Is a spacious pouch, by virtue of being a tiny pouch with a small opening rather than a large sack with a spacious opening, strictly worse than a bag of holding?
With all the artwork making them look positively small, are bags of holding even all that great? Having all that space isn't going to be all that helpful when you're trying to store a large statue, but you can only fit small items through the opening.
Is a spacious pouch, by virtue of being a tiny pouch with a small opening rather than a large sack with a spacious opening, strictly worse than a bag of holding?
With all the artwork making them look positively small, are bags of holding even all that great? Having all that space isn't going to be all that helpful when you're trying to store a large statue, but you can only fit small items through the opening.
Bag of Holding art is weird because it usually lacks scale (IE, a character using it), but keep in mind it's Bulk 1 AND requires 2 hands to use. In Pathfinder 1st Edition (I know, I know, but these are legacy items) the smallest bag was 15lbs. That is a LOT of bag. They're basically large sacks, not really "bags".
But, where do you get that the spacious pouch isn't a sack? The art? The description is literally the same as for a bag of holding, but replacing "bag of holding" with "spacious pouch". It even refers to it as a sack multiple times.
The "fitting through the bag's opening" was always up to GM adjudication, but keep in mind you can store people in them. So if the item is about people sized, I'd say go for it.
EDIT: I just realised I misread and you do mention the artwork. I'd ignore it, it's not like artists get things right 100% of the time (just look at what they think is a falcata). The rules say it's a sack, so it's a sack, not a pouch.
I am just sad that the remaster didn't nerf it. Every single game I have run since launch had PC's default to tier 1 bags of holding and never bothering with anything larger since that much bulk is extremely hard to fill, especially when multiple PC's will buy them (and you can get 4 tier 1 bags for the price of tier 2).
But yeah as stated above, both items are described as sacks in their rules text, I don't think there is intentional nerfing and art is frequently inconsistent. I mean I can point to some elves with normal eyes :p
I am just sad that the remaster didn't nerf it. Every single game I have run since launch had PC's default to tier 1 bags of holding and never bothering with anything larger since that much bulk is extremely hard to fill, especially when multiple PC's will buy them (and you can get 4 tier 1 bags for the price of tier 2).
But yeah as stated above, both items are described as sacks in their rules text, I don't think there is intentional nerfing and art is frequently inconsistent. I mean I can point to some elves with normal eyes :p
Man, I gotta tell you, the inconsistentcies drive me nuts when it comes time to find or create art to use. It is really challenging for orcs and kobolds and other ancestries with so many variations from D&D and other settings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I wouldn't mind the higher tier bags having more benefits, they do take up less bulk. I've found bulk goes pretty quick unless you're a monk or animal barbarian.
While I wouldn't mind the higher tier bags having more benefits, they do take up less bulk.How so? I see that all tiers take 1 bulk of space.
.
Let me rephrase: higher tier spacious pouches improve your storage to bulk ratio. Six tier 1 bags holds 150 bulk, but will collectively take up 6 bulk of party space. A single tier 4 pouch holes 150 bulk, but only takes up 1 bulk of party space.If your party has horses and wagons that can easily manage six bulk of bags as Perpedog posits, then higher level pouches are completely unnecessary. But that's a convenience the GM can very easily take away via terrain. PCs also likely can't bring wagons into dungeons, which means a pack of bandits or drakes could rob their loot caravan while the party is delving. The GM can also choose what form the loot takes. If a couple of tier 1 bags are sufficient, that's kind of on them.
Spacious Pouches/Bags of Holding are fundamentally supposed to be conveniences. They aren't supposed to eat up a ton of your budget unless the GM is really making you jump through hoops to cart stuff, and I think I'd prefer they stayed that way.
While I wouldn't mind the higher tier bags having more benefits, they do take up less bulk.How so? I see that all tiers take 1 bulk of space..
Let me rephrase: higher tier spacious pouches improve your storage to bulk ratio.Ah, yes, sure, that's true.
Though their cost to bulk ratio becomes atrocious. We once thought what to take to put gold in when robbing a bank - tier I were so much more affordable and efficient. (We did have a very limited budget...)
Yeah, but that's just true for magic items in general. A +2 striking weapon costs ten times as much as a +1 striking weapon. We just are more willing to accept that price because increasing our item bonuses is generally more important than our bulk to storage ratio.
