| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I posted this on reddit a little while ago, and realized I should probably make it a point to post it here as well, its been 2 and a half years since Pathfinder 2e released, and I think I finally have a handle on the optimization in it to talk about it in the abstract!
I. The Concept
A recent post (which wasn't a big deal or anything) questioning the role of the Gunslinger got me thinking about something I keep coming back to in terms of how we should think about character optimization in Pathfinder 2e. As most of you know, we often talk about combat roles from other games (like Tank, Healer, Damage) that don't really fit the model of Pathfinder 2e's combat (although elements of them certainly exist), and we've all been thinking about how to teach not just the game itself, but the metagame to new players who are interested in the nitty gritty of optimization but carry a lot of baggage from other systems. This post is aimed at addressing how to think about character optimization in Pathfinder 2e.
Specifically, rather than roles I propose that characters in Pathfinder 2e can be interpreted to have various 'areas of expertise' that represent things that they can spend their actions (or in the case of exploration and such, activities/time) doing-- the many character options of the game dictate how well they perform in each of these areas. Because of the highly flexible system of feats that the game offers, its important to understand that these aren't roles, because any character can perform them to differing degrees, and can tune their own performance in each of these areas by taking different feats.
The most accurate picture of a character's performance in these areas would have to be rated on the build level, although it could be useful to discuss what a class offers to each of these areas, we do so at the risk of rendering our examination useless, as they can be heavily impacted by archetypes-- archetypes can also be rated according to this system. The rating system itself could be numeric or color based, and I make no assertion as to which method ought to be used.
It is also important to remember that the action systems provides a bottleneck for almost all of these areas-- your potential to perform setup, and your potential to perform payoff for instance, are generally inversely proportional due to the need to spend actions on each, this dynamic of course implicitly boosts the value of game elements that let you do one thing while doing something else. The areas probably bleed into each other, and some game elements probably boost multiple (such as initiative) this is probably just a reflection of how the game works, rather than a problem with the categories.
II. The Areas of Expertise
Protection - This is your ability to actively mitigate or prevent incoming damage on a team basis. The Quintessential protection is the champion's reaction, which literally subtracts damage from an attack. An ability that encourages enemies to attack you instead of your ally (in tandem with your own Defense-- see below), or prevents them from using their own Reach (See Below), boosts a fellow Party Member's Defense, or robs an enemy of actions (or makes those actions less useful) qualifies as protection. I would assert that Healing is also Protection, as it undoes damage done and 'protects' allies from hitting zero HP (which is the threshold where something bad actually happens)-- while this argument could be used for damage, alpha striking isn't reliable enough in Pathfinder 2e for this to make sense. In other words, dead isn't the best status condition to protect your party, because it just takes too long to apply in this game system.
Defense - This is your personal ability to deal with something being thrown at you: your AC, your Saving Throws, your HP, your ability to Shield Block, pop reactions like Nimble Dodge, all that good stuff. This is probably the simplest element, but its important to consider separate from protection, because high defense alone doesn't give the enemy any incentive to attack you, you need to be doing other things in order to incentivize that, which means ye olde 'tanking' can only be understood as a combination of multiple areas of expertise, and since most things useful to a party qualify as incentive to hit you, it should be understood that tanking is a spectrum. As my Wizard Emrys discovered when they cast Mask of Terror and Fiery Body, and used their fragile hitpoints to bait Opportunity Attacks.
Setup - You've probably heard about how important it is to inflict conditions, and how big a difference +1 makes right? This is that reflected as an Area of Expertise. Flatfooted, Frightened, Game Elements like Inspire Courage, Elemental Betrayal, and anything that makes you better at these sorts of thing. This is anything that is meant to raise the stakes by preparing your allies for their own attacks. One of the big things that made me realize 'roles' are misleading in Pathfinder 2e is because actions can be split (and are incentivized to be split) in a turn providing multiple kinds of value, and setup is a big part of that. A big hit from a Giant Barbarian is Payoff, but the action he spends prior to that using Raging Intimidation to demoralize the target is Setup, even though he also benefits from it. Some characters might be devoted to set up though-- imagine a Sorcerer who is casting fear on one target while straight demoralizing another. The numbers work out that setup is pretty much always useful (in other words, payoff is always better with the right amount of setup, thats just how the system works), but obviously someone needs to capitalize on the setup, which brings us to...
Payoff - This is your Flurry Ranger who spits out a bunch of attacks with features that make them low MAP, or your Magus's massive Spellstrike everyone is hoping will crit, or your Barbarian's big rage hit, or your Double Light Pick Assassin-Fighter's Marked for Death Double Slice (you know, for Fatal and Deadly at the same time on two MAPless Attacks) or your Spellcaster's disintegrate, or even their big area fireball. We call it Payoff because these big hits are at their best when another character has prepped the field for them, generally by making it more likely to crit, although they may have given you other benefits to lubricate your action economy. Your rating in this area, is specifically your potential to lay on the hurt and bring out the full potential of Setup. If Setup and Payoff are balanced correctly you can optimize your position on a curve between the two and bring a truly ridiculous amount of hurt, they're two sides of the same whole-- never forget that when you celebrate your big boi numbers.
Reach - More than just the weapon trait, Reach reflects your mobility and range, its your ability to put yourself into a position where you can do your job and lay down your hurt. That could be the increased speed of a monk, the teleport attached to the Laughing Shadow conflux spell, or the ability to drop a spell or bullet 500 ft downrange. An example of optimized reach is the famous Massive-Giant-Barbarian-with-a-reach-weapon-using-whirlwind-to-do-his-best- impression-of-a-fireball technique. If you can provide some of this to an ally, even better, although that arguably bleeds into setup and defense.
I actually went ahead and developed 2-3 other areas, but these are shakier because their usefulness is more dependent on your table culture, how the GM runs Recall Knowledge, and whether your between combats is set dressing or not. I believe that they are and should be useful when the game is being played properly, but obviously, some tables would disagree.
Information - This is your ability to gain information from the world around you, that could be your ability to rip information out of the Monster Statblocks in combat using Combat Assesment, Identify Creature, or Recall Knowledge, it could be your perception and its ability to tell you where a hiding creature is, it could be your ability to find out about secret doors that might have optional treasure or routes behind them while searching in exploration, or even a Gather Information activity to find out useful stuff. A lot of Investigator features fall into this category, Bardic Lore or certain free skill ups, high perception, a wisdom or intelligence focus. In the right game, the Approximate cantrip or Eye for Numbers feat would totally be here. The key is that the information needs to be more than just dressing, this area varies in usefulness depending on how useful your GM allows information to be in their game. Trapfinding is another example, since its useful, but only if your GM actually uses Hazards.
