I think a major part of the problem here is with having skill challenges that can only be solved with one skill. Good adventure design is allowing for a variety of viable approaches to advance the plot, and bottlenecking the approach to a particular skill means that that part of the adventure was poorly designed. The minimum proficiency for hazards and rituals would probably not be as much of a problem if they all offered at least 2 regular skills and 1 lore that could solve the problem. Alternatively, rather than penalize players for not having minimum proficiency, you could award players who do have the proficiency. For example, for certain checks, you can roll against the DC and hope you get lucky, but if you meet a certain proficiency threshold, you treat your check results as one step higher. This would let you still keep the feeling of proficiency being very important to the check while not having it feel oppressive to players who didn't increase that proficiency. Also, minimum proficiency to attempt perception never makes sense from a storytelling perspective, let alone a gameplay one. There is nothing that is impossible to notice without formal training, just things that are very difficult.
One other useful thing to note is that as a GM, you can just give player characters extra abilities if you want to. (Outside of organized play of course) If your plot-bearing ritual requires a certain proficiency in Religion, you could just add an NPC who can train a character in Religion in addition to the skill increases that they get from their class. Many official adventure paths lean into that, such as how Strength of Thousands hands out skill increases and skill feats for advancing your standing within your branch of the Maagambya.
My GM tends to allow us to use alternative skills in leu of the specific one in many of these cases. though its usually at a slightly higher DC. it still rewards the player who chose to take the specific skill, with a lower DC, while letting others be involved with a wider option of skills and not completely blocking the part for not taking the required skills.
I mostly agree, but on the point of perception, there are WWII marine vets who served in the Pacific who would disagree. I don't think it should be a super common thing, let a lone a requirement for story progression, but certainly advantageous in certain circumstances like spotting an ambush before it happens (which is ideally the point anyway). Just my two cents, though
I like minimum proficiency; I purposely use it to gate off parts of my game until they reach a certain level or come up with a truly ingenious solution around the obstacle. I like my players coming back to problem they couldn't get past before and because they leveled through hard fought fights and experiences. I never lock things necessary for the objective behind it but extra bits of cool loot, or convenient shortcuts. the problem you are coming across has more to do with bad module writing than the actual rule. Seems you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is your right to use the rules as best they fit your game obviously, I don't use the diagonal squares take up more movement rule because it actually makes no sense so, I don't follow all the rules verbatim either.
I keep minimum proficiency for rituals as I see the logic on needing higher knowledge on complicated (high level) rituals, but always have an npc to cast useful rituals as resurrection as needed (and take away some of that gold rooting away in the base). On the hazzards department, that´s a different thing. I took away the proficiency requirement, but aded a penalty, the bigger the skill difference the bigger the malus. So if you are away only 1 step (let´s say an expert character trying to deactivate a master trap) you have a -2 penalty. That way my bigger malus is -8; an untrained character trying to deactivate a legendary trap (yes I do not take from an untrained player the oportunity to epically fail).
For rituals it's not usually a problem as you can always include an NPC expert to help. With hazards it can be a big problem. One possible solution is allow multiple skill choices to ensure at least one party member has something that can be used.
Minimum proficiency honestly feels like it's already covered by DCs existing as is, so minimum proficiency honestly feels a little redundant. There's a few spots of PF2 that I don't like or agree with and this (as an extension of how explicit some skill requirements can be sometimes) is one of them. I sometimes wish there was an expectation that the DCs and required skills were more just a suggestion, like a 'default' that GMs were encouraged to adjust where it makes sense. It's definitely a way to run things, but it'd kinda be nice if the rules reflected it too, might help slightly with the perception that PF2 is 'too rigid'.
Now that's an unexpected find Hey Zedrin! I do agree that a more flexible mechanic would be better, but for the last 2 years of playing PF2E I've never encountered problems like this or in the video I feel like those are homebrewed or just circumvented subconsciously by many GMs
@@Reekloose it's a problem more encountered with APs. Usually for home games with haunts and traps you'll select them based on party capabilities to reduce this problem from arising.
I keep minimum proficiency because I dont view it as a "you take damage, Sorry". in hazards I view it as a method to ensure that players do not always succeed or have the ability to succeed and needs to come up with other creative solutions. That fireball or primal trap may react to living creatures so if a partymember has a jade serpent or summon spell they can trigger it safely. Other traps can be damaged, Players can also decide to just dash trough it after having taken precautions to minimize the damage they take. The party does not always need to succeed or have the ability to succeed on every challenge.
Potential middle-ground solution idea: Maybe make it so that when someone doesn't have the required proficiency rank, make it so that they take a penalty on the check (Smth like a -2).This allows you to still keep the upsides while solving the gatekeeping problem. Players who don't have the skill leveled far enough are gonna have a far harder time, but they still stand a realistic chance at success.