The cost of high level magic items in Pathfinder has always been pretty absurd. It's one of my least favorite parts of the system. When you compare the cost of a holy rune to how many people that money could feed and house, it doesn't really feel like the epitome of benevolence and virtue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A comfortable rural house costs 2,000gp.
A holy avenger won't get you that far with helping the poor. A few families at best. Better to use it during a full career of saving multitudes.
Throwing money at a problem alone is rarely enough to actually fix it. At best you end up treating the symptoms and not the problem itself, and at worst it makes things worse. You really need hard work, community cooperation, and good planning (and yes, also money) in order to really solve such problems at their root.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is named Pouch but the rules call it a bag, almost the entire description is entirely unchanged with the exception of the name of the item itself, and strangely enough, the term extradimensional which was replaced by magical in the first half but then two sentences later it goes back to calling it extradimensional. I know that the OGL crisis had an oppressive air and quality of urgency to it but to me this looks like the serial number filing on this was done in a rather sloppy manner.
Regardless, I don't see any useful reason to treat the two things as mechanically different in any way whatsoever as I think that EVERYONE here knows that the only reason that the name was changed relates to the rush to protect the game system from possible future threats. In that sense, I don't see the narrative OR mechanical role it is meant to play as having changed even a little bit, if a GM would allow a BoH to take an item the Pouch should as well.
Also, on top of all that, the item NEVER had any sort of description or definition that related to the size of the opening at all, nothing in inches/feet and nothing in bulk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, on top of all that, the item NEVER had any sort of description or definition that related to the size of the opening at all, nothing in inches/feet and nothing in bulk.
I always found the lack of those specifics quite odd, considering the developers bothered to mention "an object still needs to be able to fit through the opening of the sack to be stored inside" at all.
It would have been neat if the larger bags had larger openings; it would have been another great way to differentiate the bag types.
"This one is a pouch, this one is a bag, and this one is a sack. Which would you like to buy?"
LOL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A comfortable rural house costs 2,000gp.
A holy avenger won't get you that far with helping the poor. A few families at best. Better to use it during a full career of saving multitudes.
Throwing money at a problem alone is rarely enough to actually fix it. At best you end up treating the symptoms and not the problem itself, and at worst it makes things worse. You really need hard work, community cooperation, and good planning (and yes, also money) in order to really solve such problems at their root.
You misread what your link stated. 2000 is for a quality stone home. It's only 300 gp for a comfortable wooden house. A holy avenger is 2500 gp, that's fifteen families set up in comfortable homes for life. (Or half that if you are selling it, I suppose, but 7.5 is still more than a few.)
That also assumes you are taking the easy way out, of course. If the paladin put in the hard work you mentioned with their legendary diplomacy, connections, and reputations, they could instead rent a bunch of homes for even more families while working towards getting them sustainably employed. Get their druid friend to cast Plant Growth to boost their crop yield and what not. The whole "don't just treat the symptoms" narrative feels misleading because symptoms still kill people and get treated by doctors to prevent it, but there no particular reason a high level paladin needs to settle for that.
You can defend it, but its really just the "Reed Richards is useless" trope. We want to tell stories of fantastical heroes that can solve problems far beyond our own to make ourselves feel better about all the problems we can't solve. But because we want to keep telling those stories and we want the world to be recognizable and relatable, the heroes can't solve those problems for us. Pathfinder, much like Marvel comics,,has a vested interest in maintaining a status quo so these stories can keep getting told. Both also have geographies bot beholden to that status quo that can explore post-scarcity utopias, including Afrofuturistic locales. But those places can only bleed out into the rest of the setting so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff: you're not wrong, but it's still an uncomfortable reality that upgrading your weapon from +1 to +2 requires the annual income of a whole village. (Potential hyperbole, didn't crunch the numbers.) Setting aside the morality, I've also never loved how much less effective my high level PC is when they lose their major striking weapon.
I was once in a party receiving a quest from some nobles to break a curse. They were happy to accept our services and offered to make an introduction to some royalty in our behalf. I asked if they'd also be able to make some kind of monetary contribution to the cause. Just the act of asking them worsened their attitude but at least one step. From their perspective, it took us from noble heroes to mercenaries at best and extortionists at worst.
