| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I put together this guide to determine what bonuses are possible across what level in order to see what DCs would be suitable to challenge the players. I also put in a list of spells that can be used to overcome mundane problems.
Feel free to critique and point out math errors :)
This was largely done for myself in putting together adventures. But I tried to polish it slightly so other people could use it if that sort of thing was of interest to them.
These guidelines are pretty good, thanks for your work, I will use it.
Glad to hear it.
I do want to point out converting DCs between PF1 and PF2 relies on a lot of arbitrary decisions. I arbitrarily decided to go with one particular way, but you could definitely go with a completely different way and get radically different numbers.
It really does just depend on how you want to convert them. Not even touching them and simply using them as is could be perfectly valid.
How does it stack up vs the table in the CRB that is supposed to do this very same thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does it stack up vs the table in the CRB that is supposed to do this very same thing?
That was the original question I wanted to answer.
Level 1 DC (15) = Achievable by an Optimised Level 1 character
Level 5 DC (20) = Achievable by an average Level 6 expert or an optimised level 3 expert.
Level 12 DC (30) = Achievable by a Level 13 Master or an optimised Level 12 trained character.
Level 20 DC (40) = Achievable by an average Level 20 Legendary or an optimised Level 16 legendary character or an optimised level 20 trained character.
Achievable translates to a 60% chance of success. Basically my conclusion is that the DC table is pretty much spot on for a reasonable amount of challenges (I was worried the DCs were going to be targeted at optimised characters only).
Given your not meant to be throwing arbitrary DCs at your players based PURELY on their level, I personally find it a bit more helpful to have something that goes into greater detail.
Glad to hear it.
I do want to point out converting DCs between PF1 and PF2 relies on a lot of arbitrary decisions. I arbitrarily decided to go with one particular way, but you could definitely go with a completely different way and get radically different numbers.
It really does just depend on how you want to convert them. Not even touching them and simply using them as is could be perfectly valid.
For my own part, I've been leaving skill DCs mostly alone when converting. The math for a maxed skill+item is fairly close between the two editions. I think the PF2 skill list being condensed does make it a little easier on the party, but I think it also means your skill rolling is more evenly distributed among characters rather than one bard or investigator rolling for everything.
That said, I think you're right that this is kind of arbitrary, largely because skill variance was so absurdly high in PF1 thus rendering the concept of desired difficulty impossible to hit accurately in an AP.
|
I like the work you put into this. It's very helpful for learning how to frame good skill challenged. It's great that you explained what you think all the numbers mean, that makes it particularly useful. But I'm not convinced of all the conclusions you came to.
"Average" and "optimized" are a bit loaded terms of course. Is it "optimized" to have a 18 in your class' prime stat at level 1? I don't think so, the character creation system takes you there quite naturally, you don't really have to squeeze for it. But for secondary and tertiary stats a +2 (sometimes +3) is probably very common, through Ancestry, Background and Dedication - only if your ancestry lines up nicely do you end up with a +3.
You list the trained bonus range at level 1 as +2 to +7 which is correct, although in practice I think most trained skills will be on ability scores rated at least a 12. Because a majority of skills hang from mental stats and dexterity, you also run into quite a lot of melee martials with heavier armor that have only a 14 or so for secondary ability scores so a +4 or +5 is a very common bonus to end up with for a trained skill. Skills in your specialty will often go to +7 but that's probably going to be only half your skills.
In the Expert+ ranges you list the whole possible range, but it's fairly unlikely people will take valuable Expert proficiency on a skill linked to a poor ability score.
As ability scores go up at 5/10/15/20 you would expect the gap between ability modifiers to narrow - while you may have started out with a 18/14/12 split among the abilities you care about, that narrows to 19/16/14, 20/18/16, 21/19/18, so that's also more of a rising floor in likely scores than a rising ceiling.
I'm skeptical about your "At level X, you can set a Whole Group Must Pass challenge of DC Y" thresholds. For example you say level 6 is a fair level to put up a DC 20 challenge that everyone must pass. But at that level the lowest possible untrained bonus is still -1 (bad racial that wasn't raised at level 5 because why throw good money after bad, and wasn't trained because you're never going to be great at it). Setting such a threshold also requires talking about how likely it is that everyone in the party is trained in the skill. You mention that at a certain point everyone could use the modifier of someone who is expert+ in the skill, but unless I missed something, that's only possible in Exploration Mode using the Follow the Expert tactic. It's not an option for things that aren't exploration tactics, like an incidental terrain problem such as crossing a hazardous bridge.
