th-level party encountered a chuul, who immediately grabbed party fighter with the grab ability on its claws. The party skald decided to talk to it--by PF2 rules she would count as a master at Diplomacy. She rolled well and I had to apply versimilitude to decide on its reaction. It lived in tunnels controlled by a gang, so I decided that it had made a non-aggression pact with the gang. The skald arranged a similar pact with the chuul, dragging some fresh dead bodies killed by the party in exchange for the fighter. And they sat down for a picnic lunch with the chuul to learn about the local area from it. That was silly and it rewrote the challenge of the chuul, yet it became a moment of awesomeness for the skald that all players, except the fighter's player, smile about.
Verisimilitude is a lever provided by the GM for the players to use. And that includes telling the players, "A castle wall is too hard for the best of you to climb, except by luck. Maybe you need to think of something within your abilities. Should I repeat what you had heard about the castle already?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have a problem even with this new approach to difficulties: yes, we have a single DC per level (so level 1 has 1 DC, level 2 has 1 DC, etc, total: 20 DCs), but we can also, as GMs, impose a -2, -5 or -10 penalty, or grant a +2, +5 or +10 bonus...
You don't have to consult a huge table anymore, which is good. 20 numbers can be written on a little piece of paper and put somewhere handy.
But how do I know which DC to choose if every DC has 6 potential variants?
Will we have examples of what total DCs to give to various tasks, from the-easiest-but-I-still-want-you-to-roll to the most absurdly difficult thing one could actually be remotely successful at only if they were legendary at 20th level with the highest score and dedicated magic?
Guys, you gotta understand that outside of combat and similar situations where the total you need is already written down in a monster's or npc's stat block, or in a trap's data, or directly in the rules to use a skill, my experience is with about SIX DCs total:
5 - very easy
10 - easy
15 - challenging
20 - difficult
25 - very difficult
30 - really really damn difficult
And when it's not exactly like this, it tends to look like this. Maybe 8 total DCs instead of 6, maybe a different distribution, whatever, but I suddenly have this fear that I won't be able to judge what DC to give all the various tasks my players regularly try in an adventure - how do I know if it's a 1st level -2 or a 2nd level +5 or a 5th level -10 or a 7th level +2... really, folks, at least I hope there will be plenty of examples, or really clear and basic criteria to decide what DC a task could be...
O_O
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have a problem even with this new approach to difficulties: yes, we have a single DC per level (so level 1 has 1 DC, level 2 has 1 DC, etc, total: 20 DCs), but we can also, as GMs, impose a -2, -5 or -10 penalty, or grant a +2, +5 or +10 bonus...
You don't have to consult a huge table anymore, which is good. 20 numbers can be written on a little piece of paper and put somewhere handy.
But how do I know which DC to choose if every DC has 6 potential variants?
Will we have examples of what total DCs to give to various tasks, from the-easiest-but-I-still-want-you-to-roll to the most absurdly difficult thing one could actually be remotely successful at only if they were legendary at 20th level with the highest score and dedicated magic?
Guys, you gotta understand that outside of combat and similar situations where the total you need is already written down in a monster's or npc's stat block, or in a trap's data, or directly in the rules to use a skill, my experience is with about SIX DCs total:
5 - very easy
10 - easy
15 - challenging
20 - difficult
25 - very difficult
30 - really really damn difficultAnd when it's not exactly like this, it tends to look like this. Maybe 8 total DCs instead of 6, maybe a different distribution, whatever, but I suddenly have this fear that I won't be able to judge what DC to give all the various tasks my players regularly try in an adventure - how do I know if it's a 1st level -2 or a 2nd level +5 or a 5th level -10 or a 7th level +2... really, folks, at least I hope there will be plenty of examples, or really clear and basic criteria to decide what DC a task could be...
O_O
This concern is alleviated if they also include a comprehensive list of established DCs. IE,the DC to climb a tree, a cliff, a rope, a wall.