The interaction convinced me I needed the Shameless Request feat cof this campaign, but it also left a bad taste in my mouth. We weren't shaking down peasants, nor were we trying to buy another pool for our respective estates. We were asking people if means if they could contribute towards purchasing equipment that could not only save our lives but make or break the success of their quest. And it all kind of stems from Pathfinder's magic mart effect. I'd personally prefer ABP, or an assumption that the paladin's church will arm them properly, or something of that variety.
So a core premise of PF2 APs and most adventure modules is that there are problems that the villiage/community/nation/world/material plane/etc will face that will end terribly unless a group of extraordinary heroes act to stop the problem. That is a pretty essential core narrative game element that drives why some stories have been more or less successful to be told in APs, and why backlash has been intense against stories where "the few great heroes solve this problem for everyone" runs afoul of that going really badly in the real world (for example, why "ending slavery in Golarion" was not turned into an AP, but something happening on a massive social and political scale beyond the scope of a few heroes)
Concurrently, there is a less narrative/more mechanical game element of gear improving your character that serves the primary purpose of giving the party boosts at more flexible and divergent points of character growth than just leveling up. It absolutely does impact the narrative of the game, which is why I said less narrative, but its purpose is not really to construct the narrative of the game, but the game play experience of players. There is a variant rule around this situation because the developers realize the narrative constraints of the mechanical effects are not for all players (even if I think that APb is poorly implemented and unfairly advantages martial players over casters, but that is an aside).
So because the Heroes always need to be capable of handling problems that no one else could handle, and because getting new items is a part of how heroes experience their hero-ness, there really is just not room in APs and adventure modules to make "let's solve this problem as a community" a very effective way of resolving the major plot conflicts, enough for wealth to be thought of in real world terms and not as a mechanical device like hit points where players are expected to not given them away without some kind of advantage coming back to them. It is awkward because money is real in the real world whereas almost no other game mechanic really is, so working that out with your table to make sure the game is fun and doesn't feel icky takes work.
A Gm is fully encouraged to consider doing things like "the players gave away x amount of gold to build up this community, the paladin's blade is now enchanted in their hands to work like this equivalent magic item," Or for a local wizard to give the party make-shift scrolls with some of their spell slots that lose their magic after a day, but can be used as a stand in for players hesitant to use consumables in play.
Which is to say that the solution to narrative dissonance situations in cooperative games (like the size of spacious pouches too) is usually talking it over with your table and coming up with a solution fun for everyone, rather than anyone person saying "we have to all play this way."
I was once in a party receiving a quest from some nobles to break a curse. They were happy to accept our services and offered to make an introduction to some royalty in our behalf. I asked if they'd also be able to make some kind of monetary contribution to the cause. Just the act of asking them worsened their attitude but at least one step. From their perspective, it took us from noble heroes to mercenaries at best and extortionists at worst.
The interaction convinced me I needed the Shameless Request feat cof this campaign, but it also left a bad taste in my mouth. We weren't shaking down peasants, nor were we trying to buy another pool for our respective estates. We were asking people if means if they could contribute towards purchasing equipment that could not only save our lives but make or break the success of their quest. And it all kind of stems from Pathfinder's magic mart effect. I'd personally prefer ABP, or an assumption that the paladin's church will arm them properly, or something of that variety.
The NPCs reaction does seem a bit much, but just because people have money doesn't make them suddenly obligated to give it away.
Nor, as an example, should people need to buy tractors and other necessary supplies for the lansdscapers they hired in order for them to do their job. Overhead is the responsibility of the business to manage, not of their clients.
I was once in a party receiving a quest from some nobles to break a curse. They were happy to accept our services and offered to make an introduction to some royalty in our behalf. I asked if they'd also be able to make some kind of monetary contribution to the cause. Just the act of asking them worsened their attitude but at least one step. From their perspective, it took us from noble heroes to mercenaries at best and extortionists at worst.
The interaction convinced me I needed the Shameless Request feat cof this campaign, but it also left a bad taste in my mouth. We weren't shaking down peasants, nor were we trying to buy another pool for our respective estates. We were asking people if means if they could contribute towards purchasing equipment that could not only save our lives but make or break the success of their quest. And it all kind of stems from Pathfinder's magic mart effect. I'd personally prefer ABP, or an assumption that the paladin's church will arm them properly, or something of that variety.
The NPCs reaction does seem a bit much, but just because people have money doesn't make them suddenly obligated to give it away.
Nor, as an example, should people need to buy tractors and other necessary supplies for the lansdscapers they hired in order for them to do their job. Overhead is the responsibility of the business to manage, not of their clients.
