Pathfinder 2E Regarding Competence

[Philip Benz]

A week ago, Thomas said this: "Well, I'm going to argue that a fairly limited number of people deliberately want to play a character who is incompetent at their apparent role. They may not focus on competence, but I'm going to doubt "My character is bad at what they do" is an attractive focus to most people, over and above the group dynamic problems."

This is spot on, IMHO, and one of the reasons I like games with a robust skill system, like PF2. It's quite easy to have a PC be highly competent in a couple chosen skills, and reasonably competent in many more, depending on how much effort you put into that.

But a lot depends on how a given DM chooses to set the DCs for skill challenges. When I'm DMing, I try to base nearly all checks on the examples given under the "sample x tasks" given for most skill actions, and only use level-based DCs when a PC is struggling directly against some other NPC or creature. I recall flipping through book 5 or 6 of one of the early Paizo PF2 APs, and seeing a DC in the mid-40s to discover some clue that had slipped down under some pillows. IMO, that is simply poor and misguided design. Once the PCs gain a few levels, many mundane tasks should become trivial to them, and there's no reason to set artifically high DC just to make some simple thing challenging to them.

I like having skills so much that on the few occasions when I get to take off the DM hat and play a character, I very often choose a rogue, just so I can go to town on skill selection. There are also a few archetypes that are very skill-friendly.

We used to play PF1, and before that DD3.5, and I always liked having skills to define what a character could or couldn't attempt. Those systems were more fiddly, with a pile of skill points you had to keep track of and allocate, but they still worked, even if they were far too open to abuse and option maxxing for my tastes. I think PF2 strikes up a reasonably good middle ground.

 

[Retreater]

A week ago, Thomas said this: "Well, I'm going to argue that a fairly limited number of people deliberately want to play a character who is incompetent at their apparent role. They may not focus on competence, but I'm going to doubt "My character is bad at what they do" is an attractive focus to most people, over and above the group dynamic problems."

I had a player back in the 3.5/PF era who definitely thought out of the box, not contributing a lot to combats but a great roleplayer and team player (in his own way). A pacifist fighter, who would engage and parry every attack until someone else took care of the creature or the enemy fled/surrendered in frustration. Or a naive cleric whose Wisdom was so low he couldn't cast above 2nd level spells - but he could use Cure wands.

 

[payn]

I miss having more interaction with the skill system. Each level you can pick which skills to focus on or learn in 3E/PF1. You can also boost your stats and find magic items to help improve your ability. Everything is so tightly wound in PF2 that it often feels like there is little you can do for the sake of variety. You go off the path just a bit, and the system punishes you harshly with ineffectiveness. I do like moving away from the gonzo nature of 3E/PF1 skill math, but I feel PF2 design choices were often an overreaction.

 

[Philip Benz]

I don't really see how you can "go off the path", nor what "ineffectiveness" you might risk by doing so. Sure, you can't advance all your skills. But even just being "trained" in a skill lets you get a quite decent bonus. And key skills, like "thievery" for a rogue, are a no-brained, it's so obviously one of the skills you want to max out as much as possible, along with skills tied to quasi-attack modes, like intimidation or athletics, if the associated actions are things your PC wants to do.

You quickly figure out that skills used to directly oppose enemy critters and NPCs are the ones you need at their highest levels possible.

My only real complaint would be that skill bonus items seem terribly over-leveled. As DM, those are some of the things I don't hesistate to hand out "early".

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think the bigger problem is the idea that all challenges have to be level-appropriate. Challenges should come from the world: a difficult-to-climb wall is DC25 at 1st level and at 20th level. While trained you might have problems climbing a slick sheer cliff in a hurricane at 20th level, you'll be able to efficiently climb a lot of places that could be useful. Even if it isn't your strength, it still opens up things in an open world.

 

[payn]

The skill feats are a real bummer. They took the template for combat feats in PF1 and brought that into the skill system. I mean, you have to choose from "awesome, but likely used once a campaign, cool, probably useful once a session, and boring, but useful in every combat" It's not really a choice. Speaking of choice, you make so few during level up , and nearly zero outside of finding magic gear. Stat generation is so painfully locked down you cant really create much variety with anything. There just isnt a lot of ways to interact with the system to generate a disparate character compared to PF1.