@emptyptr9401 I was also thinking of simply making it so that if you get a crit success without a nat 20 it doesn't count but then I realized... Well what are the chances of a crit sucess if you aren't at the proficiency expected of you
@@chiragasnani3437 If you are not trained you are not gonna succeed anyway at anything that isn't the low levels cause you don't add your level. I assume what you mean is if you are trained instead of expert, for example. And the answer is: Yes (usually), and that is kind of the point. The idea is after all that you need to reach a certain level of proficiency in order to be able to effectively do something. The idea is to have certain actions be gatekept behind proficiency levels and to value not a high overall score, but to value the proficiency level itself. After all, a Bard that is trained in Diplomacy is still likely to be as good as a fighter that is expert, and the designers (rightfully) want being an "expert" mean more than just having the score be 2 higher. Also, while "Every plus 1 matters" is certainly true, we also shouldn't overstate how much they matter. A +2 often noticeable, but not THAT often, especially on checks where critically succeeding doesn't matter as much (Like with many skill checks). It comes up in approximately a little less than 20% of checks. So in that sense it would also make being an "expert" feel a lot more noticeable and thus more rewarding rewarding when it comes up.
@@PsiPrimeProductions1 Wherein specifically lies the problem? I assume that you refer to the first comment. The goal is after all to "penalize" not reaching the required level so that actually reaching it feels rewarding. The problem, as I understand it, lies in the fact that completely gatekeeping players who don't have the right skill is far to harsh and hurts the game. If we now made the check disproportionally harder for people without the needed proficiency, but still gave them a decent chance at managing to meet it, wouldn't that solve the problem? What are issues you think arise in that case?
Ultimately the minimum proficiency rule exists to emphasize the proficiency ranks. So you get to feel that having taken master, makes you better than staying expert other than +2. So if I come across a check noone qualifies for, I usually drop the required proficiency until at least one person qualifies.
the concept its good, the hazard and the skills are keep it relevant at higher levels thar way, but always keeping in consideration/adapting to the party, maybe changing religion for occultism for example
I like the mimlnimum proficiency, just not for redundant things. Like i get having to be expert for rituals and stuff like that. But having to be legendary in a skill for disarming traps is unfun. My take is to make a dual checks system. You may do this expected check and the DC is lower for it, or this other check which has a slightly higher DC. This lets more skills have chances to be used, but not shut down those special moments where the Nature focused Druid can stop a natural trap or the Inventor can disable the golems with their Crafting.
Personally I think if I was running a Pathfinder game, I would keep the minimum proficiency (for everything) though I would drop the level by one each time to a minimum of trained. Just my two cents.
I came into this video wanting to disagree with you. However, after watching I think you convinced me. You must have legendary diplomacy to persuade me lol Great vid, probably gonna follow your lead on this one.
Actually I never felt the need to Increase my Crafting as an Alchemist. But I 100% agree with everything else in this video. I think biggest gripe is how silly certain disable checks can be. I remmeber one example where the PCs has to use Thievery to flip some mirrors around and I felt silly asking the Players to Roll to "Flip Mirrors".
Yeah sometimes with "professional" adventure paths you need a good pair of scissors to cut out the some stuff that just doesn't fit your table or is just plain bad. Professional doesn't always mean "good" or "balanced" it just means someone got paid for it. Being a good adventure writer and being paid to write are two different things. Sometimes they even overlap.
I think min proficiency is important in a game using a variant rule such as Proficiency Without Level, but without that I totally agree! I feel like your modifier should be the thing stopping you from doing XYZ and not "the game won't let you attempt this at all". Rituals are the one area I think it makes sense as I can see the narrative reason for it (I still don't particularly care for it there). If your characters have learned that ritual and can hit that DC I think they earned it. But I greatly dislike it for hazards and will probably cut it from hazards for that reason Gating "progression" behind having an exact tool to fit an exact situation is poor adventure design. I am *fine* with rituals in general requiring a higher level of training, but rituals in general are not needed in order to progress The Plot. You NEED to overcome hazards to progress the plot so I find it harmful for the game as a whole. You need to disable or circumvent hazards to progress The Plot, so now The Plot is only possible to progress for specific parties. This is why so many complex hazards have a hardness and an HP, that way if all else fails you just brute force through it with a barbarian that has bonus damage and can shred the tin foil walls, but then that negates the whole point of using a hazard rather than a creature. I have been running Victory Points scenes instead of complex hazards in my game and I think it has made my game more lively (in part because everyone is free to come up with a creative way to participate)
Great video, totally awesome commentary. Yeah, it totally makes sense to have "minimum proficiencies" as you say (only someone with master thievery should be able to crack that masterwork one of a kind impossible to crack vault), but gated the solution to anything behind minimum proficiencies and then penalising the PCs for not having it is railroading, and frankly, abusive GM'ing. In homebrew we can easily adapt accordingly, or simply downgrade the expected minimum proficiency if it makes sense, but Paizo can't predict what is at every table when they write these APs. They could not insist on minimum proficiencies but that too is a loss, because I feel like it might give players an opportunity to feel special and reward them for specialising in certain skills/feats. Assuming they choose it, and weren't forced into the situation.
