Pathfinder 2E Never give up on PF2

[Thomas Shey]

Drifting off topic from PF2e, but yeah, that was the thing when learning to run CoC for the first time. There's so many skills and not wanting to stop the game each time to review the sometimes subtle differences between them was a little annoying. It's like the differences between the different senses related conditions in PF2e (undetected, invisible, unnoticed, etc.). I get them now, but as a new GM it took a few times seeing them in play to remember the differences and be able to quickly resolve the mechanic.

Some of the social skills were particular problem children back in the day. "Debate, Orate and Fast Talk" were not exactly things that had clear borders. Though the harder edged ones always seemed strange, at least the weapon skills specifically pointed at other mechanical things that they related to.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But I think if people have a problem with feeling overspecialized, it's a relatively easy fix to just allow classes to have an extra skill boost or two within their progression, and allow people to train into a skill. If your game plays in a world where you don't always face level-based challenges, it might even be easier to take another page out of 4E's book and say every non-trained skill gets a bonus of half your level, rounded up. This would mean everyone picks up a little bit over time. But ultimately I find it really easy to adjust these sorts of things in PF2 compared to other systems.

But that's not really true: you can scale the challenges if you like, but you don't need to if you don't want to. The system does both perfectly fine, it's just a matter of what you want to do.

It is always thus: if your GM agrees with you what the problems are, and agrees with your proposed fixes, then you will be able to play the game you want.

Otherwise, I don’t think it is very productive to respond “it is an easy fix” or “there is an optional rule”.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is always thus: if your GM agrees with you what the problems are, and agrees with your proposed fixes, then you will be able to play the game you want.

Otherwise, I don’t think it is very productive to respond “it is an easy fix” or “there is an optional rule”.

That might be a legitimate critique of his first response, but the second is essentially saying "The game doesn't actually tell you you have to do the thing you're complaining about." At that point it's a GMing issue, not a systemic issue.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That might be a legitimate critique of his first response, but the second is essentially saying "The game doesn't actually tell you you have to do the thing you're complaining about." At that point it's a GMing issue, not a systemic issue.

The game uses two massively difference scales to calculate skill DCs.

If you are level 8, and the GM uses a medium level DC, you are attempting a 24 DC. If instead, the GM is using a simple expert DC, you are instead attempting a DC 20.

If you are a player with zero ability to affect whether a simple DC or a level DC is used, it’s moot that the simple DC could be used where appropriate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The game uses two massively difference scales to calculate skill DCs.

If you are level 8, and the GM uses a medium level DC, you are attempting a 24 DC. If instead, the GM is using a simple expert DC, you are instead attempting a DC 20.

If you are a player with zero ability to affect whether a simple DC or a level DC is used, it’s moot that the simple DC could be used where appropriate.

I don't see how that changes my statement in the least.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It is always thus: if your GM agrees with you what the problems are, and agrees with your proposed fixes, then you will be able to play the game you want.

Sure, but the ability to fix problems often depend on how open the system is to a fix. In the case of the skill system, things were designed in such a way that makes this very easy compared to 5E, where I think the problems are different and require deeper solutions. But this was based on @payn talking about different skills systems and me putting in my thoughts along with how I thought you could fix the problem being perceived. Seems disingenuous to remove it from that context like this.

Otherwise, I don’t think it is very productive to respond “it is an easy fix” or “there is an optional rule”.

It's not an optional rule, it's part of the guidance on DCs!

When you're determining a skill DC based on something that has a level, use the table below to set the DC. Find the level of the subject, and assign the corresponding DC. Since spells use a 1–10 scale, use the Spell Rank column for them.

Use these DCs when a PC needs to Identify a Spell or Recall Knowledge about a creature, attempts to Earn Income by performing a task of a certain level, and so on. You can also use the level-based DCs for obstacles instead of assigning a simple DC. For example, you might determine that a wall in a high-level dungeon was constructed of smooth metal and is hard to climb. You could simply say only someone with master proficiency could climb it and use the simple DC of 30. Or you might decide that the 15th-level villain who created the dungeon crafted the wall and use the 15th-level DC of 34. Either approach is reasonable!

Note that PCs who invest in a skill become more likely to succeed at a DC of their level as they increase in level, and the listed DCs eventually pose very little challenge for them.

But that was also a response to a different conversation. I'm not sure how this is productive given this is a different conversation on a completely different topic of the thread (this one being part of the whole "intrinsic DCs" that got brought up). I don't understand the critique.

The game uses two massively difference scales to calculate skill DCs.

If you are level 8, and the GM uses a medium level DC, you are attempting a 24 DC. If instead, the GM is using a simple expert DC, you are instead attempting a DC 20.

If you are a player with zero ability to affect whether a simple DC or a level DC is used, it’s moot that the simple DC could be used where appropriate.

... And?

My point was that there's nothing stopping intrinsic DCs and that the DCs are simply not always leveled. They are allowed to be, but the point is that there are simple guidelines set that you can use. I was correcting a misconception with the rules, not stating that one was always used over the other. Yes, there is a gulf between the advancement of simple DCs and leveled ones, but that wasn't really at odds with what the discussion was about and where it went, so...?

 

[Staffan]

The game uses two massively difference scales to calculate skill DCs.

If you are level 8, and the GM uses a medium level DC, you are attempting a 24 DC. If instead, the GM is using a simple expert DC, you are instead attempting a DC 20.

If you are a player with zero ability to affect whether a simple DC or a level DC is used, it’s moot that the simple DC could be used where appropriate.

Technically, you're not supposed to set a DC based on the character's level*. You're supposed to set it based on the opposition's level. E.g. the DC to identify a magic item is based on the item's level, not yours. I will admit that this is a principle that Paizo aren't all that good at following themselves, at least in the adventures I've seen.

* I know there are some abilities that make you roll against a DC based on the target's level, or your level, in order to provide some sort of buff. I consider these to be the worst mini-bits of game design in all of PF2. If you want to tie the use of an ability to a particular skill, either set a fixed DC, or make it automatic and have the results depend on proficiency.