In Age of Ashes (AP reference again), there are a lot of skill challenges in multiple forms where the whole party gets to roll, and the people who are merely Trained in things generally do have a harder time with things. One of my parties is now on the tail end of Book 5, so I'm looking at how skills work at 15-17.
Can't comment on high level yet because we are only in the middle of volume 2 of AoA, however there already have been a couple of incidents early in the volume where checks have been gated behind expert proficiency and high DC, so our group of 4 (no Rogue though) at the utmost had one character being able to roll and his chances usually were below 50%, despite the skill in question not being based on a "dump stat". We have no skill items yet apart medicine which however is somewhat invalidated because most of our medicine checks are done using assurance anyway. Having a skill roll tied to both proficiency level and high DC seems very chancy. In my opinion either set a low proficiency entry level, so everybody who has picked up the skill at some point can roll while using a high DC, so only those with enough bonus do actually have a good chance to succeed, or have a high proficiency requirement and a low DC, so that people that have invested in the skill will have a very high chance to succeed. Not both.
In Age of Ashes (AP reference again), there are a lot of skill challenges in multiple forms where the whole party gets to roll, and the people who are merely Trained in things generally do have a harder time with things. But they're still totally competent to roll those checks, and even if their absolute chance of success has gone down, the stakes have gone up and things work out well.
One of my parties is now on the tail end of Book 5, so I'm looking at how skills work at 15-17.
Things are structured so that the rolls of 'Trained' skill users do still matter. They still have a reasonable chance of success (25% with not a single stat point, generally closer to 40-45% with 3 stat boosts behind them, with another 10% from items possible, and generally the APs provide another 5-10% worth of possible circumstance bonuses) at a lot of things, but failure is more common, and there has to be a play decision as to whether or not to roll so as to avoid unneeded critical failures. Having to make risk-based decisions is good game design... but they succeed often enough that its often worth the try.
On the other hand, Master/Legendary skill users are generally rolling looking for Crits on a good roll. They're fearless when it comes to their focused skills, and often succeed dramatically and almost never fail.
...that sounds like what is intended, to me.
Not only sounded as intended but sounded like what people argued for in the Playtest. There were tons of discussions about removing level from all skills and they succeeded. The specialists feel rewarded and the dabblers have a chance to succeed.
In Age of Ashes (AP reference again), there are a lot of skill challenges in multiple forms where the whole party gets to roll, and the people who are merely Trained in things generally do have a harder time with things. One of my parties is now on the tail end of Book 5, so I'm looking at how skills work at 15-17.Can't comment on high level yet because we are only in the middle of volume 2 of AoA, however there already have been a couple of incidents early in the volume where checks have been gated behind expert proficiency and high DC, so our group of 4 (no Rogue though) at the utmost had one character being able to roll and his chances usually were below 50%, despite the skill in question not being based on a "dump stat". We have no skill items yet apart medicine which however is somewhat invalidated because most of our medicine checks are done using assurance anyway. Having a skill roll tied to both proficiency level and high DC seems very chancy. In my opinion either set a low proficiency entry level, so everybody who has picked up the skill at some point can roll while using a high DC, so only those with enough bonus do actually have a good chance to succeed, or have a high proficiency requirement and a low DC, so that people that have invested in the skill will have a very high chance to succeed. Not both.
You're not supposed to succeed at every skill roll. Most rolls allow a second try unless you critically fail, and failure can be painful but rarely lethal.
There are generally two "types" of skill checks - those that are supposed to challenge the party (which everyone should have a reasonable chance to roll) and those that are supposed to challenge specialists (where success is uncertain even for them).
The second type are less frequent, but more notable when they come up because they are a sort of gate that "halts" progress. I can't remember any though that don't have an alternate approach (some are less effective than others though), but I can say that one of the interesting benefits of running two parties through AoA is seeing how different comps can come at the same obstacle and conquer it in different ways.
In book 2 of AoA especially, there was a lot of very fun divergence that occurred. Neither party had exactly the same tools, and each had a couple of challenges that that breezed through that stymied the other.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my world, a 20th level character who's trained in Performance and has a decent Charisma should be able to adequately entertain a 20th level audience. A 20th level character who's Legendary in Performance, has maxed out Charisma, and has invested in good gear should be able to put on a show that makes Zon-Kuthon rethink his life choices. You, on the other hand, seem to think...