Same. I only really make it count for qualifying for a feats or trained actions for skills unless I decide to just give a penalty instead of just saying no
In the case of the ritual, characters can just retrain after, it should not be a big problem. Even in character it makes sense that they research for a couple weeks before performing an important ritual. Also same as with spellcasting services you could hire an expert NPC to help with the ritual (not sure if it works on your AP but seems reasonable if in a city) About the hazards though I agree. Some high level hazards in APs seem to require one very specific skill and my players had to resort to breaking it or running through and ignoring a haunt or similar. The fact AP hazards are often 2 to 3 levels higher than party makes this much worse too
Yeah, in this AP, the players are cut off from the outside world and are the highest level people around. Also, the player didn't want to retrain out of religion for fear that having expert in religion would come up again (which it has, though not in so drastic a fashion.)
Minimums for hazards is stupid I agree, but on the case of rituals I feel that if the ritual is REQUIRED then it have those removed while rituals that are done willingly by the players keeps the minimum requiremnents.
I agree and have already been doing this. Too many locks and traps need high Thievery and it is hard enough getting the DC when someone is only Expert making it impossible by saying they need Master or higher just to deal with the problem makes having the skill at all useless. Ideally Hazards should have several ways to deal with them so that players can get creative. I have let players use other skills when they come up with an idea just make the DC harder.
I think there is a place for it as it rewards advancing certain skills to higher levels and it feels good to be the only person capable of doing something because you are better than everyone else, but yeah adventures shouldn't be in a place where the plot can only advance because of this one specific check. That would be easy enough for a GM to reduce the requirement or allow a different skill though
I always would prefer higher proficiency checks, then to have a minimum proficiency. You can also make something impossible to solve with a very high check, but if you’re rolling at 20, you still are able to do it.
i like it, it's another incentive for players to diversify their skills and another mechanic that makes proficiency more than numbers. and it looks gameplay away the same eay that archetypes or feats are locked away, so I'm fine with that
I think the skill levels may often need adjusting, but there's no problem with the rule itself. The example of the mandatory AP ritual is a fault of the AP. "my players don't have this one skill so they have no choice but to trigger the hazard" What other options have they tried? What other avenues are available? Part of the fun is coming up with creative solutions to shore up or overcome the group's weaknesses. If there is ever only one way forward or one method to do a thing, then that's a failing of the GM and/or players.
There would be a middle ground option: If the players are creative they can describe another way how to deal with the challenge so that they don't have to make the check. The Requirements are only there for the guaranteed way to solve it.
Sure I do that. For this particular situation, I would have allowed, maybe, expert in spirit lore or something. Sadly, no one in the party had that either.
@@PsiPrimeProductions1 Oh wow. Hey Thanks for answering : ) I was more thinking along the line of giving them a way to study this ritual specifically and then making the DC a bit more difficult, since they lack the Expertise in the Skill. This way they have a decision/trade-off if they want to sacrifice a Skill Increase or make it harder. And for the traps, I have heard of people hiring an entire town to remove the mountaintop above a dungeon to then be able to access all rooms freely or the classical herd of pigs. Depending on the Trap there is usually an option in that direction. (But of course depending on the group it may be the best solution to just remove the restriction)
I don't pay any attention to minimum proficiencies, anyways. One of the issues I have with PF2E is that there are entirely too many dice rolls with thus too many chances for characters to fail at things they want to accomplish. On things like traps, etc., I'd much rather describe what they see and let them decide how to approach it. Only when a player says, "OK, my character is a lot better at this than I am." will I have them roll. This allows me to keep the game moving (as opposed to getting bogged down with mechanics), and fosters a sense of accomplishment by players when they figure something out - a feeling that is decidedly lacking just from rolling high on a die roll. This does create the need for me to present a proper description, but I find that more fun than looking up a mechanic and assigning a DC. I'm also a big fan of alternative routes to the same end, so when a player thinks outside the box to finesse a problem, I'm tickled pink. Ommv. I recognize that some people like rules-heavy stuff, and more power to you.
maybe, if the requirement for a high skill level is placed on disabling the hazard, but the hazard is relatively easy to detect, it could be used as a way to encourage the party to hire an expert? if that's a thing your table does, at least?
