Glass Cannon Live Play revelations


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.

That's fair. For my baseline of annoying roll-mandated creativity, I was specifically thinking about the FFG Star Wars game, with their weird dice and advantage/threat results that required thinking up bonuses/complications on potentially every die roll, and in combat tended to get used for only a few generic things instead. That got tedious for me real fast, whereas PF2 Playtest knowledge rolls tended to come (sometimes a few rolls as a group) once per encounter/new phenomenon/whatever, and I had to come up with fake info even less than that.


graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.

Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.

It's not quite that easy. If a player asks if they've seen or heard of that monster before the reply is a recall check. This leads people to feel they don't know anything unless they train in the skill vs being able to pick up info. It's totally different from PF1 in that the check was if you knew something or not. Now it not just that you don't know it but you get your hand slapped for asking. It doesn't help that an unlucky secret trained roll can be worse than a lucky secret untrained roll. So it not so much not knowing bad things can happen but relearning how things work and going against inertia: it doesn't seem right to say 'do I know what that is? A recall check... Forget I asked, I guess I don't want to know anymore...'.


The too many hands comment gave me this Random thought: I wonder how Paizo will handle multiple limbed creatures in PF2. I need to look at a marilith asap.


The Marilith had a special action for I think 3 actions to attack everyone in reach

For player characters with more limbs I would guess it goes the Starfinder way that it just opens up possibilities (I guess one could do a double slash with 2 2h weapons)


Vidmaster7 wrote:
The too many hands comment gave me this Random thought: I wonder how Paizo will handle multiple limbed creatures in PF2.

With hands not tied to actions, I don't think they have to handle anything. It'll pretty much just allow you to hold more things.


graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The too many hands comment gave me this Random thought: I wonder how Paizo will handle multiple limbed creatures in PF2.
With hands not tied to actions, I don't think they have to handle anything. It'll pretty much just allow you to hold more things.

But A merilith will have to be a special case!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mariliths get a bonus to carrying all the grocery bags from the car to the house in one trip.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Marliths get a couple of special multiple action activities, one representing attacking one person a bunch of times as a single high damage attack that hits for normal attack damage even on a miss (though not a crit miss), and another that allows them to attack up to 6 people each once.

So it's reflected by giving them special things they can do to reflect it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
The too many hands comment gave me this Random thought: I wonder how Paizo will handle multiple limbed creatures in PF2.
With hands not tied to actions, I don't think they have to handle anything. It'll pretty much just allow you to hold more things.
But A merilith will have to be a special case!

It's more that they gain special abilities because they are a Marilith than because they get stuff for having multiple arms.

Mechalibur wrote:
Mariliths get a bonus to carrying all the grocery bags from the car to the house in one trip.

They can touch up their makeup while attacking you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*

How rules are presented is an important part of how they're reacted to. I can't recall secret rolls being marked out as a default use for all knowledge checks, perception checks, insight checks, stealth checks and disable device checks in PF1e. Even if those were part of the PF1e core rules, they were perceived differently because of how they were presented.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand people will react differently to the same rule when it's presented differently.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success;

THis is probably the worst part of skill checks in the playtest. Bad thing on crit fails mean people won't try things unless they have a big bonus on that action. That seems to stifle creative play rather than encourage it.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful.

Or proof that you shouldn't try something unless you have the biggest bonus in the group.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Marliths get a couple of special multiple action activities, one representing attacking one person a bunch of times as a single high damage attack that hits for normal attack damage even on a miss (though not a crit miss), and another that allows them to attack up to 6 people each once.

So it's reflected by giving them special things they can do to reflect it.

Oh man. That reminds me of another game I use to play. I wonder what it could have been. There's so many good ideas in PF2e. I just worry about how much the bad ideas poisons the well. Not much longer to go until we find out though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Marliths get a couple of special multiple action activities, one representing attacking one person a bunch of times as a single high damage attack that hits for normal attack damage even on a miss (though not a crit miss), and another that allows them to attack up to 6 people each once.

So it's reflected by giving them special things they can do to reflect it.

Thanks for the Info!


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.
It's not quite that easy. If a player asks if they've seen or heard of that monster before the reply is a recall check. This leads people to feel they don't know anything unless they train in the skill vs being able to pick up info. It's totally different from PF1 in that the check was if you knew something or not. Now it not just that you don't know it but you get your hand slapped for asking. It doesn't help that an unlucky secret trained roll can be worse than a lucky secret untrained roll. So it not so much not knowing bad things can happen but relearning how things work and going against inertia: it doesn't seem right to say 'do I know what that is? A recall check... Forget I asked, I guess I don't want to know anymore...'.

