Those poor, weak, defenseless bards...


Advice


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Based on four games at 3rd level, several of my friends are convinced that the P2E bard is awful.

Please explain the things you think they may have overlooked. What makes the bard class great?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not like the PF1 Bard, which may be the issue. Plus, support alone isn't enough of a role in PF2 if that's all one's trying to do.

That said, nothing makes the Bard great. It can do many things well though. So many things it's hard to imagine anyone thinking it's awful except as mentioned above.
-Charisma class with a decent amount of skills makes it easy to master social situations. Plus it has class abilities which amplify skills.
-Armored caster w/ 8 h.p./level & a varied list of good spells makes it competitive there. To say they're awful would be to label many full casters awful.
-It gets decent weapons too, though maybe that tempted some to try their hand at melee where a Bard can be quite vulnerable (since it's rough up there even for the martials & Rogues!)

It has some decent action sequences if you give them a bow:
Sing/Cantrip vs. easy foes
Sing/Strike/Shield spell vs. modest foes
Sing/Spell vs. tougher ones
3x Magic Missile vs. bosses
Strike/Soothe or Sing/Soothe in emergencies
It's pretty hard to imagine a Bard not contributing to the point they'd be "awful". Had a PF2 Bard in the playtest as a main PC and he fared fine at all levels, especially when lots of Magic Missiles were needed.
I guess if one were relying on the save or suck spells Bard's may look poor, but that's not a Bard issue, but a PF2 expectations issue.

(And one can make a decent melee Bard if one minimizes Cha, which Magic Missile and the non-offensive spells hardly need.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hard disagree, but that’s me. Their list is good, feats are good, they even have solid damaging spells and cantrips that they can cast alongside bardic music.

Probably one of my favorite classes this edition.

shrug


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would be more helpful if you explained why you think they're awful.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Hard disagree, but that’s me.

You disagree with someone's dislike of the class?

Not sure that's allowed, or possible. You like the bard, they don't; that's not a disagreement. That's just differing preferences. :P

Squiggit wrote:
Would be more helpful if you explained why you think they're awful.

I never said I think they are awful. I started this thread precisely because, unlike my friends, I KNOW how popular the bard is. I just thought the hive mind could enlighten them as to the reasons why.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:


You disagree with someone's dislike of the class?

Not sure that's allowed, or possible. You like the bard, they don't; that's not a disagreement. That's just differing preferences. :P

What? Your friend says bards are terrible. Midnightoker disagrees with that assertion. How is that 'not allowed'? The fact that people disagree is supposedly the whole point of this thread.

Quote:
I just thought the hive mind could enlighten them as to the reasons why.

Right, sure. And I'm just pointing out that it would be easier to discuss if we had any reasoning behind that belief.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes I was hard disagreeing with the “they’re awful”.

Which, as I’m sure you’ll agree, I’m “allowed” to do.

Imo they’re one of the better full casters in the game, and they make great bosses and enemies given their abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Imo they’re one of the better full casters in the game

Yep. I'm having trouble seeing what could be awful. Having 1 action cantrips? Lots of skill points? Being a full caster? I need to hear what's thought to be awful...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Yes I was hard disagreeing with the “they’re awful”.

Ah, yes. That makes more sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't help but read the topic title and imagine you watching a troupe from afar, laughing evilly as you ready the catapults.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1-action cantrips with meaningful effects is a big deal to me. Especially Dirge of Doom, which makes enemies more likely to fail saves against your other debuffs and your allies spells, making it a boost even for members not attacking. Also limited prepared casting on top of spont casting letting you play both, or extra strength monster ID give it some of the most interesting feats for spellcasters IMO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the bard I can't help to think that whoever is playing this bard that they base their opinion on is doing a bad job...