Execution - This is your ability to interact with the environment to solve problems, things like using your Thievery to actually disarm a trap, or using magic to summon flying steeds to carry you someplace fast, or Athletics to move the boulder covering the secret door someone with good Information found. A lot of spell casting, utility abilities, comes up here, its usefulness also depends upon the GM running the game. I am going to say that your abilities as a face qualify as execution-- unlocking a door, and intimidating a guard might feel a lot different, but in essence they fall into the same category of having the skills to impact your environment in desirable ways, so you can consider the Diplomacy, Intimidation, and Deception to largely be Execution skills. That means enchantment magic often qualifies as well. Basically, if you can abstract something in the game world to a lock in the meta-narrative of the fiction, and an ability or skill check can be used as a key, the Execution area is at play... I strongly considered dividing it into Execution and Negotiation, but they're the same thing just in different situations, and the division between social stuff and problem solving is often an obstacle to understanding, so I don't want to perpetuate it.
III. Conclusion
Whew, that was a lot, feel free to discuss these ideas, or bicker with me about whether this taxonomy and way of thinking about character optimization works for you. I not however, super interested in arguments about why we shouldn't think about Character Optimization period, and its very much a valid interest for people playing the game, so kindly keep it out of the thread.
I'm not particularly interested in reading the Reddit thread (if I were, I'd just post on Reddit), but if you're hoping to have a parallel discussion here, I'll join.
I begin with two questions:
1. What do you think the distribution of roles within a party should be? Do you think there should be 2 Setups for every Payoff? 2 Payoffs for every Setup? Etc.
2. How many roles can an individual character fill (however you define fill) before they're not good enough at anything?
And one comment:
3. I think you should definitely include the Execution role as a primary role. There are many games in which the PCs are just on a conveyor belt and things to be fought just appear. But there are other games in which a party could get full rewards for talking down a monster. So let's say you have an utterly useless combatant, but who - through spellcasting or skills - could avoid one out of five combats. I think that should be quantitated as highly as a character that could single-handedly defeat one out of five combat encounters. Some classes like Investigator have multiple class features that don't directly factor into combat at all, and get undervalued because there's no good way to quantitate "we searched the room in 10 minutes instead of 60, so we surprised the monsters in the next room instead of being surprised by them."
I very much enjoy playing Setup characters, focusing on empowering others for more effective turns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The-Magic-Sword's list of five areas of expertise gave me an insight into why my players' characters are so tactically efficient. They make their expertise serve double duty, useful for two different areas. Sometimes their individual actions serve double duty.
The simplest example is Binny, our gnome rogue with Umbral heritage, Criminal background, and Thief racket. Her favorite tactic is to snipe from hiding. She starts her turn hidden behind a tree, rock, or crate, Strikes with her shortbow against a flat-footed target, keeps her target flat-footed with Precise Debilitation, Strikes again, and then Hides.
Binny's mastery in Stealth is both Defense and Setup. Her opponents saw where she hid, since she did not move, but she still gains the DC 10 flat check to her defenses if they choose to shoot back. And the target's flat-footedness from her hiding is necessary setup for Binny's sneak attack Payoff. Binny's Precise Debilitation is both Setup again, enabling a second sneak attack, and a Team Setup, because her target becomes flat-footed to the rest of the team, including the halfling rogue Sam with the Magical Trickster feat. His Telekinetic Projectile cantrip deals more damage than a shortbow, but he has trouble catching his opponent flat-footed for the sneak attack damage.
I could probably do this with the other six characters in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how The-Magic-Sword's system works on multiple levels.
1. A character can focus on an area of expertise, such as a fighter going for the payoff of combat damage.
2. A character can take particular feats that serve an area of expertise, such as a rogue taking Nimble Dodge for defense.
3. Individual actions and activities can be associated with an area of expertise, such as Demoralize being a setup action.
However, "area of expertise" is an awkward phrase for taking about individual actions, so let me call them "functions" instead.
I begin with two questions:
1. What do you think the distribution of roles within a party should be? Do you think there should be 2 Setups for every Payoff? 2 Payoffs for every Setup? Etc.
2. How many roles can an individual character fill (however you define fill) before they're not good enough at anything?
Functions, AKA areas of expertise, are not roles.
As most of you know, we often talk about combat roles from other games (like Tank, Healer, Damage) that don't really fit the model of Pathfinder 2e's combat (although elements of them certainly exist), and we've all been thinking about how to teach not just the game itself, but the metagame to new players who are interested in the nitty gritty of optimization but carry a lot of baggage from other systems.
They are smaller elements that can be put into service of a role.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition tactics require versatility. The developers wanted to avoid the optimized characters who always succeed at their devoted specialty. The result of their tight mathematics and level-determined progression is characters who can do many things well but none perfectly. Multiple functions on a character let them perform many steps well in order to build up to a solid role. The sniper rogue Binny Hides and Strikes with sneak attack, combining a Step and Payoff in a Damage role. A barbarian Demoralizes and them Moves and Strikes with Sudden Charge, combining different Setup, Reach, and Payoff functions into a Damage role.
Let me use Tikti, our goblin champion with Tailed heritage, Detective background, and Liberator cause, as an example of assembling functions into roles. She is build for defense with a sturdy shield for Shield Block and Liberating Step, enhanced by Unimpeded Step feat, to protect her teammates. She uses finesse weapons because her Dex 20 is better than her Str 16, so her direct damage is not strong. Yet she has another feature, a velociraptor animal companion named Liklik, for damage. An animal companion is ordinarily not durable offense, since they gain only 6+CON hit points per level, but Tikti uses her Liberating Step to defend Liklik, which converts her to durable offense. Thus, the "steed ally" feature of a champion serves a Payoff function for Tikti.
When Tikti stands next to another party member, her role is defense for herself and the teammate. That role is built out of her Shield Block and Liberating Step defense functions. When Tikti stands next to Liklik, who counts as a feature of the character, her role is offense. That role is built out of her Steed Ally and Liberating Step abilities. Another of Tikti's roles in the party is crafter, since she can transfer magical runes from looted weapons. She has Quick Repair with master proficiency in Crafting to maintain her sturdy shield, but added Magical Crafting feat to be able to use that mastery of crafting in Execution, too.
A character can build a role out of the appropriate functions, and then repurpose some of those functions to serve another role. With clever design a character could serve a dozen roles. And since characters can serve many roles, we don't need to worry balance the distribution of roles within a party. Just make sure the vital roles, such as damage and healing, are covered somehow by someone.
However, "area of expertise" is an awkward phrase for taking about individual actions, so let me call them "functions" instead.
Missed opportunity. You should troll everyone and call them 'powers'.
-----
But yeah, I definitely agree that thinking of characters and their responsibilities in the party by way of these functions or mini-roles that they fill is very useful. Leads to less whiteroom max-DPR optimization discussion.
IMO the best optimized characters are ones that have tools to fill several functions as needed. Especially if you can do two or more during a single turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not particularly interested in reading the Reddit thread (if I were, I'd just post on Reddit), but if you're hoping to have a parallel discussion here, I'll join.
I begin with two questions:
1. What do you think the distribution of roles within a party should be? Do you think there should be 2 Setups for every Payoff? 2 Payoffs for every Setup? Etc.
