Are You Proficient?

With the bonus being equal to your level, the proficiency level bonus is completely insignificant. No one will even care about it unless its importance is being forced by a feat requirement. With that as the case, then it isn't worth having proficiency levels in the game, as it would be merely an additional level of complexity that provides no meaningful benefit. This needs some serious reworking.

The proficiency level gates levels of skill.

The level bonus is only numbers, it does not enable the awesome high proficiency uses.

With the bonus being equal to your level, the proficiency level bonus is completely insignificant. No one will even care about it unless its importance is being forced by a feat requirement. With that as the case, then it isn't worth having proficiency levels in the game, as it would be merely an additional level of complexity that provides no meaningful benefit. This needs some serious reworking.

Well, it's importance is being enforced by Skill Feat requirements, so there's that.

But also...in a system with closely bounded ranges of bonuses at each individual level, a +3 matters quite a bit. Especially with the critical/degree of success system working how it does.

Might have overreacted a bit in the other direction in removing any significant differentiation between low and high skill. Perhaps some middle ground?

People have done the maths to show, given what we know about ±10, the five point spread is much more significant than it looks, even if the spread really were only 5 points.

But why should the bonuses be THAT close?

Because all the differences in bonuses are additive. The difference that matters is between no training/lowest possible attribute/no equipment bonuses, and best possible training/best attribute/best possible equipment bonuses. We do not know the exact ranges of those other bonuses are going to be, but we can safely assume that they are going to add up to at least a five point spread, and quite likely 10 or more. If anything, given what we know at this stage the total range is more likely to be too big than too small.

IOW, this is the middle way.

_
glass.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Might have overreacted a bit in the other direction in removing any significant differentiation between low and high skill. Perhaps some middle ground?

People have done the maths to show, given what we know about ±10, the five point spread is much more significant than it looks, even if the spread really were only 5 points.

Arssanguinus wrote:

But why should the bonuses be THAT close?

Because all the differences in bonuses are additive. The difference that matters is between no training/lowest possible attribute/no equipment bonuses, and best possible training/best attribute/best possible equipment bonuses. We do not know the exact ranges of those other bonuses are going to be, but we can safely assume that they are going to add up to at least a five point spread, and quite likely 10 or more. If anything, given what we know at this stage the total range is more likely to be too big than too small.

IOW, this is the middle way.

_
glass.

I think it's more likely to be comparing average stats, untrained and with no equipment to Legendary training, good stat and magic rather than actively penalised. If you've got a penalty and make no effort to take skills in that, I'm ok that you can't succeed at something the gods come to for their skills can manage. Otherwise, the expected bands have to be several points narrower to account for the guy who dumps down to 7 or less on their stat and doesn't train, providing limits to the design space.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Might have overreacted a bit in the other direction in removing any significant differentiation between low and high skill. Perhaps some middle ground?

People have done the maths to show, given what we know about ±10, the five point spread is much more significant than it looks, even if the spread really were only 5 points.

Arssanguinus wrote:

But why should the bonuses be THAT close?

Because all the differences in bonuses are additive. The difference that matters is between no training/lowest possible attribute/no equipment bonuses, and best possible training/best attribute/best possible equipment bonuses. We do not know the exact ranges of those other bonuses are going to be, but we can safely assume that they are going to add up to at least a five point spread, and quite likely 10 or more. If anything, given what we know at this stage the total range is more likely to be too big than too small.

IOW, this is the middle way.

_
glass.

Again, “equipment bonuses’ and attributes”.

So not skill. How can it be a middle way when its touching the curb on one side?

Skill will actually be the minority of the difference between two characters bonuses.

Again, “equipment bonuses’ and attributes”.

So not skill. How can it be a middle way when its touching the curb on one side?

Skill will actually be the minority of the difference between two characters bonuses.

That strongly depends on the two characters in question as well as their level and equipment.

Though, really, formal training (which is clearly what Proficiency is in this edition) having less impact on non-specialist uses than practical experience (which is clearly what Level represents) or innate capability (which is what Ability Mod represents) seems fairly realistic and reasonable in many ways.

I think it's more likely to be comparing average stats, untrained and with no equipment to Legendary training, good stat and magic rather than actively penalised.

It is not a matter of what is more "likely", it is about what you need to look at. If the game works at the most extreme possible spread, then it will work at all possible spreads. If it works at some arbitrary average spread, it tells you nothing, because the game may break down at more extreme spreads or it may not - you just don't know.