I think you're doing valuable analysis in giving GMs guardrails, but I'd like to encourage you to enrich your model with:
- Minimum untrained scores assuming people aren't investing in abilities that will never be good
- Likely trained-but-not-expert+ scores
- Likely expert+ scores
- Likely number of trained+ skills per character
- Estimates of whether specific skills are likely to be chosen by one, many or all PCs for training. For example, many people can get value out of Athletics. It makes less sense for everyone to train in Thievery.
- Clear distinction on which situations you can borrow a fellow PC's skill bonus and when you can't, and what the consequences of that are.
"Average" and "optimized" are a bit loaded terms of course. Is it "optimized" to have a 18 in your class' prime stat at level 1? I don't think so, the character creation system takes you there quite naturally, you don't really have to squeeze for it. But for secondary and tertiary stats a +2 (sometimes +3) is probably very common, through Ancestry, Background and Dedication - only if your ancestry lines up nicely do you end up with a +3.
Yeah, they’re not really meant in an inflammatory way:
Average = all of your mods added up / 6 (or thereabouts)Optimised = the best bonus you can possibly get at any given level.
In the Expert+ ranges you list the whole possible range, but it's fairly unlikely people will take valuable Expert proficiency on a skill linked to a poor ability score.
Sure, but it’s included for completeness sake. As you’ve noticed it’s clear that the lowest number has a -1 stat. If you want to exclude anything below a 14 in the range you can simply add +3 to the lowest number.
Personally, in PF1, our dwarves would invest in at least one face skill despite having charisma 8. Now it’s unlikely I would keep charisma at 8 in PF2, it would definitely start there.
I'm skeptical about your "At level X, you can set a Whole Group Must Pass challenge of DC Y" thresholds. For example you say level 6 is a fair level to put up a DC 20 challenge that everyone must pass. But at that level the lowest possible untrained bonus is still -1 (bad racial that wasn't raised at level 5...
I thought I had properly detailed my logic there. Basically thanks to follow the expert to pass the check you don’t need the whole group to have a good mod. However there is a chance any given party won’t have an expert in any given skill, hence why I list alternatives are important.
unless I missed something, that's only possible in Exploration Mode using the Follow the Expert tactic. It's not an option for things that aren't exploration tactics, like an incidental terrain problem such as crossing a hazardous bridge.
So long as there isn’t a hazard, trap or combat you can be in exploration mode. In my experience players typically don’t trust bridges and will avoid them unless they are perfectly safe :P So if there is something forcing you in encounter mode the best tactic is to deal with the problem stopping you from entering exploration mode and then you can go into exploration.
I think you're doing valuable analysis in giving GMs guardrails, but I'd like to encourage you to enrich your model with:
- Minimum untrained scores assuming people aren't investing in abilities that will never be good
- Likely trained-but-not-expert+ scores
- Likely expert+ scores
- Likely number of trained+ skills per character
- Estimates of whether specific skills are likely to be chosen by one, many or all PCs for training. For example, many people can get value out of Athletics. It makes less sense for everyone to train in Thievery.
- Clear distinction on which situations you can borrow a fellow PC's skill bonus and when you can't, and what the consequences of that are.
1) No. I absolutely detest the idea that characters have to have a minimum amount of optimisation in order to be considered. My Cha 8 diplomatic dwarf should be viable.
2) I’ve got the range. Your welcome to narrow the range in either direction.3) Same as 2
4) Eh. I think the guide goes into enough detail as it is. Your average party will have the whole range covered with duplicates.
5) I think that will vary way too much from table to table. Even if it doesn’t, I don’t have the experience required to make that assessment.
6) I think this is going to vary too much based on the adventure.
Thanks for reading the guide and posting :)
In the Expert+ ranges you list the whole possible range, but it's fairly unlikely people will take valuable Expert proficiency on a skill linked to a poor ability score.Sure, but it's included for completeness sake. As you've noticed it's clear that the lowest number has a -1 stat. If you want to exclude anything below a 14 in the range you can simply add +3 to the lowest number.
Personally, in PF1, our dwarves would invest in at least one face skill despite having charisma 8. Now it's unlikely I would keep charisma at 8 in PF2, it would definitely start there.
Also, people have suggested that a Cha 8 guy who stays Cha 8, pumps Diplomacy prof, and always uses Assurance(Diplomacy) could get a fair amount of use out of it. (Replace Diplomacy with your favorite Cha skill.) I don't think I've seen any reports of how well this works in practice.
In the Expert+ ranges you list the whole possible range, but it's fairly unlikely people will take valuable Expert proficiency on a skill linked to a poor ability score.Sure, but it's included for completeness sake. As you've noticed it's clear that the lowest number has a -1 stat. If you want to exclude anything below a 14 in the range you can simply add +3 to the lowest number.
Personally, in PF1, our dwarves would invest in at least one face skill despite having charisma 8. Now it's unlikely I would keep charisma at 8 in PF2, it would definitely start there.