2. How many roles can an individual character fill (however you define fill) before they're not good enough at anything?
And one comment:
3. I think you should definitely include the Execution role as a primary role. There are many games in which the PCs are just on a conveyor belt and things to be fought just appear. But there are other games in which a party could get full rewards for talking down a monster. So let's say you have an utterly useless combatant, but who - through spellcasting or skills - could avoid one out of five combats. I think that should be quantitated as highly as a character that could single-handedly defeat one out of five combat encounters. Some classes like Investigator have multiple class features that don't directly factor into combat at all, and get undervalued because there's no good way to quantitate "we searched the room in 10 minutes instead of 60, so we surprised the monsters in the next room instead of being surprised by them."
I'd love to see this turn into a long and lively discussion, especially since the reddit thread is already yeeted into the void of reddit.
1. I think it depends too much on the overlap of effects, the options for payoff, and the mixture of these elements each character is bringing to the table (since you can bring a blend, a battlecry raging intimidation Barbarian is bringing set up in the form of frightened, but then still bringing plenty of payoff with their two attacks per turn... and then imagine if you have 2-3 martials in the party built to bring that same third action goodness.) I would say that generally, in any encounter there's a point where you will hit a saturation point on protection where you've turned 'dead characters' into 'everyone makes it' and that the rest should be offensive, and reach only matters when reach matters but even then its probably a gradient where a group with more of it can play more recklessly with their offense because of the extra access to healing and such. So I really think its just making sure your party has firepower, the only time more setup should be a problem, is if its characters who can't do payoff at all.
2. You have three actions, so you can fulfill multiple areas about as efficiently as you can cram into them, especially with feats like Knockdown, or the Pistolero way Reload option. You also have way more feats generally, than you can cram into a three action routine, so I would say the bigger risk is wasting perfectly-likely-to-hit-attacks in terms of MAP, where no one ends up actually capitalizing on the conditions sufficiently because too many people are spending too many actions not attacking. But if players are mixing it up, that shouldn't be a problem-- generally someone has options for bringing the hurt and other players successfully landing conditions is a signal to do so, the swashbuckler for instance even has it built in.
3. Yeah I agree, I'm of the opinion that a group that doesn't allow for information and execution to be important are cheating themselves of the full experience of the game, and nerfing a massive portion of the game. But I wasn't sure if that POV was common enough, or if we were in an environment where most players are playing with GMs who don't let them 'skip' content. In some games, it could even make a difference to the player's wealth... but in others the GM will make wealth come to them, so they have no reason to make the effort.
I like how The-Magic-Sword's system works on multiple levels.
1. A character can focus on an area of expertise, such as a fighter going for the payoff of combat damage.
2. A character can take particular feats that serve an area of expertise, such as a rogue taking Nimble Dodge for defense.
3. Individual actions and activities can be associated with an area of expertise, such as Demoralize being a setup action.However, "area of expertise" is an awkward phrase for taking about individual actions, so let me call them "functions" instead.
I begin with two questions:
1. What do you think the distribution of roles within a party should be? Do you think there should be 2 Setups for every Payoff? 2 Payoffs for every Setup? Etc.
2. How many roles can an individual character fill (however you define fill) before they're not good enough at anything?
Functions, AKA areas of expertise, are not roles.
As most of you know, we often talk about combat roles from other games (like Tank, Healer, Damage) that don't really fit the model of Pathfinder 2e's combat (although elements of them certainly exist), and we've all been thinking about how to teach not just the game itself, but the metagame to new players who are interested in the nitty gritty of optimization but carry a lot of baggage from other systems.They are smaller elements that can be put into service of a role.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition tactics require versatility. The developers wanted to avoid the optimized characters who always succeed at their devoted specialty. The result of their tight mathematics and level-determined progression is characters who can do many things well but none perfectly. Multiple functions on a character let them perform many steps well in order to build up to a solid role. The sniper rogue Binny Hides and Strikes with sneak attack, combining a Step and Payoff in a Damage role. A barbarian Demoralizes and them Moves and Strikes with Sudden Charge, combining...
I'm glad you really like it!
Function is probably a much better word, I was really struggling to capture the idea, and I think you're getting much closer, the only thing it doesn't capture as well is the idea of putting resources into it to be good at it and make it action-ready, which you generally do in this game due to the ability and expectation that you spread your feats out. But maybe we should think of "Function" as the thing itself, and "Expertise" as the measure of how well we do the thing, which would suggest Function is the main word we want, like if I make this into a guide, I would list them as functions, but then if I made a class guide that deploys this structure, I could discuss which function the class covers well as a matter of expertise.
You bring up essentially, the matter of Downtime, when you bring up Magical Crafting, thinking of it as execution makes sense, although I wonder if potential to use downtime well should be its own function 'productivity' which would reflect Earn Income, Crafting, Sow Rumor and things like that. It totally could be execution, but I'm wondering if only because they tend to be about efficiency and getting the most out of that time, rather than executing a plan and making something specific happen.
Don't have any input right now, just dotting this to make it easier to track.
I think an overlooked aspect of this is efficiency and durability of each attribute.
Some Classes have existing ways to support these functions but are inefficient (i.e. takes a lot of actions/turns to set up), whereas some have them but are low in durability (cannot make them happen often enough.)
I think an overlooked aspect of this is efficiency and durability of each attribute.
Some Classes have existing ways to support these functions but are inefficient (i.e. takes a lot of actions/turns to set up), whereas some have them but are low in durability (cannot make them happen often enough.)
I tend to think of that as intentional, being able to pull in small quantities of certain functions for different situations to supplement more robust takes on functions, or against some kinds of foes but not others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general I agree. One criticism I have of this taxonomy is that it doesn't differentiate areas of expertise that do or don't stack. Protection via action denial doesn't stack if different characters apply stunned + slowed. Setup doesn't stack if multiple characters apply frightened + clumsy (or more frightened), likewise, multiple characters applying different forms of flat-footed don't stack.
If I were subdividing the values of player characters, I would probably add more categories of taxonomy to specify what does or does not stack , such as by dividing out action denial from protection and splitting setup by making status penalties and flat-footed their own categories. The greatest value characters would be those bringing the most stacking taxonomies as action-efficiently as possible. A party shouldn't need to cover all taxonomies, but a party that covers most taxonomies would likely be one that's combat efficient.
I thought about that but didn't go in that direction because it would make the taxonomy unwieldly, its better largely to leave it up to the party to not overlap when they discuss who's doing what and how. In a lot of cases, overlap can also help-- if two people can frighten, it increases the chances that someone will actually manage to frighten the creature, especially for tough +1 to +4 creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really nice post. It may just be the examples given but I feel Access or Bypass is a better name for Execution and would expand that to things like having burrow or swim speeds.
Honestly, thinking about your suggestions, Problem Solving might be the best word for what both you and I are looking for words to describe. Bypass could suggest an emphasis on skipping encounters that I know a lot of GMs aren't willing to allow and isn't necessarily the focus of the area, while Access is a game term used to discuss rarity as a concept, and also could be interpreted in a lot of different ways (e.g. Access could also be used to discuss the versatility of your spell list or something) and execution is arguably kind of abstract, even though its precise (since you're executing the solution to the problem)
Whereas I think that in the abstract, Execution is about taking a problem (a locked door, a potentially resistant NPC, the need for secrecy are all examples) and solving it with your abilities(High Thievery to Pick the Lock, High Diplomacy or Intimidation, High Deception or Stealth)
Then its naturally divorced from combat as a solution, because combat is such a big thing, that its just being broken down into component parts because its so distinct from the system you use outside of it (although you obviously might get the chance to use some of your stuff in a fight.)