Arguably, I would say one of the best aspects of the Bard is the versatility in the builds you can have (made more possible with multiclassing, which given how bards are at least decent in most things, is a bit easier then some of the other class, in my very small exp)

For example, you can play the classic Charismatic Bard, winning most people over with a smile, and a spell for the few he doesn’t. Or, thanks to Enigma line of feats, you can focus on Int, and be the guy that knows everything. And, with ways of combining skills (ie VP, Bardic Knowledge, ect) and gaining a good amount of initial skills, you can try your hand at being a skill monkey (leading off with skills you are really investing in, while making sure you have a fighting chance at things you are only trained in/ aiding others in there check). If you wanted to, you could build a Bard that dumped Cha as much as they could, investing instead into physical stats (Specializing in non-DC spells such as buffs, summons, divinations, and healing) and wading into combat buffed, with a Summoned helper, singing so poorly his foes are freighted at the prospect of having to listen to more of it. These are just some off the top of my head. And multiclassing can help support these types of builds.

However, I do think this is also where playing a Bard can be somewhat difficult, as while variety is an awesome thing, it is also the reason why someone can lose focus. Like with other classes, you just do not have enough feats/stats ect, to be all the things, ( you can be more then one thing, but how many more?) and because the Bard was made at baseline to be decent in most things (with a nod towards spellcasting), with different options, it can be easy to spread yourself to thin, trying to be to much, finding yourself to be the Fool-of-all-Trades, instead of the Jack of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mean heck if a critical eye like Greystone thinks their great then I'm swayed to believe they are probably pretty good. ;D

I think we would have to have some more info on whats problems are occurring.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Yes I was hard disagreeing with the “they’re awful”.
Ah, yes. That makes more sense.

Simple: +1 to hit is 10-15% damage in PF2. Inspire Courage + Inspire Heroics + Fear 3 = up to +5 to hit for 50-75% extra damage to the whole party. Bards are crazy good.

The Exchange

My placeholder way of looking at things

Spell List
(in terms of versatility and power overall – against all opponents including neutral and mindless)
Ranked within tiers also
Top
Arcane
Primal

Middle
Occult

Bottom
Divine

Classes - Believing most classes fit into the old 3-5 range
(In terms of versatility and power overall – includes skills etc)
Ranked within tiers also

Tier 3
Bard
Wizard
Sorcerer (Arcane)

Tier 4
Druid
Sorcerer (Primal)
Rogue
Ranger
Barbarian
Fighter
Cleric
Champion
Monk
Sorcerer (Occult)

Tier 5
Alchemist
Sorcerer (Divine)


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Here's the character in question:

Slun, musical virtuoso (NG female unbreakable goblin barkeep bard 3)

Slun is a simple barkeep with big dreams of bringing goblin cultural music into the Absalom mainstream. She doesn't do comedy (at least not deliberately); she honestly believes her scavenged kid costume is appropriate for a serious entertainer.

Siro wrote:
For example, you can play the classic Charismatic Bard, winning most people over with a smile, and a spell for the few he doesn’t. Or, thanks to Enigma line of feats, you can focus on Int, and be the guy that knows everything. And, with ways of combining skills (ie VP, Bardic Knowledge, ect) and gaining a good amount of initial skills, you can try your hand at being a skill monkey (leading off with skills you are really investing in, while making sure you have a fighting chance at things you are only trained in/ aiding others in there check).

I think part of the problem may have been that 1E bards could be charismatic, intelligent, AND skillful--something I don't believe the player in question felt was happening with her 2E character.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think we would have to have some more info on whats problems are occurring.

I remember she wielded a bow and fired that a lot while also trying to sing. She also missed a half dozen important skill checks in our last game due to bad rolls that ultimately lead to the party botching the whole mission. With her skill modifiers, she really should have made them easily--it was just a crook die or really bad luck.

We played The Absalom Initiation over the course of 4 sessions, so most of the DCs fell into the 15-18 range (with a couple being as high as 22). Combat encounters were extremely hard, dropping multiple characters each time. Slun even died while trying to stop the ritual, but used a hero point to survive.

Everyone in my group is now convinced that healing, such as a cleric and/or Battle Medicine is a MUST for basic play. When I proposed playing without hero points for an extra gritty feel, they all responded "heck no!" Their vehement response was a little surprising as they typically hate metagame mechanics, especially those that essentially make it impossible to die.