I think the bigger problem is the idea that all challenges have to be level-appropriate. Challenges should come from the world: a difficult-to-climb wall is DC25 at 1st level and at 20th level. While trained you might have problems climbing a slick sheer cliff in a hurricane at 20th level, you'll be able to efficiently climb a lot of places that could be useful. Even if it isn't your strength, it still opens up things in an open world.

This seems to be the way on PF2. For me, the +/lvl and proficiency gating is so gamey, I have a hard time coming to terms with the world and my immersion. Though, I get it. This is how PF differentiates itself from D&D now.

 

[the Jester]

I recall flipping through book 5 or 6 of one of the early Paizo PF2 APs, and seeing a DC in the mid-40s to discover some clue that had slipped down under some pillows. IMO, that is simply poor and misguided design. Once the PCs gain a few levels, many mundane tasks should become trivial to them, and there's no reason to set artifically high DC just to make some simple thing challenging to them.

This is a great example of a principle I try to hold to when doing adventure design- if you want to require a high DC check, it should deserve its DC. You want it to be a DC 40 check to break down a door? That door should be reinforced with broad metal bands and thick as a bear. You want to ask for a DC 40 check to climb a wall? That wall should be smooth and slippery, covered in grease, etc.

 

[Philip Benz]

For me, the "+/lvl" paradigm shoehorns directly into the notion that the higher level you are, the more exotic the locale you adventure in. That difficult-to-climb wall will never change its DC, but climbing the sheer metal walls of Castle Brass on the Plane of Fire will still be a challenge at the highest levels.

I also like that, with static DCs, you can fairly quickly get to the point where a critical success is frequently obtained, giving you added functionality (like added speed, or whatever).

Skill feats are really a mixed bag. Some of them I really like, others are so situational that I don't even bother. And the worst offenders are when they "feat-lock" an action that you should be able to attempt simply because you're an expert, master or legendary skill user.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The skill feats are a real bummer. They took the template for combat feats in PF1 and brought that into the skill system. I mean, you have to choose from "awesome, but likely used once a campaign, cool, probably useful once a session, and boring, but useful in every combat" It's not really a choice. Speaking of choice, you make so few during level up , and nearly zero outside of finding magic gear. Stat generation is so painfully locked down you cant really create much variety with anything. There just isnt a lot of ways to interact with the system to generate a disparate character compared to PF1.

God, I like stat generation so much more than any other d20 system out there. Way easier to create a character concept that feels coherent than trying to jury-rig something appropriate. And I've found the skill feats to be fairly useful, but YMMV. While some need tweaking, I think the system itself works pretty well.

This seems to be the way on PF2. For me, the +/lvl and proficiency gating is so gamey, I have a hard time coming to terms with the world and my immersion. Though, I get it. This is how PF differentiates itself from D&D now.

I dunno, I think what you're talking about is a problem with just about any d20 system. You need big numbers for someone skilled to have consistency, but it also becomes difficult for people who don't put resources into them. And if you want to keep it so people can still try stuff and have a chance of succeeding, it either makes your high skill characters too swingy or creates an inability to challenge them because their pluses beat any and every DC you can toss at them. Success-based systems like FFG's various dice or dice pools are generally better at skills because they create more consistency in the results.

 

[payn]

God, I like stat generation so much more than any other d20 system out there. Way easier to create a character concept that feels coherent than trying to jury-rig something appropriate. And I've found the skill feats to be fairly useful, but YMMV. While some need tweaking, I think the system itself works pretty well.

I was excited at first, then realized there is only 2-3 viable stat arrays that work for every character. Just ditch the A,B,C stuff and go array. Which, of course, makes stats uniform and less interesting, albeit easier for the system to manage.

I dunno, I think what you're talking about is a problem with just about any d20 system. You need big numbers for someone skilled to have consistency, but it also becomes difficult for people who don't put resources into them. And if you want to keep it so people can still try stuff and have a chance of succeeding, it either makes your high skill characters too swingy or creates an inability to challenge them because their pluses beat any and every DC you can toss at them. Success-based systems like FFG's various dice or dice pools are generally better at skills because they create more consistency in the results.