It's kind of like if you are lost and you ask someone for directions.

Rare is the person who says "I don't know" rather than point in some direction that feels like it is right to them so that they feel that they are helping.

In my experience, one out of three of such people will point you the wrong way.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Secret Rolls aren’t anything new; and like was said before, ignoring the rule doesn’t mean the dev’s are gonna bust in and force your roll to be secret; as amusing as that would be. I’m more surprised that a Secret Roll tag has become as controversial as it has. *shrugs*

1) How rules are presented is an important part of how they're reacted to. I can't recall secret rolls being marked out as a default use for all knowledge checks, perception checks, insight checks, stealth checks and disable device checks in PF1e. Even if those were part of the PF1e core rules, they were perceived differently because of how they were presented.

I don't know why it's so hard to understand people will react differently to the same rule when it's presented differently.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
As for the Knowledge check, it only does something on crit fail and success;

2) This is probably the worst part of skill checks in the playtest. Bad thing on crit fails mean people won't try things unless they have a big bonus on that action. That seems to stifle creative play rather than encourage it.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful.
3) Or proof that you shouldn't try something unless you have the biggest bonus in the group.

1) You are right. I feel it immensely valuable that a new DM should know that if they don’t want their players to know the number to a roll they don’t have to; rather than feel like they’re somehow cheating. This was something i was learning to do with my group for certain rolls and only learned years later that others had a similar idea. Some groups don’t like Secret Rolls, and that’s fair. I’m simply surprised that most of the comments against it have been more ‘passionate’ rather than dismissive. In the end it’s my opinion on the take.

2) I just feel the absolute opposite about this. If someone is so worried about crit failing a secret roll then they would be worried about crit failing a normal knowledge roll. Also, ‘Unmistakable Lore’ was a 2nd level skill feat; so literally anyone that was planning to use ‘Recall Knowledge’ even semi-regularly could take it and not worry about crit fail. Assurance also got a nice buff in the final version which would take the secret roll away all together.

3) This is more of a debatable point than a definitive one. I feel most would agree that the one with the biggest bonus does the roll on average, so i’m not sure where this is suppose to go. . . Also, from being in beginning groups where the trained expert fails a check, so the untrained guy rolls next just bogs down time on average so the less dice spam is incentivized the better IMO.


graystone wrote:
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
graystone wrote:
RicoTheBold wrote:
The rolls are infrequent enough that it didn't usually bother me too much; even if I wasn't feeling creative it wasn't too hard to come up with stuff.
There is a learning curve here: I saw a LOT of these rolls starting out as everyone can roll for these checks. Not knowing it was a bad idea, even those with low or no bonuses rolled to see if they happened to know anything, resulting in quite a lot of incorrect data, often more than correct data.
Proof that too many hands in the kitchen isn’t always useful. They should definitely be informed that there is a down side though.
It's not quite that easy. If a player asks if they've seen or heard of that monster before the reply is a recall check. This leads people to feel they don't know anything unless they train in the skill vs being able to pick up info. It's totally different from PF1 in that the check was if you knew something or not. Now it not just that you don't know it but you get your hand slapped for asking. It doesn't help that an unlucky secret trained roll can be worse than a lucky secret untrained roll. So it not so much not knowing bad things can happen but relearning how things work and going against inertia: it doesn't seem right to say 'do I know what that is? A recall check... Forget I asked, I guess I don't want to know anymore...'.

Wasn’t this a thing with 1e as well though?

‘ Hey, do i recognize what that is?’

Or

‘Oh, hey! It’s a Kelpie; does my Wizard know what they can do?’

“Roll me a knowledge check”

I honestly can’t imagine that if a DM gives you knowledge on a creature, like from an open book on manticores in an earlier room, that they would force you to roll for it. I mean, they could if they were a stickler about it, but i feel they would do the same in 1e if they’re that hard up on it.

I mean, maybe it’s just a reflexive thing for my group, but i can’t imagine it feeling like a ‘slap on the hand’. If that’s how you feel it might play out i guess i’ll agree to disagree for now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Also, ‘Unmistakable Lore’ was a 2nd level skill feat; so literally anyone that was planning to use ‘Recall Knowledge’ even semi-regularly could take it and not worry about crit fail.

Which is great if you're a specialist, but everyone who isn't has effectively been locked out of the knowledge game because you're more likely to poison the well than anything else.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Wasn’t this a thing with 1e as well though?