I understand your point, but sometime, it is important to tell players they cannot do something. They need help of somebody else, a special object, or a mini quest that will allow them to perform the master or legendary task. In DD5, the problem is the contrary, the barbarian has a good chance to find this legendary book in the library, the wizard can jump between two balconies distant by 90-foot... etc. A d20 plus mod, DC 20, is not enough. I would guess the fun way would be to improvise the need of this minimum profenciency
Sure that's one way, but if you 'need' to tell a player that they can't do something for plot reasons, you could probably just include a McGuffin. Not supposed to do a ritual yet? Tell your players that the ritual requires artifact X to pull off, and they need to go find it. Need to gate lock a skill check? Simply say ?You don't know enough about what's going on to complete this task. You need to investigate Z before you do it." I think that works a lot better than minimum proficinecies.
With rituals, i don't see minimum proficiency as an issue if you can also take the time to retrain in and out of skills (or even hiring experts for asseen in comments). And for the hazards, if no-one in the party has the "high minimum proficiency" required I would definitely just use the "moderate minimum proficiency"... I would keep one or two "high minimum proficiency" perception checks (nothing too deadly though), just to highlight that maybe the party balance isn't 100% there
I loathe Hazards in APs. Not only do you need the right skill, it also must be on the right Proficiency and _then_ you still have to make a roll. And given my party just TPKd to the final Hazard in Cosmic Birthday after defeating the boss? Yeah, not a fan. They need to be way more permissive with Skills, so most can at least try. And give us a lower DC for higher Proficiency instead.😢
I would allow skill substitutions, provided you can come up with a good justification. Have Legendary in Arcana instead of Religion? You might might not have the theological grasp needed to perform the ritual, but you can understand the underlying magical principles well enough to fake it, just at a -2 penalty.
Seems easy enough to fix with a rare and expensive consumable that temporarily increases a player's skill level, or a helpful NPC the players save in an ad hoc side quest.
Ive not dumped Min proficiency for rituals because they dont come up TOO often in my games and for certain rituals I provide NPCs who can perform em. But HAZZARDS oh yeah I've long considered dropping that shit. Just because you know NOTHING about a bomb doesn't mean you can't get lucky trying to defuse one. Somtimes the red wire happens to be right to cut.
I see where you're coming from, but I feel like you're taking this the same way of 'illusion of choice' came from. Admittedly, I've been growing to like paizo adventure paths less and less for various reasons, and this point of being pigeon holed into being or doing something a certain way is certainly part of it. If something like a ritual has to be performed, give your players options to accomplish it instead of forcing them to make character choices they didn't want, like providing an NPC that can help them make the difference or, something I've done a couple times, give them a free skill enhancement that doesn't count against their character development progression. Doing away with this rule is, in my opinion, just a superficial response to a bigger issue. The whole point of a roleplaying game is to be able to make your own choices and reaping the consequences of said choices, for better or for worse. Just as you shouldn't go out of your was to punish a player (or players), don't go do the opposite. Ultimately, I think your decision here is totally yours, but before you take it to the Internet to influence others (which is what happens on platforms like RUclips), perhaps consider all the angles and maybe do what you do in most all your videos and open it to the community for ideas. I like your channel and enjoy your videos, so I hope this doesn't come across as me being hateful or rude. I just want there to be a voice for what I believe is the bigger picture.
I think the way skill scaling in PF2e is bad. It means you have to go all in on skills, and by late game proficiency means bad and legendary means decent. Legendary training should be almost an auto pass on a skill. We are supposed to be heroic characters.
...legendary does almost always pass. Even once you're at 10-12 you will pass almost any check with your master skills if you have some points in that attribute. Edit: on my level 12 swash's best 3 skills I'd have to roll a 5 and 4 to meet the standard level dc and that's excluding my +2 bonus if it has bravado. That's only a 20% and 15% chance to fail, unless it has the bravado trait, then it goes down to 10% and 5%.
@Wonderwall627 it's actually 14+skill. And that depends. If you go all in on a skill, you are almost promised to pass. Training means you can make a desperate attempt. Master is around where it's reliable and decent. Now I don't like when it requires legendary for some traps, which PF has a major issue on.
I think a major part of the problem here is with having skill challenges that can only be solved with one skill. Good adventure design is allowing for a variety of viable approaches to advance the plot, and bottlenecking the approach to a particular skill means that that part of the adventure was poorly designed. The minimum proficiency for hazards and rituals would probably not be as much of a problem if they all offered at least 2 regular skills and 1 lore that could solve the problem.
Alternatively, rather than penalize players for not having minimum proficiency, you could award players who do have the proficiency. For example, for certain checks, you can roll against the DC and hope you get lucky, but if you meet a certain proficiency threshold, you treat your check results as one step higher. This would let you still keep the feeling of proficiency being very important to the check while not having it feel oppressive to players who didn't increase that proficiency.