Your metaphor is off, though. In this case, the only payment the client wanted to offer was introductions to other people with bigger lawns to care for, and got offended at being asked for money at all. It wasn't like I was handing them a shopping list, after all.
I was once in a party receiving a quest from some nobles to break a curse. They were happy to accept our services and offered to make an introduction to some royalty in our behalf. I asked if they'd also be able to make some kind of monetary contribution to the cause. Just the act of asking them worsened their attitude but at least one step. From their perspective, it took us from noble heroes to mercenaries at best and extortionists at worst.
The interaction convinced me I needed the Shameless Request feat cof this campaign, but it also left a bad taste in my mouth. We weren't shaking down peasants, nor were we trying to buy another pool for our respective estates. We were asking people if means if they could contribute towards purchasing equipment that could not only save our lives but make or break the success of their quest. And it all kind of stems from Pathfinder's magic mart effect. I'd personally prefer ABP, or an assumption that the paladin's church will arm them properly, or something of that variety.
It sounds to me like you ran afoul of my most hated houserule: for all checks you roll the check and then role-play the result of the roll - except for social skill actions. For some reason for diplomacy, intimidation, etc... you ignore the character sheet and make no rolls and the result of your character's actions are determined solely by your abilities to read the situation as a player.
Unless someone wants to explain how the rules say RAW that an NPC's attitude towards a character should change without a diplomacy check being rolled.
I was once in a party receiving a quest from some nobles to break a curse. They were happy to accept our services and offered to make an introduction to some royalty in our behalf. I asked if they'd also be able to make some kind of monetary contribution to the cause. Just the act of asking them worsened their attitude but at least one step. From their perspective, it took us from noble heroes to mercenaries at best and extortionists at worst.
The interaction convinced me I needed the Shameless Request feat cof this campaign, but it also left a bad taste in my mouth. We weren't shaking down peasants, nor were we trying to buy another pool for our respective estates. We were asking people if means if they could contribute towards purchasing equipment that could not only save our lives but make or break the success of their quest. And it all kind of stems from Pathfinder's magic mart effect. I'd personally prefer ABP, or an assumption that the paladin's church will arm them properly, or something of that variety.
It sounds to me like you ran afoul of my most hated houserule: for all checks you roll the check and then role-play the result of the roll - except for social skill actions. For some reason for diplomacy, intimidation, etc... you ignore the character sheet and make no rolls and the result of your character's actions are determined solely by your abilities to read the situation as a player.
Unless someone wants to explain how the rules say RAW that an NPC's attitude towards a character should change without a diplomacy check being rolled.
As I recall, a check was rolled. It wasn't a critical failure. I do agree that the "houserule" is a tricky one. I don't think this is a good example of it's problems, though, because unlike Make an Impression the Request action requires the player to articulate what they are asking for. I'm not sure if it significantly matters whether that is articulated in-character or out of character.
On a related tangent, a related problem I run into is people with bad charisma skills wanting to participate in conversations with NPCs and then feeling punished when the GM asks them to make a roll. Some people let that check be reframed into the mouth of the party face, but that's clunky. Another solution to try is using Follow the Expert. If the party has someone with an appropriate proficiency and everyone is participating in the same scene, assuming the party is Following their Expert by default gives everyone a decent shot on an impromptu check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a related tangent, a related problem I run into is people with bad charisma skills wanting to participate in conversations with NPCs and then feeling punished when the GM asks them to make a roll.
Ah yes. The classic "INT is a dump stat, but I still want to participate in the dungeon's door puzzles."
I'm sympathetic to those players because I used to be one. I learned I generally shouldn't play low charisma characters. I simultaneously think its bad to have large portions of the game that only one persoba can contribute and not every conversation needs to be a full blown influence encounter.
On a related tangent, a related problem I run into is people with bad charisma skills wanting to participate in conversations with NPCs and then feeling punished when the GM asks them to make a roll.Ah yes. The classic "INT is a dump stat, but I still want to participate in the dungeon's door puzzles."(General) we've discussed that at least once. It's the situation like no trained Diplomacy at higher levels and GM which suddenly demands a roll during a conversation which wasn't intended as a check. Which becomes basically an auto crit fail. And so now PC must always remain silent. Which is not optimal for fun.
