Pathfinder 2E Never give up on PF2

[Justice and Rule]

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 "challenge" as tied to a skill check at all in that paradigm. The DC is effectively a level range proxy for when a PC will get access to new abilities.

It is already transformative to suggest that DCs can and/or should scale with level at all, and moves the skill system from a player facing tool, to primarily a pacing mechanism. 5e does the same thing more unevenly through a generic difficulty table.

You're making up intent where there isn't any. Leveled DCs are there to show what level proper challenge is for a PC based on their assumed bonus. DCs don't need to move in relationship to the PCs at all in PF2, but giving "Leveled DCs" for certain things that actually require them. In the GM Core (Page 53), they say they are for Earning Income checks, Recall Knowledge checks, and Identifying Spells, etc. They do not list all the situations, but we can see the clear intent: it's meant for something that is already based on level (Recall Knowledge checks are based on CR, Earn Income gives out a DC and money based on the Level you are attempting to hit, Identifying Spells is based on Spell level).

Now, what they do say that if you want, you can use Level-based DCs for obstacles instead of simple DCs. They mention the option, but say that you can simply use the simple DCs as well. Given how it's written, the intent is not for everything to be Level-based and advancing, but simply that you have the option of doing so if you feel it fits the situation. They are there to give granularity if desired, with an idea of where a player of a certain level will be and what DC they are expected to hit most often. This can even be found in the Skill Section, where they give Sample Maneuvers based on training, not levels.

There's nothing in there that suggests that it is suddenly only a pacing tool. You can use it however you like, and the system supports it perfectly well. But it works just as well if you want to simply put the natural DCs of the world and let the players approach it or do a "Everything is confined specific DCs set by level".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, while there are certain things that scale to some extent with level consistently (monster knowledge checks where its assumed that higher level monsters will be less well known about or things that go up against perception, both because there's higher level characters will normally be up against higher level opponents) there's nothing that intrinsically forces a given check to leap over a chasm to be any higher DC at 15th level than 5th. People may be prone to making conditions such that it is, but that's more about people wanting to make the roll have a point than any suggestion the game makes that it'll automatically be so.

 

[Staffan]

Recall Knowledge checks are based on CR

This is a thing I find particularly ridiculous. Generally speaking, the more dangerous and/or exciting something is, the more people would know about it (unless it's a thing they deal with every single day). I mean, ask people what they know about, say, elephants. Then ask them what they know about wolverines. I bet more people would have knowledge of elephants, despite the DC to know things about an elephant being 23 and a wolverine being 16.

 

[Pedantic]

You're making up intent where there isn't any. Leveled DCs are there to show what level proper challenge is for a PC based on their assumed bonus.

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 from 4e I don't like.

DCs don't need to move in relationship to the PCs at all in PF2, but giving "Leveled DCs" for certain things that actually require them. In the GM Core (Page 53), they say they are for Earning Income checks, Recall Knowledge checks, and Identifying Spells, etc. They do not list all the situations, but we can see the clear intent: it's meant for something that is already based on level (Recall Knowledge checks are based on CR, Earn Income gives out a DC and money based on the Level you are attempting to hit, Identifying Spells is based on Spell level).

Right. I've consistently called out DCs arriving from direct opposition as reasonably scaling with that opposition. I don't really see a need to use a level scaling table to get these numbers vs. jst writing them down by skill, developing formulas and referencing NPC traits and so on, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it....except that it has never not been accompanied by a full scale shift away from objective skills, and I don't trust a design to set up the necessary firewalls at this point.

Now, what they do say that if you want, you can use Level-based DCs for obstacles instead of simple DCs. They mention the option, but say that you can simply use the simple DCs as well. Given how it's written, the intent is not for everything to be Level-based and advancing, but simply that you have the option of doing so if you feel it fits the situation. They are there to give granularity if desired, with an idea of where a player of a certain level will be and what DC they are expected to hit most often. This can even be found in the Skill Section, where they give Sample Maneuvers based on training, not levels.

You can't back into an objective skill system from a general one, it requires more active design to get there. The necessary step is listing the relevant ability hitting each individual DC gets you.

To be clear, in the kind of system I'm taking about, the DM is not empowered to set, say a DC 17 Athletics challenge. That isn't parsable, and isn't a thing a GM can do. Instead DC 17 Athletics check might grant the a player the ability to climb at their base movement speed over rough or worked stone walls.

GMing advice on challenge design might account for what the PCs can do at an expected range of levels, but a skill check isn't a challenge, it's a PC tool for overcoming challenges.