Also, minimum proficiency to attempt perception never makes sense from a storytelling perspective, let alone a gameplay one. There is nothing that is impossible to notice without formal training, just things that are very difficult.
One other useful thing to note is that as a GM, you can just give player characters extra abilities if you want to. (Outside of organized play of course) If your plot-bearing ritual requires a certain proficiency in Religion, you could just add an NPC who can train a character in Religion in addition to the skill increases that they get from their class. Many official adventure paths lean into that, such as how Strength of Thousands hands out skill increases and skill feats for advancing your standing within your branch of the Maagambya.
My GM tends to allow us to use alternative skills in leu of the specific one in many of these cases. though its usually at a slightly higher DC. it still rewards the player who chose to take the specific skill, with a lower DC, while letting others be involved with a wider option of skills and not completely blocking the part for not taking the required skills.
I mostly agree, but on the point of perception, there are WWII marine vets who served in the Pacific who would disagree. I don't think it should be a super common thing, let a lone a requirement for story progression, but certainly advantageous in certain circumstances like spotting an ambush before it happens (which is ideally the point anyway). Just my two cents, though
I like minimum proficiency; I purposely use it to gate off parts of my game until they reach a certain level or come up with a truly ingenious solution around the obstacle. I like my players coming back to problem they couldn't get past before and because they leveled through hard fought fights and experiences. I never lock things necessary for the objective behind it but extra bits of cool loot, or convenient shortcuts. the problem you are coming across has more to do with bad module writing than the actual rule. Seems you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is your right to use the rules as best they fit your game obviously, I don't use the diagonal squares take up more movement rule because it actually makes no sense so, I don't follow all the rules verbatim either.
I keep minimum proficiency for rituals as I see the logic on needing higher knowledge on complicated (high level) rituals, but always have an npc to cast useful rituals as resurrection as needed (and take away some of that gold rooting away in the base).
On the hazzards department, that´s a different thing. I took away the proficiency requirement, but aded a penalty, the bigger the skill difference the bigger the malus.
So if you are away only 1 step (let´s say an expert character trying to deactivate a master trap) you have a -2 penalty. That way my bigger malus is -8; an untrained character trying to deactivate a legendary trap (yes I do not take from an untrained player the oportunity to epically fail).
For rituals it's not usually a problem as you can always include an NPC expert to help.
With hazards it can be a big problem. One possible solution is allow multiple skill choices to ensure at least one party member has something that can be used.
Minimum proficiency honestly feels like it's already covered by DCs existing as is, so minimum proficiency honestly feels a little redundant.
There's a few spots of PF2 that I don't like or agree with and this (as an extension of how explicit some skill requirements can be sometimes) is one of them. I sometimes wish there was an expectation that the DCs and required skills were more just a suggestion, like a 'default' that GMs were encouraged to adjust where it makes sense. It's definitely a way to run things, but it'd kinda be nice if the rules reflected it too, might help slightly with the perception that PF2 is 'too rigid'.
Now that's an unexpected find
Hey Zedrin!
I do agree that a more flexible mechanic would be better, but for the last 2 years of playing PF2E I've never encountered problems like this or in the video
I feel like those are homebrewed or just circumvented subconsciously by many GMs
@@Reekloose it's a problem more encountered with APs. Usually for home games with haunts and traps you'll select them based on party capabilities to reduce this problem from arising.
I keep minimum proficiency because I dont view it as a "you take damage, Sorry".
in hazards I view it as a method to ensure that players do not always succeed or have the ability to succeed and needs to come up with other creative solutions.
That fireball or primal trap may react to living creatures so if a partymember has a jade serpent or summon spell they can trigger it safely.
Other traps can be damaged, Players can also decide to just dash trough it after having taken precautions to minimize the damage they take.
The party does not always need to succeed or have the ability to succeed on every challenge.
Potential middle-ground solution idea: Maybe make it so that when someone doesn't have the required proficiency rank, make it so that they take a penalty on the check (Smth like a -2).This allows you to still keep the upsides while solving the gatekeeping problem. Players who don't have the skill leveled far enough are gonna have a far harder time, but they still stand a realistic chance at success.
If you're not trained in a skill, isn't your bonus to the skill already lower than expected? So you're doubly penalized in that case?
Yeah, that's a problem I've had trying to craft a workaround.
@emptyptr9401 I was also thinking of simply making it so that if you get a crit success without a nat 20 it doesn't count but then I realized... Well what are the chances of a crit sucess if you aren't at the proficiency expected of you
@@chiragasnani3437 If you are not trained you are not gonna succeed anyway at anything that isn't the low levels cause you don't add your level. I assume what you mean is if you are trained instead of expert, for example.
