Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and the two dichotomies

[kenada]

With regard to the level DCs, my understanding is that it’s still environmentally based. So that wall that was a DC 15 to climb, will always be DC 15 to climb. Another wall ( an abyssal wall of spikes, flames and grease) would have a higher DC because you need to be higher level to even survive that environment and it would be a lot harder.

This is what DM David was discussing. A standard wall is always the same DC, but the kinds of walls the PCs encounter scale up with them (via increased fluff to their descriptions). The mechanical effect is you start at a baseline percentage chance of success and only creep a little bit over twenty levels when taking on level-appropriate challenges.

Saying this is environmentally based is just cover for the treadmill. Sometimes the devs slip. There was a blog post a few months back that described a navigational challenge through a maze. They advise scaling the to the level of the PCs. No fluff!

 

[payn]

I kind of understand why PF2 focused on level-appropriate challenges, but Paizo entirely forgot why and how players get the warm fuzzy feeling that their characters are awesome: because they become awesome at doing stuff.

It would have been very interesting to see an alternate universe where Pathfinder 2 didn't go the treadmill route - where, say, a wall remained DC 15 to climb no matter the level of the heroes.

Your Athletics bonus of +36 feels much less awesome if every wall you encounter in practical play is DC 45 or whatever. In fact, the awesomeness is dispelled entirely when you realize you are no better against your current challenges than you were at level 1 (with your Athletics of +6) at your then-current challenges. And I think Paizo underestimated that.

I remember having these complaints during the playtest. A common answer was something around proficiency gating. Is that called out in the CRB at all? For example, if you are legendary in a skill you shouldn't even have to roll to do cool things? A level 10 barbarian isnt better at skills than a level 3 rogue because the Barb doesn't have the proficiencies. Is that ever explained in the GMG or anywhere else? I am asking becasue I always heard this was the answer to my problems with the skill and +1/lvl system but never seen it in action.

 

[kenada]

Okay.

I still reserve the right to review a game from a home game usage, unless the game is clearly billed as a tournament game first and foremost.

While I think it’s possible to do PFS at home, point taken. I’ve done PFS a few times at conventions and felt bad for those who only did PFS. You’re missing out on a lot without being able to tinker with the system or even just being able to exercise agency as a player. I’d still rate my experience higher the AL though (but I digress).

 

[kenada]

I remember having these complaints during the playtest. A common answer was something around proficiency gating. Is that called out in the CRB at all? For example, if you are legendary in a skill you shouldn't even have to roll to do cool things? A level 10 barbarian isnt better at skills than a level 3 rogue because the Barb doesn't have the proficiencies. Is that ever explained in the GMG or anywhere else? I am asking becasue I always heard this was the answer to my problems with the skill and +1/lvl system but never seen it in action.

They have the later kind (that limits participation) but not the former as far as I can recall. It’s particularly common with hazards.

 

[Campbell]

Proficiency gating is thing, but mostly just for Hazards, Locks and Recall Knowledge.

 

[CapnZapp]

Proficiency gating is thing, but mostly just for Hazards, Locks and Recall Knowledge.

Also magic items, in particular Talismans.

I don't understand it.

Maybe for locks and other actions you can basically just repeat until successful (meaning that the task resolution is just (mis)used to answer "how long does it take?" rather than "can you do it?"), but definitely not for hazards and other activities where the cost in actions is a real cost.

 

[kenada]

I feel like if you need to consider multiple axes (proficiency rank and DC), your skill system is flawed. However, that may just be my dislike of “modern” skill systems speaking.

 

[Campbell]

I'm personally not really much of a fan of Proficiency gating anything except access to feats. It's largely there to solve a theoretical problem that I don't really view as a problem (High level Barbarians disarming traps or knowing stuff). It's anti-Conan. I'm pro-Conan.

 

[payn]

I'm personally not really much of a fan of Proficiency gating anything except access to feats. It's largely there to solve a theoretical problem that I don't really view as a problem (High level Barbarians disarming traps or knowing stuff). It's anti-Conan. I'm pro-Conan.

The problem for me is it was universal. You just get better at everything because you leveled. Even better than characters of lower level who actually invested in things, which just feels wrong to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I feel like if you need to consider multiple axes (proficiency rank and DC), your skill system is flawed. However, that may just be my dislike of “modern” skill systems speaking.

It does have the effect of forcing players into pigeonholes. An adventuring party should be able to make due without a Rogue, but that’s hard, even if another character takes Thievery, because Rogues are virtually the only class that get a bunch of free skill advances.