I'd be interested in an analysis of the capabilities of the iconic four Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. Valeros has some decent payoff potential, but is there much set-up to be taken advantage of?
Really nice post. It may just be the examples given but I feel Access or Bypass is a better name for Execution and would expand that to things like having burrow or swim speeds.
I have been trying alternatives to The-Magic-Sword's category names myself. I have been trying to generate examples in the hope of converting this into a system to teach PF2 tactics, and the explanations work better with Protection and Defense merged and Reach and Information merged. "Execution" merely has the problem that it sounds too much like a beheading, so I have taken to calling it "Skills." Here is my current effort:
1. Payoff - This function achieves the party's immediate goals. In combat, it would be damaging or disabling the opponents. In a heist, it could mean entering a locked room unseen. In a rescue, it would be reaching the captives, freeing them, and escaping alive.
2. Defense - To achieve the payoff, the characters have to stay free and conscious. Defense is anything that achieves this. The primary defense in combat is Armor Class, but healing to full hit points before combat is also a Defensive function.
3. Setup - Pathfinder 2nd Edition has a lot of preliminary actions, such as a barbarian taking a Rage action, a bard starting an Inspire Courage composition cantrip, and a ranger Hunting Prey. These functions are not directly Payoff or Defense, so they have their own category, but they often make the payoff much better. On the flip side, Raise Shield is a Setup for Defense.
4. Opportunity - Opportunity is taking advantage of a situation controlled by the GM or module not by the players or the dice. Attack of Opportunity falls under this function, which made this the best name. Having reach on a weapon or a ranged attack when the opponent is not adjacent is also an opportunity. Recall Knowledge to learn an enemy's weaknesses or special attacks is a gamble like most opportunities, but a success could reveal winning tactics.
5. Skills - Also known as Execution. This involves anything to improve the party's circumstances before or after the big scene, except I catalogued healing after combat under Defense. The party could loot bodies for better gear, earn income and craft items during downtime, befriend the locals, gather information about the ancient ruins in the taverns and temples of the nearest village, or spy on an enemy before engaging them and decide to skip a meaningless fight. I call it Skills because most of those functions require skill checks, though skill checks can also be used in Payoff, Setup, and Opportunity.
These functions can have different styles and magnitudes. A good AC is personal Defense while Battlefield Medicine feat is team Defense. A barbarian could hit with a greatsword for a big 1d12+4 damage Payoff while a ranger could shoot a longbow for a smaller 1d8 damage Payoff. Some functions are efficient and others are inefficient.
I think an overlooked aspect of this is efficiency and durability of each attribute.
Some Classes have existing ways to support these functions but are inefficient (i.e. takes a lot of actions/turns to set up), whereas some have them but are low in durability (cannot make them happen often enough.)
The classes have different degrees of the five functions.
The fighter is about Payoff: high-Strength martial-weapon damage from expert-proficiency Strikes. The class also offers heavy armor for Defense of low-Dexterity characters. The Attack of Opportunity feature makes it Opportunistic, too. A fighter could invest in stances that give Setup, but that is optional. Thus, I would classify a fighter as good in Payoff, Defense, and Opportunity.
The ranger is also a martial class, so is good in Payoff. The best Payoffs require the Hunt Prey Setup. A ranger's typical AC boost comes from Dexterity, which is not a class feature, so I don't rate its Defense as good. If a ranger took the Monster Hunter feat for a free Recall Knowledge, then it would invest in Opportunity, but that is optional. Thus, I would classify a ranger as good in Payoff and Setup.
The champion is yet another martial class, so is good in Payoff. Its reactions, such as Retributive Strike, are Opportunities. Its heavy armor and Lay on Hands are Defense. It has the same functions as a fighter--Payoff, Defense, and Opportunity--but with less Payoff and more Defense.
Rogue is interesting as a Setup class. Its Sneak Attack requires flat-footed, so it has to Setup flat-footedness, but except for a few class abilities such as Twin Feint (make two Strikes against one target. The target is flat-footed to the second), the rogue has to use skills for the Setup. It is also the most Skillful class with a skill increase and skill feat every level, so it can manage Setup via Skills. I classify the rogue as Setup and Skills.
Spellcasting classes, such as bard and wizard, are harder to pin down. Spells used for healing and battlefield control are Defense, spells used for buffing are Setup, and spells used for blasting are Payoff. Wizards lack healing spells, so I put them as Payoff and Setup. A Knowledge build for a wizard could qualify as good in Opportunity, too. Clerics add Defense but are poor at blasting, so I classify them as good at Defense and Setup. Druids get all three: Payoff, Defense, and Setup.
A party needs Payoff as a team and Defense on every individual. If a party member has weak personal Defense, then the team needs to compensate with team Defense. Setup is a Payoff enhancer, so Setup is just as good as Payoff if it doubles the Payoff. Opportunity is unreliable and dependent on the GM, but if the gamble works, it would serve as well as Payoff. Nevertheless, the party cannot abandon good Payoff because sometimes Opportunity has no opportunities to take advantage of. Skills is largely separate from class, except for the rogue and maybe the bard and investigator, so it factors into class builds only when the key ability score of the class favors particular skills. such as a high-Charisma sorcerer being naturally good at Deception and Diplomacy.
Its interesting too, because it has so much to do with feat and archetype selection, you can start with a class that isn't normally good at something, and get them a little better at it through those features. Your class chassis needs to support it, but since the build-a-class aspect of the feat system works the way it does, we can't ignore that either. So like, a common example is that arguably a cloistered cleric is bad at defense, but its very common among optimizers I've seen to pick up a heavier armor archetype like Champion (for Lay on Hands as well), Sentinel, and Hellknight for this exact reason.
Meanwhile setup can come from all over the place, like consider the Pistolero's reload feature, its a great source of frightened, but it isn't something all Gunslingers have access to.
Opportunity is interesting because in my experience, its not as GM dependent as you're suggesting-- not only will creatures move around, but players can game it with their tactics by moving themselves around the battlefield, utilizing a reach weapon. Even standing up from prone requires a creature to take a move action and trigger AoO, and of course some things like Champion's Reaction trigger off something the enemy *really* wants to do, and are designed to act as a catch 22 in and of themselves if the enemy doesn't act in a way that triggers it. For this reason, both AoO and Retributive Strike are actually VERY reliably sources of Payoff in my experience.
Even the Swashbucklers Riposte feature works surprisingly well, since enemy creatures are more likely than players to hail mary their third action into attacks (since the GM is generally less attached to monsters, and they have fewer alternative options, and sometimes they have features like Draconic Frenzy that practically force them to make such attacks.)
Many of these features are designed to convert themselves into Protection if they don't get used-- if the GM makes Retributive Strike unreliable by usually ignoring the Paladin's allies, the enemy's attacks are generally contending with their higher AC (Higher Prof, + Shield + Heavier Armor bonus can get as high as like +5 over the squishier party members) which can mean hits turn into misses, and crits into hits, which that character eats with a bigger health pool... and even if they do take a lot of pain or go down, a party with good protection via a dedicated healer can rip them back up pretty easily while the rest of the party progresses the fight.
