Pathfinder 2E PF2: Second Attempt Post Mortem

[Staffan]

I also am a little puzzled by someone feeling PF2e characters are skill-starved; maybe this is a consequences of playing a Fighter and a Champion, when 3e era D&D was notorious stingy with skills for Fighters and Paladins, but I felt I had a pretty reasonable number of skills there (partly, as you say, because picking up one along the way doesn't turn into an exercise in futility). Its possible that could feel that way for things like a Wizard who got a lot of skill points because of Int in earlier versions, but I'm kind of hard pressed to see it with any of the others.

IME, most characters have a fair amount of skills at low level. However, default level-based DCs go up faster than the 1/level you get just by leveling up, so you need to sink more resources into your skills in order to keep up. But that's when you start feeling starved for skills, as most characters only get a total of nine skill increases. The classes that feel this the most are the ones that are traditionally semi-skilled, like bards or rangers. These classes often have very strong incentives to increase certain skills (Occultism and Performance for bards, Nature and Survival for rangers), which leaves little room to play around in.

You also have some skills which tend to be tested against harder things than others. Stealth usually uses an opponent's Perception to set the DC, and a monster's Perception goes up even faster than normal level-based skill DCs. Thievery is often used on locks and traps, and they have horrendously high DCs to the point where if you're not maxed out with both skill ranks, stats, and gear, you might as well not bother.

It goes even beyond that though; a lot of people clearly expect a VTT to automate some elements of resolution, but no one asks why that's mandatory there, but you can do otherwise face to face.

I mean, I get some issues; having a die roller utility built in can at least be really desirable when playing with strangers, or for people who really like to see the die rolls as GMs.

But, while convenient, why does the VTT have to track hit points, monitor conditions, and all that? We get by fine without it face to face. But some people seem to take it as a given the VTT will do that or its unusable.

I think it's because once you get some automation, you start expecting more. I mean, the VTT knows that when I click Reflex on my character sheet, it is supposed to roll d20+the number it has calculated. But then it ought to know that I'm Clumsy 2 as well which should give me -2, ought it not?

I think it's also because the act of writing down a condition or similar thing IRL aids in remembering it, but just adding it in a VTT doesn't have the same tactile memory quality to it. There's something about having to think about a thing enough to write it down that fixes it in your memory.

 

[dave2008]

No, I'm pretty sure I do, I just don't think they work particularly well.

Well you stated:

"Not having to spend a valuable ASI on a Feat like in 5E,"

That makes it clear to me you don't understand 5e, because ASI are not really that valuable. In fact, I would argue 5e works great, possibly even better, without them.

We actually don't allow ASI in our game and only allow PCs to take feats. I personally think it makes for much more interesting characters and character advancement than ASIs, and it works fantastically mechanically. Again, I think it works better than the game with ASIs. It makes proficiency and expertise in skills even more valuable too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

IME, most characters have a fair amount of skills at low level. However, default level-based DCs go up faster than the 1/level you get just by leveling up, so you need to sink more resources into your skills in order to keep up. But that's when you start feeling starved for skills, as most characters only get a total of nine skill increases. The classes that feel this the most are the ones that are traditionally semi-skilled, like bards or rangers. These classes often have very strong incentives to increase certain skills (Occultism and Performance for bards, Nature and Survival for rangers), which leaves little room to play around in.

Possibly true. I hadn't felt my secondary skills were impossibly low compared to the target numbers I was given, but its also possible other people have different standards than I do too. They seemed so much more in the ballpark than the 3e or 4e secondary skills I'd had that it never felt painful

You also have some skills which tend to be tested against harder things than others. Stealth usually uses an opponent's Perception to set the DC, and a monster's Perception goes up even faster than normal level-based skill DCs. Thievery is often used on locks and traps, and they have horrendously high DCs to the point where if you're not maxed out with both skill ranks, stats, and gear, you might as well not bother.

Well, honestly, trap disarming has always been so much of a specialist art, the fact that unless you're hammering it hard Thievery won't be useful doesn't overly surprise me. Same to some extent for Stealth (at that it appears more useful at just Trained than you can often get out of half-assed Stealth investment in any number of games in and out of the D&D-sphere).