Also, I suspect if you keep running paizo adventures you will barely need to consult the table because most of the time the DCs are listed. Those that aren't should be pretty straightforward. Like a level 5 DC to identify a 5th level monster, adjusted upwards if it is an especially rare monster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as no DC30+ to learn about latest rumors in town or to pet bunnies, I should be fine. Couldn't care less about the table as long as there's consistency on what level of difficulty tasks are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you're asking for is basically the return of weapon focus as a feat option, and I reeeeally don't want that.
Actually, I’m not really.
Weapon Focus was a way to get ahead of your normal class proficiency. Although I think that should be part of the martial class multiclass options, I don’t really care about numerical bonuses except as they differ from the assumed proficiency.
I’m asking that if you gain a weapon proficiency, it automatically track at the same proficiency that the weapons granted by your class does.
I’m asking that those classes with less that optimal proficiency have a way to get full proficiency. Requiring use of the Multiclass options would be suitable in my opinion.
I’m asking that feats like Iron Will, Lightning Reflex, etc do something for the people not at the top of the proficiency scale.
Even with armor proficiencies, it would be possible to make the other armor types worthwhile. The easiest would be making heavier armors give DR.
At this point, the ship has sailed. In general optional rules replacing the base system do not catch on. This is especially true in Pathfinder Society. Whatever they have in the book at this time is what we get at GenCon.
|
|
I still have a problem even with this new approach to difficulties: yes, we have a single DC per level (so level 1 has 1 DC, level 2 has 1 DC, etc, total: 20 DCs), but we can also, as GMs, impose a -2, -5 or -10 penalty, or grant a +2, +5 or +10 bonus...
You don't have to consult a huge table anymore, which is good. 20 numbers can be written on a little piece of paper and put somewhere handy.
But how do I know which DC to choose if every DC has 6 potential variants?
Will we have examples of what total DCs to give to various tasks, from the-easiest-but-I-still-want-you-to-roll to the most absurdly difficult thing one could actually be remotely successful at only if they were legendary at 20th level with the highest score and dedicated magic?
Guys, you gotta understand that outside of combat and similar situations where the total you need is already written down in a monster's or npc's stat block, or in a trap's data, or directly in the rules to use a skill, my experience is with about SIX DCs total:
5 - very easy
10 - easy
15 - challenging
20 - difficult
25 - very difficult
30 - really really damn difficultAnd when it's not exactly like this, it tends to look like this. Maybe 8 total DCs instead of 6, maybe a different distribution, whatever, but I suddenly have this fear that I won't be able to judge what DC to give all the various tasks my players regularly try in an adventure - how do I know if it's a 1st level -2 or a 2nd level +5 or a 5th level -10 or a 7th level +2... really, folks, at least I hope there will be plenty of examples, or really clear and basic criteria to decide what DC a task could be...
O_O
Maybe a 5th level -2 is equivalent to a 2nd level +3, or something like this :-)
I’m asking that if you gain a weapon proficiency, it automatically track at the same proficiency that the weapons granted by your class does.
This already happens in the vast majority of cases. The Fighter Exotic Weapon Training feat and all of the weapon familiarity ancestry feats don't just make you trained in their respective weapons; they make you treat said weapons as one step down the complexity ladder. Martial weapons are treated as simple, Exotic are treated as martial. As of right now there is only one exotic weapon that isn't already paired with an ancestry, so they are all pretty much accessible this way. And every ancestry weapon familiarity also packs a follow up feat at 13th to get you to expert. And with adopted ancestry you really have access to a huge selection of weapons for this.
The only case where this doesn't quite work is the Weapon Proficiency general feat, but frankly that seems like an oversight. They acknowledged they screwed up the wording on the Fighter's Exotic Weapon Training and it didn't work as intended until they updated it. Something similar probably happened here and there's a pretty good chance it is fixed.
Like, I guess technically a rogue who was using a weapon they became trained in through an ancestry feat but that didn't have an ancestry trait wouldn't have it increase to expert from weapon trick at 13th? But that's a super niche case and they can always take their ancestry's Weapon Expertise feat.
I’m asking that those classes with less that optimal proficiency have a way to get full proficiency. Requiring use of the Multiclass options would be suitable in my opinion.