Really nice post. It may just be the examples given but I feel Access or Bypass is a better name for Execution and would expand that to things like having burrow or swim speeds.I have been trying alternatives to The-Magic-Sword's category names myself. I have been trying to generate examples in the hope of converting this into a system to teach PF2 tactics, and the explanations work better with Protection and Defense merged and Reach and Information merged. "Execution" merely has the problem that it sounds too much like a beheading, so I have taken to calling it "Skills." Here is my current effort:
I don't like the name 'Payoff' because it isn't intuitively meaningful - it sounds more like what you do to a loan than what you do to an enemy. I can't come up with a name that is much better though.
I also don't like the name 'Skills' because that is already a defined game term.
And I would argue against merging Reach and Information. Merging Information is a good idea, but I would actually put it with Setup.
My list:
1) Result (Payoff) : Achieving the main and obvious objective of the scenario. For combat it is usually dealing damage.
2) Denial (Protection, Defense) : Preventing or recovering damage or other negative conditions to your party. Either by defending against them through things like AC or Saves, recovering after being afflicted by way of healing or status removal, or preventing the effect from happening in the first place through restricting enemy actions.
3) Setup (Information) : Helping yourself or other party members to achieve their goals. Gaining information about enemy strengths or weaknesses, applying negative conditions to enemies, applying beneficial conditions to your or your allies.
4) Reliability (Reach) : How easy is it for you to do your other Functions. How many actions do you have to spend moving before using them? What is the probability of success? Is there a limit to how many times per day it can be done?
An example of why I like this idea so much:
Comparing Demoralize with Evil Eye.
Demoralize is best used as a Setup function. Someone applies Frightened to lower the enemy's AC and Saves right before the party attacks it as a group. It is good because it is easy to get and each character gets a separate chance to land it - increasing the Reliability.
Evil Eye can be used for Setup in the same way. But it is just as good at Denial function. Use Evil Eye to apply Frightened to an enemy that the party is not going to be attacking in order to lower that enemy's attack rolls and spell DCs. Because you can sustain the effect for multiple rounds and keep the Denial function active.
And having shared terminology makes it easier for everyone to understand what I am saying and what I am meaning - whether they agree with me or not. That is the point. That we can discuss things and teach things without being misunderstood.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't merge in combat and out of combat that way because they're so wildly different that it makes the categories less useful, if a class has high setup, I want people to be able to see that and understand that it means setting their allies up to actually deal damage by prepping a foe.
Meanwhile the ability to do a lot of damage to a creature all at once, and the ability to actually convince the king that your cause is just and he should send his army are such wildly different concepts that it doesn't make sense to qualify them as the same thing. The Dandy archetype would have to have a high result rating for being super useful to execute social engineering, while doing absolutely nothing to take advantage of the buffs and debuffs your allies plant in combat.
Combat is such a big part of the rules that its very much its own beast once you get above the ability score level, that any guide to optimizing those rules needs to be clear about being good at that, vs. being good at other stuff, otherwise it really will not be useful.
I have been trying alternatives to The-Magic-Sword's category names myself. I have been trying to generate examples in the hope of converting this into a system to teach PF2 tactics, and the explanations work better with Protection and Defense merged and Reach and Information merged. "Execution" merely has the problem that it sounds too much like a beheading, so I have taken to calling it "Skills." Here is my current effort:I don't like the name 'Payoff' because it isn't intuitively meaningful - it sounds more like what you do to a loan than what you do to an enemy. I can't come up with a name that is much better though.
"Payoff" was close enough that I did not meddle with the name. Checking under "Payoff" at an online dictionary/thesaurus the meaning is more about the conclusion of an effort than a successful effort. The function is about progress toward success. A search on "Success" yields "Gain" and "Victory" and "Win" and "Achievement."
I also don't like the name 'Skills' because that is already a defined game term.
I tried using "Skills" in an unfinished lengthy comment for this thread, since I suggested it, and the name isn't working. Does anyone have another suggestion? I view the function is about using skills and other abilities in a routine way to make the party better prepared or better able to handle the environment. In trying to apply the function, I discovered that non-skill choices such as carrying a torch to let the party see in an unilluminated dungeon fit this function. breithauptclan's view of Reliability is not my view of Skills/Execution. How about calling it "Readiness"?
And I would argue against merging Reach and Information. Merging Information is a good idea, but I would actually put it with Setup.
The name Opportunity worked well in that unfinished comment. And Recall Knowledge skill checks to find enemy weaknesses fit under Opportunity. Setup is about reliable steps that enhance the Payoff/Result/Gain. Opportunity is about gambles. In contrast, I put Gather Information skill checks in town under Execution/Readiness.
The-Magic-Sword is saying Protection rather than Defense, so I will switch to calling that function Protection.
I wouldn't merge in combat and out of combat that way because they're so wildly different that it makes the categories less useful, if a class has high setup, I want people to be able to see that and understand that it means setting their allies up to actually deal damage by prepping a foe.
Meanwhile the ability to do a lot of damage to a creature all at once, and the ability to actually convince the king that your cause is just and he should send his army are such wildly different concepts that it doesn't make sense to qualify them as the same thing. The Dandy archetype would have to have a high result rating for being super useful to execute social engineering, while doing absolutely nothing to take advantage of the buffs and debuffs your allies plant in combat.
Combat is such a big part of the rules that its very much its own beast once you get above the ability score level, that any guide to optimizing those rules needs to be clear about being good at that, vs. being good at other stuff, otherwise it really will not be useful.
In my last few game sessions, my players have been pulling off a caper. Combat is already part of it, but letting a trade fleet slip downriver past an enemy outpost is their first goal. And the party is also rescuing 100 slaves from the outpost, because they hate slavery, because the escape makes a good distraction, and because the boats can take the slaves to safety. Stealth, sabotage, and distraction, rather than killing enemies, are the activities that lead to victory.
Thus, to me the division is not in combat versus out of combat. The division is Encounter Mode versus Exploration and Downtime Modes. The latter two are for preparing for the fast pace of Encounter Mode, measured in actions because every action matters. Nevertheless, good preparation can aid the encounter, so being good at preparation can optimize a character. Exploration and Downtime and buying the right gear and making friends with locals fall under Execution/Readiness.
I think my list is looking something like
Setup, Payoff, Protection, Defense, Reliability, Information, Problem Solving
I elected to keep Defense and Protection separated, ironically for the same reason you merged them Mathmuse, one is personal and one is team and I want to be able to talk about them separately. I went with Problem Solving over Execution/Skills/Function because it covers both the preparation aspect and the actual doing aspect of it. I didn't merge Information into Setup because sometimes knowing things is its own reward, and I feel like Setup is more immediate. Like, you deploy setup as a tactical choice, but you deploy information to find something out, which may or may not be tactical-- a feature that lets you make recall knowledge checks on a foe is both, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing, its very possible to have a lot of one without the other. I am going back and forth on this mentally though, I'm essentially less than certain that the same pattern actually applies equally to all areas of the game, whereas I'm very sure the first five are essentially how combat works.
