Are You Proficient?

master_marshmallow wrote:

You aren't, the different tiers of proficiency gate what tasks can even be attempted

For some reason I think things like lying, climbing, jumping, surviving in the wild, and sneaking will all be things that you can do untrained.

Quote:

characters already at those higher tiers of proficiency don't even need to roll.

I'm not comparing it to the higher level characters, I'm comparing it to the NPCs who will be low level and unable to keep up with heroes who are outclassing them at their jobs despite that hero never actually spending any time doing that skill.

A wizard will be a better farmer than the farmer, just by osmosis.

Mark Seifter wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

vagabond_666 wrote:

A Ninja Errant wrote:

Also, how is a 5% chance of an untrained person doing something Opposed skill checks are often decided by a single roll. This means that in the case of the demi-god legend, the scruffy idiot will win 5% of time, and not never or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time in the case of the outmatched kobold.

You are still missing the point of "the task they are trying".

This is not about two climbers trying to climb the Empire state. This is about two climbers trying to get over a fence. To climb the empire state, the "scruffy idiot" cannot even try, at all.

This is not about you being better than LeBron James at Basketball. It's about you scoring better from the free throw line when shooting a serie of 10. And yes, it can happen. No, it doesn't mean you are going to posterize people, make dunks, catch alleyoops, or do cross court passes better than him. You probably cannot even try an alleyoop (I cann't, certainly). But yes, sometimes, with a lot of luck, you can do something basic well enough.

I mean, since we're talking about one roll, it's like if you and LeBron each made a single free throw, and LeBron missed his (his career average was just under 75%) and you made yours (I have no idea what your average is, but if it's better than 20%, you are more likely to make your single free throw while LeBron misses his than 5%).

That's not how statistics work. You can't apply the long run average to a single instance in that manner.

That's like saying since 25% of eggs have salmonella you can't ever safely make a 4 egg omelette.

No matter how many times I try to run a sprint against Usain Bolt I will never win even once unless he ruptures his Achilles’ tendon.

QuidEst wrote:

Well, I know we're getting a skills blog later, but I'm hoping PF2 is a little kinder to former 2+Int classes in the same way that more hp from your class means a given Con bonus doesn't make up as large a percentage of overall health.

In this case, the smaller number of overall skills also means you will have a higher percentage of all skills trained even if it didn't increase, but...Let's save the number of base starting skills that, say, the fighter gets for the fighter preview blog! It's soon!

‘Smaller number of skills’ gives me hives. Less granularity and more genericness in skills.

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

You aren't, the different tiers of proficiency gate what tasks can even be attempted

For some reason I think things like lying, climbing, jumping, surviving in the wild, and sneaking will all be things that you can do untrained.

Quote:

characters already at those higher tiers of proficiency don't even need to roll.

I'm not comparing it to the higher level characters, I'm comparing it to the NPCs who will be low level and unable to keep up with heroes who are outclassing them at their jobs despite that hero never actually spending any time doing that skill.

A wizard will be a better farmer than the farmer, just by osmosis.

Confirmed by Mark, "practice a trade" is something you can only do trained.

So said wizard cann't even make a living from a farm. Not sure how you can be considered a "better farmer" if you die of starvation trying to get produce and the other guy gets a living from it.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

So in order to play a character we currently can in the new edition, we have to put mechanical limitations on ourselves for nothing but "role play purposes". Sure. I could do that. Or I could play a system that supports my character. Wonder which I'll do?

Note: This is not me saying I won't play of 2nd ed. This is me pointing out how asinine of a suggestion it was.

If you want to represent a character being bad at something, like say lying, why not just represent that by not lying?

Guard: "So you're all here as caterers of Lord McEvilface's cotillion then."

Rogue: "Absolutely"

Fighter: "Sure, just like he said." -Points at Rogue

Barbarian: "Huh, no that's silly, I'm not even wearing a chef's hat, I'm here to punch him in the face."

Or just add a line to the game, like in starfinder for dumping stats.

"if you want to roleplay being bad at something, you can reduce the points on it as much as you want, for free. You don't get anything back from having CHA 7, but if you want to roleplay an antisocial character, we won't stop you"

I'm pretty sure no GM will object to the idea that you want to have less in Bluff.

...but one's fellow players MIGHT.

Also, someone asked up-thread: Who is that Dwarf? Is it a re-imagining of Shardra?

Because I could totally be on board for that.

Still watching this with curiousity and confusion.

Part of the problem .. when the bonuses are constrained to a much smaller size than the random element itself, much swinginess will ensue.

Why is it that your personal taste trumps others personal taste to such a degree that it should be punished?

Let's say there's a game called Fantasy Superheroes: You get full BAB, you get bonus combat feats every even level and you get some combat bonus every odd level. In addition you get full spellcasting proficiency and automatically do not need to worry about arcane spellcasting penalty when wearing armor (FYI: you're also fully proficient in all armor and all weapons).