If by "less than optimal proficiency" you mean "less than a fighter," then you're almost certainly out of luck and that is a bad idea. Legendary Proficiency is the equivalent of the PF1 fighter's Weapon Training feature. That is their thing. Every other class gets something to make up for this. A fighter doesn't get Rage, or Flurry, or Sneak Attack, or Spells, or Hunt Target.
If you mean "catching up to the martial classes," then multiclassing and ancestry feats already has you covered. Any class can get to within 1 point of accuracy of any class other than the fighter. You can get weapon expertise at the same point most martials are just gaining master. Similar options exist for armor (Paladin) and unarmored (monk.)
Having the options to get any closer would basically be asking for the option to turn your wizard into a full BAB class who is also still a wizard.
I’m asking that feats like Iron Will, Lightning Reflex, etc do something for the people not at the top of the proficiency scale.
Why? You've mentioned this as a problem for you, but I don't really see why they need to take you higher in an already good save. Not every feat needs to be relevant to every character.
Even with armor proficiencies, it would be possible to make the other armor types worthwhile. The easiest would be making heavier armors give DR.
I believe there is a strong case for any given armor in the game being worthwhile for some character or another. Even just allowing you to avoid prioritizing Dex is an advantage for heavy armor. It arguably doesn't balance out the disadvantages if you're not a fighter or paladin with scaling proficiency, but we already know some of those disadvantages are being offset. (High strength lets you ignore speed reduction.)
(I'll point out almost everything I said here only really applies to the playtest. We know just enough about proficiency in 2e to know how little we know, which makes a conversation about it difficult. But I disagree pretty strongly that the playtest's method of proficiency advancement in relation to different classes was especially deficient.)
|
|
But how do I know which DC to choose if every DC has 6 potential variants?
I suspect there'll be a fairly lengthy list of examples to help.
You can probably also get by with just using 'What level characters should have pretty good odds of this?' and using that one of the 20 options. That may result in very slightly different DCs than fiddling with the +/- stuff, but I suspect it'll give pretty similar odds of success, which is close enough for government work. There may be a few exceptions that require the +/- stuff (like, I'll bet that monster knowledge is based on the monster's level plus a Rarity modifier), but they'll be pretty explicit.
The real nitty gritty of it is probably more relevant for set in-universe things and adventure writers than individual GMs. I mean, I still intend to use it, but that's due to mild OCD more than actual need.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(like, I'll bet that monster knowledge is based on the monster's level plus a Rarity modifier),
I REALLY hope that they've done away with that.
I HATE HATE HATE HATE the fact that the monsters level makes them harder to know about.
It is called Dungeons and DRAGONS for a reason (Yeah, I know, technically its not :-)).
EVERYBODY in the world would know the basics about dragons. They're scary reptiles who breath all sorts of stuff, fly, love treasure, and can destroy an army.
Oh sure, the details about Blue vs Red vs Gold is going to be less commonly known. But the basics? Everybody knows.
EVERYBODY in an area where trolls are found would know about the basics (they regenerate and you need fire to stop that).
The ONLY thing that should affect knowledge checks is rarity. And rarity in the local sense at that (people know a LOT about Vampires in Ustalov :-)).
Oh and, of course, it is quite possible to mis identify some monsters. Mistaking a Wyvern for a Dragon or Vice Versa is easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ONLY thing that should affect knowledge checks is rarity. And rarity in the local sense at that (people know a LOT about Vampires in Ustalov :-)).
Oh and, of course, it is quite possible to mis identify some monsters. Mistaking a Wyvern for a Dragon or Vice Versa is easy.
I dunno...I think there's a certain charm to the fact that a crit fail on Recall Knowledge becomes more likely based on how many embellished stories one might hear about a monster.
Like, imagine a low-level adventurer trying to figure out what is reliable information about the tarrasque. Does it regenerate? Demand maiden sacrifices? Wasn't there a story about its kidney stones serving as one of the key components to a philosopher's stone? As adventurers grow in level, their experiences probably make it easier to separate the likely lies from the actual truth.
