See here for more great videos on Pathfinder: kzfaq.info/sun/PLYCDCUfG0xJb5I-wDIezuDkTfbd8k21Km Want to help support the channel? Get you name listed at the end of my videos by joining my Patreon : ▶️ www.patreon.com/HowItsPlayed/ Thank me with a cup of coffee! ▶️ ko-fi.com/HowItsPlayed

I like Diplomacy/intimidate to be rolled twice. Once for a 'first impressions' result, and then at the end for a final result. A strong first impression can add a modifier to the final result. The 'first impression' roll does three things: - It allows the GM to roleplay the conversation based on the characters diplomacy/intimidate skill, without the player feeling like the GM is being unfair or difficult. - It adds drama. If the highly diplomatic character fumbles the initial impression for an important conversation then they or their party members can step in to rescue the conversation. It feels more like an encounter this way, less binary. - It prevents 1's and 20's from creating weird or ridiculous outcomes - though weird can be fun. Good video B4G, as always.

In situations like the whole "crit failing a social encounter even though it was roleplayed really well" thing, I like to go by a piece of advice I read on The Angry GM blog. Paraphrasing it, but basically the GM should only call for a dice roll if both of the following are true: A) All possible outcomes make narrative/logical sense in context B) Each potential outcome would advance the game in an interesting way In the case of Kyra's critical flub, while a stubborn noble might present a unique opportunity--perhaps by sparking a rivalry, triggering a comedic scene, or forcing the party to find less scrupulous means by which to obtain whatever it was they were trying to get--it does not make narrative or logical sense. Kyra's player brought their A-game, and it would break immersion if the nobleman as a person with values, attitudes, and thoughts of his own (barring some sort of improvised narrative contrivance) suddenly did a 180 just because the dice said so. Therefore, I might not even ask for a roll, and even if I did, I'd grant either a Hero Point or a big, fat bonus.

I put your vids on 1.5x speed and it works great~

My take on the first Kyra/Noble result would be: (i) the die roll should have been hidden and (ii) that the critical failure following a positive RP exchange would simply underscore the noble's success in subterfuge, whether in just making game of Kyra (telling his cronies "Yeah, last night I had this cleric of Sarenrae thinking that I would agree to ...") or setting some sort of obstacle to her under the cover of agreement ("Sure, I'll be able to arrange transport to X" whilst actually setting a trap or just a diversionary trip).

Simple for the 'after roleplay roll' Player: Top Roleplay! NPC: Top Roleplay! Dice: Nah, I'm a 1! Explanation i give to my player: "It seemed you hit it off, all went well but the fine nuances you need with nobles weren't in your particular favor. They won't help you with your request and also wont speak to you for the rest of the evening. Understanding that you did not meant harm (as Example) and that you're not a noble yourself they send you an envelope later with a notice that they would meet you in private" There you have it. A new scenario too. Will it be a frindly meeting? Is there an evil plan? Or do they want to settle another argument or give you another real chance? I personally dislike the 'roll then roleplay based on the roll' That gives really nothing. Most players are not theater-artists and even less spontaneous actors. But when they roleplay they do it with their heart (mostly) and i can give them a bonus depending on their roleplay. And also: Heropoints are there too to re-roll. At least in Pathfinder (2e). Stay crunchy.

That is why best way of role-playing such scenes is to allow player to role play his idea first and role play NPC until the moment when NPC reaction should determine his attitude and make a roll at that moment. In the example from the video, player may role play, talk sweet, make complements etc. Noble may even put couple of complements back due to politeness, but when the moment of eating food from hands comes into play, the roll should be made which will determine if the noble will agree and become friendly or the opposite.

I like to roleplay both before and after the die roll. If the dice pull the opposite way to the initial rp, then play a faux Pas that dramatically swings the conversation. Kyra had him eating out of her hand until she mentioned that she supports revolution in Galt.... Or perhaps she insults someone not knowing it is the nobles mother ... Plenty of stories have dramatic shifts in the tone of dialogue. Besides, it is funny 😁

I'm glad you pointed out not using skills against players. I've always felt like that was something players did to NPCs but not the other way around.

Thank you so much for making these. I find myself rewatching them over time to refresh myself of the rules. Now that I'm finally GMing, I can put this to practice.

This is one aspect of PF2e where I think D&D5e did it better. For 5e, the npc/monster starts at one of those attitudes determined by the GM. Then the players have a conversation through roleplay. The GM determines if the conversation improved their attitude, worsened their attitude, or if their attitude remained the same. It's at this point that a charisma check is made which doesn't change their attitude, but decides how the npc/creature will react to request/suggestion/information. It's just really simple and takes the roleplay into account.

Y’all are going to you a massive rise in subscribers based upon the current events.

Definitely going to start having my players roll first for social skills.

You have no idea how helpful these videos are. I regret that I can only give you one like per video.

I am not of the opinion to roll first for social skills. To me the roleplay before is very important it is like choosing the climbing gear before trying to climb a wall. The conversation decides the difficulty of changing their feelings and then the roll decides the outcome of that attempt. The roleplay should affect the DC by giving them advantages or making it easier so if the roleplay was going so well that it seems impossible for them to have gone down to unfriendly then the DC should not have been hard enough to allow that to happen or perhaps because of their performance perhaps there shouldn't have been a roll at all. The second is because rolling implies the possibility of failure for a task that no longer has difficulty like opening an unlocked door we do not roll. If you still want that possibility of failure though then this is what bonuses and disadvantages are for and since nat 1s are not critical failures for skill checks you would merely give them a bonus that makes critical failure impossible.

Thanks for another great video, and for the updated version.

Enjoying your whole series..thanks!