Now if you enjoy playing a character described above, that's great for you. But if you want to play a spellcaster who doesn't use weapons or a fighter who doesn't cast spells you're only option is to "not use those class features". If you find playing a hamstringed character in Fantasy Superheroes fun, again, more power to you. But you might instead prefer a game that isn't Fantasy Superheroes and instead supports the characters you want to play.

I'd prefer a game where if someone wants to literally be good at all skills they have to give up a token amount of a resource they have plenty to spare of (I'm even saying I'd be okay if Paizo added more skill feats to characters to compensate). Whether more people prefer a game where everyone is good at everything will depend on whether or not your preference wins or if my preference wins. FYI: Pathfinder fans exist because they rejected a ruleset where everyone was literally good at everything. If that sounds like a game you'd enjoy, it might be worth your while checking Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition. It even has skill feats baked into the game (they're called skill powers but they seem to be in the same design space).

We'll have to see if there's enough differentiation between D&D 4th ed and Pathfinder 2e for Paizo to capture the same market again.

That seems like a very entitled attitude from my perspective.

Ugh. I was hoping to get through this conversation without insults being thrown around. The attitude I have gained is one I have because Paizo have set certain expectations (Pathfinder is not the same as 4th ed and hews much closer to 3.5e than it does 4th ed). Paizo are now changing what they're delivering. My standard have remained the same.

But you can call me entitled if that helps you dismiss my opinion. I can also call say you belong in the the Participation Trophy Generation. Or we can stop sharing insults and attacking each other and instead go back to discussing Pathfinder 2nd ed. I leave it up to you.

I'd prefer a game where if someone wants to literally be good at all skills they have to give up a token amount of a resource they have plenty to spare of (I'm even saying I'd be okay if Paizo added more skill feats to characters to compensate).

And the problem here, and with others that are against the new system, is that you are equating "have a good numeric bonus in the skill" with "being good with the skill", because that's how it works in OPF.

A lvl 20 wizard with +18 in Survival, but who cannot track, cannot roll to get food in wilderness, and cannot construct or look for shelter, or predict weather... is really that good at Survival? Yes, he has a big modifier to add when he rolls to, let's say, avoid getting lost, and endure difficult weather. That does not make him the pointy hat version of Bear Grylls.

Part of the problem .. when the bonuses are constrained to a much smaller size than the random element itself, much swinginess will ensue.

that's not what's happening here, tho.

you are equating "have a good numeric bonus in the skill" with "being good with the skill", because that's how it works in OPF.

Nope. By good I mean "better than an untrained level 1 character". Great would be "trained", fantastic would be 2 proficiency, etc, etc.

How good is good? Dunno. We need to know how much is gated behind training to know for sure (I have said this before in this thread).

And why do you oppose the idea that a lvl 20 wizard can endure weather better than a lvl 1 wizard? Not trying to be contentius, just genuine curiosity here.
In Old Pathfinder, a lvl 20 wizard can actually resist better other kind of exhaustion, as long as the rule for that particular kind of exhaustion target Fortitude. He just does not get better at enduring the exhaustion from weather, because that's a survival check.

The lvl 20 wizard will still be much worse at many things a trained person in survival will do just fine. A lvl 1 ranger will probably track well, find food for the team, and construct a decent shelter that protects vs normal weather for the whole party, which are things our pointy hat lvl 20 guy can't do without training. That lvl 20 wizard will be better than the lvl 1 wizard only at the things that the lvl 1 wizard can try too. And he'll be better because, well, he is lvl 20. Same reason why he is better at fighting people with a sword, resist poison, or dodge fireballs than the lvl 1 counterpart.

And why do you oppose the idea that a lvl 20 wizard can endure weather better than a lvl 1 wizard? Not trying to be contentius, just genuine curiosity here.

What skill is that?

Anyway, as I've also said. I get it. It makes sense that with time you'd slowly pick up on things, get tougher, etc. But in Pathfinder 1st ed if I want to play a wizard who can't leap across holes without magical aid. I can. In Pathfinder 2e I'll have to "I refuse to roll dice and just jump into the hole". I played 4th ed. Anytime someone failed a knowledge skill check everyone else would roll because there was always a chance on the d20 that they would succeed (my fighter was often able to succeed at arcana checks with the wizard failed thanks to random chance). Now we have things being gated behind proficiency ranks so it won't be as bad as D&D 4th ed (before people point out skill feats, 4th ed had those as well. So it's not as much of a differentiation between the two games as you'd expect). But the problem with gating things behind proficiency ranks is it adds complexity to the game and adds more minutiae that has to be looked up every time someone uses an untrained skill. So gating things behind proficiency ranks is a double-edged sword (one we didn't have to worry about with Pathfinder 1st ed). How much complexity and granularity Paizo put into the gating will determine how relevant it is between trained and untrained characters.

I’m loving the Legendary skills. (It reminds me of the Legendary spheres from Spheres of Magic and Spheres of Might; two of my favorite 3rd PPs.)

Also happy with the re-adjusted numbers. I initially had a few reservations, but Blackwaltzomega’s and gustavo iglesias’ well-reasoned commentaries have brought me around.