Go look up in the book under "Earn Income" a description of a 20th level task in the Examples. A 20th level Task IS Performing for the God's, or getting Zon Kuthon to rethink his life choices.
A character who is merely trained should not be able to reliably pull that off in my mind.
If the task is not that epic, legendary, or godly, its not a 20th level task or a 20th level audience and it shouldn't be a 20th level DC - the Trained skill user will have a better chance at success.
And as I noted elsewhere, you're not supposed to succeed at every roll. If a skill dabbler succeeds at more than 55% of rolls, the skill legend begins to approach complete invulnerability at the same thing.
Yeah there is a really bad treadmill in PF2 if you are only looking at the numbers and assuming vs lvl opposition is some how average regardless of the level of party.
A 20th level audience is not something you are going to find on the material plane, outside of extremely unusual circumstances. From the description, the party should be aware they are attempting something that is nearly impossible for the vast majority of people on the planet.
It is easy to forget if you are only comparing yourself to other PCs of the same level, but level, and not proficiency, is the much more obvious and important detail to in world observation. That is the whole point of having level added evenly to all trained proficiencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not supposed to succeed at every skill roll. Most rolls allow a second try unless you critically fail, and failure can be painful but rarely lethal.
There are generally two "types" of skill checks - those that are supposed to challenge the party (which everyone should have a reasonable chance to roll) and those that are supposed to challenge specialists (where success is uncertain even for them).
The second type are less frequent, but more notable when they come up because they are a sort of gate that "halts" progress. I can't remember any though that don't have an alternate approach (some are less effective than...
If you are allowed to roll at all that is...
You're not supposed to succeed at every skill roll. Most rolls allow a second try unless you critically fail, and failure can be painful but rarely lethal.
There are generally two "types" of skill checks - those that are supposed to challenge the party (which everyone should have a reasonable chance to roll) and those that are supposed to challenge specialists (where success is uncertain even for them).
The second type are less frequent, but more notable when they come up because they are a sort of gate that "halts" progress. I can't remember any though that don't have an alternate approach (some are less effective than...
If you are allowed to roll at all that is...
** spoiler omitted **
So, in general gating skills like that helps keep specialists special and makes challenges more than about just rolling dice and hoping you roll well. I like that, you're allowed not to. I don't think that's a bug though - its intended as a feature.
The particular Hazard you mentioned is... a trip.
Both of my parties confronted it ultimately with the same skill, but all my players are Stargate fans so they approached the trip though the portal with meticulous planning and testing. A couple lost familiars. Thievery isn't the best approach, and Dispel should work from a max level slot at that point on a 15 (and you're supposed to put it in your max level slots for it to work - its not super functional in lower level slots, ever). Not great but not impossible.
That said... you're not really required to overcome that challenge, just survive it. It only does the damage you listed on a critically failed save, so that should* be survivable at 5th level for long enough to sprint through the area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The particular Hazard you mentioned is... a trip.
Spoiler:A couple lost familiars.
Man, I'm so glad that:
1) my group isn't playing that campaign2) the witch isn't officially out yet
But boy howdy I'm sure someone will have THAT problem at some point though.
Can't wait.
"I'm sorry, your class feature upon which all of your other abilities are tied to, is now dead. You'll get a new one in a week with only half your stuff."
It takes every bit of investment you have on offer to keep your attack rolls at the same success rate against enemies relative to your level as you progress through PF2
Yeah. That's kind of the problem.
The particular Hazard you mentioned is... a trip.
** spoiler omitted **
Man, I'm so glad that:
1) my group isn't playing that campaign
2) the witch isn't officially out yetBut boy howdy I'm sure someone will have THAT problem at some point though.
Can't wait.
"I'm sorry, your class feature upon which all of your other abilities are tied to, is now dead. ..."
This is absolutely a design problem with the Witch, and not for hazards in general.
I'd note again though... you're not supposed to succeed every time you roll.
So, in general gating skills like that helps keep specialists special and makes challenges more than about just rolling dice and hoping you roll well. I like that, you're allowed not to. I don't think that's a bug though - its intended as a feature.