Not really, I mean 5E bounded accuracy pretty much cleared it up. I get that Paizo couldnt go down that path, but I think its the best one as far as D20 is concerned.

 

[payn]

Skill feats are really a mixed bag. Some of them I really like, others are so situational that I don't even bother. And the worst offenders are when they "feat-lock" an action that you should be able to attempt simply because you're an expert, master or legendary skill user.

Agreed. I wish they would have done more with proficiency gating. For example, character A has a lore skill trained, but character B has that lore skill at master. Have the A character roll to recall the knowledge, but just give it to the B character at master. I'm not sure if thats ever spelled out in the GM guide or not, but it makes the most sense to me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I was excited at first, then realized there is only 2-3 viable stat arrays that work for every character. Just ditch the A,B,C stuff and go array. Which, of course, makes stats uniform and less interesting, albeit easier for the system to manage.

I disagree. I mean, compared to 5E you can actually be fairly well-rounded because you get a good number of ASIs over time. 5E forces you to chose between an ASI and a Feat, and that's generally just bad. There's no way to improve a weakness in 5E in the same way you can in PF2.

Not really, I mean 5E bounded accuracy pretty much cleared it up. I get that Paizo couldnt go down that path, but I think its the best one as far as D20 is concerned.

Bounded Accuracy blows. It incentivizes you go with skills that match your stats, otherwise you have to wait a dozen levels to equal someone who specializes in that stat. A fighter who takes History but doesn't have good intelligence is going to pale to a Wizard who didn't touch the skill. Why have Animal Handling on a Ranger when a Paladin is going to have the Charisma to outstrip you on it?

This is the problem with small numbers, especially on a linear die roll. There's just no benefit to simply having the skill, you have to have the stats to really use it. It's why in my game I split uses into "Trained" and "Untrained", where people who have the skill are at Advantage on Untrained checks and people who don't have the skill are at Disadvantage on Trained checks.

 

[Philip Benz]

Payn, those are the kind of tweaks that a DM can provide, to reinforce his "take" on the skill proficiency system. While I agree that it would have been nice to see more of this in the RAW, at some point a DM has to take the system as it was given to him, and twist it to satisfy whatever vision he might have.

 

[payn]

I disagree. I mean, compared to 5E you can actually be fairly well-rounded because you get a good number of ASIs over time. 5E forces you to chose between an ASI and a Feat, and that's generally just bad. There's no way to improve a weakness in 5E in the same way you can in PF2.

Those ASIs just allow you to tread water in the +/lvl system. They don't let you get ahead or do anything interesting.

Bounded Accuracy blows. It incentivizes you go with skills that match your stats, otherwise you have to wait a dozen levels to equal someone who specializes in that stat. A fighter who takes History but doesn't have good intelligence is going to pale to a Wizard who didn't touch the skill. Why have Animal Handling on a Ranger when a Paladin is going to have the Charisma to outstrip you on it?

I agree, coupling skills with stats in 5E is janky, but I also think the skill system is the worst one in D&D history. The concept of BA is still the best one for D20. Also, advantage/disadvantage is too simplified and is actually not a great implementation IMO.

 

[payn]

Payn, those are the kind of tweaks that a DM can provide, to reinforce his "take" on the skill proficiency system. While I agree that it would have been nice to see more of this in the RAW, at some point a DM has to take the system as it was given to him, and twist it to satisfy whatever vision he might have.

I get that, but its still tough as a player because you rely on the system to inform you how the game is played. Otherwise, you enter oberoni territory and I dont think thats good game design.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Those ASIs just allow you to tread water in the +/lvl system. They don't let you get ahead or do anything interesting.

I dunno, I find it to be useful particularly in regards to skills and such. Allows you to fill out different stuff. Like, you can have an intelligent fighter because you have so many damn ASIs that you have to start spending them somewhere, plus you start to get diminishing returns past 18. Like, there's always good uses for tertiary stats in PF2 while in 5E if you suck at something to start with, you're going to suck at it forever.

Though really 5E would benefit from this system so much because it'd be so nice to improve your low stats, but there's just little reason to.