Again, “equipment bonuses’ and attributes”. So not skill.

Yes, again “equipment bonuses and attributes”, and again and again and again. Until you get that they will be part of the total spread and have to be considered as such. You may wish that it were otherwise, but unfortunately mathematics care not for your wishes.

How can it be a middle way when its touching the curb on one side?

It is touching the kerb on both sides now, rather than being of the road and 20 feet up the verge like in PF1.

Skill will actually be the minority of the difference between two characters bonuses.

If attribute bonuses continue to scale as they currently do, then yes they will. But that is more of a problem with ability scores than with the skill spread.

EDIT: As Deadmanwalking quite rightly points out, this is only true at the lowest levels, after which the level component of the bonus (which is very much also skill) will quickly outpace all but the most generous of possible stat and item bonus schemes.

_
glass.

Can we get to the point and just call this Pathfinder 4E?

Plenty of people have. You are not original.

Would it be more original to call it Pathfinder 2.71828?

I don't want to see someone unskilled but with magic trounce someone highly skilled.

Who cares if the spread becomes 20+, if someone dedicates enormous resources to being the absolute best at stealth then let them. What I absolutely don't want is for everyone to be within a 5 or 7 point spread which will make character choices feel meaningless.

I don't want to see someone unskilled but with magic trounce someone highly skilled.

Who cares if the spread becomes 20+, if someone dedicates enormous resources to being the absolute best at stealth then let them. What I absolutely don't want is for everyone to be within a 5 or 7 point spread which will make character choices feel meaningless.

The spread is eventually 17-18. That's a pretty reasonable spread. It's just that only some of that is any one thing.

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Would it be more original to call it Pathfinder 2.71828?

What happened to the other 0.71827 versions?

If they're worried about spread they could have magic interact with the proficiency or ability modifier systems instead of being on its own.

That way you could have +3 proficiencies for a 12 point spread and an 8 point spread coming from ability scores for a total spread of 20. Magic could increase proficiency to a set level or ability scores to a set score for a skill check. Items could work the same way.

That way you get proficiencies that matter along with a 20 point bound.

BretI wrote:

Would it be more original to call it Pathfinder 2.71828?

What happened to the other 0.71827 versions?

They died of natural causes.

Uh oh, the discourse is deteriorating... Quick! Time for a new blog post!

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score (well, and level if talking total bonus, but level isn't part of the spread, since that's a per-level measure).

Arssanguinus wrote:

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score

Honestly that bugs the tar out of me. IMHO a large gap in proficiency should be more relevant than basic attributes.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score

Honestly that bugs the tar out of me. IMHO a large gap in proficiency should be more relevant than basic attributes.

Exactly!

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score

Honestly that bugs the tar out of me. IMHO a large gap in proficiency should be more relevant than basic attributes.

And it will be, because some uses of the skill will require a particular proficiency, so that a Master in the skill can do things somebody with basic training can't even atttempt

True enough, but at this juncture without the full playtest rules it feels off.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score

Honestly that bugs the tar out of me. IMHO a large gap in proficiency should be more relevant than basic attributes.

I dunno, for small amounts of attributes yeah but when we are talking someone with 30 of x attribute that really should be pretty overwhelming. I don't care how good at wrestling you are (for example) you are going to have trouble beating someone literally as strong as an elephant.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arssanguinus wrote:

And that only a very small part of it is actually investment in the skill.

Almost 1/3 of it is skill. The only thing that matters more is Ability Score

Honestly that bugs the tar out of me. IMHO a large gap in proficiency should be more relevant than basic attributes.

I dunno, for small amounts of attributes yeah but when we are talking someone with 30 of x attribute that really should be pretty overwhelming. I don't care how good at wrestling you are (for example) you are going to have trouble beating someone literally as strong as an elephant.

Unless you literally outwrestle titans as a casual thing because you're a Legendary wrestler.

As a GM that likes to keep a realistic feel to the game, I am concerned about the ease of obtaining Master and Legendary skill levels. For example, if there have only been a few individuals with Legendary Swim in history (like Beowulf) and only a few Masters of any given skill alive at a time (like metal winning Olympic athletes), then I will have to make the game a meat grinder to keep the PCs from unbalancing the skill economy of the world as they gain levels and skills, and make them restart at low level.