Yeah, it sure is a thing of perception. Our gaming round feels more like the specialist is being normal and the rest is simply excluded.
I'd note again though... you're not supposed to succeed every time you roll.
Nobody is asking for that, but the average roll is important too. If a specialist succeeds on a 6+ and the dabbler succeeds on a 11+ OR the specialist succeeds on a 11+ and the dabbler succeeds on a 16+ still is "you are not supposed to succeed every time you roll". In the later however even the specialist might not be feeling special but more like "ok, for all the effort I put in I might just toss a coin".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is absolutely a design problem with the Witch, and not for hazards in general.
Oh you're quite right. Design issue for the witch in general, absolutely.
I'd note again though... you're not supposed to succeed every time you roll.
I've never said you should. I have stated on multiple occasions however that the probability of success is currently too low. It shouldn't be 100% either, but 50-60% is way too low.
If Paizo wants the math to be that a "challenge that has the same effective level as the character means 50% success" then the encounter building guidelines need to account for that and shift everything a notch towards the easier side.
Players want to feel like they're constantly succeeding, because it feels good, and right now players feel like they're constantly failing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difficulty setting of the game is determined by DCs, and if the game is feeling too difficult for the players, especially because maybe they built characters to have fun with and not to maximize everything, it is actually really easy for GMs to dial things back categorically, or only in specific contexts.
But at the same time, if the players expect most challenges they face to be completed by having one player roll higher than a 10 on a single die roll, it might also be time for the GM to think about how they are running encounters. It is very likely that they are not giving players enough opportunities to roll dice in the build up to encounter resolution, and that everything, ends up boiling down to the expert in the party rolling the dice to determine the outcome of an entire 15 minutes to a half an hour or more of roleplaying.
That structure was pretty inherent in past versions of the game, so it might be the way a lot of tables are used to handling things.
...if the players expect most challenges they face to be completed by having one player roll higher than a 10 on a single die roll, it might also be time for the GM to think about how they are running encounters.
s/GM/Paizo
A lot of the complaints aren't about anything the GM is doing. The GM can lower DCs beyond what's printed in a module, sure, no arguments. The operative word is here CAN.
But there's a wide swath of folks who like to either run things as written or play under the assumption that the GM is running things as written. Why? Because then the GM can't be at fault for "making things too difficult. Its not a homebrew game, its a published module." (And on the GM's side they have the mental effort reduced by not having to do all the math for every encounter to work out if its balanced, they can take a quick look and compare to a mental model and go "yep that seems fine").
And sure, published modules can have flaws (look up the 5E module A Window to the Past;* its awful and I played in it by a GM who didn't even run it correctly and as a result ran it too difficult and outright killed two 10th level players--each one in about a round--average party level was about 8), but when they do, we as the playerbase can recognize it and point it out, and the problem can be addressed before the next one gets published.
If we constantly say "no no, its a GM problem" then the problem doesn't get fixed.
*More details about it
An example:
If the characters attempt to use healing or restorative
spells of less than 6th level on the patients:
» The character immediately realizes that
something is preventing their efforts, as if there
is a shield or cocoon of some form shrouding the
patients.
Followed by a caster level check to avoid losing the spell, and healing only does half as much, and remove curse needs to be cast 200(!) times to cure one of two patients...Its disgusting.
After that they get sent out to the actual dungeon, which is basically more "everything's terrible here" "you don't learn anything useful" and "you get attacked by wraiths."
The GM that was running the game I was in misread the "all necromancy spells deal double effect" as "all necromantic damage is doubled" so the wraiths were hitting people for 42 damage (and that's how one 10th level player died). It would have been a TPK if he hadn't realized that things were too strong and had the wraiths fade away after one round of attacks.
Didn't stop him from killing the second 10th level player in a round during the boss fight, though. Barbarian went from full health (around 85) to almost dead to being polymorphed into a Trex with 130 hp, to actually dead before I even had a turn.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as I noted elsewhere, you're not supposed to succeed at every roll. If a skill dabbler succeeds at more than 55% of rolls, the skill legend begins to approach complete invulnerability at the same thing.Having someone with Legendary proficiency in a skill acing every roll that comes their way sounds like a feature, not a bug. You don't sneak up on Wolverine. There's no science gizmo that Reed Richards doesn't figure out in five seconds. That's why they are legends.