I'm sympathetic to those players because I used to be one. I learned I generally shouldn't play low charisma characters. I simultaneously think its bad to have large portions of the game that only one persoba can contribute and not every conversation needs to be a full blown influence encounter.It's not even bad Charisma: let's imagine +4 CHA and no trained Diplomacy at 10 th level (for some reason). That would be fun.
That "PC is not at peak CHA + Diplomacy for their level ---> shut your mouth or you'll accidentally make a skill check." problem does irk me a lot.
In my opinion, it would help immensely if GMs allowed for a lot of DCs to simply stop scaling with the PC levels, but cap / limit the benefits of crit success checks.
For a wide set of tasks and checks, including the diplomancy of talking to a some townsfolk, it's good to let PCs just be competent and 90% no-fail at some point.
There is still the lingering weirdness of untrained locking at 0, which seems oddly out of place in PF2E constant stream of +1s by level. Never really understood why that's desirable, especially when Trained+ actions are still locked away. There are a decent number of "improv" options to get around that at least.
There is still the lingering weirdness of untrained locking at 0, which seems oddly out of place in PF2E constant stream of +1s by level. Never really understood why that's desirable, especially when Trained+ actions are still locked away.
Community demand, actually. As Xenocrat noted recently in a different ... forum.
In the original version of the PF2 playtest, Untrained was +level -2. Trained was +level +0, then Increased proficiency added one more to the bonus. So Expert at +level +1, Master at +level +2, and Legendary at +level +3.
There was enough pushback that increasing proficiency didn't have enough impact that it was changed to +2 for each proficiency bump.
And there was enough pushback that people couldn't build characters that sucked at things that untrained was changed to +0 with no scaling by level.
There is still the lingering weirdness of untrained locking at 0, which seems oddly out of place in PF2E constant stream of +1s by level. Never really understood why that's desirable, especially when Trained+ actions are still locked away.Community demand, actually. As Xenocrat noted recently in a different ... forum.
In the original version of the PF2 playtest, Untrained was +level -2. Trained was +level +0, then Increased proficiency added one more to the bonus. So Expert at +level +1, Master at +level +2, and Legendary at +level +3.
There was enough pushback that increasing proficiency didn't have enough impact that it was changed to +2 for each proficiency bump.
And there was enough pushback that people couldn't build characters that sucked at things that untrained was changed to +0 with no scaling by level.
Oh, that is a fascinating bit of history, learning about the different incarnations and iterations of design is always a treat.
Especially now that there's so much... let's say "data" about the result of the system they settled on.
I'm honestly a little split on the +1 to +2 bump, as it really has serious repercussions for things like Weapon Proficiency seeming good at a glance, but being a trap (and IMO having the Feat scale to expert at L11 instead of matching existing Expert prof made it *more* of a trap).
That said, it does certainly make prof more impactful / important...
______
As far as untrained = 0 goes, as long as the rest of the game is built with "gimmie checks" or simply not needing a check for every Diplomatic action, ect, it *could* work. But the original idea of improv-lagging scaling seems so much easier to run / less problematic.
A party of untrained PCs can struggle through a check at -5 ish in the early game.
But that bugbear of untrained = 0 is that the system directly punishes PCs for being high level. Like it or not, the game scales to PC level, strongly. It's really surprising that the = 0 lock was seen as the lesser evil / better option, to be honest.
On a related tangent, a related problem I run into is people with bad charisma skills wanting to participate in conversations with NPCs and then feeling punished when the GM asks them to make a roll.Ah yes. The classic "INT is a dump stat, but I still want to participate in the dungeon's door puzzles."
This one is always really tricky because often times adventures have puzzles designed to be player facing, not character facing in the first place.
So all the normal concerns about roleplaying and character design are sort of just abruptly tossed aside to begin with... which can feel really bad if there's a mismatch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, that is a fascinating bit of history, learning about the different incarnations and iterations of design is always a treat.
If you really want to, I think the .pdf download of the playtest documents is still available.
You can read all about Resonance and other such entertaining things.
Oh, that is a fascinating bit of history, learning about the different incarnations and iterations of design is always a treat.If you really want to, I think the .pdf download of the playtest documents is still available.
You can read all about Resonance and other such entertaining things.
That's going straight to my pf2e library folder.
Wow, that Resonance Test really does explain the origin of a lot of the Alch's problems. So many alch items having a boosted Focus Point version, only to have the entire mechanic cut out.
