| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's kind of my point. More versatility, less specialization and skill checks are all about the die :)
If I take the example of Starfinder (that I find at a good spot when it comes to skills):
My Envoy started with +1d6+8 in Diplomacy. My Mechanic started with +10 in Engineering and +9 in Computers. My Mystic started with +14 in Mysticism (the highest you can get at first level).
Level 1 average checks are at DC 16, so all my characters still had to roll the die, even my over-specialized Mystic. But they were far above the other characters, so I was feeling my competence.
I agree with this very strongly.
I actually am not a fan of the "versatility". I miss being specialized and basically being assured of success. That's exactly what I want. As another poster pointed out, that does seem to be the design antithesis of what Paizo went for in PF2, and it's not really my cup of tea. I don't like the feeling that no matter how hard I try, I can't guarantee success, or (barring specific skill feat granted things) that even a (trained) amateur can succeed at the same task as the Legendarily skilled individual.
It's a very different direction than PF1 or Starfinder.
If you like that, then it's great. I thought I would like it, until I played it. And then realized while PF1 and Starfinder have their problems, I feel like PF2 over-corrected for them.
|
So many answers. I agree with most of you :)
* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.To get that score I had maximized attribute, Skill Focus (so a feat, not something you have a lot in SF), racial bonus (once again rare) and theme bonus (only a single +1). And that doesn't give me an automatic success on a normal check.
Yeah. But it gets you really really close. And PF2 basically doesn't want to have "almost certain success" checks. That's just not the style of storytelling PF2 is aiming for. If you're being asked to make a check there should be a good chance of success but also a non-neglible chance of failure.
Now, that doesn't mean you should always have coin flip chance - if you do the math you can see that a specialist grows to "succeed two thirds of the time" odds. But not really much farther than that. And conversely, someone who is at least trained is rarely reduced to fishing for 20s.
It's a definite choice of style they made, kinda playing into a current game design mood I've also seen in other games. Basically, "don't make people roll checks unless both success and failure are possible".
There's also an appetite for danger in the system. We no longer get the safety net of Take 10, and Assurance only assures pretty easy things. I think the intent is that in a typical adventure, you're no longer clearing 100% of the obstacles, but that some setbacks make things interesting. In a well-designed adventure, that doesn't mean you fail or get a poor result. PFS has lots of experience writing "get at least 3 out of these 5 things" as success condition. Expect to be hitting closer to 3 than to 5 things in PFS2 while in PFS1 getting 5/5 was quite common.
Personally I think this is a rather exciting change.
* Keeping characters who "are at least trying" and "trying really hard" in the same ballpark. The maximum skill bonus for a character at level 1 is +7, while the floor is -1. But the distance between someone with a 10 ability and trained is the distance between +3 and +7; a noticeable difference if you do a couple of checks, but not so much that you just have to give up altogether.A difference of 4 at level 1 and of 9 at level 20 (I consider 18 and 24 in the attribute, as it's so easy to get more than half of your attributes at 18 at level 20). When you think about it, the wizard with the highest possible intelligence and legendary competence in a skill can be challenged by the party rogue with average intelligence + trained competence.
I'm not defending PF1 system. I hated so much my +0 in Perception on my level 14 fighter. But having him challenging the ranger or the druid of the party without much investment is... sad for the ranger who invested heavily in the skill.
Yeah he can be challenged, but most of the time he'll win. That's exactly the design goal - the wizard doesn't get to exclusively own certain parts of the game, but he does get to be the heavyweight. But sometimes, just rarely, the underdog upstages him.
So I don't agree with your initial theory that "only the die matters". As a system it's quite carefully engineered to seek a balance between rewarding specialization and maintaining participation of the other characters.
Is it highly random? Well, kinda. We're still using a d20 which is a lot more random than if we'd use 2d10 or 3d6 for example. Obviously that's somewhat a historical artifact because the d20 is so iconic. I'm sure there would be people ritually immolating themselves in front of Paizo HQ in Seattle if they switched to a different die. But I think it also plays well into the design goal of creating a relatively swingy game where critical failures and successes happen often. Much more often than if they only happened on a (1,1)/(10,10) result or a (1,1,1)/(6,6,6) result. This is the same design philosophy that got rid of Take 10 and Take 20.
So yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong per se in your analysis, but rather that your personal taste and the designers' goals seem to be different.
Me, I was quite skeptical of it during the playtest too, but now I find that I rather like the dangerous new world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:
- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
- The new system is far better to handle very different skill level thanks to the 2 level of success. A character that is just trained can aim for the success, when the legendary wizard could aim for the critical success. So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.
I agree with Claxon, for me, they overdid it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I think about it, there are 2 annoying things in this system:
- My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20. And I've not even tried to do it, it's by chance. So, trained is the new untrained.
No. You have to do this intentionally. By 20th, you will have 12 non-Lore Skills...if you max Int as much as possible. That's a lot, but hardly all of them.
And that's as an Int-based Class. You could easily have this happen in PF1 as a Rogue or Bard, or in in Starfinder as an Operative as well. Most characters will tend to max out at 8 or 9 Trained Skills, and may well have only 5 if they focus on stuff other than Int.
You can get more than that, but it's a very intentional and pretty suboptimal choice in most cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it'd be nice though if at some threshold you could use Int to advance skills rather than just gain new skills. It'd feel better I think to be able to grab expert in another skill than another extra training you might never want to use.
The die represents chance. And in some cases, the situation requires chance. In others, like the skill level of someone who is a specialist in their area, it is just an opportunity to engage in bufoonery because fate was fickle. (Thanks, critical failure on skill rolls!)I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
I mean, sometimes s$*@ happens. And the GM could just make a DC lower if they want. I still don't see how it's a problem. Even the most expert person can fail. Fate is fate, luck is luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notable exception being of course Linguistics, the one and only skill where dropping an occasional point or two and not keeping it maxed made any sense.
climb and swim were fine not maxing as well. you don't need to necessarily climb on the ceiling, but just be good at climbing ropes and cliff walls, and swim is to not drown. survival as well if you were using it to subsist, you only needed +5-+10 for fairly decent chances to feed the whole party in a day. Ride as well, basically any skill that had flat DCs and weren't opposed you could get away with just putting a point or two in if they're class skills or a few more if they weren't.
So, even when you have an enormous score in a skill, you still need to roll the die.
Except:
- It's a non-level based DC for the Skill
- You have Assurance with that Skill
And then there are plenty of cases where rolling is merely to ensure you don't bump/drop tiers of success.
In my experience, those that had +30 to a Skill in PF1/3.5/3.0 always rolled the dice anyways so they could "feel good" about the big number, so it's not like this is going to massively cut down on time at the table even if it weren't a thing.
My alchemist will be trained in all skills but one at level 20
Craft + Background + 3 + 4(18 INT at level 1)+ 1(5th and 10th go to INT) + 1 (15th and 20th go to INT) = 11
That's 6 Skills you are not Trained in, and that's with maxing your INT, which not all Alchemists will even want to do, and ignoring the vast options Lore could provide.
Unless you have some kind of extra 5 skills coming from somewhere I don't see, not sure how you managed that.
If you spent Skill Increases specifically on getting Trained or General Feats on getting trained, then in both cases, you're spending resources on Skills, so of course you're going to be good at them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PF1, it is between -3 and +16 (at least as PF1 has no real limit on skills).
In Starfinder, it is between -1 and +14.
In PF2, it is between -1 and +7.
I view a +16 skill modifier at level 1 to be a bug of PF1 (and Starfinder), not a feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is space in adventure design, for instance to make situations where you can allow anyone invested at a particular level. (expert, master, legendary) for instance could be given an automatic success, and give those with lower investment some DC that they roll against. That can provide a return on investment, for those characters who have so invested their skills.