I agree, coupling skills with stats in 5E is janky, but I also think the skill system is the worst one in D&D history. The concept of BA is still the best one for D20. Also, advantage/disadvantage is too simplified and is actually not a great implementation IMO.

There's some level of potential in the pile of parts that is 5E's skill system. However, as it stands it really sucks. It was literally the first thing I changed when I played the game.

 

[payn]

I dunno, I find it to be useful particularly in regards to skills and such. Allows you to fill out different stuff. Like, you can have an intelligent fighter because you have so many damn ASIs that you have to start spending them somewhere, plus you start to get diminishing returns past 18. Like, there's always good uses for tertiary stats in PF2 while in 5E if you suck at something to start with, you're going to suck at it forever.

Really, it just allows you the most basic ability to do things as the +1s start flying from level. 5E skill system really is the Ronco "set it and forget" system. Its awful.

Though really 5E would benefit from this system so much because it'd be so nice to improve your low stats, but there's just little reason to.

It's certainly an opportunity because it would actually do what you think PF2 does for 5E.

There's some level of potential in the pile of parts that is 5E's skill system. However, as it stands it really sucks. It was literally the first thing I changed when I played the game.

Its true. I'd rather have PF2's skill system, but with bounded accuracy instead of +/lvl treadmill.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Really, it just allows you the most basic ability to do things as the +1s start flying from level.

To an extent, though they've done a good enough job at balancing between attributes that you have real choices and benefits even from a +1. It really helps that an Intelligence AB straight up gives you another Trained skill.

5E skill system really is the Ronco "set it and forget" system. Its awful.

It's one of those instances where simplicity absolutely destroys it.

It's certainly an opportunity because it would actually do what you think PF2 does for 5E.

Its true. I'd rather have PF2's skill system, but with bounded accuracy instead of +/lvl treadmill.

I mean, a small adjustment of the PF2 math and you can probably get closer to that.

 

[Staffan]

I think skill DCs are generally a bit too high, but that's because I like PCs to be competent. I think a baseline should be about a 2/3 chance of success, which means 8+ on the d20. Given how few skill increases non-rogues (and non-investigators) get, you shouldn't really assume that people can increase their skills. So here's what I'd base skill DCs on:

Level-based: Assume a stat of 12, trained proficiency, and no items. So your bonus will be level+3. That means that an 8+ will succeed on DC 11+level.
"But that means people with high proficiencies and high stats and bonus items will automatically succeed!" — Yes. That's a feature, not a bug. If you're a 15th level legendary crafter trying to repair a 15th level item, the question should be whether you succeed or crit, not whether you fail or succeed. Repairing a 15th level item is an interesting challenge for a 15th level character who's just Trained in Crafting.

Static DCs: Figure out at what point someone could get a particular proficiency level and calculate from there. You can also assume a bit more specialization than general level-based skill DCs, because the demands of an Expert or a Master DC should be higher than a level 3 or level 7 DC.
Trained: That's just a level 1 level-based check, so DC 12.
Expert: Minimum level 3 (barring shenanigans), and I'd assume a 14 in the stat. So DC 8 (roll) + 7 (proficiency) + 2 (stat) = 17.
Master: Minimum level 7, assume stat 16, and a +1 item bonus. So DC 8 + 13 + 3 + 1 = 25.
Legendary: Minimum level 15, assume stat 18, and a +2 item bonus. So DC 8 + 23 + 4 + 2 = 37.

Also, be very restrictive with gating actions behind higher proficiency levels than Trained. You should not need to be a Master thief to be able to disarm a high-level trap.

 

[payn]

One part I struggle with is in and out of combat skill usage. A GM can set the DC as they see fit, but those numbers are set in combat. Once you reach severe/extreme encounter level, all bets are off on your skills being of any use. It all rolls down hill tho, even your chance at a crit is nil, while its a good chance for the NPC/monster. Ranging from, easy, barely an inconvenience, to snowballs chance in hell is a bit odd for me to come to terms with. I dont want to score crits on scrubs, I want to score them on the real challenges!

So, I think im less critical of the skill system out of combat, which is really a system criticism at this point, and im letting spill into skills. Sorry about my bah humbugging these conversations really do help me understand PF2 better.