Double healing of Elix o Lf. Bomb's boosting dmg, spreading on-hit debuffs, ect. Even items like antidote make more sense with the option to burn 1FP to add an instant save-and-cured effect.
The system was still rather rough. It's hard to imagine whomever thought a Wiz spending 1FP to unlock NINE extra casts from a magic wand as "balanced" is the same guy that thought an Alch spending 1FP to
If you spend 1 Focus Point when you throw the bomb, a hit with the bomb immediately deals an amount of acid damage equal to the bomb’s persistent damage value.
9 extra wand casts VS 1 extra tick of acid damage upfront. Major yikes.
As far as gameplay-hurt goes, I think the largest "Oopsie" that seems to be revealed by the playtests and never fixed for the poor lil Alchs was that of Bombs needing only to hit TAC (Touch AC, how difficult to make contact, basically AC - armor plating), hence the present Alchemist Accuracy woes (explanation is for the sake of general audience, not the one linking the sources)
And Alch was 100% designed originally as the Bomber Class, not Alchemist. Sooo many issues w/ Alch today come from that assumption that the Alch is the "throw bombs" class. Like, Fumbus has 10 Darts in his inventory, lol. (and a 2d6 +1 agile, finesse, backstabber, melee weapon, wow)
___________________________
The idea of alch elixirs having an onset delay by default was horrifying to read, and sigh-inducing when it turned out that "default" was limited to mostly just making mutagens even less viable. Like, who thought making the onset time *increase* with the mutagen version upgrade was a good idea? Either the item should be usable in combat, or it should not.
Having that core use-case change with Lvl is... obviously a no-go.
Honestly, it could have been a lot worse, but it's still a disappointment that so few changes/improvments were made. Mondo-frustrating that such serious and painful albatrosses like Strike Accuracy were caused by core system changes like TAC being sloppily removed, and that much more disappointing to know that such oversights were never fixed later.
There's a whole lot of neat historical "rules" (pain points) that can be gleaned from the OG playtest. Right now, Rules as Written, it's not allowed to Double Brew your 0 reagent Perpetual items (the most appealing use-case of that Feature), but that language is cut-paste from a time when Perpetuals did not exist, and all Q-Alch burned resources.
Good to confirm that Quick Alch was in the class from the start, as I'm not sure where the "Q-Alch was added later" rumor came from.
And of course, seeing never-functional Class Features like Alchemical Alacrity existing in the original playtest is predictably jimmy-rustling. Like, someone *had* to change the text to remove the Resonance Point bits, and they otherwise just left the broken joke in there. It's been *years*. The Alch needed a remaster loooong before the OGL stuff kicked off.
While I too have faced this dilemma, like when should be a social roll and when not, I think it's perfectly fine for an untrained skill to be +0.
Int is already amongst the weakest attributes, taking away its only saving grace is not the answer.
For higher level characters there is always the option of actually investing in Int instead of a tertiary defensive attribute (like Wis) if they like to be more versatile, and there are also options to gain more trained slots through Ancestry, general, and even class feats.
So, if someone optimises all their feats and attributes for combat, I don't see an issue not pulling my punches and asking for a diplomacy roll when they make a request.
There is though a fine line somewhere between making every rp opportunity a skill roll and never asking for a social roll.
My unease with that take is that we know that the alternative was a lagging minus. If being Expert is a +4, then it would make total sense for Untrained to be a -2 or something.
That design still perfectly accomplishes what you seek, and the severity of that minus could be enhanced if it was not thought serious enough.
____________________
When that's compared to the = 0 lock, the primary mechanical change is that as PC levels go up, the greater difficulty of accomplishing anything untrained becomes.
There's nothing wrong with an untrained skill check being a low odds affair, but IMO the = 0 lock just adds a conflict/problem with the core design of PF2E scaling challenges/checks to the PC level.
Especially with something as arbitrary as a Diplomacy DC.
"You get a crit fail, roll initiative" "???" "well, *this* goblin is 10DC harder to talk to than that other guy from 7 levels ago."
That kind of exchange would (does) snap verisimilitude / immersion for me.
Basically, the players get *more* foot-in-mouth incompetent with level.
The Alch needed a remaster loooong before the OGL stuff kicked off.
The kinda sad thing is... it was.
It wasn't called a Remaster, obviously. But if you look through the various CRB errata updates, the Alchemist has some pretty heavy changes. In fact, I don't think the Witch Remaster actually changes the Witch class more than the Alchemist has been changed via errata between the first printing and the current state.