I noticed a pattern, that every time I started considering merging them, the idea of trying to talk about them as the same thing required a frame shift to a different level of abstraction that made it feel unintuitive to talk about whether a character was good at providing that thing if they had a lopsided distribution. For example, a healing build that's good at 'Defense' because they heal that happens to also bad at 'Defense' because they're personally made of paper.
Unless we deliberately moved it to a multi dimensional system where the presence of another axis serves to clarify, I think we're better off keeping them a bit more specific. I'd rather add more areas to cover success in different victory conditions than stretch these to the point of vagueness.
I also agree on the points made about noncombat victory conditions being vital, so I think the solution is to expand noncombat areas so we can discuss them. Hypercognition and such is still Information, even though it only makes sense in encounter mode. Whether you can use it fast paced situation feels like something that adjusts the rating upward, rather than a categorical marker.
Do we think that 'Public Relations' should be its own area, so that social stuff is its own function? it would include the charisma skills, enchantment magic, sow rumor, gather information, connections and basically anything else that involves leaning on NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really nice post. It may just be the examples given but I feel Access or Bypass is a better name for Execution and would expand that to things like having burrow or swim speeds.I have been trying alternatives to The-Magic-Sword's category names myself. I have been trying to generate examples in the hope of converting this into a system to teach PF2 tactics, and the explanations work better with Protection and Defense merged and Reach and Information merged. "Execution" merely has the problem that it sounds too much like a beheading, so I have taken to calling it "Skills." Here is my current effort:I don't like the name 'Payoff' because it isn't intuitively meaningful - it sounds more like what you do to a loan than what you do to an enemy. I can't come up with a name that is much better though.
I also don't like the name 'Skills' because that is already a defined game term.
And I would argue against merging Reach and Information. Merging Information is a good idea, but I would actually put it with Setup.
My list:
1) Result (
Payoff) : Achieving the main and obvious objective of the scenario. For combat it is usually dealing damage.2) Denial (
Protection, Defense) : Preventing or recovering damage or other negative conditions to your party. Either by defending against them through things like AC or Saves, recovering after being afflicted by way of healing or status removal, or preventing the effect from happening in the first place through restricting enemy actions.3) Setup (
Information) : Helping yourself or other party members to achieve their goals. Gaining information about enemy strengths or weaknesses, applying negative conditions to enemies, applying beneficial conditions to your or your allies.4) Reliability (
Reach) : How easy is it for you to do your other Functions. How many actions do you have to spend moving before using them? What is the probability of success? Is there a limit to...
I think you've stumbled into the point of Payoff actually, set up actions are like taking out a loan because until someone actually uses the setup its negative effectiveness-- so like if I spend an action making them frightened, the party is in debt for the effectiveness of that action until it provides value, heck if you fail, it might never provides value.
Good Payoff essentially returns the value with interest, the higher the Payoff, the better the ratio of value to increased effectiveness, so we're literally discussing which features offer the best ROI for the investment the party has made in it.
I think you've stumbled into the point of Payoff actually, set up actions are like taking out a loan because until someone actually uses the setup its negative effectiveness-- so like if I spend an action making them frightened, the party is in debt for the effectiveness of that action until it provides value, heck if you fail, it might never provides value.
Good Payoff essentially returns the value with interest, the higher the Payoff, the better the ratio of value to increased effectiveness, so we're literally discussing which features offer the best ROI for the investment the party has made in it.
It makes sense - but only when also talking about Setup. On its own, things like dealing damage to an enemy, bashing down or picking the lock on a door, or negotiating the release of a hostage; payoff just feels like an odd word to use for it. But like I mentioned, I can't think of anything that is actually better. So sticking with payoff is probably best.
Do we think that 'Public Relations' should be its own area, so that social stuff is its own function? it would include the charisma skills, enchantment magic, sow rumor, gather information, connections and basically anything else that involves leaning on NPCs.
How would that be different than other forms of Problem Solving? Other than the skills being used. What would be the distinguishing characteristics?
For Problem Solving, I am thinking of things like crossing a river (swim, craft bridge, Water Walk spell, ...), or get past a door (force open, pick lock, search for boss key, Passwall, ...).
But looking at Public Relations, I am thinking things like influence jury (diplomacy, deception, Charm with Conceal Spell, ...) or hunt fugitive (search for clues, track, gather information, interrogate known associates, ...).
But those appear to me to be the same in an abstract sense - just using different skills and spells to be effective. The party has a problem that they need to overcome in order to progress the plot and story.
I think you've stumbled into the point of Payoff actually, set up actions are like taking out a loan because until someone actually uses the setup its negative effectiveness-- so like if I spend an action making them frightened, the party is in debt for the effectiveness of that action until it provides value, heck if you fail, it might never provides value.
Good Payoff essentially returns the value with interest, the higher the Payoff, the better the ratio of value to increased effectiveness, so we're literally discussing which features offer the best ROI for the investment the party has made in it.
It makes sense - but only when also talking about Setup. On its own, things like dealing damage to an enemy, bashing down or picking the lock on a door, or negotiating the release of a hostage; payoff just feels like an odd word to use for it. But like I mentioned, I can't think of anything that is actually better. So sticking with payoff is probably best.
Do we think that 'Public Relations' should be its own area, so that social stuff is its own function? it would include the charisma skills, enchantment magic, sow rumor, gather information, connections and basically anything else that involves leaning on NPCs.How would that be different than other forms of Problem Solving? Other than the skills being used. What would be the distinguishing characteristics?
For Problem Solving, I am thinking of things like crossing a river (swim, craft bridge, Water Walk spell, ...), or get past a door (force open, pick lock, search for boss key, Passwall, ...).
But looking at Public Relations, I am thinking things like influence jury (diplomacy, deception, Charm with Conceal Spell, ...) or hunt fugitive (search for clues, track, gather information, interrogate known associates, ...).
But those appear to me to be the same in an abstract sense - just using different skills and spells to be effective. The party has a problem that they need to...
I think my worry is that when we abstract it that way, we end up with areas that aren't useful because they pertain to such wildly different situations. So you could say that right now I'm trying to figure out what the right level of "these things translate to the same areas of the game" is for these categories. I was originally thinking of them as the same thing for the reason you mention but now I'm thinking "well, the stuff that makes you good at being social, and the stuff that makes you good at getting past doors and sneaking around are all different"
In other words, if you sit down and try to use these areas of expertise, or rate your party on these areas, and you have a knockout-good face, it would conceal your complete lack of people who can help you get past doors.
To contrast the roles I keep alluding to as being combat centric, they all translate essentially into more damage, and making sure everyone gets through because they don't have diverse ends, just diverse means.
Incidentally the reason for what you notice that "this only makes sense in terms of setup" is because its a statement that the game's optimization actually works in such a way that the two should primarily be thought of in terms of each other, in other words, the way the game's math works out a bunch of payoff isn't equivalent to the same amount of actions of setup, generally. You wouldn't really treat "a bunch of payoff that just whacks away without regard for the other party members" as a valid composition for optimize play, so the areas should assume the presence of some setup-- especially since at minimum, flanking is both easy to perform and powerful, its like gateway setup that any party can perform.