That way, if you have Lore Dragons (expert), you can simply be told a basic set of facts about the rumored dragon, no roll needed. (perhaps a choice can be offered to roll for additional information) Others rolling as just trained, or untrained would be working to roll to get the information you as an expert could start with as a given.
I think part of the design idea was that some tasks don't necessarily have to require a roll. If it doesn't add something to the story, don't roll for it. If there is a reasonable investment present to justify/guarantee an arbitrary success, don't roll. I think that is perfectly in line with P2 design goals, and a perfectly reasonable P2 adventure design concept.
But as to the talk of the D20, being a source of issue. Yes, 2d8+1d6-2 would absolutely change the dynamic and make those bonuses mean quite a lot more as most rolls would be in the median area. But it would make critical effects far rarer, by far. Both getting 10 under or over would be much less common, and getting a natural 1 or 20 would be vastly less common.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
So many answers. I agree with most of you :)
* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.To get that score I had maximized attribute, Skill Focus (so a feat, not something you have a lot in SF), racial bonus (once again rare) and theme bonus (only a single +1). And that doesn't give me an automatic success on a normal check.Yeah. But it gets you really really close. And PF2 basically doesn't want to have "almost certain success" checks. That's just not the style of storytelling PF2 is aiming for. If you're being asked to make a check there should be a good chance of success but also a non-neglible chance of failure.
Now, that doesn't mean you should always have coin flip chance - if you do the math you can see that a specialist grows to "succeed two thirds of the time" odds. But not really much farther than that.
While I agree with a lot of your ideas, your math actually undersells specialists a fair bit. Your analysis was more-or-less the case in the playtest, but the new math lets specialists get much more extreme than that.
The wizard in my War for the Crown game at 10th level, succeeded on a 3 to learn a 5th level spell for a 90% success rate, or a 2 with an Aid for +1 circumstance bonus which he usually had to save money. If that had been a level 10 task instead, standard DC for his level, that would only kick up the DC by 1. He had options available (the party alchemist's cognitive mutagen, heroism) to go higher, which he sometimes used with Magical Shorthand to take himself up to needing a 0 to succeed, mostly to increase critical success rates and thus save money in the long run. He didn't have anything particularly special: 10th level, +6 from master, +5 from Int, +2 from his wizard hat. The wizard player pointed out his odds to the group at level 10 but he could have done something similar at level 7 or 8: he had a weaker hat by 1, lower Int, and was lower level but the DC was lower as well.
So you can pretty easily build a character who can crush the standard DC for your level on very low rolls by mid levels. In fact you're probably at 75% success anywhere in the level 3-5 range from high stat, expert, and a +1 item alone.
All that to say: 2/3 is not particularly difficult to clear at even comparatively low levels, and a true specialist can get high or sometimes even automatic odds at mid levels when it's important.
I felt considerably more versatile than most PF1 characters are at low level.And that's kind of my point. More versatility, less specialization and skill checks are all about the die :)
If I take the example of Starfinder (that I find at a good spot when it comes to skills):
My Envoy started with +1d6+8 in Diplomacy. My Mechanic started with +10 in Engineering and +9 in Computers. My Mystic started with +14 in Mysticism (the highest you can get at first level).
Level 1 average checks are at DC 16, so all my characters still had to roll the die, even my over-specialized Mystic. But they were far above the other characters, so I was feeling my competence.Well, I think there you really are bumping up against some of the design goals of PF2 that I think are showing through:
* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.
* Keeping characters who "are at least trying" and "trying really hard" in the same ballpark. The maximum skill bonus for a character at level 1 is +7, while the floor is -1. But the distance between someone with a 10 ability and trained is the distance between +3 and +7; a noticeable difference if you do a couple of checks, but not so much that you just have to give up altogether.
PF1 had trouble with setting up challenges that challenged both the specialist and the dabbler. Something that was achievable for the dabbler was trivial for the specialist, and something challenging for the specialist was entirely out of reach for the dabbler. PF2 brings them closer together, but you still notice the specialist being successful more often and critically succeeding more often.