DC doesn't scale with PLAYER level, it scales with obstacle level.
So your example is completely wrong:
The goblin you met 7 levels ago will have the exact same diplomacy DC then and now.
The same goblin that hasn't improved will have the same DC.
A different goblin of similar type and level will have a very similar DC if not the same.
A different goblin that is fills a different role in the campaign may have a level appropriate to the level of the player characters and would have a different higher DC to match.
So yes, if you meet a random goblin scavenger and talk to it with diplomacy, 7 levels ago - and then meet the same or similar goblin scavenger later, the DC will be the same and your characters will be at +7 level from the previous encounter and it will feel really easy.
If you instead meet a goblin ranger or some other more skilled and powerful goblin, then the level of the creature may also be 7 levels higher than the goblin scavenger that you met earlier and it will have a DC that is challenging again.
(p.s. don't know if you quoating me was you agreeing or disagreeing, sometimes, written posts fail to convey position)
Agreeing, actually.
And illustrating it with a concrete example that is an improvement over the example originally given.
If you could stop chopping at the tree for a moment to look at the forest:
In pf2e, DCs scale to the players, and the players scale their proficiency with player level.
That is the core of the game's design.
Introducing a = 0 lock is uniquely in complete contradiction to this scaling system.
__________________________
My example was nothing more. If going from -2 to +2, is "not good enough" to spend a point on INT, that is completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
___________________________
Just about everything is done in reference to Player Level. If I must be clinical with my words and remove all levity to avoid this circus, then I must do as such. Here is the "example"
A Lvl 2 PC trying to talk their way out of fighting a group of PL-2 humanoids can manage even when untrained. DC 16, untrained but +1 CHA. Need to roll 15 on a d20, 30% chance.
A Lvl 18 PC trying to talk their way out of fighting a group of PL-2 humanoids will auto-crit fail if untrained. DC 38, untrained but +5 CHA. Need to a 33 on a d20, N/A chance.
It became nat 20 or fail at Lvl 8.
____________________________
If untrained was a -2, this would balance the penalty at all levels. If a +- 4 gap felt to small, the untrained penalty could be increased.
I agree that INT needs serious help, but breaking the core design of the game so that maybe INT can be a little better is absurd.
I have a Lvl 10 PC that is trained in EVERYTHING except performance.
That is absurd. And any other Investigator or INT Rogue is going to be similar. The idea of being properly trained in a skill should not be relegated to such a cheap "gimmie" handout like it is, else you end up with a design where it's both a prerequisite, and rather meaningless at the same time.
That PC is SUPPOSED to have weaknesses, blindspots, inadequacies. But what am I supposed to do, literally throw away the training? Not in this auto-fail system, no sir.
If you could stop chopping at the tree for a moment to look at the forest:
In pf2e, DCs scale to the players, and the players scale their proficiency with player level.
That is the core of the game's design.
That is what shroudb and I are trying to point out. There is a flaw in your understanding of the game's design.
Encounters are generally and approximately scaled to the player's level. Because encountering things that are way outside of your level is not something fun. It is either too easy if it is way below your level, or too hard if it is way above.
DC is always scaled to the level of the encounter. Not to the players directly.
Your example of re-encountering a similar goblin that you met 7 levels earlier and having an immersion snap event because that goblin unexpectedly has a much higher DC is, in fact, an error in GM'ing.
Because it is mixing the two. The original goblin was for an encounter 7 levels lower and should have a creature level appropriate to that, and therefore a DC appropriate to its level. And that shouldn't change just because the player characters gained 7 levels.
When you encounter the goblin later, it should either have the same level and DC (and be super easy as a result), or it should narratively justify why the goblin is also 7 levels higher than it was when you first encountered it.
So no, when you encounter the same goblin from 7 levels ago (or its nearly identical buddy), it shouldn't have a DC that is appropriate to your current character level. It should have a DC that is appropriate to the goblin's current level - whether that goblin's level is still what it was 7 player character levels ago, or updated.
Just about everything is done in reference to Player Level. If I must be clinical with my words and remove all levity to avoid this circus, then I must do as such. Here is the "example"
It became nat 20 or fail at Lvl 8.A Lvl 2 PC trying to talk their way out of fighting a group of PL-2 humanoids can manage even when untrained. DC 16, untrained but +1 CHA. Need to roll 15 on a d20, 30% chance.