No, crit fails were not a standard rules assumption in 1e.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.


Rysky wrote:
I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.

Yes, but people could roll for those DC 10's or lower... Now that don't. Now they are actively punished to trying to recall anything they have a 50% chance or less to know.

Secondly, invested in PF1 only meant a single skill point. It seems a bit skewed to compare that to invested in PF2 which is trained and assurance.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I mean, maybe it’s just a reflexive thing for my group, but i can’t imagine it feeling like a ‘slap on the hand’.

No, a slap on the wrist is seeing a goblin, the party asking what it is and the party honestly thinking it's a squirrel or a tree trunk [or whatever fake info it is] instead of just not knowing what it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It was clearly a Kobold.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.

Yes, but people could roll for those DC 10's or lower... Now that don't. Now they are actively punished to trying to recall anything they have a 50% chance or less to know.

Secondly, invested in PF1 only meant a single skill point. It seems a bit skewed to compare that to invested in PF2 which is trained and assurance.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I mean, maybe it’s just a reflexive thing for my group, but i can’t imagine it feeling like a ‘slap on the hand’.
No, a slap on the wrist is seeing a goblin, the party asking what it is and the party honestly thinking it's a squirrel or a tree trunk [or whatever fake info it is] instead of just not knowing what it is.

Only on a critical fail.


Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
It was clearly a Kobold.

No, my roll clearly said squirrel. Maybe the squirrel is in a kobold costume?

Rysky wrote:
Only on a critical fail.

How often your wrist gets slapped isn't really the issue: if it feels like a slap on the wrist or not when it does happen was the question.


Rysky wrote:
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.

Yes, but people could roll for those DC 10's or lower... Now that don't. Now they are actively punished to trying to recall anything they have a 50% chance or less to know.

Secondly, invested in PF1 only meant a single skill point. It seems a bit skewed to compare that to invested in PF2 which is trained and assurance.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I mean, maybe it’s just a reflexive thing for my group, but i can’t imagine it feeling like a ‘slap on the hand’.
No, a slap on the wrist is seeing a goblin, the party asking what it is and the party honestly thinking it's a squirrel or a tree trunk [or whatever fake info it is] instead of just not knowing what it is.
Only on a critical fail.

Which i imagine isn't possible for a goblin unless natural one's are definitely now critical failures on skills/knowledge

But I don't know what the DCs will be


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
It was clearly a Kobold.

No, my roll clearly said squirrel. Maybe the squirrel is in a kobold costume?

Rysky wrote:
Only on a critical fail.
How often your wrist gets slapped isn't really the issue: if it feels like a slap on the wrist or not when it does happen was the question.

Your experience is so much more confrontational and negative then mine. Its got to be because I play with friends and you play with strangers. We would just make a joke about the squirrel all get a good laugh and move on. Maybe some friendly teasing at the worst. It would just add some fun to the game for us.

Also it was clearly a Kobold. Squirrels don't run off with children... typically.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I now really want an adventure involving Kobolds and sentient giant squirrels where the Kobolds are being blamed for a spate of child kidnappings. Any Kobolds questioned would insist "it was the squirrels" - and no one would believe them...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

Which i imagine isn't possible for a goblin unless natural one's are definitely now critical failures on skills/knowledge

But I don't know what the DCs will be

I've personally rolled 11 1's in a row before and 'races' can start out with 3 -2's in stats, so even the lowly goblin is crit failable using PF1 dc's.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Your experience is so much more confrontational and negative then mine.

Sure once is funny, twice is less so, and after that you're checking for dain bramage... It gets old quick.

Lanathar wrote:
Also it was clearly a Kobold. Squirrels don't run off with children... typically.

My friend, you've clearly never encountered a dire squirrel before. ;) It's just collecting children for the winter...

PS: in all seriousness I HAVE been in an adventure with dire squirrels before. Halflings could ride on them.


Lanathar wrote:
I now really want an adventure involving Kobolds and sentient giant squirrels where the Kobolds are being blamed for a spate of child kidnappings. Any Kobolds questioned would insist "it was the squirrels" - and no one would believe them...

I'm soooo using that idea.


graystone wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

Which i imagine isn't possible for a goblin unless natural one's are definitely now critical failures on skills/knowledge

But I don't know what the DCs will be

I've personally rolled 11 1's in a row before and 'races' can start out with 3 -2's in stats, so even the lowly goblin is crit failable using PF1 dc's.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Your experience is so much more confrontational and negative then mine.