I do like the idea of quantized skill levels and abilities that unlock as skill levels are increased, but I'm uncomfortable with allowing actions that defy reality. Defying reality seems like the realm of magic, never mundane skill. I would NOT let my PCs swim like Beowulf because no one in human history ever has, which is to say that degree of skill is so rare that it has never been observed (lied about yes, but never done). This sounds like stuff from the 3rd edition Epic Level Handbook, which I would be more comfortable with since those were characters that had surpassed mortal limits.

As a GM that likes to keep a realistic feel to the game, I am concerned about the ease of obtaining Master and Legendary skill levels. For example, if there have only been a few individuals with Legendary Swim in history (like Beowulf) and only a few Masters of any given skill alive at a time (like metal winning Olympic athletes), then I will have to make the game a meat grinder to keep the PCs from unbalancing the skill economy of the world as they gain levels and skills, and make them restart at low level.

I do like the idea of quantized skill levels and abilities that unlock as skill levels are increased, but I'm uncomfortable with allowing actions that defy reality. Defying reality seems like the realm of magic, never mundane skill. I would NOT let my PCs swim like Beowulf because no one in human history ever has, which is to say that degree of skill is so rare that it has never been observed (lied about yes, but never done). This sounds like stuff from the 3rd edition Epic Level Handbook, which I would be more comfortable with since those were characters that had surpassed mortal limits.

The whole point IS that the characters have surpassed mortal limits. It's just been moved down to level 13ish because as rare as campaigns getting to that level actually is, it's still a thousand times more common than games making it to or past level 20.

A 13th level fighter growing up in a magical world, where the very air he breathes and water he drinks is suffused with some degree of power from the literal provable deities who shaped the world, having had to save against any number of spells and magical monster attacks, is just going to absorb some magic by osmosis. But for him, it manifests as superhuman levels of skill, instead of throwing bunker buster fireballs around.

As a GM that likes to keep a realistic feel to the game, I am concerned about the ease of obtaining Master and Legendary skill levels. For example, if there have only been a few individuals with Legendary Swim in history (like Beowulf) and only a few Masters of any given skill alive at a time (like metal winning Olympic athletes), then I will have to make the game a meat grinder to keep the PCs from unbalancing the skill economy of the world as they gain levels and skills, and make them restart at low level.

I do like the idea of quantized skill levels and abilities that unlock as skill levels are increased, but I'm uncomfortable with allowing actions that defy reality. Defying reality seems like the realm of magic, never mundane skill. I would NOT let my PCs swim like Beowulf because no one in human history ever has, which is to say that degree of skill is so rare that it has never been observed (lied about yes, but never done). This sounds like stuff from the 3rd edition Epic Level Handbook, which I would be more comfortable with since those were characters that had surpassed mortal limits.

As a GM in every game there has always come a point when the game has to come to an end. Normally because the story is done and while we could carry on a new story with those old characters the power level of the game has become unweildy. Its fun for that finale, less so as the standard way of play. So I'm already totally happy carrying on with new characters (not necessarily new world, many many times the old PCs have become important NPCs in the fiction.) I don't see PF2E being very different in that regard. It might come a few levels earlier at which point using the easy to adjust xp system I can just slow progression down as much as I require.

On the otherhand if the game is streamlined enough to make those higher levels not a pain in the arse to run, we may actually carry more characters into it.

I do find it weird you ground physical feats in realism without considering that by the time you are near demigod you are most certainly a magical being. I mean you already allow people to surpass what any human has ever done without magic in PF anyway (unless you are limiting your game to level 3-4.) Hell even the Resonance system feeds into this idea, your personal magic resevoir at level 13 allows you to power triple or quintuple (or only double, Cha depending) the amount of external magical items that you could at lvl 3. If that doesn't speak to a form inherently infused my magic I don't know what does.

EDIT: Also Legendary proficiency is obviously past the purview of just mundane skill. It is the stuff from Legends.

The whole point IS that the characters have surpassed mortal limits. It's just been moved down to level 13ish because as rare as campaigns getting to that level actually is, it's still a thousand times more common than games making it to or past level 20.

A 13th level fighter growing up in a magical world, where the very air he breathes and water he drinks is suffused with some degree of power from the literal provable deities who shaped the world, having had to save against any number of spells and magical monster attacks, is just going to absorb some magic by osmosis. But for him, it manifests as superhuman levels of skill, instead of throwing bunker buster fireballs around.