Now, this does have its limits, but there are some rolls that I just won't ever call for. I can't imagine telling a player that she needs to roll a die to figure out that werecreatures are repelled by silver, for example.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this does have its limits, but there are some rolls that I just won't ever call for. I can't imagine telling a player that she needs to roll a die to figure out that werecreatures are repelled by silver, for example.
I can, actually. An example I've seen in the Dresden Files books. There were three different types of werewolves in one book, and as I recall, only one was affected by silver, and it had to be silver inherited from family.
It very easily could be that, in-world, people managed to forget about the ancestral part, if you wanted to make things more difficult.
I mean, level does impact on knowledge rarity.
You need to survive a few meetings to figure out weaknesses. Higher level creatures have less people surviving their encounters, hence knowledge about them is rarer.
Other creatures are the stuff of legends and tales, like dragons and demons, and are more commonly known - perhaps not in the details, but overall.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, level does impact on knowledge rarity.
You need to survive a few meetings to figure out weaknesses. Higher level creatures have less people surviving their encounters, hence knowledge about them is rarer.
Other creatures are the stuff of legends and tales, like dragons and demons, and are more commonly known - perhaps not in the details, but overall.
You guys overall have good instincts. We were tired of those weird situation that pauljathome mentions that have been around since PF1. In the final, we explicitly state something to the effect that knowing the well-known deeds of the mighty spellcasting red dragon near town might be incredibly easy, for example, but knowing which spells she has available or other details about her combat stats would be harder, based on her level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing. Knowing it's a Dragon vs. a Drake vs. a Wyvern (easy DC 10 say) is great and all, but unless you KNOW what that means it doesn't really matter(DC for monster level).
Another example could be the DC for knowing that anthropomorphic vulture thing is a demon is fairly low (DC of level -5). Knowing it's called a Vrock is a bit harder (DC level -2). Knowing that when it starts to dance you're in trouble is harder (DC = level). Knowing that it will hit you with lightning and can teleport and is immune to electricity and has DR/Cold Iron and Good is something else (DC level + 5).
[all numbers for sake of argument only]
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also: For something that everyone is expected to know, just don't call for a roll. If there's no interesting/meaningful cost for failure and the information is so common that everyone has some general idea, then why roll?
Ex
Is that a dragon? Yes. No roll needed. Maybe you also know that dragons fly (look at it go!) and do breath stuff (my cabbages!).
Save rolls for the lore about specific dragon types and their weaknesses.
|
|
You guys overall have good instincts. We were tired of those weird situation that pauljathome mentions that have been around since PF1. In the final, we explicitly state something to the effect that knowing the well-known deeds of the mighty spellcasting red dragon near town might be incredibly easy, for example, but knowing which spells she has available or other details about her combat stats would be harder, based on her level.I mean, level does impact on knowledge rarity.
You need to survive a few meetings to figure out weaknesses. Higher level creatures have less people surviving their encounters, hence knowledge about them is rarer.
Other creatures are the stuff of legends and tales, like dragons and demons, and are more commonly known - perhaps not in the details, but overall.
THANK YOU !!!
And yes it makes sense that most people who survived observing the dragon (ie low-level creatures that were no threat to it) would know of its iconic abilities. But its high-level spells for example were only witnessed by a few who obviously did not survive to tell the tale.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes and this system will break down just like it did for PF1. Your level 1 players come up to a castle and decide to scale the wall. Not wanting to be a terrible DM and say that’s impossible, you determine with proper equipment it should still be a DC 20 for the scale (the PC can secure a rope for the rest). Still a decent chance of failure for a specialist. Fast forward 5 levels. Due to number bloat that PC is now significantly more capable at scaling that wall. Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers. It gets even worse for a world like golarion where PCs are amongst a sea of heroes. The number bloat shatters verisimilitude.This bolded part? This is the source of your problem, and it is entirely the GM's fault and debatably bad GMing. You have allowed a meta-concern, and a particularly iffy one to even care about (not wanting to tell PCs 'no', even when that makes sense), to dictate the rules in contravention of the in-game logic. Yes, following up on that will result in the game's verisimilitude breaking down.