There's nothing in there that suggests that it is suddenly only a pacing tool. You can use it however you like, and the system supports it perfectly well. But it works just as well if you want to simply put the natural DCs of the world and let the players approach it or do a "Everything is confined specific DCs set by level".

What are the natural DCs you're talking about? At best we've got some specific skill usages, and a generic difficulty table. An objective skill system requires the game write them down, to a reasonable level of abstraction, and put them in front of the players before the game begins. I'm saying the GM shouldn't be expected to set the DCs for anything.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong like, intrinsically with PF2's approach, but it's a different design paradigm that broke with an objective skill system and isn't compatible with it. It's standing with basically every other modern D&Dlike since 4e in doing so, and seemingly this is fine with nearly all players. I'm merely annoyed at the choice, because it's the only fundamental problem I have with PF2, and it's frankly too big a design problem to rework myself.

 

[ironchains]

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 from 4e I don't like.


Right. I've consistently called out DCs arriving from direct opposition as reasonably scaling with that opposition. I don't really see a need to use a level scaling table to get these numbers vs. jst writing them down by skill, developing formulas and referencing NPC traits and so on, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it....except that it has never not been accompanied by a full scale shift away from objective skills, and I don't trust a design to set up the necessary firewalls at this point.



You can't back into an objective skill system from a general one, it requires more active design to get there. The necessary step is listing the relevant ability hitting each individual DC gets you.

To be clear, in the kind of system I'm taking about, the DM is not empowered to set, say a DC 17 Athletics challenge. That isn't parsable, and isn't a thing a GM can do. Instead DC 17 Athletics check might grant the a player the ability to climb at their base movement speed over rough or worked stone walls.

GMing advice on challenge design might account for what the PCs can do at an expected range of levels, but a skill check isn't a challenge, it's a PC tool for overcoming challenges.


What are the natural DCs you're talking about? At best we've got some specific skill usages, and a generic difficulty table. An objective skill system requires the game write them down, to a reasonable level of abstraction, and put them in front of the players before the game begins. I'm saying the GM shouldn't be expected to set the DCs for anything.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong like, intrinsically with PF2's approach, but it's a different design paradigm that broke with an objective skill system and isn't compatible with it. It's standing with basically every other modern D&Dlike since 4e in doing so, and seemingly this is fine with nearly all players. I'm merely annoyed at the choice, because it's the only fundamental problem I have with PF2, and it's frankly too big a design problem to rework myself.

The problem with your approach to "intrinsic dcs" is that it would predicate on the idea of "you can only do what these skills say".
If the GM isn't allowed to make a call on what a DC is, then the players can only do what is pre-determined and would require the memorization of hundreds of prescribed actions. If you look at the OG d&d, there was a LOT of free formness going on. The GM was expected to make a call on how difficult a task was. Part of that is that real life isn't as cut and dry as you are stating the system to be.

Climbing a ladder might seem like a standard task, but not all ladders are equal. What if the ladder is rickety? Or if the ground under it is sandy or soft? Or if the ladder is at an odd angle?
And what about circumstances?
Climbing a ladder while carrying a person on your back? Or while someone is throwing things at you? Or while someone is shaking the ladder? Or while a particularly annoying child is pestering your with questions?

Any game that tries to involve the flexibility of human choice requires the GM to make adjustments to dcs on the fly. If you were playing a board game, that wouldn't be necessary, but a ttrpg has circumstances that the writers can't anticipate.

 

[billd91]

This is a thing I find particularly ridiculous. Generally speaking, the more dangerous and/or exciting something is, the more people would know about it (unless it's a thing they deal with every single day). I mean, ask people what they know about, say, elephants. Then ask them what they know about wolverines. I bet more people would have knowledge of elephants, despite the DC to know things about an elephant being 23 and a wolverine being 16.

I agree that CR is a bad tool to generally use for this sort of thing - to a point. A lot of high CR creatures are also very rare or would involve pretty specialized knowledge like extraplanar creatures or weird aberrations. Where it breaks down most is with more traditional threats like giants and trolls and more dangerous but semi-common creatures like the aforementioned elephant. Then, the creature's frequency should be brought to bear to effectively reduce the DC of the knowledge check rather than simply rely on raw CR.

 

[Pedantic]

The problem with your approach to "intrinsic dcs" is that it would predicate on the idea of "you can only do what these skills say".
If the GM isn't allowed to make a call on what a DC is, then the players can only do what is pre-determined and would require the memorization of hundreds of prescribed actions. If you look at the OG d&d, there was a LOT of free formness going on. The GM was expected to make a call on how difficult a task was. Part of that is that real life isn't as cut and dry as you are stating the system to be.