I think it's because once you get some automation, you start expecting more. I mean, the VTT knows that when I click Reflex on my character sheet, it is supposed to roll d20+the number it has calculated. But then it ought to know that I'm Clumsy 2 as well which should give me -2, ought it not?

See, I don't expect any automation at all, let alone the bells-and-whistles. Like I said, I want a way to put up maps and shuffle around tokens, and maybe a die roller. Everything else seems gravy to me.

I think it's also because the act of writing down a condition or similar thing IRL aids in remembering it, but just adding it in a VTT doesn't have the same tactile memory quality to it. There's something about having to think about a thing enough to write it down that fixes it in your memory.

Well, there are some additional options at least present there, like flagging a token so it has a visual indicator something is going on. But, again, even to the degree true--so write it down? Just because you're playing remotely doesn't mean you can't do that. I mean, honestly, there's no real need to have digital character sheets (though those can be convenient on other grounds).

 

[payn]

IME, most characters have a fair amount of skills at low level. However, default level-based DCs go up faster than the 1/level you get just by leveling up, so you need to sink more resources into your skills in order to keep up. But that's when you start feeling starved for skills, as most characters only get a total of nine skill increases. The classes that feel this the most are the ones that are traditionally semi-skilled, like bards or rangers. These classes often have very strong incentives to increase certain skills (Occultism and Performance for bards, Nature and Survival for rangers), which leaves little room to play around in.

You also have some skills which tend to be tested against harder things than others. Stealth usually uses an opponent's Perception to set the DC, and a monster's Perception goes up even faster than normal level-based skill DCs. Thievery is often used on locks and traps, and they have horrendously high DCs to the point where if you're not maxed out with both skill ranks, stats, and gear, you might as well not bother.

Oh, yeah, this. It feels like everything must be tied to your main stat or forget it. First level seems cool, but many of your skills become forgotten quickly as the chance of them being useful reduces without you being able to do anything about it. Top that off with only being able to bump your proficiency so often, your skill feat options shrink along with the skill effectiveness. Felt like every level just kept funneling all abilities into a smaller and smaller list of useful things. I dont like hyper specialization, I prefer versatile characters. PF2 felt downright claustrophobic.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Well you stated:

"Not having to spend a valuable ASI on a Feat like in 5E,"

That makes it clear to me you don't understand 5e, because ASI are not really that valuable. In fact, I would argue 5e works great, possibly even better, without them.

ASIs are absolutely valuable. In a game with limited ability to improve, getting a +1 to one stat or potentially two +1s (depending on where they are placed) can be big. For spellcasters, it nets you extra spells, improves your critical spell DC, among other things. For Paladins, it increases the bonus given by your aura. And even with martials, getting the pluses can be important; a Barbarian improving their Con has a lot of add-on effects over time. Don't talk to me about how ASIs are not valuable. They absolutely are.

Now can Feats be better? Depending on the feat, maybe. But it's definitely a real choice, and not a good one.

We actually don't allow ASI in our game and only allow PCs to take feats. I personally think it makes for much more interesting characters and character advancement than ASIs, and it works fantastically mechanically. Again, I think it works better than the game with ASIs. It makes proficiency and expertise in skills even more valuable too.

It's a false dilemma: the better solution would be to give players both. It's what I did when I ran 5E: I gave players a free feat to begin, then another at every 5th level. That way you not only get to improve your character's ability scores over time, but also get to add flavor through Feats.

The problem was that the designers went the wrong route in trying to make the "base style" the simplified one, rather than having Feats at the base. But that would also have meant they'd probably have to balance Feats, and they certainly didn't do that, either.

 

[dave2008]

ASIs are absolutely valuable. In a game with limited ability to improve, getting a +1 to one stat or potentially two +1s (depending on where they are placed) can be big. For spellcasters, it nets you extra spells, improves your critical spell DC, among other things. For Paladins, it increases the bonus given by your aura. And even with martials, getting the pluses can be important; a Barbarian improving their Con has a lot of add-on effects over time. Don't talk to me about how ASIs are not valuable. They absolutely are.

Yep, as I said, you don't get it. That is OK. 5e is not for you. It is not for a lot of people so I am sure you have good company.

Now can Feats be better? Depending on the feat, maybe. But it's definitely a real choice, and not a good one.

If your worrying about which is better you don't get it. That is OK.