Very nice update. Looking forward to the play rest even more now!

Here's a silly question: The argument here is entirely that it doesn't matter what your bonus is for skills, it's really whether or not your trained that counts. Why give a bonus for different levels of skills at all then?

Either acknowledge that this bonus *will* matter, in which case, much swinginess will ensue, and that will be bad, or strip the bonus entirely.

Honestly, I think a lot of this could be solved by doing -2, 0, +2, +4, +6, which adds enough dynamic range to a d20 roll to actually mean something. If an amateur baker can make a recipe 50% of the time without messing it up, a grand master only being able to not screw it up 25% of the time makes no sense.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

And why do you oppose the idea that a lvl 20 wizard can endure weather better than a lvl 1 wizard? Not trying to be contentius, just genuine curiosity here.

What skill is that?

Survival.

Why does it break similitude that the lvl 20 wizard can do better than the lvl 1 wizard the kind of rolls that the lvl 1 wizard can also try? He is still unable to do the lvl 1 ranger's job, because he cannot track, or find food, or construct a shelter. Much less do legendary stuff like surviving radiation, vacuum, or in the plane of fire.

Here's a silly question: The argument here is entirely that it doesn't matter what your bonus is for skills, it's really whether or not your trained that counts. Why give a bonus for different levels of skills at all then?

Either acknowledge that this bonus *will* matter, in which case, much swinginess will ensue, and that will be bad, or strip the bonus entirely.

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Does characters still cannot try to follow tracks in that blizzard, hide in plain sight at full speed in front of the orcs, or disguise as the King and fool the guards, and in those rolls, the bonus will NOT matter. The proficient guy will do better.

Again, people are still stuck in OPF mentality, where the only thing that matters is the skill check itself. That's not how it's decided in NPF.

Honestly, I think a lot of this could be solved by doing -2, 0, +2, +4, +6, which adds enough dynamic range to a d20 roll to actually mean something. If an amateur baker can make a recipe 50% of the time without messing it up, a grand master only being able to not screw it up 25% of the time makes no sense.

Or maybe the grandmaster has a skill feat that allows him to take 20 in every recipe below "expert".

BryonD wrote:

OK, So when do we get to see the rest?

August.

Well, probably sooner.

From what has been said as far as I can tell PF2e was announced when it was because of book publishing and distribution chain reasons and/or the timing of some game conventions.

Given it's a play test and not a full on 2nd Edition release, 5 odd months aren't required to build hype, and it's certainly too long a timespan to release the new rules via weekly blog posts without doing so in the most infuriating and alarming manner possible

Yeah, I get that. But, as I said. If I *need* that stuff for something else to make sense. Then don't show me the something else.

Why does it break similitude that the lvl 20 wizard can do better than the lvl 1 wizard the kind of rolls that the lvl 1 wizard can also try?

Where did I say it breaks similitude? I think you're arguing against someone who isn't me. Reread this post to see what I'm actually saying.

Much less do legendary stuff like surviving radiation, vacuum, or in the plane of fire.

Some of that stuff sounds like 4th ed's/3.5e's epic levels (21-30) squished into level 17-20. Not so bad given games don't typically last until level 17. But I'll be interested to see how much of the hyperbole is actually possible.

There are 500+ posts now, did they ever do official followup and tell us that people at different tiers roll on different tables? So it's not just a +3, it's a +3 on a table with different DCs or somesuch?

But it's like criticizing a book after reading the blurbs on the back. It's not really helpful as well as incredibly cynical.

so is praising the book based on that blurb....

But more on point, if you are not ready to let someone see the book and the blurb on the back misrepresents the book, then why would you show anyone the blurb on the back?

Well... okay.

I was really hoping for some more meat to this preview. For instance how does one gain ranks in proficiency. Secondly, a feel for what - if any - restrictions or prerequisites exist; how many hoops does a character of one class have to jump through to become good at something not normally associated with their class?

Amusingly, I thought quite the opposite.

In any event, given the path of the discussions about Proficiencies and how often they devolve into discussions about Skills, I see the confusion between Skills, Proficiencies, Feats and Class Abilities being quite profound.

Until proven otherwise, I'm going to count Proficiencies as the combination of PF/3.5e Proficiencies and the list of class skills, with some extra meat to the class skill stuff similar to Unchained skill unlocks.

I don't think it will be confusing, but with the current partial information it's like looking a a flowchart where you can only see about a quarter of the boxes and arrows.

Hi Mark,

It looks like you're making some elements which we would traditionally consider to be mythic and essentially hard coding them right into the core rules. For example, swimming across the ocean or fighting sea monsters like Beowulf. Is that a fair assessment? If so, I like it.

Me too. If so, it's a step towards simplifying Mythic and making it more like Epic (I never understood the complaints about epic being complicated - it's high-power play that's complicated, not epic, and in my experience having mythic as a bag on the side, while giving even more options, also made it even more complicated).

QuidEst wrote:

You know, I feel like you can get a decent start to homebrew Mythic by giving everybody Legendary in a skill way before they would normally be able to get it.