Yeah, Bards are not as Versatile as they were right out of box compared to PF1. They certainly can become the wise cracking knowledge filled Bard given enough time to get some class feats/levels under there belt, and initially they get enough to be decent in a lot of things without a huge investment (Decent HP, decent selection of weapons, at least light Armor for a spellcasting class, decent amount of initial skills, good spell casting which they excel more then there PF1 because of the changes in class and at the beginning how cantrips work ect.) But, changes to the ideology behind the game in general (i found there is more of a build up to become ‘great’ at things for all classes to a certain degree.) does mean the Bard is not as good at everything from the start as there PF1 counterparts, and a bad night of rolls can really show this and make a really good class seem terrible due to it.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My two cents

I would say that the PF2 system appears designed to bring characters to dying a lot more with a grace period before actual death (the dying condition acts as a elevator brake). Hero points to prevent actual death are necessary since you can easily drop multiple characters to dying and crit fails are more of a thing

Healing via Medicine skill is a necessary between encounter mechanic (replacing the feel good whappie stick). Battle Medicine is a standard most people seem to think and thus I would not say a dedicated healbot is a must (only that 1-2 heal spells need to be available).

The skill checks for the scenario were in the 25-50% success range for 1 individual (for L1-L2) so unless you had more than 2 members trained, you would expect to fail 1/4 - 1/3 of them as a party


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Laran wrote:

I would say that the PF2 system appears designed to bring characters to dying a lot more with a grace period before actual death (the dying condition acts as a elevator brake). Hero points to prevent actual death are necessary since you can easily drop multiple characters to dying and crit fails are more of a thing

Healing via Medicine skill is a necessary between encounter mechanic (replacing the feel good whappie stick). Battle Medicine is a standard most people seem to think and thus I would not say a dedicated healbot is a must (only that 1-2 heal spells need to be available).

Yeah. A couple of weeks after we finished the fourth and final game of the adventure, one of the players pointed out to me that we had been handling the dying and recovery rules incorrectly.

Any time someone made even a single recovery check, we had them stabilized and unconscious at 0 hit points. Later we found out that it doesn't necessarily stabilize you, it just moves you up and down the dying scale. We maybe should have lost some characters during our little P2E foray. :P

It was after that realization that they said no to playing without hero points, understandably.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean heck if a critical eye like Greystone thinks their great then I'm swayed to believe they are probably pretty good. ;D

LOL I'm not always critical. I'm more than willing to praise good elements of the game: It's just that I'm less of a cheerleader for the good things and more of an advocate for changing for things I see as bad.

In this case, the bard is one of better classes IMO. One action cantrips alone make it interact better with the 3 action system than other caster classes.

Ravingdork wrote:
I think part of the problem may have been that 1E bards could be charismatic, intelligent, AND skillful--something I don't believe the player in question felt was happening with her 2E character.

Part of the problem might be going from the PF1 system to PF2: skillful means different thing in each system. In PF1, a skillful person made most check [the odds were in their favor]. In PF2, the skillful character can expect a 50%/50% chance to make it unless it's a very simple task. It's requires a shift in expectations IMO.

Ravingdork wrote:
I remember she wielded a bow and fired that a lot while also trying to sing. She also missed a half dozen important skill checks in our last game due to bad rolls that ultimately lead to the party botching the whole mission. With her skill modifiers, she really should have made them easily--it was just a crook die or really bad luck.

In PF2, you almost NEED multiple people rolling for important checks: If you only have one person rolling, failing a bunch would be expected. Having bad luck on top really isn't a failing of the system. I don't see how the bard class had anything to do with it: a rogue all maxed out with skills would have played out the same way with bad skill rolls.

What COULD have been an issue was using a weapon: switch him to Telekinetic Projectile instead of bow and you'll be +2 to hit and +4 damage. That character shouldn't ever use weapon unless there was no other option IMO. Even Daze in most cases would be a better attack than the bow, whip, sap or morningstar. That bard build really isn't built as a gish so playing it like one is going to make it feel worse than it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen the exact details of the adventure, but if they're used to PF1 standards, that might be a reason behind it? With a +8 with inspire courage, the first shot should have decent odds, but the +3 second shot would be incredibly unlikely. Thus, possible uses for the third action might be to Demoralize (unlikely with the skill bonuses I checked again) or Create a Diversion for the target enemy before attacking, temporarily bringing the effective hit chance to that of a martial character.

Alternately, as noted, something like Telekinetic Projectile for pure damage would also be a better option. +10 to hit, and 2d6+5 damage is quite a bit better than the shortbow.