Sure once is funny, twice is less so, and after that you're checking for dain bramage... It gets old quick.

Lanathar wrote:
Also it was clearly a Kobold. Squirrels don't run off with children... typically.

My friend, you've clearly never encountered a dire squirrel before. ;) It's just collecting children for the winter...

PS: in all seriousness I HAVE been in an adventure with dire squirrels before. Halflings could ride on them.

Shouldn't goblins be DC 5 or 6 in PF1 as they are common. Admittedly those +/- 5 to DCs for how rare something is in PF1 is rather subjective

I just realised that I had forgotten what thread we are in and that this podcast confirmed critical failures on knowledge - hence the flamingos


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
I now really want an adventure involving Kobolds and sentient giant squirrels where the Kobolds are being blamed for a spate of child kidnappings. Any Kobolds questioned would insist "it was the squirrels" - and no one would believe them...
I'm soooo using that idea.

It actually seems like it could fit a We be Goblins theme as well


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I believe Pumpkin was bringing up that only people that invested in the Knowledge skills made Knowledge checks in 1st (since if you were untrained you couldn’t roll for DC above 10), so if no one was invested, no one made the rolls.
Yes, but people could roll for those DC 10's or lower... Now that don't. Now they are actively punished to trying to recall anything they have a 50% chance or less to know.

I think this is an example where comparisons between games breaks down to be pretty meaningless. I do think it's odd that you're unhappy about having gone from "unable to attempt most knowledge rolls except DC10 or below" to "able to attempt any knowledge roll but it might be a bad idea". It seems to me like being upset about having more choice and resulting concequences, which imo is the core of the game.

Anyway, comparisons with 1e kinda fall apart - if you could only roll knowledge for DC10 or lower in 1e (how did you know it was DC10 or lower? Must have to ask GM and get metaknowledge about the DC of the check in the first place) - say you decided to only roll knowledge checks of DC10 or lower in 2e - you'd literally only crit fail on a nat1 (excepting for negative INT mods or similar). Hardly "most of the time" or anything. A one-in-20 chance to get false info is hardly "actively punishing" imo. If you add an investment of Trained in the skill (I don't consider Assurance to be necessary to be invested in p2) then you literally cannot crit fail a DC10 check unless you started with a non-standard -3 or less in your INT mod, and even then not once you got past level 1.

On the other hand, 2e gives you the ability to attempt higher DC checks, but with more possibility that you'll fail or crit fail. That's a choice. You don't have to take it, but the option is there. Which it wasn't in 1e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We were told that level appropriate challenges were aimed at crit-succeeding and crit-failing always having a chance of occurring. Now your optimised character might be able to edge out and remove the crit fail option. But your unoptimised character might have a greater than 5% chance of getting that crit fail.

All it really does is penalise anyone who hasn't optimised for a skill. The second you have someone who has optimised for the skill, anyone else rolling is taking an unnecessary risk.

We see this phenomenon in Pathfinder 1e. Traps all have a crit-fail equivalent. Typically only the person with the highest bonus rolls for traps in part because of this.

Crit failing might introduce one or two funny moments. But by far I expect it to be an annoyance that people will actively work to avoid.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

5% isn’t the majority of rolls.

As for the other example, if you have no investment in the Knowledge Skill in question and have an Intelligence penalty why would the party trust anything you said on the matter? Your character literally has no clue what they’re talking about and the dice support that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, Lore skill exist and they can help in knowledge checks, so a Barbarian with Hunter background could try to recall knowledge about beasts per example and if the GM is kind maybe even letting you disarm hunting traps with that.


Lanathar wrote:
Shouldn't goblins be DC 5 or 6 in PF1 as they are common. Admittedly those +/- 5 to DCs for how rare something is in PF1 is rather subjective

Base goblins are a 5 but it's based on CR. I was thinking of a goblin with some levels but I can see were it's confusing, sorry. DC10 is also listed "(for really easy questions)", so that was why I was aiming for a 10: It could have been a question on what kind of tree that oak tree is and I think it coral...

Ngodrup wrote:
I do think it's odd that you're unhappy about having gone from "unable to attempt most knowledge rolls except DC10 or below" to "able to attempt any knowledge roll but it might be a bad idea".

That's not the right way to think about it: for a single skill point, you can roll on any DC so with a minor investment you get the pro of PF2's way without the false info. To not have false into you need to use a trained slot AND take assurance. We're not even close to an equivalent exchange.