This is similar to one of the "where would mythic go" (and also "what about reskinning for superpowered stuff at low levels like in mythic") conversations we had a while back. In theory, mythic could be a new rank above legendary that gives +4 and unlocks better benefits for all the rank-based abilities, plus even more ridiculously awesome new mythic-only abilities, and then if you wanted low level mythic (or legendary) play, you just do as you say and give some mythic (or legendary) ranks way earlier than normal. It's much easier to make this change than it would be in PF1. So many exciting possibilities for tweaks and modifications and further customization for players and GMs with some of the new rules; I'm pretty excited about how cool of a book we can make with those kinds of topics!

Good to hear the idea of high-level stuff is already being considered. When Pathfinder came out, I liked it but didn't bother switching any of my home games until Mythic came out. The same is likely to be true for 2E; there's no point in playing before the options my tables like are available.

Mark Seifter wrote:

I'll tell you guys just this once, especially since you're close: Evasion is actually the name of the locked-in class feature that makes you a master at Reflex saves, and what I describe in the blog is the ability to treat all your successes on Reflex save as critical successes! ;)

I thought I sensed a spoiler.... ;)

That's Mark. Ruining the playtest for everyone :)

Albatoonoe wrote:

But it's like criticizing a book after reading the blurbs on the back. It's not really helpful as well as incredibly cynical.

so is praising the book based on that blurb....

But more on point, if you are not ready to let someone see the book and the blurb on the back misrepresents the book, then why would you show anyone the blurb on the back?

People wanted to know how proficiency worked. People have largely stopped voicing concern about there being no difference between level one and level twenty characters (based on the assumption that proficiency worked like 5e), and now we have different people voicing concern about there being too much difference between level one and level twenty characters (at least in the areas they feel that characters shouldn’t change by default). We’ll eventually get a blog addressing skills directly, but I don’t think it’s fair to insist that they not provide info other people want until they provide info you want.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

And why do you oppose the idea that a lvl 20 wizard can endure weather better than a lvl 1 wizard? Not trying to be contentius, just genuine curiosity here.

What skill is that?

Survival.

Obviously I don't know if that particular roll is going to be untrained, or which ones will be, but let's work with the hypothesis that from the things you can do with Survival (shelter, predict weather, track, not getting lost, avoid a hazard, endure weather, etc), an untrained person can just endure weather and avoid getting lost.

Why does it break similitude that the lvl 20 wizard can do better than the lvl 1 wizard the kind of rolls that the lvl 1 wizard can also try? He is still unable to do the lvl 1 ranger's job, because he cannot track, or find food, or construct a shelter. Much less do legendary stuff like surviving radiation, vacuum, or in the plane of fire.

It certainly doesn't break my suspension of disbelief that a legendary adventurer might acquire a great degree of all-around competence. But the rapid rate of advancement by level (1:1) and hard gating of certain tasks behind proficiency levels produces a situation where not only are there two orthogonal but conceptually similar difficulty tracks to keep track of, high level-characters are going to be off in one corner of the two-axis difficulty graph rather than on the diagonal line, so to speak. A +20, which is both the maximum possible variance from dice and the distance between a bare critical success and bare critical failure, is enough that any untrained task doable by an ordinary person will be trivial for this experienced adventurer, and yet they won't even be able to try tasks that have a minimum proficiency. (Tougher skills are often just learning to be really solid on easier ones, is part of the WSOD here.)

And a mere expert won't even be able to try things that require being a master, and so on - do you expect to remember which tasks are DC 30 (minimum expert) and which are DC 25 (minimum master?) And yeah, you certainly don't have to remember perfectly, I never do, but there are going to be more hurt feelings when I accidentally estimate something as a master task vs an expert one, than when I give a DC that's too high.

Of course maybe all of these issues will be more intuitive in the full version, but I don't have a good sense from the preview about how to distinguish them. Maybe they experimented with a single-dimensional system and it didn't work out - I'd be curious to hear about it!

This isn't American politics: it is okay to form an opinion based on the available facts and then, if further relevant information is revealed, change your opinion.

Getting angry at people for voicing their opinion seems silly and counterproductive. This is a discussion board. People are discussing what has been revealed. If you don't want to read it, avoid the subforum until August?

BryonD wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

But it's like criticizing a book after reading the blurbs on the back. It's not really helpful as well as incredibly cynical.

so is praising the book based on that blurb....

But more on point, if you are not ready to let someone see the book and the blurb on the back misrepresents the book, then why would you show anyone the blurb on the back?

People wanted to know how proficiency worked. People have largely stopped voicing concern about there being no difference between level one and level twenty characters (based on the assumption that proficiency worked like 5e), and now we have different people voicing concern about there being too much difference between level one and level twenty characters (at least in the areas they feel that characters shouldn’t change by default). We’ll eventually get a blog addressing skills directly, but I don’t think it’s fair to insist that they not provide info other people want until they provide info you want.

I'm not saying anything about what *I* want.