I mean, equally Legendary people can do those things. Several people have snuck up on Wolverine in the comics, after all. Never mooks or people without serious sneakiness chops, but it's happened. How awesome you are on this scale in PF2 is largely a function of level.
Legendary characters actually get notably better at on-level activities over the course of their careers to the point of almost automatically succeeding at standard on-level tasks.
At 1st level, an optimal character at a specific skill has a +7 vs. an on-level DC of 15, succeeding on an 8+. At 20th level, they can have a +38 vs. a DC of 40, succeeding on a 2+.
That's a 6 point improvement over the course of their career comparing them to on-level checks, and a very meaningful improvement. Not all Legendary Skills will involve quite that level of investment, but you legitimately get better at them over time.
An argument can be made that attacks vs. AC are a bit of a treadmill, but skills? Not so much.
This is absolutely a design problem with the Witch, and not for hazards in general.Oh you're quite right. Design issue for the witch in general, absolutely.
I'd note again though... you're not supposed to succeed every time you roll.I've never said you should. I have stated on multiple occasions however that the probability of success is currently too low. It shouldn't be 100% either, but 50-60% is way too low.
If Paizo wants the math to be that a "challenge that has the same effective level as the character means 50% success" then the encounter building guidelines need to account for that and shift everything a notch towards the easier side.
Players want to feel like they're constantly succeeding, because it feels good, and right now players feel like they're constantly failing.
OK, but if the dabbler succeeds 65-70% of the time, the specialist succeeds 95-100% of the time. There's a 6 point (30%) gap that the specialist gets for free late game.
The current scale - which is about 45% failure chance for the dabbler on "on level" checks (or in other words at high levels, 'epic and legendary by definition, otherwise they'd be lower level' checks) and 15% failure for a specialist, ensure that the specialist is reliable with good odds of critting and the
Dabbler is likely to succeed and unlikely to make things worse.
Another important part of PF2E is learning to see that Failure is not the worst result - Critical Failure is. And the investment to avoid Critical Failure and contribute a statistically very significant part of the time is quite low.
OK, but if the dabbler succeeds 65-70% of the time, the specialist succeeds 95-100% of the time. There's a 6 point (30%) gap that the specialist gets for free late game.
Ok, so (1) I never said anything about a dabbler.
Presumably at level 1 "having training at all" means you're not a dabbler as (except the rogue) no one can be an expert at any skill.(1b) At some point everyone has to decide which skills they aren't boosting, and any skill not boosted drops them to "dabbler" rating.
(2) By making the specialist success rate so low (the 60%) that 6-point gap means that the dabbler has a 30% chance and may as well not even bother (their chance of success equals their chance of critical failure)
(3) Specialists are critically failing at some things too. Even the specialists aren't special. The specialists are not getting the success that they built to succeed at.
Gosh, it almost sounds like there's a critical design flaw that I'm complaining about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, but if the dabbler succeeds 65-70% of the time, the specialist succeeds 95-100% of the time. There's a 6 point (30%) gap that the specialist gets for free late game.Ok, so (1) I never said anything about a dabbler.
Presumably at level 1 "having training at all" means you're not a dabbler as (except the rogue) no one can be an expert at any skill.
(1b) At some point everyone has to decide which skills they aren't boosting, and any skill not boosted drops them to "dabbler" rating.
(2) By making the specialist success rate so low (the 60%) that 6-point gap means that the dabbler has a 30% chance and may as well not even bother (their chance of success equals their chance of critical failure)
(3) Specialists are critically failing at some things too. Even the specialists aren't special. The specialists are not getting the success that they built to succeed at.Gosh, it almost sounds like there's a critical design flaw that I'm complaining about.
At level 1, I'd define someone dabbling as someone who has either stat and no training, or training but no stat. That definition evolves with play, relative to the investment made into your overall skill value.
Success rates are lower early on, which I think is likely intentional to help present a feeling of the early game being more human and more of a struggle for mundane things. As noted by Deadmanwalking, you actually do get relatively better at skills as you level.