Also, people have suggested that a Cha 8 guy who stays Cha 8, pumps Diplomacy prof, and always uses Assurance(Diplomacy) could get a fair amount of use out of it. (Replace Diplomacy with your favorite Cha skill.) I don't think I've seen any reports of how well this works in practice.
I reckon it would work better on deception or intimidation. Both or which I feel you can roll more often for less consequences, where on diplomacy you only roll once in a while and you want to roll high.
|
|
I'd like to quibble a bit more about Follow the Expert, since a lot of your logic is based on that.
FOLLOW THE EXPERT
Choose an ally attempting a recurring skill check while exploring,
such as climbing, or performing a different exploration tactic
that requires a skill check (like Avoiding Notice). The ally must
be at least an expert in that skill and must be willing to provide
assistance. While Following the Expert, you match their tactic
or attempt similar skill checks. Thanks to your ally’s assistance,
you can add your level as a proficiency bonus to the associated
skill check, even if you’re untrained. Additionally, you gain
a circumstance bonus to your skill check based on your ally’s
proficiency (+2 for expert, +3 for master, and +4 for legendary).
I think the scope of what Follow the Expert allows you to do is considerably more limited. In particular, it wouldn't work on one-off skill challenges where everyone has to pass the check once, because that's not a "recurring skill check while exploring".
And when we're talking recurring skill checks, those give quite different odds of someone failing at some point. Try often enough and someone is going to roll a 1.
My understanding of Follow the Expert is that it basically applies only to Exploration Tactics as outlined on pages 479-480 and some things that are likewise repeated checks. I'm thinking repeated checks to climb a mountain, or the rogue coaching the rest of the party on Avoid Notice or maintaining their disguise.
I reckon it would work better on deception or intimidation. Both or which I feel you can roll more often for less consequences, where on diplomacy you only roll once in a while and you want to roll high.In the Expert+ ranges you list the whole possible range, but it's fairly unlikely people will take valuable Expert proficiency on a skill linked to a poor ability score.Sure, but it's included for completeness sake. As you've noticed it's clear that the lowest number has a -1 stat. If you want to exclude anything below a 14 in the range you can simply add +3 to the lowest number.
Personally, in PF1, our dwarves would invest in at least one face skill despite having charisma 8. Now it's unlikely I would keep charisma at 8 in PF2, it would definitely start there.
Also, people have suggested that a Cha 8 guy who stays Cha 8, pumps Diplomacy prof, and always uses Assurance(Diplomacy) could get a fair amount of use out of it. (Replace Diplomacy with your favorite Cha skill.) I don't think I've seen any reports of how well this works in practice.
-Assurance with Diplomacy is iffy, as so are the parameters. It can be good for "not flubbing a social hurdle your party's expected to make", though poor for "friendship perks" or "avoiding an expected hostile situation". For Gather Info, you should get the basic hooks you need for the plot, so there's that. I like the feat, but would rarely afford the feat (though might take it for Cha dump PCs because I don't want to start an extra fight either).
-With Deception, don't do it. Perceptions are strong or stronger, so you'll usually miss against reasonable challenges. Often barely, so the skill's worthwhile, just not very assuring. Below level, like with city gate guards, it works okay, but remember Fighters are VERY perceptive now, and most monsters mirror a Fighter's final numbers. The feat isn't usually worth it, though being trained is so you aren't the person guards look at while the face is lying.-With Intimidation, Assurance can land a Demoralize a decent amount of the time against at level opponents (for those with Will as lowest save), and once you find out one minion is susceptible, you can do a new minion w/ each extra action you have. You also get around penalties for not sharing a language or poor situation. So pretty nice, especially if you want your anti-social PC to be scary.
Outside combat, the parameters tend to be iffy, but if running off of "normal person" stats, you should Coerce well in mundane life. So Assurance is nice if you can afford the feat. Wouldn't recommend for an Intimancer build, since you want those critical successes and to hit more consistently at level or above.
I usually am starving for skill feats, probably since I want Medicine w/ all the extras, which is why I love Rogues.
As for setting DCs, the level of an expected Assurance roll would be a good measure of whether the party's meant to reliably succeed or not, or even be challenged. Sometimes it's nice for something challenging for the NPCs involved to be easy for the higher level PCs. Makes them feel like heroes and like they've grown.
I'm reminded of some PFS DCs where kinda tough or esoteric tasks had DCs of 10 or otherwise auto-success because they were necessary for the plot. Might as well give the info to them at that point because what if they did fail, thereby derailing? Oopsie. I do appreciate in PF2 how PCs can do two or more roles without letting combat prowess slide (or overshadow).
Cheers