Alternately again, Goblin Song into Daze might be a decent cantrip option.


I'm curious about the bow use as well.
I would think that the reason for a bard to use a bow is to leave an action for defense/movement.
If they are shooting the bow twice, then yeah, an attack cantrips seems better.
But it looks like she would need 3 actions to cast her attack cantrip at range, hmm.


I would just wait for the archetype that gives heavier armor again for arcane duelists.

The current game has far tighter math, and it is harder to keep up defensively if you aren't invested (which might mean dex and con over strength for a light armor class) when you go into full melee.

But once you get that, it doesn't seem hard to get the older melee bards back up to snuff. The current system seems fairly favorable for melee casters since you get enough level up bonuses to also hit your casting stat.


For existing Archetypes (in LOCG), Lastwall Sentry->Knight Vigilant does already offer Expert Heavy Armor proficiency, Sentry granting Fighter Feat Reactive Shield which is great if you're inclined to wear a Shield. Armiger->Hellknight also offers Expert Heavy Armor proficiency, with Armiger granting Mental damage Resistance and Hellknight granting above-average ArmorSpec resistance. I do think APG will have "generic" Armor Archetype without alignment/roleplay considerations.

For Expert Light Armor class like Bard, (General) Medium Trained is easy stepping stone to (General) Heavy Trained -> Archetype Heavy Expert, that will equal (non-Key Stat max) 16 DEX Light Armor AC with only a 12 DEX.


Both light and heavy require an investment into a stat [dex of str] that this character didn't do: as such, the ability to go heavy vs light isn't really a meaningful debate. Once this character hits 5th and can move it's str to 14 though, medium armor would be a good fit: the lighter medium armors reward characters with mediocre stats like 14's or 16's in str and dex.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm running Age of Ashes, and the bard is the party's favorite character after a couple memorable "that's a crit because of Inspire Courage" moments. It's such a good buff that she feels bad when she doesn't have the action economy to cast it for one reason or another.

I will says, though, if the bard has a glaring weakness it's that there is not a single spell on the Occult list until fourth level that targets Reflex. Offensively, the bard has definitely felt worst against enemies that have both good Fort and good Will, because it leaves her with basically no good options.

Against enemies with bad Fort or Will though... She's melted a couple encounters with a well placed Sound Burst or Color Spray.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Part of the problem might be going from the PF1 system to PF2: skillful means different thing in each system. In PF1, a skillful person made most check [the odds were in their favor]. In PF2, the skillful character can expect a 50%/50% chance to make it unless it's a very simple task. It's requires a shift in expectations IMO.

This is really not true in the final version (though it definitely was in the playtest). Or at least, not in published adventures and also not above low levels.

It's roughly true of normal difficulty on-level checks in things you don't specialize in, but the more you rise in level, the more likely you are to have some specialties, and at least in published adventures (and by the guidelines in the book) many should be below level, and those you have better odds on.

It certainly is true that you wind up with better odds of success in PF1 on specialized skills than you do in PF2, especially at higher levels or with high investment, but it's less of an issue than you're making it out to be here.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
not above low levels.

This is mainly where I'm looking at: in the first 1/4th-1/3rd of a characters life that ends up being played most. The higher you get, it does get better than 50/50 but never anywhere as good as PF1 good at skills: I'm more talking about skilled instead of specialized. In PF terms maxing out rank and stat vs that + skill focus + an item w/ bonus + ect...

As we're talking about a 3rd level character, I don't think my comments are out of place in the least. I wasn't thinking high level play as I don't play it and we weren't talking about it. ;)


I prefer mid levels myself typically. Granted not much experience with it in PF2 yet.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

This is mainly where I'm looking at: in the first 1/4th-1/3rd of a characters life that ends up being played most. The higher you get, it does get better than 50/50 but never anywhere as good as PF1 good at skills: I'm more talking about skilled instead of specialized. In PF terms maxing out rank and stat vs that + skill focus + an item w/ bonus + ect...

As we're talking about a 3rd level character, I don't think my comments are out of place in the least. I wasn't thinking high level play as I don't play it and we weren't talking about it. ;)

It also, separately, does not apply in published adventures or if using the DC guidelines in the way advised. On-level checks are actually not the majority of checks you need to make, after all.