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no fun at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...I felt considerably more versatile than most PF1 characters are at low level.And that's kind of my point. More versatility, less specialization and skill checks are all about the die :)
If I take the example of Starfinder (that I find at a good spot when it comes to skills):
My Envoy started with +1d6+8 in Diplomacy. My Mechanic started with +10 in Engineering and +9 in Computers. My Mystic started with +14 in Mysticism (the highest you can get at first level).
Level 1 average checks are at DC 16, so all my characters still had to roll the die, even my over-specialized Mystic. But they were far above the other characters, so I was feeling my competence.Well, I think there you really are bumping up against some of the design goals of PF2 that I think are showing through:
* Very few checks where the outcome is basically assured. So letting you have a +14 at level 1 when a typical DC is 16 would be against the design goal.
* Keeping characters who "are at least trying" and "trying really hard" in the same ballpark. The maximum skill bonus for a character at level 1 is +7, while the floor is -1. But the distance between someone with a 10 ability and trained is the distance between +3 and +7; a noticeable difference if you do a couple of checks, but not so much that you just have to give up altogether.
PF1 had trouble with setting up challenges that challenged both the specialist and the dabbler. Something that was achievable for the dabbler was trivial for the specialist, and something challenging for the specialist was entirely out of reach for the dabbler. PF2 brings them closer together, but you still notice the specialist being successful more often and critically succeeding more often.
Our game hasn't seen this at all. We've seen more successes, and people have found the less guaranteed success meaning more meaningful choices with what you look into specializing in with your skill increases and feats.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no fun at all.
If the most enjoyable way to play a dice game is to remove dice as a factor entirely then maybe you should consider a different RPG.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I view a +16 skill modifier at level 1 to be a bug of PF1 (and Starfinder), not a feature.In PF1, it is between -3 and +16 (at least as PF1 has no real limit on skills).
In Starfinder, it is between -1 and +14.
In PF2, it is between -1 and +7.
And a legion of us consider it a feature we prefer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the feeling that no matter how hard I try, I can't guarantee successYou can though, just not at challenges specifically designed to be comparable to your own abilities. Anything else you can steamroll pretty easily by the time you have that big modifier.
Plus higher proficiency gives you access to new actions and feats that less proficient users can't take. I don't know why you're saying that doesn't matter but.
Are you saying you should just never fail at anything? Even against threats that are supposed to be equal or superior to yourself? That sounds like a fantastically boring game. To each their own, I guess.
It's a huge change from PF1 though. In PF1, for challenges that we're "expected for you level" you could be guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to succeed, especially with take 10.
Now you never reach that level.
And yes, Skill feats let you do some pretty incredible things, and I'm not completely discounting them, but they are a separate concern from the issue that "the total modifier that the barely trained person has compared to legendarily trained person is +8" so they still have a chance of failure.
When I play I want to be able to specialize in something and be virtually guaranteed to succeed. This is something that I learned during the playtest, but if I'm not succeeding (at the things I've tried to specialize in) most of the time (around 75%) I'm not having fun.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thing I believe is that if you are basically assured to succeed (or fail) on a given roll, then actually rolling the die is a waste of time and you shouldn't do it. Just narrate the success (or failure) and move on.
Having the actual result of the fundamental die matter for what you're attempting to do is a good development.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thing I believe is that if you are basically assured to succeed (or fail) on a given roll, then actually rolling the die is a waste of time and you shouldn't do it. Just narrate the success (or failure) and move on.
Having the actual result of the fundamental die matter for what you're attempting to do is a good development.
Agreed; if you're living in a world where the expert never fails a skill check, then you're living in a world where all out of combat problems are trivial to solve. Why even put a cliff face to climb if you're just working on a binary "you have an expert at Climb in the party and it's completely effortless for them to get up the cliff and secure a rope for everyone else" or "you don't have an expert at Climb and you have to find another route because no one can get up there"? Either way the cliff doesn't factor into the narrative in any meaningful way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the feeling that no matter how hard I try, I can't guarantee successYou can though, just not at challenges specifically designed to be comparable to your own abilities. Anything else you can steamroll pretty easily by the time you have that big modifier.