Ngodrup wrote:
(how did you know it was DC10 or lower? Must have to ask GM and get metaknowledge about the DC of the check in the first place)

Meta? You ask you Dm a question and if it's 11+ the DM tells you you don't know anything, you don't have to roll. It's really not very hard.

Ngodrup wrote:
"most of the time"
Rysky wrote:
5% isn’t the majority of rolls.

Who said either of those thing? It just has to happen often enough to be annoying: It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 50% for that to be true IMO.


Kyrone wrote:
Well, Lore skill exist and they can help in knowledge checks, so a Barbarian with Hunter background could try to recall knowledge about beasts per example and if the GM is kind maybe even letting you disarm hunting traps with that.

It's more about not being able to ask "really easy questions" about the world around you without training in that skill, let alone basic questions (DC 15), without risking a screw up. I may have to take one of the options that allows you to add level to untrained checks just so I don't feel like an idiot when I can't recall the name of the country I grew up in. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So, I think non-specialists won't be making Knowledge checks, but for a different reason: Recall Knowledge takes an action. (At least, it did in the playtest). Now, if you have a reasonable chance of success, it might be worth the action. But if not? You probably had something better to do with that action. And if you want to be an expert at knowledge checks? Assurance + Automatic Knowledge. I think Mark assured us that Assurance will be better than it was in the Playtest...
Edit: This applies to Encounter mode, of course.


First World Bard wrote:
Edit: This applies to Encounter mode, of course.

*nods* I've been thinking of out of combat checks were the action doesn't matter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
That's not the right way to think about it: for a single skill point, you can roll on any DC so...

Thanks for explaining in more detail; I still like the new system personally but I definitely understand your point now and see where you're coming from with your criticisms :)


@Greystone - With the example you gave about confusing goblins for squirrels; i’m just picturing a GM saying that with a straight face while you start in SandPoint. Though if we’re talking higher level Goblins or a Goblin Shaman, a crit fail would seem more like ‘they look less important than the standard ones’ or ‘you’re honestly confused why one decided to where a dress and occasionally sings while going in a circle; but the others seem entertained by the actions’.

I also thought we got an example of the new DC chart somewhere? You did point out a notable difference though; that being 1e untrained could know up to DC10 info and 2e must be trained to attempt. We’ll have to see how much of an issue this becomes overall, but i can see your point on a stickler GM forcing Recall Checks on basic/common info.


graystone wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Well, Lore skill exist and they can help in knowledge checks, so a Barbarian with Hunter background could try to recall knowledge about beasts per example and if the GM is kind maybe even letting you disarm hunting traps with that.
It's more about not being able to ask "really easy questions" about the world around you without training in that skill, let alone basic questions (DC 15), without risking a screw up. I may have to take one of the options that allows you to add level to untrained checks just so I don't feel like an idiot when I can't recall the name of the country I grew up in. :P

If the really easy questions are DC 10, how can you critically fail?


Rysky wrote:

5% isn’t the majority of rolls.

As for the other example, if you have no investment in the Knowledge Skill in question and have an Intelligence penalty why would the party trust anything you said on the matter? Your character literally has no clue what they’re talking about and the dice support that.

I don’t know what you mean by 5% of the majority of rolls.

As for no knowledge checks if your not trained, you do realise the idea of crit failing extends far beyond knowledge checks, right? And is a fundamental part of the skill system (or at least was in the playtest)? We also don’t know how optimised the DCs are and whether an ability score modifier of +0 is enough to allow you to beat the DC by +10. Because if it isn’t then you will be crit failing more often then 5% of the time.


Well, we know the basics DC recommended from the spoilers.

Proficiency Rank DC
Untrained 10
Trained 15
Expert 20
Master 30
Legendary 40


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
@Greystone - With the example you gave about confusing goblins for squirrels; i’m just picturing a GM saying that with a straight face while you start in SandPoint. Though if we’re talking higher level Goblins or a Goblin Shaman, a crit fail would seem more like ‘they look less important than the standard ones’ or ‘you’re honestly confused why one decided to where a dress and occasionally sings while going in a circle; but the others seem entertained by the actions’.

If there is no guidance on the false info you can get, it can make as little or much sense as any individual DM wishes [or can think of]. Going by the playtest, a squirrel is as equally valid as the wrong kind of goblin.

Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
I also thought we got an example of the new DC chart somewhere? You did point out a notable difference though; that being 1e untrained could know up to DC10 info and 2e must be trained to attempt. We’ll have to see how much of an issue this becomes overall, but i can see your point on a stickler GM forcing Recall Checks on basic/common info.