And if you go back to my first post, I think it was a fairly constructive statement. I'm not demanding anything.
It is easy, and understandable, to overlook how asymmetric information impacts communications.

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system. Those bonuses *don't* matter in a significant way. Seriously. They don't. Mathematically. Matter.

This has been demonstrated already in another system, and if we're unwilling to see that, then that's on us.

I'll have to look at the actual rules again and make comment on them later, I just have to bring up a pet peeve. It's about words.

Please don't call the skill Thievery. They did that in 4E: it condensed a variety of skills that could conceivably be used for non-criminal actions into a single term that's synonymous with crime. A magician has to use Thievery (instead of Sleight of Hand) to pull a rabbit out of a hat or perform other tricks, for example.

Calling it 'Thievery' seems to me like it will limit builds based on the negative preconceptions rather than open up the skill list. It did with my experiences in 4E anyhow.

If 'Thievery' is literally JUST the skill for 'stealing things', that's one thing, but I fear it will once again be the lump skill for Sleight of Hand and Disable Device... and maybe not everyone who wants to do magic tricks or disable traps wants to have to roll the Thievery skill and be pigeon-holed as the thief of the party.

Maybe we could call it Mischief?

tivadar27 wrote:

Here's a silly question: The argument here is entirely that it doesn't matter what your bonus is for skills, it's really whether or not your trained that counts. Why give a bonus for different levels of skills at all then?

Either acknowledge that this bonus *will* matter, in which case, much swinginess will ensue, and that will be bad, or strip the bonus entirely.

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Does characters still cannot try to follow tracks in that blizzard, hide in plain sight at full speed in front of the orcs, or disguise as the King and fool the guards, and in those rolls, the bonus will NOT matter. The proficient guy will do better.

Again, people are still stuck in OPF mentality, where the only thing that matters is the skill check itself. That's not how it's decided in NPF.

Quote:

Honestly, I think a lot of this could be solved by doing -2, 0, +2, +4, +6, which adds enough dynamic range to a d20 roll to actually mean something. If an amateur baker can make a recipe 50% of the time without messing it up, a grand master only being able to not screw it up 25% of the time makes no sense.

Or maybe the grandmaster has a skill feat that allows him to take 20 in every recipe below "expert".

Then just let the master have a skill feat that lets him aid other people in their skill and let the non-expert remain non-expert.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system. Those bonuses *don't* matter in a significant way. Seriously. They don't. Mathematically. Matter.

This has been demonstrated already in another system, and if we're unwilling to see that, then that's on us.

They do matter. One of those +1s is probably the reason a character can’t critically fail a check, and gets a chance to crit succeed instead. The next +1 doubles the likelihood of critical success while also reducing the chance of failure. If +1s were mathematically insignificant, nobody would upgrade their Cloak of Resistance.

In 5e Stat Bonuses go from -1 to +5 (stat value 8 to 20) and Proficiency goes form 0 to +6. There is also a thing called expertise where a character can get double their proficiency on a skill so that gives a range from -1 to +17 before magic items.

This is not an apples to apples comparison. The article does not talk about including stat bonuses. Ignoring stat bonuses, the difference in 5E between a trained or untrained character at 20th level is 6. Expertise (available only to rogues and bards) doubles that to 12. That's it. 5E is very flat when you just look at trained vs untrained.

If Mark had included stat bonuses in the article, his math would probably have ability scores range from -1 to +10 and that would widen the gap from +/- 18 to +/- 29 at 20th level.

If most of what skills are comes from ranks rather than the number added to the d20 (aka needing to be trained or super trained to even attempt certain things) then why bother adding level to the roll at all?

Then just let the master have a skill feat that lets him aid other people in their skill and let the non-expert remain non-expert.

Why? What if the master do not want to spend his skill feat in "group stealth" because he likes "hide in plain sight better"? It's way better just to allow everybody try to sneak past the group of orcs and move on.

Sure! You can always choose a new trained skill with your rank increase.

Ok, I am still a bit unclear on learning new trained skills/proficiencies.

Here is what the blog states:

For most of your statistics, your starting proficiencies are determined by your class, though for skills, you can assign your ranks as you choose among any of the skills in the game. When it comes to leveling up, all classes gain skill rank increases at every odd-numbered level

So it sounds like to me that actually having the proficiency and having ranks in a skill are a bit different. Meaning, putting one rank in a skill doesn't automatically gain you that proficiency.

For example, I want to be proficient in Survival. So at 3rd level, I put a rank into the skill. Do I also need to pick a class ability/feat "Skill (Survival) Proficiency", as well? Or do I automatically become proficient by putting the rank into the skill? And then I can raise it to Expert, Master and Legendary (if I so choose) as I put ranks into it?

If Mark had included stat bonuses in the article, his math would probably have ability scores range from -1 to +10 and that would widen the gap from +/- 18 to +/- 29 at 20th level.

Are ability score differences going to be more pronounced in PF2?

If most of what skills are comes from ranks rather than the number added to the d20 (aka needing to be trained or super trained to even attempt certain things) then why bother adding level to the roll at all?