And the answer is: Yes (usually), and that is kind of the point. The idea is after all that you need to reach a certain level of proficiency in order to be able to effectively do something. The idea is to have certain actions be gatekept behind proficiency levels and to value not a high overall score, but to value the proficiency level itself. After all, a Bard that is trained in Diplomacy is still likely to be as good as a fighter that is expert, and the designers (rightfully) want being an "expert" mean more than just having the score be 2 higher.
Also, while "Every plus 1 matters" is certainly true, we also shouldn't overstate how much they matter. A +2 often noticeable, but not THAT often, especially on checks where critically succeeding doesn't matter as much (Like with many skill checks). It comes up in approximately a little less than 20% of checks. So in that sense it would also make being an "expert" feel a lot more noticeable and thus more rewarding rewarding when it comes up.
@@PsiPrimeProductions1 Wherein specifically lies the problem? I assume that you refer to the first comment. The goal is after all to "penalize" not reaching the required level so that actually reaching it feels rewarding. The problem, as I understand it, lies in the fact that completely gatekeeping players who don't have the right skill is far to harsh and hurts the game. If we now made the check disproportionally harder for people without the needed proficiency, but still gave them a decent chance at managing to meet it, wouldn't that solve the problem? What are issues you think arise in that case?
Ultimately the minimum proficiency rule exists to emphasize the proficiency ranks. So you get to feel that having taken master, makes you better than staying expert other than +2. So if I come across a check noone qualifies for, I usually drop the required proficiency until at least one person qualifies.
the concept its good, the hazard and the skills are keep it relevant at higher levels thar way, but always keeping in consideration/adapting to the party, maybe changing religion for occultism for example
I like the mimlnimum proficiency, just not for redundant things.
Like i get having to be expert for rituals and stuff like that. But having to be legendary in a skill for disarming traps is unfun.
My take is to make a dual checks system. You may do this expected check and the DC is lower for it, or this other check which has a slightly higher DC. This lets more skills have chances to be used, but not shut down those special moments where the Nature focused Druid can stop a natural trap or the Inventor can disable the golems with their Crafting.
Personally I think if I was running a Pathfinder game, I would keep the minimum proficiency (for everything) though I would drop the level by one each time to a minimum of trained. Just my two cents.
I came into this video wanting to disagree with you. However, after watching I think you convinced me. You must have legendary diplomacy to persuade me lol Great vid, probably gonna follow your lead on this one.
You are free to disagree, let's just be civil. But yeah, I really don't like this rule.
@@PsiPrimeProductions1I did just say you convinced me lol
Actually I never felt the need to Increase my Crafting as an Alchemist. But I 100% agree with everything else in this video. I think biggest gripe is how silly certain disable checks can be. I remmeber one example where the PCs has to use Thievery to flip some mirrors around and I felt silly asking the Players to Roll to "Flip Mirrors".
Yeah sometimes with "professional" adventure paths you need a good pair of scissors to cut out the some stuff that just doesn't fit your table or is just plain bad. Professional doesn't always mean "good" or "balanced" it just means someone got paid for it. Being a good adventure writer and being paid to write are two different things. Sometimes they even overlap.
I think min proficiency is important in a game using a variant rule such as Proficiency Without Level, but without that I totally agree! I feel like your modifier should be the thing stopping you from doing XYZ and not "the game won't let you attempt this at all".
Rituals are the one area I think it makes sense as I can see the narrative reason for it (I still don't particularly care for it there). If your characters have learned that ritual and can hit that DC I think they earned it.
But I greatly dislike it for hazards and will probably cut it from hazards for that reason
Gating "progression" behind having an exact tool to fit an exact situation is poor adventure design. I am *fine* with rituals in general requiring a higher level of training, but rituals in general are not needed in order to progress The Plot. You NEED to overcome hazards to progress the plot so I find it harmful for the game as a whole. You need to disable or circumvent hazards to progress The Plot, so now The Plot is only possible to progress for specific parties.
This is why so many complex hazards have a hardness and an HP, that way if all else fails you just brute force through it with a barbarian that has bonus damage and can shred the tin foil walls, but then that negates the whole point of using a hazard rather than a creature.
I have been running Victory Points scenes instead of complex hazards in my game and I think it has made my game more lively (in part because everyone is free to come up with a creative way to participate)
Great video, totally awesome commentary. Yeah, it totally makes sense to have "minimum proficiencies" as you say (only someone with master thievery should be able to crack that masterwork one of a kind impossible to crack vault), but gated the solution to anything behind minimum proficiencies and then penalising the PCs for not having it is railroading, and frankly, abusive GM'ing.