For me, the questionable line is this one:
Now you have to start constraining the world around them to match the conflated PC numbers.
('conflated' = 'inflated'?)
Do you have to constrain the world? Why? I think castle walls should, in general, be climbable in a fantasy game. Imagine a siege situation where trolls (or ninjas or whatever) are climbing up the walls and guards are dropping rocks on them and the PCs are caught up in it. That sounds more exciting than 'the trolls mill around at the bottom of the wall while the PCs kill them arrows'.
Besides, the world is full of flying creatures and burrowing creatures and ghosts and wizards, so if high walls are your only means of protection then you're pretty much doomed in the long run anyway.
So, the party finds a castle at level 1. One of them can climb the wall if she makes a DC 20 climb check (which sounds pretty difficult to me). If she succeeds, she throws down a rope for the others.
Five levels later, she comes back. Now she can make the climb check more easily. Great! It would be pretty unsatisfying if she succeeded the first time and failed when she returned.
The rest of the party, who aren't so good at climbing, now have a 40% chance of succeeding instead of a 15% chance as they would have had at level 1.
At level 10, they all return to the castle again. Now, if they got +1/level to this skill, they can all climb up with a pretty good chance of success. (But not guaranteed; again, DC 20 is not that easy.) They're level 10 PCs. Why shouldn't they all climb the wall of a castle?
If they find other castles, the GM could say these ones are a bit harder to climb due to different construction, or that they're the same. Either seems fine to me, as long as they don't overdo it.
Or if they keep climbing into the same castle and stealing things, the GM could say that when they return that someone has coated the walls with a slippery substance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
“Why can my wizard grapple or shove around a colossal dragon if he can’t lift a boulder over his head?”
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Why can my wizard grapple or shove around a colossal dragon if he can’t lift a boulder over his head?”What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
It's a closely guarded secret, but dragons are actually made of styrofoam.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Why can my wizard grapple or shove around a colossal dragon if he can’t lift a boulder over his head?”What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
Don’t tell your wizard, but the dragon is humoring him.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a closely guarded secret, but dragons are actually made of styrofoam.“Why can my wizard grapple or shove around a colossal dragon if he can’t lift a boulder over his head?”What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
They use balsa wood for Linnorms.
I’m asking that if you gain a weapon proficiency, it automatically track at the same proficiency that the weapons granted by your class does.This already happens in the vast majority of cases. The Fighter Exotic Weapon Training feat and all of the weapon familiarity ancestry feats don't just make you trained in their respective weapons; they make you treat said weapons as one step down the complexity ladder. Martial weapons are treated as simple, Exotic are treated as martial. As of right now there is only one exotic weapon that isn't already paired with an ancestry, so they are all pretty much accessible this way. And every ancestry weapon familiarity also packs a follow up feat at 13th to get you to expert. And with adopted ancestry you really have access to a huge selection of weapons for this.
The only case where this doesn't quite work is the Weapon Proficiency general feat, but frankly that seems like an oversight. They acknowledged they screwed up the wording on the Fighter's Exotic Weapon Training and it didn't work as intended until they updated it. Something similar probably happened here and there's a pretty good chance it is fixed.
Rogue who takes the Rogue feat Bludgeoner never gets better with the club or mace unless they go outside the class to do so.
It remains to be seen if the Brute Attack rogue advances with their weapons. There was nothing to indicate they would in Playtest update document.
Hopefully all of these are cleared up in the final rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a closely guarded secret, but dragons are actually made of styrofoam.“Why can my wizard grapple or shove around a colossal dragon if he can’t lift a boulder over his head?”What I really hope for is that the table isn't called "difficultiy DC per level" or some variant of that.
I hope the column is to be headlined "Task level" or "encounter level" or so, so no one can argue that it is referencing the PC's level.
Yes please, we had enough of those people in the playtest.
Now if we just could also write them a note saying how some things are not skill checks, we’d be golden.
(Classic “why should my wizard with Str10 lift a boulder over his head” posts. TLDR he can’t, it’s too much bulk)
High level Wizards have learned Gracie BJJ and they can use leverage and technique rather than brute force.