Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9382279" data-attributes="member: 6690965">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.</blockquote>

Verification