Pathfinder 2E Problems with percieved overpowered encounters in Pathfinder 1e+2e?

[Justice and Rule]

I think perhaps it would be better to have two separate level-based DCs. One for things that are supposed to be "challenging" and that demand specialization, and one for more "routine" things. Things like Repair, Recall Knowledge, and so on could be on the "routine" track instead, which would keep characters from feeling more stupid at higher levels because their effective skills have narrowed too much.

I've heard people wanting to use the Simple DCs as a basis for things like Recall Knowledge, basing it on their rarity rather than level, and that's probably a smart way to do things; even if something is high CR if it's fairly common then you'll be likely to know something about it. Given that those Knowledge checks are going to be spread around different skills, having them still achievable by people who may not have taken the skill would be worthwhile simply because a Blue Dragon is still a Blue Dragon and they've likely heard something about it once. But that's also a good instance where even more gradations of successes might be good: beating a check by multiple levels could yield more exact information or more questions to ask the GM. You could even list different things to ask like Free League knowledge skills typically do.

 

[Retreater]

I've heard people wanting to use the Simple DCs as a basis for things like Recall Knowledge, basing it on their rarity rather than level, and that's probably a smart way to do things; even if something is high CR if it's fairly common then you'll be likely to know something about it.

Yeah. Recall Knowledge DCs are usually too high.
An ancient blue dragon wouldn't be more difficult to identify basics about than a young blue dragon that has the same abilities. A trained lizardfolk with class levels should still be identifiable as a lizardfolk.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Part of the issue is point-based stat generation and "balance". It's really hard to make a character like Worf in most D&D variants. Worf is (supposedly) a great fighter. He's strong, he's tough, he's strong-willed, he's a pretty good tactician, and he's charismatic. But he doesn't really make use of high stats across the board. He's good at intimidation and honest speeches, but he doesn't do duplicity or negotiation. He's good at tactics, but not at science or engineering. This type of character fits much better in a purely skill-based system like the Troubleshooters or FATE where you can decide that you have a good Status but bad Charm and Subterfuge, without the system telling you "But you have a high Charisma so you should be good at all of those!"

It doesn't have to be purely-skill based; a system where the contributions from attributes is modest (especially if there's more than one) will still mean that just because you have a high X doesn't mean you'll be great at every X using skill; it just means you get a bit of a leg up if you do decide to chase those. I can think of several systems like that, the most well known being RuneQuest and most other BRP derivatives.

 

[nevin]

Most of the stuff you are describing is Role Playing. but it you are playing a game where you roll your skill everytime you do something instead of roleplaying a lot of things out then yeah DND system sucks at that. The simple solution if your DM is willing is to role play more skill check less.

 

[Teemu]

PF2 is pretty accurate for characters like Worf though. Even if you had +5 Charisma, your Diplomacy and Deception could be horrible and completely unusable if they were untrained skills, assuming you're playing past the first few levels. At level 10 for example, a +5 to a skill might as well be +0 because most everything meaningful has a DC you can't even dream of beating.

So that's to say, proficiency is much more meaningful than ability scores. You can play a very intimidating character who's really bad at persuasion and deception, as long as you invest in Intimidate and ignore Diplomacy and Deception. You don't necessarily have to invest in Charisma as long as you always use your rank bumps on Intimidate and acquire an item bonus to the skill.

In general PF2 pulls off this feature much better than 5e, but it also means that if you're untrained in a skill, you will basically never succeed at level appropriate checks with the untrained skills (past first few levels). Untrained Improvisation helps, but it showcases just how unevenly balanced general feats are.

 

[payn]

PF2 is pretty accurate for characters like Worf though. Even if you had +5 Charisma, your Diplomacy and Deception could be horrible and completely unusable if they were untrained skills, assuming you're playing past the first few levels. At level 10 for example, a +5 to a skill might as well be +0 because most everything meaningful has a DC you can't even dream of beating.

So that's to say, proficiency is much more meaningful than ability scores. You can play a very intimidating character who's really bad at persuasion and deception, as long as you invest in Intimidate and ignore Diplomacy and Deception. You don't necessarily have to invest in Charisma as long as you always use your rank bumps on Intimidate and acquire an item bonus to the skill.

Thats actually what I dislike about PF2. The proficiency system makes these odd characters that are hyper proficient at a few items, and then really bad at things that should naturally transfer over.

I know in 5E the stats are king, and PF2 proficiency rules. I like it better than both in 3E/PF1 where both stats and skill prof matter.

 

[Teemu]

Thats actually what I dislike about PF2. The proficiency system makes these odd characters that are hyper proficient at a few items, and then really bad at things that should naturally transfer over.

I know in 5E the stats are king, and PF2 proficiency rules. I like it better than both in 3E/PF1 where both stats and skill prof matter.

Yeah I touched on that in my edits. I would personally prefer if the untrained rank allowed you to add your level -2, and then Untrained Improvisation removed the -2 penalty. The difference between untrained and trained+ skills becomes egregious once you get to mid to high levels.

 

[Retreater]

Thats actually what I dislike about PF2. The proficiency system makes these odd characters that are hyper proficient at a few items, and then really bad at things that should naturally transfer over.

I know in 5E the stats are king, and PF2 proficiency rules. I like it better than both in 3E/PF1 where both stats and skill prof matter.

You can train new skills later in the game. Instead of taking Expert proficiency in an existing skill, you can take Trained in a new one. You're not "locked in" with the skills you start with at 1st level.

 

[payn]

You can train new skills later in the game. Instead of taking Expert proficiency in an existing skill, you can take Trained in a new one. You're not "locked in" with the skills you start with at 1st level.

Sure, but you still only have a few hyper proficiencies and dont feel like a rounded character. Also, retraining just feels very gamey to me. That is, of course, a me thing.

 

[nevin]

I hate retraining. Hate it in 1e and Hate it in 2e. You "forget" what you know and train to do something else? It's the Congitive Disconnects with how things really work that make those games very frustrating for me.