Even for 1st through 3rd level characters most checks you make you have a much better chance than 50% of succeeding at with your most focused skills.

For example, at 1st level, the vast majority of checks you make are DC 10 to 15 (Untrained to Trained on the Basic DC table), with occasional higher exceptions in the 17-18 range (as high as 20 or so is possible, but rare).

Of those, with the +7 you can start with in your highest skill, only DC 18 checks actually result in a 50% success rate, with anything lower than that having a higher one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I prefer mid levels myself typically. Granted not much experience with it in PF2 yet.

I prefer skipping over the first few levels myself but so far all the games so far I've gotten into have been starting at 1st: the only mid/high level play I've done has be in both playtests to try the new classes at different levels and skills weren't a focus in the last one.

I guess I should have said in my last post 'I haven't played high level' instead of 'I don't play it', though I doubt I'll see much of it as online games rarely see high level.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
It also, separately, does not apply in published adventures or if using the DC guidelines in the way advised. On-level checks are actually not the majority of checks you need to make, after all.

I'm not going to belabor this much. I was under the impression we were talking about 'important rolls': "She also missed a half dozen important skill checks" that "ultimately lead to the party botching the whole mission". Would it help if I changed what I said to '50/50 on meaningful checks'? I doubt missing a untrained check caused a mission to fail and I wasn't talking about EXACTLY 50/50, just not to expect to stray too far from it in your favor...

EDIT: When I said "In PF2, the skillful character can expect a 50%/50% chance to make it unless it's a very simple task." To clarify, a "very simple task" is IMO Untrained [and maybe higher depending on skill proficiency]. So for that 1st level example, it jumps from 10-20 expected checks to 15-20 checks and a 50% with a +7 [18] falls in the middle of that: it's not like the +16 you got with your PF1 goblin because you put a single rank in stealth vs an important stealth roll. It sliding from 65%-40% is fairly insignificance when compared to an expected auto-succeed of 100% with a skills PF1 skill, which was my point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just level past them kind of quickly. We look at it as the introductory part of the game. My trend for the last 3 campaigns I've ran is to start at 1 and end at 20. I feel we hit the best part of the game at like 8-14 ish. It may be different in PF2 not much experience yet and we are kind of holding off for more content first since we are also in the middle of another campaign.

... Wait what was this thread about again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some players were having problems with the bard and OP wanted us to give advice on and explain why bards arent bad.


graystone wrote:
Would it help if I changed what I said to '50/50 on meaningful checks'?

Depends on how you defining meaningful. The rogue scaling the s+~#ty, rough wall to unlock a gate from the other side might be a much easier check than the recall knowledge check someone makes in the following combat against a CR appropriate enemy, but more narratively relevant as well.


You know part of me feels the identifying monsters should have like a rarity modifier separate from level. I mean really it almost makes more sense to have heard of the higher level monsters more so then the lower level ones. Then of course dragons are a thing. Who couldn't know about dragons? I guess it depends on your world but It's got to be like general common knowledge.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
You know part of me feels the identifying monsters should have like a rarity modifier separate from level. I mean really it almost makes more sense to have heard of the higher level monsters more so then the lower level ones. Then of course dragons are a thing. Who couldn't know about dragons? I guess it depends on your world but It's got to be like general common knowledge.

There is in fact exactly that already. Uncommon monsters, items, or spells raise the DC to identify them by 2, rare by 5, and unique by 10.


I have not noticed that yet. Is it under the skill?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I have not noticed that yet. Is it under the skill?

Page 505 gives the relevant information, including adjusting DC for rarity and setting a DC independent of level to facilitate it being more likely that people have heard about famous and legendary sorts of creatures.


Squiggit wrote:
graystone wrote:
Would it help if I changed what I said to '50/50 on meaningful checks'?
Depends on how you defining meaningful. The rogue scaling the s++&ty, rough wall to unlock a gate from the other side might be a much easier check than the recall knowledge check someone makes in the following combat against a CR appropriate enemy, but more narratively relevant as well.