I don't recall a new chart but there could have been as I don't keep up with the podcasts and such. Also, recall info is an untrained action in PF2: the main issue is the 'average' rolls seem to fall into the 50/50% range and that's assuming trained meaning you're that much more likely to crit fail. Now if the chart has gotten weighted towards success for those rolls, it'll make this less of an issue.

rainzax wrote:
If the really easy questions are DC 10, how can you critically fail?

You can take up to 3 Ability Flaws in the ancestry phase, meaning 3 8's. -1 for stats, 0 for untrained levels and a d20 equals a -1 to 19 rolled. 10 to -1 is a crit fail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
rainzax wrote:
If the really easy questions are DC 10, how can you critically fail?
You can take up to 3 Ability Flaws in the ancestry phase, meaning 3 8's. -1 for stats, 0 for untrained levels and a d20 equals a -1 to 19 rolled. 10 to -1 is a crit fail.

So are you then saying that a character with an 8 Intelligence who critically fails an untrained knowledge check 1 out of 20 times they attempt it is a problem?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:


So are you then saying that a character with an 8 Intelligence who critically fails an untrained knowledge check 1 out of 20 times they attempt it is a problem?

To be honest, yeah. Fumbles are a pretty terrible rule.


rainzax wrote:
graystone wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Well, Lore skill exist and they can help in knowledge checks, so a Barbarian with Hunter background could try to recall knowledge about beasts per example and if the GM is kind maybe even letting you disarm hunting traps with that.
It's more about not being able to ask "really easy questions" about the world around you without training in that skill, let alone basic questions (DC 15), without risking a screw up. I may have to take one of the options that allows you to add level to untrained checks just so I don't feel like an idiot when I can't recall the name of the country I grew up in. :P
If the really easy questions are DC 10, how can you critically fail?

I believe rolling a 1 bumps you down a level on the success chart. So, even though based on the numbers you would only fail the check (barring any modifiers) it would be bumped down to a crit failure because you rolled a 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
You can take up to 3 Ability Flaws in the ancestry phase, meaning 3 8's. -1 for stats, 0 for untrained levels and a d20 equals a -1 to 19 rolled. 10 to -1 is a crit fail.

You actually max out at two 8s due to the final phase granting four +2s. One of them inevitably has to go in one of your three 8s, making it a 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what you are saying is that critically failing ("fumbling") 5% of the time in an untrained (DC 10) task is an unfair trade-off for choosing an ability flaw in that task's ability score during character creation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Rule 0 says that if you don't like a rule, don't use it. I've been running a Playtest campaign, and we don't do secret rolls for all knowledge checks. I also don't give incorrect information on a crit fail, having to come up with something is hard to do most of the time. It's had no impact on our games, and I can't imagine that will change in the 2E rules.

I use secret checks when they're important, or it would be more fun. Stealth rolls to see if the party would be noticed by an intelligent creature are a good example.

Why would you need a knowledge check to identify a goblin? They're a common enemy that everyone would recognise. Even for things like Chimeras or Manticores, where there's likely to be local folk tales about them (just as in the real world) I'd probably tell the party what they are. For the most part, the knowledge checks would only reveal useful information for overcoming the challenge (usually combat info) like weaknesses or resistances... which I guess would be more easy to make up false information for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mr. Pedantic wrote:
graystone wrote:
You can take up to 3 Ability Flaws in the ancestry phase, meaning 3 8's. -1 for stats, 0 for untrained levels and a d20 equals a -1 to 19 rolled. 10 to -1 is a crit fail.
You actually max out at two 8s due to the final phase granting four +2s. One of them inevitably has to go in one of your three 8s, making it a 10.

True, but I was explaining how you get an 8 in Int, the stat that will govern most recall checks since no current race has a int flaw.

rainzax wrote:
So, what you are saying is that critically failing ("fumbling") 5% of the time in an untrained (DC 10) task is an unfair trade-off for choosing an ability flaw in that task's ability score during character creation?

Unfair is completely unquantifiable. I think it's an issue and one I don't like. I see it detracting from the game far more than it could ever be a positive for gameplay.


Rule 0, yes.

If it was me, I'd just say that knowledge (or other skills) which were impossible to critically fail were DC 5 (such as identifying a core race like a goblin).

But this is philosophical debate about the role of critical failure in a skill system...

201 to 250 of 323 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Glass Cannon Live Play revelations All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.