Search results

That's really a whole other discussion. Well designed rules would be sufficiently consistent that a player making decisions without reference to them explicitly should do alright, (i.e. having stealth rules should mean stealth is a viable tactic). Generally, I think this concern is overblown and...

This is precisely the assumption I'm talking about. The design idea I'm discussing is that "challenges" are defined by a PC making a skill roll to overcome an obstacle. The idea that a DC can indicate a challenge's appropriateness for a PC of any level is the design idea that PF2 carried forward...

No, that's still not the same. Moving from a skill DC to a "challenge" is already an inversion is my point. DCs weren't assumed to move in relationship to the PCs at all previously outside of opposed checks, they instead signposted specific abilities. It doesn't make sense to talk about a...

I would argue the fundamental difference is the idea of a "leveled check" to begin with. Outside of directly NPC affecting skills, skill DCs were calibrated to match specific abilities. You could balance on surfaces of X thickness with Y penalties for difficult circumstances, at DC Z. Gameplay...

The whole sign and influence concept wasn't well executed, unfortunately. The check to avoid them swung from too hard to too trivial, and the impact of any particular vestige varied wildly from irrelevant to crippling, and they were weirdly binary. You made 1 check in the morning, and then...

It's an improvement, but there's top much focus on the attributes, instead of focusing the sheet by function. Saving throws and AC should be on their own "I'm getting attacked, what do I report?" section, class features/attacks should be grouped by action type in a separate combat page, etc.

Trust has nothing to do with it, this is a matter of design at the system level. When I say "objective skill system" I'm advocating for a design where the skill system is primarily player facing. It should be a tool players use to resolve situations; the actions you can take with a given skill...

That's just offering examples for your generic table, albeit it is an improvement to do it per skill. My test for an objective skill system is whether skills exist a player could resolve an action involving a check for without consulting the GM past the initial description of the situation.

I find the three action system really interesting, and applauded the game for committing to significantly different class/resource systems....but it committed immediately to generic scaling DCs, which just makes me so sad, because there's nothing left in the D&Dalike space with an objective...

I don't think that's at all universal. Magic as a tool, either with discoverable unknown properties, or with well known standards is a really common fantasy trope as well. It's often not particularly expensive or internal at all, just a setting norm or piece of technology.

Arguably the PF2 remaster actually is this kind of iterative small update and I'm just bitter because I really don't care for PF2.

I do wish there was a better path for like... Actual new editions in D&Dlikes, without massive engine changes. I still pine for say, a 3.5 release with a Warbladelike as the fighter, the assorted multiclass fix feats worked in, a new pass at classes/skill usage based on all that new development...

The A5E artificer's spell inventions are a fun take on this. They don't expend slots to cast and instead roll a "fizzle die" which might cause the spell device to break with each cast. They get abilities that interact with that, say exploding the inventions violently, or repairing some of them...

Oh yeah, I can't believe I didn't mention time loops. Another genre staple, that even more explicitly serves that purpose.

There's an aesthetic answer, which is that "sword and spell is cool and feels appreciable different than just sword or spell" and that's definitely been fed by outside media that showcases various takes on the theme. The gameplay answer, if a player is not thinking aesthetically, seems to be...

While To some degree, progression fantasy (especially overt gamelit or litRPG) is intentionally subverting that norm. The genre defining thing is that characters strive to get better in some quantifiable way, then demonstrate their improvements in a repeating loop, and the rest of the work...

Big things that get routinely forgotten in my games: The parrying weapon property. Fatigue from falling unconscious. The various abilities to mitigate critical hits, including taking fatigue or sacrificing a shield.

That's pretty standard for the genre, much of which is written originally as serialized web fiction and later chopped up for publication.

I don't know that I agree with class vs. point buy being a significant difference here, so much as games simply not bothering with much system detail in non-combat applications in general. I don't particularly think this is alleviated by adding a more detailed generic resolution system, but...

It felt under-supported by the vague scene rules, but I directionally liked Fantasy Craft's Prudence/Panache system. You got points modified by your class, level and Charisma you invested between those two stats. Panache gives you a lifestyle bonus to social rolls and a pool of starting money at...