Recall knowledge checks are their very own kind of issue IMO, as you get little guidance most times on what a successful or a critically failed check should be unless the specific module spells them out. I dislike rolls that discourage anyone but the person with the highest bonus from rolling when multiple people could roll. [or else you have a greater chance to deal with false info]

But on meaningful, I mean that the DC actually provides a significant challenge to someone with the skill vs someone without it: if someone with a large bonus in their stat but no proficiency bonus can make the roll fairly easily, it's not a meaningful roll to the skilled user [IE, the DC 10 for unskilled with an 18 stat at 1st]. It's a roll that's quickly forgotten unless an 'unlucky' 1 is rolled and you manage to fail.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
... Wait what was this thread about again?

LOL I does look like we've wandered away from the topic, but I do think what I'm talking about is at the core of why someone would feel a PF2 bard doesn't feel skillful vs a PF1 bard. Gone are the days of take 10/20, a 1 rolled not impacting the results or being able to focus on a skill enough to make most checks especially at a lower level. Add that on top of rolling bad and it's easy to see how someone could feel unskilled.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I'm not going to belabor this much. I was under the impression we were talking about 'important rolls': "She also missed a half dozen important skill checks" that "ultimately lead to the party botching the whole mission". Would it help if I changed what I said to '50/50 on meaningful checks'? I doubt missing a untrained check caused a mission to fail and I wasn't talking about EXACTLY 50/50, just not to expect to stray too far from it in your favor...

This is simply not true in the published adventures we have at that level. In Hellknight Hill, the 'difficult' checks at that level are actually among the least relevant to anything (finding and getting optional treasure that you can retry the checks to get or the whole party can attempt, for the most part). There's the occasional substantive check in that vicinity but most checks to know or do things actually relevant to the plot are lower DC than that.

Important rolls, in play, are something I would define by their results, not simply what the DC was. And as defined by their results, the odds of success on important rolls in published adventurers at 1st level are quite a bit better than 50%.

graystone wrote:
EDIT: When I said "In PF2, the skillful character can expect a 50%/50% chance to make it unless it's a very simple task." To clarify, a "very simple task" is IMO Untrained [and maybe higher depending on skill proficiency].

Fair enough as far as it goes, but firstly there are an awful lot of DC 12-13 checks to be had at that level as well. Secondly, yes, if you define 'not very simple' as 'high DC checks' then you're gonna have lower odds on them, but that's not very reflective of the way the game actually functions.

By that definition, most checks you make in published adventures, and certainly most that are plot relevant are 'very simple' at which point the terms stops having much meaning.

graystone wrote:
So for that 1st level example, it jumps from 10-20 expected checks to 15-20 checks and a 50% with a +7 [18] falls in the middle of that: it's not like the +16 you got with your PF1 goblin because you put a single rank in stealth vs an important stealth roll. It sliding from 65%-40% is fairly insignificance when compared to an expected auto-succeed of 100% with a skills PF1 skill, which was my point.

If most of your relevant checks are DC 10-15 (and they mostly are, at least in published adventures at 1st level), then your odds of success with maxed skills are between 65% and 90% on those depending on the check in question (and between 55% and 80% even with only a +5), which strikes me as quite a bit higher than 50%. It's certainly less than your odds of success on really specialized skills in PF1 (and, indeed, I said as much), but saying it's 'a 50%/50% chance' strikes me as an exceedingly misleading statement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
it's 'a 50%/50% chance' strikes me as an exceedingly misleading statement

Agree to disagree as we're using different definitions: you're looking at 65%-90% and I'm looking at 40%-65%. I'm not talking about quantity of checks but quality: rolls that expect you do be skilled to make. You are looking at the average of every single roll you make in the game and I'm not nor did I ever claim to be.

The Exchange

graystone wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
it's 'a 50%/50% chance' strikes me as an exceedingly misleading statement
Agree to disagree as we're using different definitions: you're looking at 65%-90% and I'm looking at 40%-65%. I'm not talking about quantity of checks but quality: rolls that expect you do be skilled to make. You are looking at the average of every single roll you make in the game and I'm not nor did I ever claim to be.

The idea that ALL the checks in scenarios and adventures are meaningful is not believable or justifiable.

Some of the rolls in published adventures just give story details with no impact on completion

Other rolls (the much harder rolls) relate to finding items, etc. These rolls do have an impact on successful completion

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Those poor, weak, defenseless bards... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.