If the roleplay is awesome, I wouldn't even ask for a roll. I'd use it if if I weren't totally convinced.

In practice, the same way the "ancient" NPC Disposition system was rarely used by role-players, the system here is just a tool for some minor interactions. The story, drama, issues, interests, values and quests, and enacted with player interactions (without rolls) and actions, should dictate if major NPCs help, how they react, etc. Some rolls are done typically to check if, beyond the player's conversation, the character makes a good impression (Charisma and the NPCs subjective norms). That is obvious to most tabletop gamers.

Thank you for the time you spent on these, they are very helpful... subbed. :-)

I liked about the rules "Roll the dice first, Role Play last".

I know its easily ignored, but being mechanically UNABLE to make a request unless they're at least friendly is just an incredibly weird rule. Someone who doesn't likely being incredibly reluctant to help you makes sense, give it a harder DC or something, but being mechanically restricted from even being able to ask is ridiculous. Every hero has that one episode where he has to ask his bitter enemies for help.

The player agency rule also work for the lie action and NPCs? When and NPC makes a lie does he have to roll his deception against the perception DC of the players?

Does the Frightened condition lower a targets AC? I saw in another one of your videos that AC is a DC check to hit.

Overall I love pathfinder 2e as a system from what I know of it (I come from a 5e background to probably no ones surprised) but I am not the biggest fan of this tbh. Social interact and attitude states are something that is far more fluent and nuanced than these rules imply. I think they make a good baseline if a DM is not sure how to handle a given situation, but generally I would always just rather RP with my players, and if something calls for a check, logically think about what DC makes sense in that context. Also, often there might not even be the need for a check. Even if a character has very low charisma, if their in-RP arguments are good and convince me as a DM (When I put myself in the shoes of a given character) a king might for example just grant a request without a check. A Family loved one will generally just do things you want from them if it is not too much asked. And if it is a lot to ask for, how they react on a failed check really depends on what you requested and their personality. Or when a character has high charisma, the attitude of NPCs will generally start out as better without the need of a check. I have heart that with P2e you should generally stick to the rules because they are very well designed and clearly defined, but if I can ever convince my group to try the system, I would very likely not use those rules/just use them as a very generic framework. Its too static for my taste and not very immersive.

11:00 The problem here is actually that you're resolving an action in reverse. Normally, you describe a course of action, roll the dice, and see the result. Here, you narrate the result, roll the dice... and narrate the result you already described but now its different? The solution is to either keep social rolls and social RP separate.

Great break down, but i think this may be the first rule in 2e I homebrew away. Coming from 1e I've never liked DC's for social skills like intimidate/diplomacy. I think it leads to too many "I'm in prison but I'm going to flirt my way out moments. For example, I had a campaign where a buddy of mine was making a new character. He wanted to go half elf, but the elf part was drow. So he had the dark skin and all. Cool no problem. Except, and he was warned up front, the city they were heading to HATED drow and drow were executed on sight. He was warned well in advance. So he went in and made disguise checks every day. One day he rolls a one, gets stopped by a guard and gets caught. In this instance there is no amount of flirting, even with his 20 charisma, that is getting that bard out of prison. I've always preferred they roll to get their attention, maybe sweet talk them to set an initial attitude. Then it goes full RP and maybe they'll make another roll if the conversation turns to try and reinforce their point.

Whether it's D&D or Pathfinder the primary issue is the chaotic randomness of the d20 die roll to begin with. Rolling a single d20 roll has always been D&D's greatest downfall toward game mechanics. Without at least two or more die, you don't get a bell curve of averages. Over the years, the D20 system has proven its age and weakness toward game mechanics where a d20 roll is no longer a good idea for modern RPGs and modern game systems.

What about lies between 2 player characters? How does that work, the lier rolls deception + bonus, and the other PC rolls perception? Or the lier rolls against the other PC perception DC ?

How would make an impression/request work when multiple characters are in the conversation? would the entire party roll, or just one character, and would an NPC attitude (friendly/etc.) be per PC or for the entire party?

Regarding criticals that don't fit the role-play. For example FRIENDLY role-play and a critical miss. Ignore the letter of the rules and just impose a limitation of some sort. In other words keep the door open but cool the attitude just a bit. It's YOUR game. CITING: Sidebar p.444 CR. Ambiguous rules.

Does Pathfinder 2nd edition have belief systems and legal systems that can add some complexity to alignments?

I "love" how demoralize wears off so fast... a friend of mine had a few feats invested in it (You're Next, Intimidating Glare, etc.) and still couldn't accomplish much more than inflict a -1 penalty for one round followed by ten minutes(!) of total immunity. It's an utterly broken mechanical system due to the speed with which Frightened wears off and a protracted immunity afterwards.

Can't attempt to demoralize them again for 10 minutes? You haven't met my housemates mom :D

REGARDING NPC INFLUENCING PC: The GM should ask the player what their characters current attitude is toward the NPC in game terms (hostile, indifferent etc) even if the role play is obvious. Then, after an NPC actively attempts to influence a PC the player should then declare any changes in their CHARACTERS stance and once again in game terms. This will help the GM with mechanics and be especially useful for the non role-players. So even though the player decides attitude for their character they are still adopting ONE of the games five ATTITUDES. I will use this idea in my game.

I always dont like it when the RP aspect of a game is being heavily influenced by mechanics. It means that a barbarian that got 10 or 8 charisma should never lie, or talk to someone

Roleplaying the result is terrible. Roleplay, roll, and then come up with a reason it didn't work out. Give bonuses if the roleplaying is really good, but don't roll before roleplaying. What you are describing is rollplaying and it isn't good in my opinion, well at least not good for actual roleplaying.