A Lvl 18 PC trying to talk their way out of fighting a group of PL-2 humanoids will auto-crit fail if untrained. DC 38, untrained but +5 CHA. Need to a 33 on a d20, N/A chance.
Even this example is showing the same GM'ing flaw.
PL-2 is not a static level. In the first scenario PL-2 is level 0. In the second scenario PL-2 is level 16.
That is an increase of 16 levels for the group of humanoids that you are fighting. Is the GM giving any sort of narrative justification for why the first humanoid enemies are level 0 and the second group of humanoids are level 16?
Because if they are narratively the equivalent humanoids, then the GM is in fact auto-scaling to match the players without any justification. You fight random level 0 thugs at level 2. You fight trained, experienced, professional level 16 soldiers at level 18. Those are different. Both in stats and in description and campaign role.
Dude. Still chopping the tree.
The = 0 lock is the problem here, not a GM.
I never said it was the same goblin, which is a PC-usable ancestry that can be ANY level.
Do not twist my words to attempt to weaken the idea I have presented.
Please engage with the actual point of discussion,
which is that untrained PCs can pass scaling checks at low levels, but quickly become unable to as they GROW in power.
__________________________________________
Stop scapegoating an imaginary GM that's literally following the book rules.
You are right, you can't do both. That's the problem I'm trying to get you to engage with. It's not the GMs fault.
Either the GM decides static DC and the Diplomacy PC is going to auto-crit everything, or it's scaling DC and the party is auto-fail-f_cked when the Diplo-PC is absent, perhaps due to player illness.
That is a serious and unnecessary system problem that apparently did not exist in the past rule-set.
Please engage with the actual point of discussion,
which is that untrained PCs can pass scaling checks at low levels, but quickly become unable to as they GROW in power.
That is more of a coincidence than anything else - that at low levels, the level based DCs are approximately equal to the Untrained Basic DCs. The game rules are that untrained PCs can pass non-level based DC for the untrained DC rating at any level.
This is also why shroudb mentioned climbing trees. If you can climb a tree with a DC 12 check at level 2, you should still be able to climb a tree with a DC 12 check at level 18. Because the tree hasn't changed even if you have. Or even if you haven't changed if you are untrained in athletics to climb.
The change to untrained being locked at 0 for proficiency was 1) deliberate, and 2) intended to model the idea that a level 18 character that doesn't put any effort into learning how to be diplomatic isn't actually improving at it. 2 levels of not practicing at diplomacy is the same as 18 levels of not practicing at diplomacy. They aren't GROWing in power in that aspect.
That is a serious and unnecessary system problem that apparently did not exist in the past rule-set.
Is it actually all that serious? The problem, as described, is that someone who puts absolutely no investment in a skill is not going to be able to pass leveled checks.
That doesn't seem all that serious, after all the person in question has not even taken the bare minimum of steps to give themselves any boosts in that skill.
Again, for a number of people during the playtest this was specifically a desirable outcome.
Like I agree it's kind of weird and maybe not as useful as some people think, but treating it like some major, fundamental flaw in the game rather than just a personal taste thing seems way off base.
That is a serious and unnecessary system problem that apparently did not exist in the past rule-set.Is it actually all that serious? The problem, as described, is that someone who puts absolutely no investment in a skill is not going to be able to pass leveled checks.
That doesn't seem all that serious, after all the person in question has not even taken the bare minimum of steps to give themselves any boosts in that skill.
Again, for a number of people during the playtest this was specifically a desirable outcome.
Like I agree it's kind of weird and maybe not as useful as some people think, but treating it like some major, fundamental flaw in the game rather than just a personal taste thing seems way off base.
I do not want to blow the severity of the problem out of proportion, but it does exist, and as green as I am I've seen it ruin a few moments.
It is a good example of a real flaw caused by a mismatch of system design, and one that does not need to be there.
Especially for parties with fewer players, the untrained auto-fail is a real problem though. The game is built with scaling DCs, and then there is that contradiction where the stronger the PCs get, the *more* impossible it is to do actions they are untrained in.
The DC scaling already assumes Prof jumps and even Stat bonus growth to a large extent. Even when Trained, the chances of passing checks becomes rather remote without maximum investment.
There really is no need for the = 0 lock.
With the alternative of the lagging minus, I really cannot see any upside to the = 0 lock. It just adds the aforementioned problems with no benefit.