Because plenty of basic stuff has static DCs, and adventurers should get better at doing that basic stuff.

Climbing a tree might be a mildly difficult thing for an untrained lvl 1 wizard, but it's not for a high level one.

tivadar27 wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system. Those bonuses *don't* matter in a significant way. Seriously. They don't. Mathematically. Matter.

This has been demonstrated already in another system, and if we're unwilling to see that, then that's on us.

They do matter. One of those +1s is probably the reason a character can’t critically fail a check, and gets a chance to crit succeed instead. The next +1 doubles the likelihood of critical success while also reducing the chance of failure. If +1s were mathematically insignificant, nobody would upgrade their Cloak of Resistance.

I'm talking specifically about skills here. They matter for for things like attack and saves, and I'm worrying PF2e has joined these two to their detriment. Looking at that, have you ever bought an item that gave a +1 to a skill? No, they all give at least +2, many of which give +5. Yes, the same is not true for saves, where a single +1 is more valuable, but that's not the issue here.

This blog is by far the most contested, but i can understand why. Originally I thought most people where onboard with the changes I'd wager a gues of about 66% to 75% positive, but now I'd say it‘s closer to 55% to 60% positive.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Sure! You can always choose a new trained skill with your rank increase.

Ok, I am still a bit unclear on learning new trained skills/proficiencies.

Here is what the blog states:

Quote:

For most of your statistics, your starting proficiencies are determined by your class, though for skills, you can assign your ranks as you choose among any of the skills in the game. When it comes to leveling up, all classes gain skill rank increases at every odd-numbered level

So it sounds like to me that actually having the proficiency and having ranks in a skill are a bit different. Meaning, putting one rank in a skill doesn't automatically gain you that proficiency.

For example, I want to be proficient in Survival. So at 3rd level, I put a rank into the skill. Do I also need to pick a class ability/feat "Skill (Survival) Proficiency", as well? Or do I automatically become proficient by putting the rank into the skill? And then I can raise it to Expert, Master and Legendary (if I so choose) as I put ranks into it?

As I understand it, skill ranks are your level + proficiency. What you spend, is your proficiency. With totally made up numbers, it would be something like this:

Characters have let's say 4 skill proficiencies. Maybe more for rogues and/or humans. Add INT modifier.

So a lvl 1 fighter with INT 12 has 5 skill proficiencies at lvl 1. Then again he gets 5 more at lvl 5, for example. He gets Athletics, Intimidate, Survival, History Lore and Proffesion: Blacksmith, and he is now Trained in all of those. He also gains proficiency with other things (like weapons or saves), but those do not share a pool with skills. At lvl 5, he choses to get Athletics and Intimidate at expert levl, but feels he should diversify a bit and add Diplomacy, Healing and Sense Motive. He nows has "rank 2"in Athletics and Intimidate, and "rank 1" at diplomacy, healing, sense motive, survival, history and blacksmithing.

A lot of people seem to be hating on the level bonus to all skills... but personally I like it. I like it for one simple reason: It means that some skills might actually see use now. I of course cannot speak for all groups, but in my group skills Stealth... are basically worthless to invest in, because there are exactly two ways Stealth will ever come up in PF1e:

1) The entire party invests in Stealth. INCREDIBLY unlikely, especially when most parties in the group are around 6 people, one of which is usually going to be in Heavy Armor.
2) You commit one of the Deadly Sins of Tabletop: Splitting the party. My group tried this once, with me playing the plucky Rogue that tried to Stealth around and investigate while the rest of the party stayed behind. I got discovered when I tried to open a door, and almost died in the ensuing fight while the rest of the party didn't even realize it was happening. If not for the GM tipping them off through the Barbarian's Wolf companion I likely would have died... for the second time that campaign (Being crit with a Scythe as a Rogue, not a fun time.)

The new system means that now everyone will probably be at least passable at Stealth. Meaning there's a chance a stealth mission will actually happen, because no one's going to immediately set off every alarm in the place with their meh Dex, no investment, and Full Plate.

MR. H wrote:

If most of what skills are comes from ranks rather than the number added to the d20 (aka needing to be trained or super trained to even attempt certain things) then why bother adding level to the roll at all?

Because plenty of basic stuff has static DCs, and adventurers should get better at doing that basic stuff.

Climbing a tree might be a mildly difficult thing for an untrained lvl 1 wizard, but it's not for a high level one.

The buy-in with HP is that a wizard gets better at taking a punch, but why would murdering goblins intrinsically make him a better climber?

Like it or not, this system naturally makes the game narrower in scope and reduces customization. Oh sure, you can add more decisions than 1e, but if I can't make level 20 Fighter than is worse at lying compared to a level 1 Bard, then the game no longer covers something I could have done in 1e.

And No, "RPing" not being able to do certain things doesn't count. That's a player version of rule 0 used to patch a game or use a game for something beyond it's intention.

