|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pf2, when you make opposed checks it is generally one person rolls, the other sets a DC, which is 10+their roll bonus. So the person rolling is getting a free +1. This seems a very strange decision to me, like the person who made it thinks rolling 10+ on a d20 is a 50% chance. Due to this decision, spellcasters effectively have a -1 to hit baked in to any of their spells that target saves. A look through the bestiary shows that saves are not any lower than AC either.
I can't think of any reason for this. I could understand say if they wanted advantage to always go to the aggressor, but it's not universal. Sometimes you roll to hit vs defense, other times you roll to defend against attack. If two people have a +7, it should be 50-50 who wins should it not? But its 55% in favor of the one rolling the dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A look through the bestiary shows that saves are not any lower than AC either.
Wait, what?
Aasimar Redeemer: AC23(25 with shield) vs RefDC 18
Boar: AC 18 vs RefDC 15
Chimera: AC27 vs WillDC 24
Elananx: AC 24 vs FortDC 22
Ice Linnorm: AC 41 vs WillDC 37 (38 vs magic)
Rat Swarm: AC 14 vs FortDC 12
Web Lurker: AC 19 vs WillDC 18
Young White Dragon: AC23 vs WillDC 21
Zombie Shambler: AC 12 vs RefDC 10
Seems like the worst save is consistently a couple points behind AC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember to remove from 1 to 3 from their AC depends the lvl they are, since weapons do have runes.
That's a good point. It does seem more like a problem of a lack of +caster attack items rather than a problem with the base DC math, though.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason is that it's easier to add 10 to something on the fly than it is to add 11.
|
|
A look through the bestiary shows that saves are not any lower than AC either.Wait, what?
Aasimar Redeemer: AC23(25 with shield) vs RefDC 18
Boar: AC 18 vs RefDC 15
Chimera: AC27 vs WillDC 24
Elananx: AC 24 vs FortDC 22
Ice Linnorm: AC 41 vs WillDC 37 (38 vs magic)
Rat Swarm: AC 14 vs FortDC 12
Web Lurker: AC 19 vs WillDC 18
Young White Dragon: AC23 vs WillDC 21
Zombie Shambler: AC 12 vs RefDC 10
Seems like the worst save is consistently a couple points behind AC.
Now if you don't memorize the bestiary, have spells for every type of save, and always know the worst one to target, you are generally on par with AC. If you guess the wrong one, then it's higher than AC.
Let's say you are casting a reflex spell, here's the first few low level creatures in the bestiary:
Animated broom ac16, ref+6
Bloodseeker ac16, ref+8
Duergar sharpshooter ac17, ref+7
Eagle ac 16, ref+6
Flash beetle ac13, ref+8
Giant centipede ac15, ref+6
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I am getting sucked in to my example, I wasn't intending this to be an argument about spellcasting, but rather about the setting of DCs in general. "Being easy" is a terrible argument imo, adding 11 should not be difficult for anyone.
It's not about being difficult - it's probably all about being easier than 11. And it is.
Remember to remove from 1 to 3 from their AC depends the lvl they are, since weapons do have runes.That's a good point. It does seem more like a problem of a lack of +caster attack items rather than a problem with the base DC math, though.
well, remember casters tend to get legendary prof while most martials only get master
edit: although looking at it, this only helps at 19-20. :/
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the primary differences is that if you used DC = modifier + 11, you would have to gain an extra +2 bonus before your critical chances go up. On the other hand, your critical failure chances go up with a -1 penalty.
Conversely, with the DC = modifier + 10 system, you critical success chances go up immediately, and you need a -2 penalty before critical failure chances go up.
So the system rewards bonuses more than penalties, thanks to the critical ranges, if your modifier is close to even odds. If that's a characteristic you want or not is debatable, but I think it's something to consider in the discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because when WotC produced D&D 3.0, saving throw DCs started at 10+modifiers, and Paizo sees no need to change it.
This isn't new for PF2 - it's been around for a long time, and it's a fairly straightforward and intuitive way of calculating DCs. If a new player reads this and says, "Okay, just add this number to 10", it makes sense. If 11, they might say, "That seems kind of arbitrary. Why not 9 or 12 or another number?"
Most people deal with numbers in a base 10 system. Using 10 as a starting point is intuitive, and I don't believe the +1 difference matters, since the system math would have been designed to include it.