The problem was that the designers went the wrong route in trying to make the "base style" the simplified one, rather than having Feats at the base. But that would also have meant they'd probably have to balance Feats, and they certainly didn't do that, either.

Wrong for you maybe, but not wrong in general. 5e doesn't need every increasing ability scores, that is one of the great beauties of the game. It is OK if you don't get it, if it is not to your taste. No need to get so upset.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yep, as I said, you don't get it. That is OK. 5e is not for you. It is not for a lot of people so I am sure you have good company.

I mean, I do get it. You're just being incredibly reductive for whatever reason.

If your worrying about which is better you don't get it. That is OK.

I mean, not really?

Wrong for you maybe, but not wrong in general. 5e doesn't need every increasing ability scores, that is one of the great beauties of the game. It is OK if you don't get it, if it is not to your taste. No need to get so upset.

I mean, by RAW it does. It literally has that as RAW, compared to how you play it. I don't even see how you can argue this when you yourself are playing a different way than intended.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Oh, yeah, this. It feels like everything must be tied to your main stat or forget it. First level seems cool, but many of your skills become forgotten quickly as the chance of them being useful reduces without you being able to do anything about it. Top that off with only being able to bump your proficiency so often, your skill feat options shrink along with the skill effectiveness. Felt like every level just kept funneling all abilities into a smaller and smaller list of useful things. I dont like hyper specialization, I prefer versatile characters. PF2 felt downright claustrophobic.

I disagree: I feel like you have strengths and weaknesses, but it prevents the sort of "Everyone takes a swing at the skill check!" stuff that frustrated me with 5E. I think the bigger thing here is that useful checks shouldn't always be maxed DCs. Then you can prioritize who goes to what task: if you don't need maximum stealth to do a certain task, then one of the people who have it as an off-skill can do instead. You can make up a multitude of routes and choices for what your party does.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, I do get it. You're just being incredibly reductive for whatever reason.

That is because I am "correct" for me and you are "correct" for you. My version just works better for 5e. Your version works better for some other game (I'm guessing PF2). And that is great for us both!

I mean, not really?

Yes, really from my perspective. See above.

I mean, by RAW it does. It literally has that as RAW, compared to how you play it. I don't even see how you can argue this when you yourself are playing a different way than intended.

I'm sorry you are wrong. By RAW the game math does not require ASIs or magic items. It works just fine if you only had the standard array and always used feats. That is a completely RAW option and it works. You absolutely do not need ever increasing ability scores. If you think otherwise, 5e probably isn't for you. Now, can you play it with ASIs, sure.

Now personally we do take it a step further and limit max ability scores to 18 instead of 20. So in truth, you can in fact use even less ability sore advancement than what is RAW and the game works great.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That is because I am "correct" for me and you are "correct" for you. My version just works better for 5e. Your version works better for some other game (I'm guessing PF2). And that is great for us both!

Yes, but you are telling me that I "don't get it", implying that I somehow don't understand. I do understand it. That we have different values of it doesn't mean one of lacks understanding.

Look... I'm going to chalk this up to poor wording, but saying "you don't understand" is very different than saying "you have a preference".

I'm sorry you are wrong. By RAW the game math does not require ASIs or magic items. It works just fine if you only had the standard array and always used feats. That is a completely RAW option and it works. You absolutely do not need ever increasing ability scores. If you think otherwise, 5e probably isn't for you. Now, can you play it with ASIs, sure.

I mean, by RAW, Feats aren't required either. It might be much duller, but the math and such works out just as well.

At the end, ASIs are a fairly valid choice depending what kind of character you are building. For spellcasters it's generally more worthwhile because it has much more of an impact on what you can do and how effective you are. For non-spellcasters, it depends on what class you are. Monks and Barbarians can use an extra ASI to improve their stats because they can potentially be pretty MAD: Barbarians can really benefit from every physical stat, while raising a Monk's AC can definitely help them be less squishy. Compared to what you might chose as a Feat, they can vary.

Now personally we do take it a step further and limit max ability scores to 18 instead of 20. So in truth, you can in fact use even less ability sore advancement than what is RAW and the game works great.

Sure? But again, by RAW Feats don't even need to be included. My whole point is that ASIs versus Feats carries an opportunity cost. If you don't think so, that's fine, but don't tell me I "don't understand".