This blog is by far the most contested, but i can understand why. Originally I thought most people where onboard with the changes I'd wager a gues of about 66% to 75% positive, but now I'd say it‘s closer to 55% to 60% positive.

What I think the big issue most are having is adding your level to all skill checks. That you are automatically becoming stronger with everything.

With myself, I will have to say I am a bit leery with doing this, but I do like the tiered proficiencies/skill unlocks. But I will have to see more before I have any real problems. I think we are seeing only a small part of the overall plan, we are missing a lot so far. When I get a complete picture, then I will comment.

QuidEst wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Because that's not what we are saying. The bonus WILL matter, for the rolls that the untrained guy CAN do. He can still try to endure a blizzard, sneak past the orcs by hidding behind the fence, or disguise as a pilgrim and fool the guards. For those basic things, having skill ranks will matter, and it's good, because the group can do basic things like hiding to save Marian without worrying that Little John is a fighter and does not have skill ranks in disguise.

Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system. Those bonuses *don't* matter in a significant way. Seriously. They don't. Mathematically. Matter.

This has been demonstrated already in another system, and if we're unwilling to see that, then that's on us.

They do matter. One of those +1s is probably the reason a character can’t critically fail a check, and gets a chance to crit succeed instead. The next +1 doubles the likelihood of critical success while also reducing the chance of failure. If +1s were mathematically insignificant, nobody would upgrade their Cloak of Resistance.

I'm talking specifically about skills here. They matter for for things like attack and saves, and I'm worrying PF2e has joined these two to their detriment. Looking at that, have you ever bought an item that gave a +1 to a skill? No, they all give at least +2, many of which give +5. Yes, the same is not true for saves, where a single +1 is more valuable, but that's not the issue here.

That's because how the DC for skills scale. It's totally different, because the system is not unified.

I have seen DC 30 history checks in an lvl 1-4 book from an adventure pack. There is no DC 30 will save at lvl 1-4 anywhere. There are skill checks with DCs in the 50s (for example, escape artist vs some CMDs). Same is not true for will saves. The opposite is also true: it's pretty easy to start the game with +10 to a skill if you want to (even more with skill focus), and it's pretty difficult to have +10 to attack or saves at lvl 1.

That will change now, because one of the goals is to make skills, attacks and saves scale at the same speed, so you can do things like using a skill to attack, or to save, etc.

The +1 to skill will matter just as much as a +1 to saves or attack, if the DCs for skills are in the same scale.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Then just let the master have a skill feat that lets him aid other people in their skill and let the non-expert remain non-expert.

Why? What if the master do not want to spend his skill feat in "group stealth" because he likes "hide in plain sight better"? It's way better just to allow everybody try to sneak past the group of orcs and move on.

Then that particular group finds a different solution. What happens if a particular group doesn’t have a arcane spellcaster. Shouldn’t everybody be able to just cast those spells so no group is ever without them?

gustavo iglesias wrote:

MR. H wrote:

If most of what skills are comes from ranks rather than the number added to the d20 (aka needing to be trained or super trained to even attempt certain things) then why bother adding level to the roll at all?

Because plenty of basic stuff has static DCs, and adventurers should get better at doing that basic stuff.

Climbing a tree might be a mildly difficult thing for an untrained lvl 1 wizard, but it's not for a high level one.

The buy-in with HP is that a wizard gets better at taking a punch, but why would murdering goblins intrinsically make him a better climber?

Because this is a game based in levels. That's how games based in levels work. Your wizard is in a swamp, in the middle of a desert island, playing Skull Shakles. He kills a bunch of goblins, level up, gain 6 skill ranks, and spend them in Knowledge Arcana, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device, Proffesion: scribe, and athletics, (for climbing). Or he could even spend one point in Linguistics, and learn Goblin, by osmosis from the blood those goblins spill on him while he punches them to death. He evem learns to cast fireballs, even if he is nowhere close to anyone who can teach him.

That's how systems with levels have always been.

QuidEst wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system. Those bonuses *don't* matter in a significant way. Seriously. They don't. Mathematically. Matter.

This has been demonstrated already in another system, and if we're unwilling to see that, then that's on us.

They do matter. One of those +1s is probably the reason a character can’t critically fail a check, and gets a chance to crit succeed instead. The next +1 doubles the likelihood of critical success while also reducing the chance of failure. If +1s were mathematically insignificant, nobody would upgrade their Cloak of Resistance.

I'm talking specifically about skills here. They matter for for things like attack and saves, and I'm worrying PF2e has joined these two to their detriment. Looking at that, have you ever bought an item that gave a +1 to a skill? No, they all give at least +2, many of which give +5. Yes, the same is not true for saves, where a single +1 is more valuable, but that's not the issue here.

"Sorry, this is mathematically incorrect in a d20 system." was a bit more general. The other system demonstrated that a +1 can be meaningful, which would be nice to have in skills- now bumping up your ability score will feel more significant because it's not washed out by a 2.5k item for five times that difference.