Exactly. Making your game intuitive is incredibly important. When you design a game, you're not just designing it to be mathematically consistent, you're also trying to make it intuitive to play. If your mechanic is mathematically consistent, but difficult to grok for new players, then it's not actually a very good mechanic.
Symmetrical math has to be weighed against the memory cost of certain situations working in increments of 10, and others working in increments of 11. While it might not seem like much, the extra time that it takes to look at "Reflex +19" and think "DC 30", but look at "AC 19" and think "Rolling a 29 is a critical" adds up to a non-negligible amount of confusion in the long run.
So, just to clarify for us simple folks. How does the person rolling get a free +1? That statement makes no sense. My perception is +8, the DC is 18, what about that gives the person rolling against it a +1? It's is just a target number.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, just to clarify for us simple folks. How does the person rolling get a free +1? That statement makes no sense. My perception is +8, the DC is 18, what about that gives the person rolling against it a +1? It's is just a target number.
The idea is that a goblin with +8 stealth has a 55% chance of succeeding against your +8 perception (a roll of 10 or higher) rather than a 50% chance (a roll of 11 or higher) which the OP feels is the more natural ideal.
Hmm, I'm not quite sure that tracks. doesn't that assume the lowest you can roll is a 1? If so you still fail because the 1 tanks your result down one level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I'm not quite sure that tracks. doesn't that assume the lowest you can roll is a 1? If so you still fail because the 1 tanks your result down one level.
I still think you are confused? Like: I am not even bringing in critical considerations, at the moment. Also: you can't roll lower than a 1 on a standard 20-sided die so you would be making a correct assumption.
To elaborate:
Suppose your perception is +8 and the goblin's stealth is +8.
Your perception DC is 18 and the goblin sneaks up on you. Even though you and the goblin have the same bonuses to the required skills, the goblin is more likely to succeed than he is to fail (since the goblin fails on 1-9, 9 results, and succeeds on 10-20, 11 results). OP finds that weird. He thinks DCs should be calculated as 11+mod so that the goblin will have an equal chance of success and failure which maybe you would expect given that you have equal skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea is that a goblin with +8 stealth has a 55% chance of succeeding against your +8 perception (a roll of 10 or higher) rather than a 50% chance (a roll of 11 or higher) which the OP feels is the more natural ideal.I think it's more that in this scenario you have a 55% chance of succeeding to spot them, but they have a 55% chance of hiding from you if they're the one making the check. In essence the "Active Party" gets a very minor boost because the half-way point on a d20 is 11+ not 10+.
I think the minor mathematical quirk is one which is worth it for the simplicity of on-the-fly calculations (Adding 11 constantly instead of 10 is an increase in complexity). Always a subjective question whether a complexity is pulling it's weight. Obviously some think it's worth it here.
I don't think it ever ends up game-breaking or even visible to someone who's not analyzing the math - and the rules are always pretty clear on who rolls so it's not arbitrary who gets the rounding in their favor. I'm happy with the decision Paizo made, but I don't think it'd break the game at all if you house-ruled DC's were all 11+. Or even just say "Equal to DC is a failure" (same outcome, less math, more sacred cows).
I hear ya. I am just trying to describe the position to the best of my ability.
Honestly, I maybe think the active party should have some mathematical advantage even in the absence of the math's simplicity. At least in a turn-based context, it is more interesting when characters (PC or NPC) succeed on whatever they are trying on their turn if only because it changes the state of the game rather than merely maintaining the status quo.
That is perhaps a little less "balanced" out of combat though.
|
|
One of the primary differences is that if you used DC = modifier + 11, you would have to gain an extra +2 bonus before your critical chances go up. On the other hand, your critical failure chances go up with a -1 penalty.
Conversely, with the DC = modifier + 10 system, you critical success chances go up immediately, and you need a -2 penalty before critical failure chances go up.
So the system rewards bonuses more than penalties, thanks to the critical ranges, if your modifier is close to even odds. If that's a characteristic you want or not is debatable, but I think it's something to consider in the discussion.
This makes a lot of sense and is a solid reason. Now I just want to unify the rules so the active player always rolls and I'll be good with the 10+ DCs.
10 is a nicer number then 11. I'm all for 10.
This makes a lot of sense and is a solid reason. Now I just want to unify the rules so the active player always rolls and I'll be good with the 10+ DCs.