Plus higher proficiency gives you access to new actions and feats that less proficient users can't take. I don't know why you're saying that doesn't matter but.
Are you saying you should just never fail at anything? Even against threats that are supposed to be equal or superior to yourself? That sounds like a fantastically boring game. To each their own, I guess.
It's a huge change from PF1 though. In PF1, for challenges that we're "expected for you level" you could be guaranteed or nearly guaranteed to succeed, especially with take 10.
Now you never reach that level.
And yes, Skill feats let you do some pretty incredible things, and I'm not completely discounting them, but they are a separate concern from the issue that "the total modifier that the barely trained person has compared to legendarily trained person is +8" so they still have a chance of failure.
When I play I want to be able to specialize in something and be virtually guaranteed to succeed. This is something that I learned during the playtest, but if I'm not succeeding (at the things I've tried to specialize in) most of the time (around 75%) I'm not having fun.
If you're not succeeding at a rate of 75% in a thing you've specialized in, may I suggest that you haven't specialized at all, or the task is way beyond your level.
A level 10 barbarian who is 100% invested into Athletics has a +5 from Str, +6 from master, +10 from level, +2 from item. That's a +23. The only time you'd be failing at 75% is if you're trying to spiderman your way up a sheer glass wall. And that's a legendary task, DC 40. For any task expert or less, you're succeeding at 95% rates, and failure only stymies you for a second.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...
PF2 actually can easily support this "training wheels" method of play as well. Just shift the difficulty of all desired tasks down by 4 levels. Untrained characters will still sometimes struggle with a task, but it will shift the math to right about where you want it to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John Lynch 106. A bit off topic. But it's pretty neat to me that PF2 changed so much from the original playtest... you were constantly critical back then to the point that (I think it was) Erik Mona posted that maybe you should think about trying a different game.
And now that the full game is out, your viewpoints have become some of the most valuable on these boards. You've got a lot of good assessments.
A year ago, I groaned when I saw your name pop up in a post. And now when I see it, I go, "Oh, well let's see what JL 106 has to say. He seems to have a good understanding of things."
Haha.
a few things are at play:
1) The biggest one is I moved cities and so no longer play with my old gaming group. I doubt very much they will ever move over to PF2. There are just too many dealbreakers for them. So my job went from having to hope for a product they would be willing to play to just needing to find a group who will play it.2) The second biggest one is that the playtest is over. There's no point moaning and groaning about everything, it's not going to get anything changed.
3) There are a few lemons in PF2. But it is what it is and so instead of bemoaning them I'm making lemonade.
4) We do have a fair bit of 4e. An easy example are 10 min spells which are encounter powers, EXCEPT they come with tactical choices. Cast before a fight and get it for 1 fight (assuming you find one in a reasonable amount of time), cast mid fight and you can get it to last 2 fights if your willing to go into the second fight at less than max HP. These sort of strategic choices were missing from 4e.
They did make a few minor changes (like with skills), but they do make a big difference. Give me 3 to 12 months and I might have given up myself. But I am definitely willing to give it a go :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For secret knowledge checks, you won't know what information is accurate and what information is not so you are probably more likely to believe the expert than the novice anyway.
This will actually create a dynamic where people stop trusting their knowledge checks. If you cant tell what is right or wrong, what's the point of making the check?
Now you could argue that an expert has a better than good chance at succeeding, but all it will take is a few bad rolls and players will stop bothering.
At least, that's what I expect. I will be using the optional rule of players always roll their own checks.
I think there is a lot of table variation to your PF1 experience, IMO.
Definitely. I can only speak to my own experience with PFS and home games. If you had a different experience then I can understand why you would have a different opinion of PF1's skill system.