The way the skill bonuses are generated seems very much like the 4e system - forced getting better at everything even if you have no reason or desire to do so. So an 8th level desert nomad, who has never seen water bigger than a puddle, can swim better than a 1st level character who grew up on a lake. I'm not a fan of this. I don't see a way to play a character who is deliberately inept at a skill.

Basically, the way I read this, with level being the utterly dominating factor in skill bonuses, gaining ranks in a skill is less about meeting higher DCs and more about learning new tricks to do.

I do have an answer, sort of, for those who want the ability to let a skill atrophy: retraining. If you want to stop studying law after level 2, retrain it at level 4 or so and you'll get at least some of the effect you want.

I'm happy with some of this system. I like the new uses for skills locked behind proficiency levels. I don't like "everybody gets better at everything, even things they have no reason to." I'm unsure, without seeing skill DCs and so forth, if I like that Einstein is only 5 points better at basic physics than Darwin, who is only 5 points better at basic biology than Einstein. (Assuming equal level and Int mod)

eddv wrote:

No offense, but thats at level 20. 5 is actually a really really small gap compared to what we are used to seeing in 1e.

5 is still well within the realm of loldice making the barbarian grognard as likely to charm someone as my charming courtier bard. It really needs to be less bounded and flat or else skills are just going to be lame to focus on at all.

I'm curious how this turns out. I'm making a lot of assumptions here, but let's give it a shot.

I'm going to assume a PF2-ish "schmooze" DC of CR + Wis + 10. We'll take a minor noble for our example: CR 5, Wis at +2, DC is 17. Beat the DC by 10 and you have a new best friend, fail by ten and you've got yourself a rival. We will generously abstain from any circumstance modifiers.

Barbarian grognard has not invested in social skills. Untrained Diplomacy, 10 Cha.
5 - 2 + 0 = +3 Diplomacy

Charming courtier Bard is doing some basic investment- Expert proficiency, 18 Cha.
5 + 1 + 4 = +9 Diplomacy

Barbarian succeeds on a 14, flubs on a 4. That's 20% chance of an enemy, 45% chance nothing happens, 35% chance of schmoozing, and 0% chance of a new best friend.

Bard succeeds on an 8, crits on an 18. That's 0% chance of an enemy, 35% chance of nothing happening, 50% chance of schmoozing, and 15% chance of a new best friend.

The likelihood that the Barbarian gets a better result than the Bard: 12%
So, there's a 12% chance that the minor noble dismisses the Bard as just another social climber like he's used to, and is instead taken by the Barbarian's unpolished manner, and willing to listen to what the life of a real adventurer is like.

The likelihood that the Bard gets a better result than the Barbarian: 55%
So, there's a 55% chance that, yeah, washing yourself and sucking up helps make friends.

If there are any circumstance modifiers, or the Bard decides to put a skill feat into the mix, I don't think there's any contest at all.

I guessing that the DC will be more like in Starfinder for Diplomacy, Bluff and other similar tasks like that: 10 + 1-1/2 x enemy's CR.

Hobbun wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Sure! You can always choose a new trained skill with your rank increase.

Ok, I am still a bit unclear on learning new trained skills/proficiencies.

Here is what the blog states:

Quote:

For most of your statistics, your starting proficiencies are determined by your class, though for skills, you can assign your ranks as you choose among any of the skills in the game. When it comes to leveling up, all classes gain skill rank increases at every odd-numbered level

So it sounds like to me that actually having the proficiency and having ranks in a skill are a bit different. Meaning, putting one rank in a skill doesn't automatically gain you that proficiency.

For example, I want to be proficient in Survival. So at 3rd level, I put a rank into the skill. Do I also need to pick a class ability/feat "Skill (Survival) Proficiency", as well? Or do I automatically become proficient by putting the rank into the skill? And then I can raise it to Expert, Master and Legendary (if I so choose) as I put ranks into it?

As I understand it, skill ranks are your level + proficiency. What you spend, is your proficiency. With totally made up numbers, it would be something like this:

Characters have let's say 4 skill proficiencies. Maybe more for rogues and/or humans. Add INT modifier.

So a lvl 1 fighter with INT 12 has 5 skill proficiencies at lvl 1. Then again he gets 5 more at lvl 5, for example. He gets Athletics, Intimidate, Survival, History Lore and Proffesion: Blacksmith, and he is now Trained in all of those. He also gains proficiency with other things (like weapons or saves), but those do not share a pool with skills. At lvl 5, he choses to get Athletics and Intimidate at expert levl, but feels he should diversify a bit and add Diplomacy, Healing and Sense Motive. He nows has "rank 2"in Athletics and Intimidate, and "rank 1" at diplomacy, healing, sense motive, survival, history and blacksmithing.

I'm not so certain about that.

From what has been said, your proficiency rank (Expert, Master & Legendary) is determined by your skill rank. When it is raised, it will go up when you it 'x' rank (I believe Legendary is 7+).

If it is what you said, that means all your proficiencies will get better (and potentially rank up, depending on what levels you gained those proficiencies) as you level. I would think your proficiencies only rank up when you literally put skill points (ranks) into them. The ones you earn every odd-level.