I guess I'm questioning if "success" in social situations, and "success" in unlocking doors, and "success" in combat, can be interpreted as the same thing, for the SPECIFIC purposes of optimization-- there's essentially a second axis at work asking you "well ok, you're good at something that can offer you success, but what area of that game is the success even in?" and by breaking them into distinct areas, we can talk about how this game element is good for this area, and that area is good for this other area. Ultimately, every area translates into doing a thing to help the party accomplish a goal, but if we distilled it into 'successfulness' it wouldn't have the prerequisite precision to be utilized as a tool for character optimization, if that makes sense.
I like that Payoff frames the discussion in terms of Setup. That is an aspect of the game that is important, but often overlooked in discussions of class capabilities.
I guess I'm questioning if "success" in social situations, and "success" in unlocking doors, and "success" in combat, can be interpreted as the same thing, for the SPECIFIC purposes of optimization-- there's essentially a second axis at work asking you "well ok, you're good at something that can offer you success, but what area of that game is the success even in?" and by breaking them into distinct areas, we can talk about how this game element is good for this area, and that area is good for this other area. Ultimately, every area translates into doing a thing to help the party accomplish a goal, but if we distilled it into 'successfulness' it wouldn't have the prerequisite precision to be utilized as a tool for character optimization, if that makes sense.
That is why I favor functions such as Opportunity or Readiness. The game has abilities that do not matter in most combat, but when the combat breaks from routine patterns they become critical.
For example, once in Assault on Longshadow three party members chased two assassins through the streets of Longshadow. The assassins ducked into a warehouse and into a storeroom, where the party found a locked trap door. The rogue unlocked the trap door with Thievery so they could follow. The trap door opened into a maze of smugglers' tunnels, so the ranger tracked their prey with Survival. They came out at the riverbank, where the two assassins were rowing a boat to cross the river. The druid cast Stormwind Flight to fly afer them faster than they could row, so the assassins veered to a wharf where they could put up a fight. Then combat began. Without the skills and spell, the assassins would have escaped without combat and returned to try to kill off the party one by one.
Disclaimer: The chase was improvised. I deliberately threw obstacles in their path that I knew they had the ability to overcome, because I wanted them to fight the assassins. If the players had failed a roll, and they could not find another way around the obstacle, then the assassins would have escaped. That made the assassins seem cunning and elusive as assassins should be.
Success in a caper is as good as success in combat. But failure in a caper leaves an opportunity to try again another day while failure in combat ends in death. Thus, avoiding failure in combat is the most vital goal in optimization. It could be the only goal in optimization, but it does not have to be.
Not every party is able to handle a chase. The Opportunity functions are unreliable for the module writers, too. Thus, the module writers resort to platitudes such as, "All foes fight to the death," to avoid those situations. We end up with a self-reinforcing prophecy that players optimize only for combat. My players prefer more variety and I find ways to make that variety matter.
I think my worry is that when we abstract it that way, we end up with areas that aren't useful because they pertain to such wildly different situations. So you could say that right now I'm trying to figure out what the right level of "these things translate to the same areas of the game" is for these categories. I was originally thinking of them as the same thing for the reason you mention but now I'm thinking "well, the stuff that makes you good at being social, and the stuff that makes you good at getting past doors and sneaking around are all different"
...
I guess I'm questioning if "success" in social situations, and "success" in unlocking doors, and "success" in combat, can be interpreted as the same thing, for the SPECIFIC purposes of optimization-- there's essentially a second axis at work asking you "well ok, you're good at something that can offer you success, but what area of that game is the success even in?" and by breaking them into distinct areas, we can talk about how this game element is good for this area, and that area is good for this other area. Ultimately, every area translates into doing a thing to help the party accomplish a goal, but if we distilled it into 'successfulness' it wouldn't have the prerequisite precision to be utilized as a tool for character optimization, if that makes sense.
Yeah, there is definitely a balance that has to be struck somewhere.
On one side (too broad of strokes) it doesn't become meaningful. Saying that my party's overall composition has an ELO score of 1328 doesn't mean much.
But it can also be broken down too far to be useful too. Do we need to have a separate term for each skill to rate the characters on? That would be too cumbersome.
Combat should absolutely have its own rating criteria. Because it is a big part of the game and because it is drastically different than other aspects of the game.
The question is where to separate things out for the non-combat successfulness themes. I would think that no more than three categories (to bring a total of four measures of successfulness once we add in combat). And ideally each category would include all of the skills, feats, and spells that a character may bring to the table. Instead of breaking out and grouping the skills together to create the categories.
So I am less a fan of the idea of grouping all the social skills together into a 'Public Relations' category. Any grouping that I can come up with seems arbitrary and probably inaccurate. There would be some characters that would come up with some strange use of skills that would end up being in the wrong category. ('Stealth' checks using Intimidation for example).
I'm thinking more along the lines of 'Overcoming obstacles' (like crossing rivers, getting past locked doors, or crashing a party) and 'Progressing Plot' (like making contact with important NPCs, forging documents, or planting evidence).
But then I still run into the problem that I can't figure out any good way of distinguishing between them. Forging a party invitation would certainly be a good way of crashing a party as needed. And why are we crashing a party other than for plot reasons?
It is definitely a hard problem. And one that I don't have an easy answer for.
I guess I'm questioning if "success" in social situations, and "success" in unlocking doors, and "success" in combat, can be interpreted as the same thing, for the SPECIFIC purposes of optimization-- there's essentially a second axis at work asking you "well ok, you're good at something that can offer you success, but what area of that game is the success even in?" and by breaking them into distinct areas, we can talk about how this game element is good for this area, and that area is good for this other area. Ultimately, every area translates into doing a thing to help the party accomplish a goal, but if we distilled it into 'successfulness' it wouldn't have the prerequisite precision to be utilized as a tool for character optimization, if that makes sense.That is why I favor functions such as Opportunity or Readiness. The game has abilities that do not matter in most combat, but when the combat breaks from routine patterns they become critical.
For example, once in Assault on Longshadow three party members chased two assassins through the streets of Longshadow. The assassins ducked into a warehouse and into a storeroom, where the party found a locked trap door. The rogue unlocked the trap door with Thievery so they could follow. The trap door opened into a maze of smugglers' tunnels, so the ranger tracked their prey with Survival. They came out at the riverbank, where the two assassins were rowing a boat to cross the river. The druid cast Stormwind Flight to fly afer them faster than they could row, so the assassins veered to a wharf where they could put up a fight. Then combat began. Without the skills and spell, the assassins would have escaped without combat and returned to try to kill off the party one by one.
Disclaimer: The chase was improvised. I deliberately threw obstacles in their path that I knew they had the ability to overcome, because I wanted them to fight the assassins. If the players had...