I think that one (players giving up on knowledge checks) will vary a lot from player group to player group. While there are a few things in PF2 that I'm really not that fond of, I absolutely love the uncertainty of the secret knowledge checks and occasional misinformation. Dubious Knowledge is easily one of my favorite skill feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I outline in this thread you can differentiate characters. If we're talking level 20 your trained character won't have a reasonable chance at achieving a DC 40 unless they're highly optimised. Even if they are highly optimised you'll be able to achieve things that a level 16 character was achieving so sure, by optimising quite a bit and waiting 4 levels you were able to reach those really high DCs, but that is hardly in the same ballpark as "I didn't want to be good in the skill".
The difference between optimising and trained but not not optimised differs by 3 levels for DC 15, 5 levels for DC 20, 7 levels for DC 30 and simply cannot be reasonably achieved for DC 40.
It's not "guaranteed for success" when you're going up against the hardest DCs of your level. But it's still quite possible to differentiate yourself from other PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
And this kids is what we call a "false equivalency".
And this kids is what we call a "false equivalency".Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
No this is what we call Rules as Written.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.
What sort of s!*%ty GM is making your PC roll to tie their shoelaces? If that is truly what your GM is doing I'd definitely suggest getting a new GM (or become one yourself). Your enjoyment will increase substantially!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
Attempting to tie your shoes is a trivial task and would never require a roll in the first place...
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
And this is the 5% of the time people read the rules and roll a critical fail on understanding.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tying your shoes would probably be like a DC -10. Even with a 1 and a -1 to the roll, you would still get a success.
That said, no GM in their right mind would make you roll for anything that you shouldn't be able to fail at. Rolling is only for when both failure and success are possibilities.
Tying your shoes is an example of the thing that you shouldn't roll for because you aren't even remotely likely to fail at it.
Rolling the D20 should be reserved for situations where success and failure both have significant probability. Which is to say, only roll the die if the die matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?
To each their own.
I mean if I am only taking six seconds to tie my shoes 5% failure isn't too bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean if I am only taking six seconds to tie my shoes 5% failure isn't too bad.
Heh. I'm the same. But then again I'm not able to kill goblins or dragons.
That said I've never had a 5% chance of failing at tying my shoes in a D&D game ever. I see nothing in the PF2e CRB which would give me such a chance. Definitely sounds like a case of needing a better GM.
I mean, "roll to tie your shoes" is also a good example of a fail forward mechanic. Succeeding means your shoes are tied. Failing means you had to retie it after you realized something was wrong, which took you slightly longer.
PF2 actually can easily support this "training wheels" method of play as well. Just shift the difficulty of all desired tasks down by 4 levels. Untrained characters will still sometimes struggle with a task, but it will shift the math to right about where you want it to be.
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...
That's not fun, you don't have to work for it. In PF1, to achieve that level of success, you had to build your character right and use the right buffs. In PF2, anyone optimizing something has around the same number range. It's zero effort to be the best you can be. And even then you still fail 30 to 50% of the time.
And to those saying "then what's the point of the die", crits or "beating by 5 or more", obviously.
The whole numeric advancement is just so shallow and simple and it's really a huge step back.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 actually can easily support this "training wheels" method of play as well. Just shift the difficulty of all desired tasks down by 4 levels. Untrained characters will still sometimes struggle with a task, but it will shift the math to right about where you want it to be.
That right there is the issue. It's a poor design philosophy that sucks the fun out of gameplay. Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play. Failing constantly is no...That's not fun, you don't have to work for it. In PF1, to achieve that level of success, you had to build your character right and use the right buffs. In PF2, anyone optimizing something has around the same number range. It's zero effort to be the best you can be. And even then you still fail 30 to 50% of the time.
And to those saying "then what's the point of the die", crits or "beating by 5 or more", obviously.
The whole numeric advancement is just so shallow and simple and it's really a huge step back.
You just hate the way things are done in PF2. You literally said "Manipulating your chance of success to 90+% for specialties is the most enjoyable way to play" as if it were some inherit truth. You've made it pretty clear that you don't care for anything PF2 cause it isn't PF1.