Climbing a ladder might seem like a standard task, but not all ladders are equal. What if the ladder is rickety? Or if the ground under it is sandy or soft? Or if the ladder is at an odd angle?
And what about circumstances?
Climbing a ladder while carrying a person on your back? Or while someone is throwing things at you? Or while someone is shaking the ladder? Or while a particularly annoying child is pestering your with questions?

Any game that tries to involve the flexibility of human choice requires the GM to make adjustments to dcs on the fly. If you were playing a board game, that wouldn't be necessary, but a ttrpg has circumstances that the writers can't anticipate.

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 you can get very far with a reasonable level of abstraction. Throw in a general small modifier for favorable/unfavorable circumstances, spend some time thinking about genre and the scope of expected action, and you're most of the way there. Stuff of any significant scope that isn't covered is either a splatbook opportunity, or likely sufficiently niche that a GM extrapolating from the closest applicable rule will do fine.

I won't argue it's not a lot of design work and a fairly hard design problem... But that's why I want a game to do it.

 

[Velderan]

This is a thing I find particularly ridiculous. Generally speaking, the more dangerous and/or exciting something is, the more people would know about it (unless it's a thing they deal with every single day). I mean, ask people what they know about, say, elephants. Then ask them what they know about wolverines. I bet more people would have knowledge of elephants, despite the DC to know things about an elephant being 23 and a wolverine being 16.

To me it makes some level of sense because the more dangerous something is, the rarer it will be that someone encountered it and lived to tell the tale about it.

As GM if a PC fails a recall knowledge check, I will sometimes still give them some basic bits of info about a creature that they might know if the creature is particularly notorious IMO.

 

[Staffan]

To be clear, in the kind of system I'm taking about, the DM is not empowered to set, say a DC 17 Athletics challenge. That isn't parsable, and isn't a thing a GM can do. Instead DC 17 Athletics check might grant the a player the ability to climb at their base movement speed over rough or worked stone walls.

I see where you're coming from, but you probably want to use another example than Athletics. Athletics already mostly works the way you want it to. Climb and Swim have simple DCs set based on circumstances (e.g. climbing a rope or a tree is Trained, and climbing a wall with some hand- and footholds is Expert). Pass, and you get to move a certain distance, more on a crit. Same with Long Jump and High Jump.

I agree that CR is a bad tool to generally use for this sort of thing - to a point. A lot of high CR creatures are also very rare or would involve pretty specialized knowledge like extraplanar creatures or weird aberrations.

Maybe, but that's what rarity is for. If I were in charge, I'd make Recall Knowledge based on simple DCs along these lines:
Untrained very common creatures
Trained common creatures
Expert uncommon creatures
Master rare creatures
Legendary creatures that are inherently unique.

For variants on creatures, add +2 DC for a "normal" variant and +5 for a more specific variant – but a roll against the baseline DC will still get you the basic information. For example, goblins are very common, so a regular goblin warrior would have a DC of 10. Goblin commando, goblin pyro, and goblin war chanter would fall under the +2 DC for variants, but a DC 10 check would still ID them as goblins.

Inherently Unique would be a qualifier for creatures that are truly one-of-a-kind, like the Tarrasque or Cerberus. You also have NPCs that are technically unique but are really just individual versions of a "normal" creature. In that case, just use the same rules as for variants or base the DC on notoriety. Some creatures might have different "social" and "combat" DCs as well – recognizing the Queen of Korvosa should be pretty easy, but knowing about any magic powers she has might not be.

 

[Blue]

You typically play games with no restrictions on actions? Interesting.

But hey, I get it, some folks don't like things to be strictly codified, like they are in PF2. Others think it's an advantage, since you know what you can and can't do, and it isn't (usually) subject to DM whimsy. A lot of folks still play OD&D, or other versions or offshoots, which is great. The hobby is big enough for everybody.

What I hear is that you don't like tracking adversaries and their abilities. Surprise! You'll need to do the same with any game system.

Why? Don't you trust your DM?
...
I bet you really don't like "secret checks".

I'm in a group that's looking at moving away from D&D 5e, and PF2r is one of our leading possibilities. But when one side consistently misinterprets what the other is saying, or assigns demeaning intent, it really feels like they are attacking people personally because their points don't hold up on their own.

Someone with a different opinion on a game system isn't your enemy. If PF2 is all you are claiming, then it should be able to rebuff the naysayers on it's own strengths. Let's keep this a clean discussion, without petty attacks or twists of what they are saying on others.

Thanks.