In general though... this is a game about risks, and risk mitigation. Reducing the risks for people with next to no investment in a skill (training, no stat or items) does not reward those people who actively dabble (trained, but with stat and item investment) and completely eliminates the risk for those heavily invested.
There's honestly more than just specialists and dabblers though- in reality, its more like specialists, dabblers, people with token ability, and then people with no ability... and the skill system should accommodate each, and it kind of does.
The first group are rolling hoping for critical success on a good roll, the second for success. If the third group roll, its for a failure and a success as an outlier, with a hope to avoid a critical failure. The forth have chosen not to participate in that skill at all.
And there's still risk of failure for everyone in the current system.
I'd say its extremely carefully and well designed as a system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say its extremely carefully and well designed as a system.
Doesn't necessarily mean its fun though.
I'd say its extremely carefully and well designed as a system.Doesn't necessarily mean its fun though.
That's a rough bar, as its subjective. My players have had fun. They also know that in general, anything but a critical failure let's you roll again and therefore you're likely to eventually succeed, even if your odds are only 55% on a given roll.
A lot of it is delivery, too - there are several skill challenge "sequences", where the party is asked to roll a skill check, and meet some number of threshold of successes over several events. Generally (its not always exactly the same), these are on-level Easy challenges if you pick the right skill, on-level hard challenges if you go with one that will work but isn't ideal.
Normally, you need half the number of players in successes. With a 50% success rate for "dabblers", you generally end up with 1-2 successes for your specialist if you have one, 1.3 ish successes from your two people with some investment in a related skill, and sometimes a person sits out because they're more likely to hurt then harm.
And your party succeeds! Because its rigged in your favor... but not so much that there isn't a threat of failure, and because at least one party member is likely to fail their check.
The adjustments you seem to be proposing feel like they would result in a significant reduction in the chance of failure, and in general, a general reduction in suspense.
I don't think that sounds terribly "fun".
But as noted, its subjective... all I can argue is that the system appears to have a goal, and it appears to very well achieve that goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're also looking at one character just rolling against a challenge rather than taking a more robust look at the game.
Using the mid numbers in the D20 spectrum for success after skill and item investment rather than the extremities for on level challenges encourages players to always look for status bonuses, circumstance bonuses, and opportunities where the check will be easier. Every bit of investment leading up to a roll matters. For me, at least, that challenge feels like it rewards choices and expression better than any other DnD like system I've ever played.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think ultimately the failing of the skill system has less to do with DCs and more to do with how limited a commodity skill increases are, and the way attributes work.
Skill increases are ridiculously rare for anyone who isn't a rogue. Which means you're heavily encouraged to silo into a few dedicated skills. Just as important as your proficiency though is your attribute the skill is tied to, which can be just as good as Expert at level 1.
Put these two together and you end up in a scenario where certain classes are going to be innately good at certain skills by nature of their key attributes... and other classes are going to have issues, especially if it's not one of their very few primary skills.
The end result is less "look for more bonuses" and more "don't bother" for certain combinations of class and skills. Which... kind of seems to be a recurring theme in PF2, unfortunately. The game's accuracy system is built around specialists, which as a result ends up punishing players who try to step outside what are considered normal assumptions for the thing they're playing.
It's sort of a shame that this comes up so much in a game that put so much emphasis on customization, but, as Krispy pointed out, it's working as intended.
Put these two together and you end up in a scenario where certain classes are going to be innately good at certain skills by nature of their key attributes... and other classes are going to have issues, especially if it's not one of their very few primary skills.
The end result is less "look for more bonuses" and more "don't bother" for certain combinations of class and skills. Which... kind of seems to be a recurring theme in PF2, unfortunately. The game's accuracy system is built around specialists, which as a result ends up punishing players who try to step outside what are considered normal assumptions for the thing they're playing.
I dunno, anyone can pick 2-3 skills to focus on and push with proficiency regardless of inherent stats, and 4 stats to increase at every opportunity means that its easy to cover your core stat requirements and also hit 1-2 others. By level 10, you should have at least 3 18+ attributes and one at 14 at a minimum.
There's limited argument for taking your non-primary attributes past 18 due to diminishing returns (maybe you can get them to 20, maybe worth it or maybe not), so you can work on removing weaknesses at 15 and 20.
That means that by high levels, you should be able to be reasonably competent in a large range of skills if you choose to.
