NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8105426" data-attributes="member: 12731">I am highlighting rules elements that can be perceived as complex, cluttery, difficult to use or all three. If a game is best run with house rules that bypass its elements, that definitely needs to be made clear. Obviously there can exist a play group that is entirely fine with the rules as written, but that does not mean we can't put a spotlight on a game when it gates the flow of information "behind a rather elaborate process".Moreover, I feel it is entirely reasonable to ask the question "but how is this meant to be used?"The answer "you're supposed to make a Recall Knowledge check" isn't a satisfactory answer. It's just the start, not the end. Suggesting otherwise would be to imply that "make a Recall Knowledge check" is fine, and not without problems of its own.First off, are we talking about three checks here?1) make a Perception to spot the trap2) make a RK check to understand "you can use Religion to disable it"3) make a Religion check to actually disable itStatistically this makes no sense. Yes, I am asserting that this alleged sequence is objectively broken. Why? Because checks almost never have much more than a 50% chance of success in PF2! The fact that three checks must succeeds tells us that there is only a 12.5% chance of actually disabling this trap, even without knowing the specifics (individual trap DC, individual skill bonuses, other circumstances). You could argue the Perception check could be assumed to have a much greater probability of success if we assume every party member does a search before a feature is interacted with, but a) the chance would still remain at or below 25% and b) I don't actually agree this assumption is very reasonable.Then, the issue of what to say and how to describe it. If there is no way to describe what the character sees and experiences the process will come across as artificial and "gamey". This is usually not a problem with D&D traps in general. "You see a tripwire". "Okay, so I need to cut it without releasing tension". "You would use Thievery to accomplish that". Note that the conversion from in-game knowledge/conclusions is done after the group understands what needs to be done (roughly). How do the PF2 designers envision this conversation going for a trap described as "An object haunted by the echoes of a vicious mind attempts to kill someone who comes near"? They give us no clue.I am fully aware that sometimes the "inner workings" of a fantasy element can be abstract and that any "explanation" can be just <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Technobabble" target="_blank">"technobabble"</a> (but without the "techno" I guess). But then some technobabble terms needs to be given out so to help roleplaying the encounter: "You see a thingamagog." "Okay so I need to reflux its capacitors without causing overburn." "You would do that by making a Engineering check".</blockquote>

Verification