Yeah, honestly I personally like to design content where your ability to find traps, unlock doors, run away, negotiate with NPCs are all as useful as combat, but I feel like I need the tool to be usable for players who have GMs that create set piece encounters, or hew to modules so closely that those fights are gonna happen. I'm down to write up guides and stuff for people to take that more holisitc approach to gaming, I even started a thread about combat as war and such not too long ago, but I need to respect both play styles with this tool, so separate areas helps me do that and empowers players to make decisions about if something isn't actually valuable with their GM.
I think my worry is that when we abstract it that way, we end up with areas that aren't useful because they pertain to such wildly different situations. So you could say that right now I'm trying to figure out what the right level of "these things translate to the same areas of the game" is for these categories. I was originally thinking of them as the same thing for the reason you mention but now I'm thinking "well, the stuff that makes you good at being social, and the stuff that makes you good at getting past doors and sneaking around are all different"
...
I guess I'm questioning if "success" in social situations, and "success" in unlocking doors, and "success" in combat, can be interpreted as the same thing, for the SPECIFIC purposes of optimization-- there's essentially a second axis at work asking you "well ok, you're good at something that can offer you success, but what area of that game is the success even in?" and by breaking them into distinct areas, we can talk about how this game element is good for this area, and that area is good for this other area. Ultimately, every area translates into doing a thing to help the party accomplish a goal, but if we distilled it into 'successfulness' it wouldn't have the prerequisite precision to be utilized as a tool for character optimization, if that makes sense.
Yeah, there is definitely a balance that has to be struck somewhere.
On one side (too broad of strokes) it doesn't become meaningful. Saying that my party's overall composition has an ELO score of 1328 doesn't mean much.
But it can also be broken down too far to be useful too. Do we need to have a separate term for each skill to rate the characters on? That would be too cumbersome.
Combat should absolutely have its own rating criteria. Because it is a big part of the game and because it is drastically different than other aspects of...
I think that thinking of the game in a more simulationist way would probably help, because that way we don't need to assess the reason they're doing something, only their ability to do it. Traditionally, TTRPGs like this break into fighting, moving through fantastical environments, and talking to NPCs. Ye old Combat-Exploration-Social dimensions, but those don't work because combat usually underlies your time playing the game, exploration can often be done through social means, and usually tries to engulf both knowledge and overcoming environmental obstacles within the same space.
So I think...
The combat areas are fine, combat is a big mini game so thats why there's a bunch of areas that pertain to it.
The Information area justifies itself as being about things that let you ask questions to learn about the game world. I'm comfortable with this one, it will sometimes overlap with the other areas, but not overly so.
Execution/Problem-Solving/Skills is really about overcoming the physical obstacles you find in the course of adventuring that aren't fighting (because combat is such a fleshed out system, it creates this difference, if combat was handled via 'fight checks' it would be included but it isn't) but its disarming traps, sneaking past things, climbing cliffs, all that good stuff. The name sucks, but everyone knows what this is, its essentially just overcoming the physical problems. It isn't meant to be all ways of solving problems, but its hard to find the right word.
Public Relations enter the picture as a way to influence other creatures in a way that doesn't pertain to combat, when you need to make NPCs do something. Sometimes that overlaps with say, Information or whatever, but thats fine, you just note the potential for that other area when you're rating a given game element.
The odd man out of this system, is just how to classify downtime stuff... like that preparedness discussed up thread where its essentially discussing how you can put prep time to good use. Usually it will contribute to the above areas, often via money.
Personally, I'd change "Public Relations" to "Influence" and summarize it as "the ability to get NPCs to do what you want them to do." To me, "public relations" implies that the goal is to make the party look good rather than to get something from others.
I like that. It is a good name for the term and it has a clear objective without referencing a specific set of skills.
If you're concerned about downtime activities, you could create a fourth out-of-combat category called "Industriousness" or "Productivity" that covers "the ability to use downtime in useful ways." Either term should be a good catch-all for crafting and earning income, two of the most straightforward ways to use downtime, without being so narrow they exclude other downtime activities, such as Influence Nature.
Yeah, I think the Earn Income and related options can all be lumped together - and largely forgotten about. Nearly all characters will end up with at least one option. And as long as you have one option, then you are mechanically up to par. The choice of what your option is is just a flavor decision.
There are some other things done during downtime that may be more noteworthy. But from what I have seen they are few and far between. The only one I can think of is Rituals.
Retraining is also done during this timeframe, but that isn't something that the PCs build for in order to be able to provide to the party - it is something that an individual character would purchase. Same with learning spells.
Retraining is also done during this timeframe, but that isn't something that the PCs build for in order to be able to provide to the party - it is something that an individual character would purchase. Same with learning spells.Well, unless you're an inventor. Being able to reconfigure a core class feature with a day or so of downtime to meet a situation is a niche that only the inventor can really fill at present.
There is the spell Dreaming Potential that gives the target one day of Retraining while resting. Somebody with that could accelerate Downtime adaption enough to make it practical. For example, while traveling to a destination perhaps in the arctic or deep in a dragon's territory, various PCs might acquire abilities suitable to that environment or creature, like altering their Spell Repertoire or a feat.
I wouldn't say it's reasonable until the highest levels to burn one's 5th level slots (or even put it in one's Repertoire, as most Occult casters aren't Witches), but it does add adaptability.--
As for areas, I agree combat should be separate.
And I can't quite grasp what the proper balance would be between talking too broadly (and likely only stating the obvious) or making the divisions too granular for smooth implementation/communication. And is the system addressed toward new players to get them to expand their concept of a capable PC or toward veterans wondering why their party balance doesn't jibe when faced with obstacles? Seems the vocabulary would shift a bunch depending.
Retraining is also done during this timeframe, but that isn't something that the PCs build for in order to be able to provide to the party - it is something that an individual character would purchase. Same with learning spells.Well, unless you're an inventor. Being able to reconfigure a core class feature with a day or so of downtime to meet a situation is a niche that only the inventor can really fill at present.There is the spell Dreaming Potential that gives the target one day of Retraining while resting. Somebody with that could accelerate Downtime adaption enough to make it practical. For example, while traveling to a destination perhaps in the arctic or deep in a dragon's territory, various PCs might acquire abilities suitable to that environment or creature, like altering their Spell Repertoire or a feat.
I wouldn't say it's reasonable until the highest levels to burn one's 5th level slots (or even put it in one's Repertoire, as most Occult casters aren't Witches), but it does add adaptability.
Since the spell is going to put the target to sleep for 8 hours, I expect that this would only be done during downtime. So you would get your 5th level spell slot available again the next morning.
Also seems like a good spell to get on a wand if you want to use it regularly.
But yeah, both this and the Inventor idea are such rare and niche-use abilities that I don't think they would need to have their own measurement category for general character and party metrics.
And I can't quite grasp what the proper balance would be between talking too broadly (and likely only stating the obvious) or making the divisions too granular for smooth implementation/communication. And is the system addressed toward new players to get them to expand their concept of a capable PC or toward veterans wondering why their party balance doesn't jibe when faced with obstacles? Seems the vocabulary would shift a bunch depending.
I would mostly use it for newer players. Either people new to RPGs in general, or people coming over from different systems (like explaining to PF1 veterans why Disarm is still useful even though it only actually disarms the opponent on a critical success).