In homebrew we can easily adapt accordingly, or simply downgrade the expected minimum proficiency if it makes sense, but Paizo can't predict what is at every table when they write these APs. They could not insist on minimum proficiencies but that too is a loss, because I feel like it might give players an opportunity to feel special and reward them for specialising in certain skills/feats. Assuming they choose it, and weren't forced into the situation.
Same. I only really make it count for qualifying for a feats or trained actions for skills unless I decide to just give a penalty instead of just saying no
In the case of the ritual, characters can just retrain after, it should not be a big problem. Even in character it makes sense that they research for a couple weeks before performing an important ritual. Also same as with spellcasting services you could hire an expert NPC to help with the ritual (not sure if it works on your AP but seems reasonable if in a city)
About the hazards though I agree. Some high level hazards in APs seem to require one very specific skill and my players had to resort to breaking it or running through and ignoring a haunt or similar. The fact AP hazards are often 2 to 3 levels higher than party makes this much worse too
Yeah, in this AP, the players are cut off from the outside world and are the highest level people around. Also, the player didn't want to retrain out of religion for fear that having expert in religion would come up again (which it has, though not in so drastic a fashion.)
Minimums for hazards is stupid I agree, but on the case of rituals I feel that if the ritual is REQUIRED then it have those removed while rituals that are done willingly by the players keeps the minimum requiremnents.
I agree and have already been doing this. Too many locks and traps need high Thievery and it is hard enough getting the DC when someone is only Expert making it impossible by saying they need Master or higher just to deal with the problem makes having the skill at all useless. Ideally Hazards should have several ways to deal with them so that players can get creative. I have let players use other skills when they come up with an idea just make the DC harder.
I think there is a place for it as it rewards advancing certain skills to higher levels and it feels good to be the only person capable of doing something because you are better than everyone else, but yeah adventures shouldn't be in a place where the plot can only advance because of this one specific check. That would be easy enough for a GM to reduce the requirement or allow a different skill though
I always would prefer higher proficiency checks, then to have a minimum proficiency. You can also make something impossible to solve with a very high check, but if you’re rolling at 20, you still are able to do it.
i like it, it's another incentive for players to diversify their skills and another mechanic that makes proficiency more than numbers. and it looks gameplay away the same eay that archetypes or feats are locked away, so I'm fine with that
I think the skill levels may often need adjusting, but there's no problem with the rule itself. The example of the mandatory AP ritual is a fault of the AP.
"my players don't have this one skill so they have no choice but to trigger the hazard" What other options have they tried? What other avenues are available? Part of the fun is coming up with creative solutions to shore up or overcome the group's weaknesses.
If there is ever only one way forward or one method to do a thing, then that's a failing of the GM and/or players.
The players should not be (nor expected to be) "optimal" in all situations.
There would be a middle ground option: If the players are creative they can describe another way how to deal with the challenge so that they don't have to make the check. The Requirements are only there for the guaranteed way to solve it.
Sure I do that. For this particular situation, I would have allowed, maybe, expert in spirit lore or something. Sadly, no one in the party had that either.
@@PsiPrimeProductions1 Oh wow. Hey Thanks for answering : )
I was more thinking along the line of giving them a way to study this ritual specifically and then making the DC a bit more difficult, since they lack the Expertise in the Skill. This way they have a decision/trade-off if they want to sacrifice a Skill Increase or make it harder.
And for the traps, I have heard of people hiring an entire town to remove the mountaintop above a dungeon to then be able to access all rooms freely or the classical herd of pigs. Depending on the Trap there is usually an option in that direction. (But of course depending on the group it may be the best solution to just remove the restriction)
I don't pay any attention to minimum proficiencies, anyways. One of the issues I have with PF2E is that there are entirely too many dice rolls with thus too many chances for characters to fail at things they want to accomplish.
On things like traps, etc., I'd much rather describe what they see and let them decide how to approach it. Only when a player says, "OK, my character is a lot better at this than I am." will I have them roll. This allows me to keep the game moving (as opposed to getting bogged down with mechanics), and fosters a sense of accomplishment by players when they figure something out - a feeling that is decidedly lacking just from rolling high on a die roll. This does create the need for me to present a proper description, but I find that more fun than looking up a mechanic and assigning a DC. I'm also a big fan of alternative routes to the same end, so when a player thinks outside the box to finesse a problem, I'm tickled pink. Ommv.
I recognize that some people like rules-heavy stuff, and more power to you.
maybe, if the requirement for a high skill level is placed on disabling the hazard, but the hazard is relatively easy to detect, it could be used as a way to encourage the party to hire an expert? if that's a thing your table does, at least?
Here’s a potion that make you an Expert in Religion for 1 day. Solved!
Let them try but with penalty -2 per each TEML distance step or equivalent. Or make NPC available to handle.
I understand your point, but sometime, it is important to tell players they cannot do something. They need help of somebody else, a special object, or a mini quest that will allow them to perform the master or legendary task.