High level play is way more functional and accessible than it has been in any other DnD variation I've played - certainly, I don't think its pushed any skill my players characters care about into "don't bother" range by level 17.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to keep in mind are hero points. The system is absolutely designed with these in mind, the player is expected to use these to help the character succeed on the rolls that matter to the player.
One good thing I see is that players often use these when they REALLY want their character to succeed. If a character is playing for an audience of Gods and does NOT spend a hero point when they fail then the PLAYER is essentially saying they don't really care.
Maybe the odds still aren't high enough for some but at least let's argue about the spend a hero point on failure odds :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I feel like hero points are a really huge asset for those important rolls. That's also a big thing for caster tactics. You may only have so many high level spell slots, but that also means you should be using your hero points if you miss on the Disintegrate.
Another thing to keep in mind are hero points. The system is absolutely designed with these in mind, the player is expected to use these to help the character succeed on the rolls that matter to the player.
One good thing I see is that players often use these when they REALLY want their character to succeed. If a character is playing for an audience of Gods and does NOT spend a hero point when they fail then the PLAYER is essentially saying they don't really care.
Maybe the odds still aren't high enough for some but at least let's argue about the spend a hero point on failure odds :-)
It is important to keep in mind that as Fortune effects, they normally can't be applied to downtime activities.
...downtime activities also tend to have soft penalties for failure, so that's not as big a deal, but it is relevant.
That said, your point is extremely valid for almost any case where a skill check has to be made right now and failure is going to hurt.
Automatic Bonus Progression is pretty great for skills though, because you can keep consumable items to grant an item bonus to skill checks and give players additional ways to boost their skill roles when they really want to invest in it.
And once again PF2 is a system about trade offs (you can't be good at everything) and teamwork (you have other people in the game as well.)
I mean that's a nice platitude and all, but it's pretty meaningless for people who want to try building nonstandard characters and have to fight against the system the whole way for no real reason. It's not even really relevant to the topic.
Another thing to keep in mind are hero points. The system is absolutely designed with these in mind, the player is expected to use these to help the character succeed on the rolls that matter to the player.
Ah yes. The hero point system.
The one that has virtually zero guidelines on when and how to award points and sucks to be the guy that does Something Awesome right at the end of the session.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And once again PF2 is a system about trade offs (you can't be good at everything) and teamwork (you have other people in the game as well.)I mean that's a nice platitude and all, but it's pretty meaningless for people who want to try building nonstandard characters and have to fight against the system the whole way for no real reason. It's not even really relevant to the topic.
Pathfinder 2E is built such that so long as you have your Main Stat (accuracy) maxed, you wear a armor that combines with your dex to equal five or six, and you don't make any really intentionally bad choices (or play an Alchemist - thats a miss IMO), you can give up literally all your class feats on whatever you want and distribute your skills toward any end, and you'll still end up with a mostly viable character by the math.
Yes, you do have to make token concessions to the system - Attack Bonus, AC, Saves. But other than that, you can do whatever you like. There's more or less no way to be bad at everything - even the guy who's trained in every skill can make any skill check almost 50% of the time with barely any effort.
There's been no system ever I'm aware of that's nearly as friendly to unusual builds as PF2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to keep in mind are hero points. The system is absolutely designed with these in mind, the player is expected to use these to help the character succeed on the rolls that matter to the player.Ah yes. The hero point system.
The one that has virtually zero guidelines on when and how to award points and sucks to be the guy that does Something Awesome right at the end of the session.
So, be doing awesome things all session and be using your hero points frequently. They are supposed to be a currency. Use them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3 out of the 5 characters I have played for any length of time have started with a 16 in their primary stat and been really good party members because they have been able to cover a lot of bases that other party members that wanted to focus exclusively on damage dealing were not. It is important for parties to have at least 50% of the party specialized in combat roll proficiencies and attributes, but it is not necessarily optimal to have 4 characters who are all focused on their primary attributes, especially if a lot of them overlap and leave major gaps in places like charisma, wisdom or Intelligence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, be doing awesome things all session and be using your hero points frequently. They are supposed to be a currency. Use them.
You know what mechanic works that is basically hero points, but actually does the job?
Shadowrun's Edge.