On one hand, I get where you are coming from. On the other, It's going to be hard work to rework Spell saves (basic saves are backwards, all results in spells have to be switched), and it makes the game more swingy (unless you consider 'dodging the fireball', 'mentally resisting the charm' the active part):
Say the wizard casts fireball. Now if the rolls a 20, double damage to all in the area (unless they have 'improved evasion' which has to be turned around as well).
With more creatures in the area rolling their saves individually, it makes the fireball less uniform, averaging the damage out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 10 is from the history of D&D. It is the Base number for Armor Class. A non-armored person with average Dexterity has an AC of 10. This has not changed since 1974.
With the 3rd edition of D&D many mechanics were streamlined, i.e. higher AC value = better AC (before that that acronym THAC0 was very important for playing D&D), the determination of saving throw DC's used the same mechanics (i.e. 10 + spell level + attribute mofifier for spells, 10 + 1/2 hit dice + attribute modifier for monster abilities etc.).
With Pathfidner 1e CMD also used this mechanic. CMD = 10 + Dex-modifier + STR-modifier + size bonus.
Basically 10 has been established as the base target number for any checks involving a D20.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would make more sense to have said wizard roll to hit separately for each creature caught in the fireball. Now it works the same, just changing who does the rolling (and thus who gets the +1).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you want to shove an enemy out of the window, you have to target fortitude; if you want to trip it to stop its escape you have to target reflex: you don't have much choice, either.
About metagaming, your character can't really be sure, but can often guess: a large, hulking creature will usually have higher fortitude and lower reflexes. It's rather intuitive.
This makes a lot of sense and is a solid reason. Now I just want to unify the rules so the active player always rolls and I'll be good with the 10+ DCs.One of the primary differences is that if you used DC = modifier + 11, you would have to gain an extra +2 bonus before your critical chances go up. On the other hand, your critical failure chances go up with a -1 penalty.
Conversely, with the DC = modifier + 10 system, you critical success chances go up immediately, and you need a -2 penalty before critical failure chances go up.
So the system rewards bonuses more than penalties, thanks to the critical ranges, if your modifier is close to even odds. If that's a characteristic you want or not is debatable, but I think it's something to consider in the discussion.
there was an alternative rule for spell casters rolling against save DC in 1e unchained. you could look that up the basics of it still apply more or less. for save descriptions all you have to do is swap succeed and fail to make it exactly the same.
To me, a DC of 10+bonus sounds too high to be fun.
If I'm taking an action against an equal opponent, I'd like at least a 65% chance of achieving something with that action.
The opponent can then attempt a counter action on their turn, which should also have around a 65% chance of success.
If the baseline for success is only 55%, then almost half of all actions will be a waste of time.
So I'd favour a DC of 8+bonus.
doesn't this phantom bonus work to the players advantage more often than not? From what I've read so far in the book and seen on some live streams the PC's roll more vs enemy DC's than the other way around.
doesn't this phantom bonus work to the players advantage more often than not? From what I've read so far in the book and seen on some live streams the PC's roll more vs enemy DC's than the other way around.
That's kind of the point being made, is that some types of characters (spellcasters mostly) will have actions which make the enemies roll to defend, whereas most others will roll to attack. So there is an asymmetry which affects some characters more than others, and is kind of invisible.
|
|
doesn't this phantom bonus work to the players advantage more often than not? From what I've read so far in the book and seen on some live streams the PC's roll more vs enemy DC's than the other way around.That's kind of the point being made, is that some types of characters (spellcasters mostly) will have actions which make the enemies roll to defend, whereas most others will roll to attack. So there is an asymmetry which affects some characters more than others, and is kind of invisible.
Yes, this. It works to certain characters' advantage the majority of the time, and to other characters it works against them the majority of the time. If it was balanced to work for/against all characters equally then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Rolling a separate attack vs each target in a fireball is just absurd, you're creating a single discrete effect, an explosion, and everyone is going to have a chance to avoid it. The choice you make with the fireball is where you put it, your agency ends there, and it's up to those caught in the blast to take cover somehow.
Is it not absurd to force the GM to roll 10 times for each goblin caught in said fireball? How about you are creating a single discrete effect where you magically force your will onto one or more creatures? It's easy to describe magic to work as an attack. It would be just as easy to have the enemy roll to defend against a sword swing. I mean, they would hit you unless you do something to prevent it so shouldn't the defender be rolling to avoid getting hurt? Gameplay wise, someone has to roll the dice. I find players enjoy rolling their own dice a lot more than watching the GM roll dice for them.