In DD5, the problem is the contrary, the barbarian has a good chance to find this legendary book in the library, the wizard can jump between two balconies distant by 90-foot... etc. A d20 plus mod, DC 20, is not enough.
I would guess the fun way would be to improvise the need of this minimum profenciency
Sure that's one way, but if you 'need' to tell a player that they can't do something for plot reasons, you could probably just include a McGuffin. Not supposed to do a ritual yet? Tell your players that the ritual requires artifact X to pull off, and they need to go find it. Need to gate lock a skill check? Simply say ?You don't know enough about what's going on to complete this task. You need to investigate Z before you do it." I think that works a lot better than minimum proficinecies.
With rituals, i don't see minimum proficiency as an issue if you can also take the time to retrain in and out of skills (or even hiring experts for asseen in comments). And for the hazards, if no-one in the party has the "high minimum proficiency" required I would definitely just use the "moderate minimum proficiency"... I would keep one or two "high minimum proficiency" perception checks (nothing too deadly though), just to highlight that maybe the party balance isn't 100% there
After hearing your opinion, I admit I agree.
I loathe Hazards in APs.
Not only do you need the right skill, it also must be on the right Proficiency and _then_ you still have to make a roll.
And given my party just TPKd to the final Hazard in Cosmic Birthday after defeating the boss? Yeah, not a fan.
They need to be way more permissive with Skills, so most can at least try. And give us a lower DC for higher Proficiency instead.😢
I would allow skill substitutions, provided you can come up with a good justification. Have Legendary in Arcana instead of Religion? You might might not have the theological grasp needed to perform the ritual, but you can understand the underlying magical principles well enough to fake it, just at a -2 penalty.
Seems easy enough to fix with a rare and expensive consumable that temporarily increases a player's skill level, or a helpful NPC the players save in an ad hoc side quest.
Ive not dumped Min proficiency for rituals because they dont come up TOO often in my games and for certain rituals I provide NPCs who can perform em. But HAZZARDS oh yeah I've long considered dropping that shit. Just because you know NOTHING about a bomb doesn't mean you can't get lucky trying to defuse one. Somtimes the red wire happens to be right to cut.
Odd that reincarnate asks for Nature and not Religion considering that you’re messing with the person’s soul rather than the body
Reincarnate has always been the 'druid resurrection.' So they made it nature so druids could cast it.
I see where you're coming from, but I feel like you're taking this the same way of 'illusion of choice' came from. Admittedly, I've been growing to like paizo adventure paths less and less for various reasons, and this point of being pigeon holed into being or doing something a certain way is certainly part of it. If something like a ritual has to be performed, give your players options to accomplish it instead of forcing them to make character choices they didn't want, like providing an NPC that can help them make the difference or, something I've done a couple times, give them a free skill enhancement that doesn't count against their character development progression. Doing away with this rule is, in my opinion, just a superficial response to a bigger issue. The whole point of a roleplaying game is to be able to make your own choices and reaping the consequences of said choices, for better or for worse. Just as you shouldn't go out of your was to punish a player (or players), don't go do the opposite.
Ultimately, I think your decision here is totally yours, but before you take it to the Internet to influence others (which is what happens on platforms like RUclips), perhaps consider all the angles and maybe do what you do in most all your videos and open it to the community for ideas. I like your channel and enjoy your videos, so I hope this doesn't come across as me being hateful or rude. I just want there to be a voice for what I believe is the bigger picture.
I uh, I did? At the end of the video I mention that I may have missed something about the minimum proficiency system and that I was open for comments.
Sucks when the world doesn't work the way you want it, huh? Real or fantasy?
I think the way skill scaling in PF2e is bad. It means you have to go all in on skills, and by late game proficiency means bad and legendary means decent. Legendary training should be almost an auto pass on a skill. We are supposed to be heroic characters.
...legendary does almost always pass. Even once you're at 10-12 you will pass almost any check with your master skills if you have some points in that attribute.
Edit: on my level 12 swash's best 3 skills I'd have to roll a 5 and 4 to meet the standard level dc and that's excluding my +2 bonus if it has bravado. That's only a 20% and 15% chance to fail, unless it has the bravado trait, then it goes down to 10% and 5%.
@sqoo5 at 10 you are going against a DC 27. 16+stat easily passes this?
@sqoo5 so then if you are only trained it's 12 +stat which means if it isn't your primary you are probably failing so why even try?
@Wonderwall627 it's actually 14+skill. And that depends. If you go all in on a skill, you are almost promised to pass. Training means you can make a desperate attempt. Master is around where it's reliable and decent.
Now I don't like when it requires legendary for some traps, which PF has a major issue on.
We had a similar problem: we solved it with a montage of retalent :D