PF2's hero point system was literally bolted on at the last moment, had the wrong power scale on how valuable points were at first, and while it's been tweaked, its still...not...
Well, its still not integrated into the everything else. The only time it works is if your GM remembers that the system exists and gives out points. When the GM forgets and the points exist soley as a way to clear Dying, then the system doesn't function.
And nothing else in the system even touches on it. No feats that grant the ability to have 4 points, no feats that allow you to recover a point under some conditions, nothing.
So, be doing awesome things all session and be using your hero points frequently. They are supposed to be a currency. Use them.You know what mechanic works that is basically hero points, but actually does the job?
Shadowrun's Edge.
PF2's hero point system was literally bolted on at the last moment, had the wrong power scale on how valuable points were at first, and while it's been tweaked, its still...not...
Well, its still not integrated into the everything else. The only time it works is if your GM remembers that the system exists and gives out points. When the GM forgets and the points exist soley as a way to clear Dying, then the system doesn't function.
And nothing else in the system even touches on it. No feats that grant the ability to have 4 points, no feats that allow you to recover a point under some conditions, nothing.
If you see another player do something cool, speak up and say "Wow. That deserves a hero point." Encourage table-wide buy-in. Not engaging the mechanics doesn't mean the mechanics don't works. It just means you aren't using them.
As to the "bolted on" piece, yeah. I wish they had gone harder on narrative agency and luck manipulation mechanics like hero points and failing forward ala Fate RPG. They didn't. This is what we have. Use the tools at your disposal.
It is a different mindset, certainly. It isn't begging for bonuses, so much as actively engaging the mechanics via narrative flavor. The points are there. They are supposed to be handed out. I think the guidance on how often they should be handed out is overly conservative, but it is what it is.
Some people are going to push back against "I swing from the chandelier to super-hero land into battle" but that's just "using Acrobatics for Initiative". Tie the narrative to the mechanics. PF2 is much better than PF1 in this regard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a different mindset, certainly. It isn't begging for bonuses, so much as actively engaging the mechanics via narrative flavor. The points are there. They are supposed to be handed out. I think the guidance on how often they should be handed out is overly conservative, but it is what it is.
Some people are going to push back against "I swing from the chandelier to super-hero land into battle" but that's just "using Acrobatics for Initiative". Tie the narrative to the mechanics. PF2 is much better than PF1 in this regard.
Hero Points are a great mechanic for getting people involved, and encouraging people to do cool things - but it does require the table to get involved in making sure they are flowing.
Im not going to say I wouldn't have liked a full page and a few general feats dedicated to Hero Points dedicated to them in the core book though, because that absolutely would have been awesome.
Hmm. Perhaps a house rule for those is in order: a hero point can either be used to reroll the die, or to add 1d6 to the result. That would let it work both to cover unexpected bad rolls and to help with near-misses on things you're less good at.
1d6 isn't really that much. Remember that "the best of 2d20" is roughly equivalent to "1d20+5" in terms of statistical outcome.
So 1d20+1d6 is...awful.
Hmm. Perhaps a house rule for those is in order: a hero point can either be used to reroll the die, or to add 1d6 to the result. That would let it work both to cover unexpected bad rolls and to help with near-misses on things you're less good at.1d6 isn't really that much. Remember that "the best of 2d20" is roughly equivalent to "1d20+5" in terms of statistical outcome.
So 1d20+1d6 is...awful.
Not if you know your target number, are 1-3 short, and have already rolled 'well' on your die roll (lets say, 13+).
In those circumstances, odds are against you rolling better the second time but may be good that you could hit the DC if you added to your current roll.
Being able to boost a good roll that came up short is pretty powerful.
A reroll is not the sort of thing you should use when you've already got a 14 showing. Adding to the current value is.
Its actually a great idea for an alternative use of a Hero Point... but honestly, its the sort of thing I'd prefer be added via a General Feat.
Not if you know your target number, are 1-3 short, and have already rolled 'well' on your die roll (lets say, 13+).
In those circumstances, odds are against you rolling better the second time but may be good that you could hit the DC if you added to your current roll.
Well, yes. If you rolled well, but just-barely-not-well-enough then adding a d6 works. But I'd much rather have a fixed amount, even if it was just "add 3"