I agree with the first part but the second part is just an example of a possible explanation. You could also say he learned to surpass his limits from using magical weapons and armor or sth or he achieved a perfect state of mind and body similar to the monk's.

Personally I am really glad they didn't go the "you are a realistic person even when you are level 20" 5th edition's way of doing things and also avoiding many of 4th's edition's pitfalls, with exception of the common proficiency bonus that thankfully is gated behind proficiency levels.

All that said as a fun of super powered dnd at high levels, I also like the idea of supernatural disadvantages or quirks that make life... interesting for high level pc's and don't make them utterly superior from normal people if that makes sense.

Also I like the fact that you can break realistical limit's at level 7 (the absolutely earliest), because it reminds me of the E6 limit.

As a GM that likes to keep a realistic feel to the game, I am concerned about the ease of obtaining Master and Legendary skill levels. For example, if there have only been a few individuals with Legendary Swim in history (like Beowulf) and only a few Masters of any given skill alive at a time (like metal winning Olympic athletes), then I will have to make the game a meat grinder to keep the PCs from unbalancing the skill economy of the world as they gain levels and skills, and make them restart at low level.

Keeping a realistic feel at 15th level and onward (the lowest you can get Legendary Skills) is sort of a lost cause anyway. Those are already the levels where spell casters can raise the dead and teleport people, or go visit deities on their home planes. And do so casually.

And even 7th where you get Master skills is pushing it.

I do like the idea of quantized skill levels and abilities that unlock as skill levels are increased, but I'm uncomfortable with allowing actions that defy reality. Defying reality seems like the realm of magic, never mundane skill. I would NOT let my PCs swim like Beowulf because no one in human history ever has, which is to say that degree of skill is so rare that it has never been observed (lied about yes, but never done). This sounds like stuff from the 3rd edition Epic Level Handbook, which I would be more comfortable with since those were characters that had surpassed mortal limits.

Pathfinder isn't the real world. It never has been. Indeed, as the whole concept of E6 demonstrated, anything above 6th level was already stretching a variety of capabilities beyond what people in the real world are probably capable of.

They've just made that a little more explicit on skills. It was already true due to HP and combat abilities, just a little less overtly so.

I really feel like anything even as potentially early as 1st level unless your playing a NPC class is probably impossible. Not that I have ever had trouble suspending my disbelief. Their is however a line In their somewhere it just seems different for everyone.

Removed a post and reply. It is not okay to insult or post insult rants towards members of the RPG community/industry.

I like the simple system presented here. I like that my Sorceress just might do a few basic things well beyond Perception and Spellcraft and that we will have less metagamey optimization of skill ranks / points allocation

This will also make it more intuitive to build high-level characters according to what you want them to excel at

I agree with having the option of being incompetent in a few meaningful areas with a properly balanced gain so that players do not abuse this to overspecialize their PC. Something like gaining a +1 bonus to a single skill for example

Wrong direction on this one I think. The bonuses feel mediocre and the descriptions vague.

Here's a suggestion I was considering for a game of my own. Keep the bonuses based on ranks but roll an extra die for each tier of proficiency. Player keeps the best die. Much more exciting then and an additional +1.

Also each tier in something should give you something cool and defined and new you can do. Preferably open a tree of actions.

This system reads a lot like the unchained skill unlocks, which is a little disappointing. This seems like a good opportunity to address the 'caster/martial' disparity, debates on which have historically plagued older editions.

Why not take the opportunity to embrace the fantasy world of golarion 2.0, and build magic into the skill system? That way you can consolidate spells, skills, and 'proficiency levels' and thus grant access to cool abilities even before level 15 (which no one will ever enjoy; even APs generally end around here, if you get that far).

Casting classes can have access to more specialized skill feats and/or have class features that make it easier for them to do certain things whether it's blasting harder, making their debuffs harder to ignore, or aiding the whole party instead of just themselves. Then if the fighter wants to fly up and wrestle a dragon to the ground, they can do just that. If the rogue wants to create/disarm a magical trap, they can do just that. If the ranger wants to transform themselves a bit to gain scent and track better, they can do that. Not that it all has to be traditional spells necessarily, but I'm sure a fighter would love to be able to energize their equipment with magical energy, or a barbarian might like to commune with their animal totems

We actually know that Ritual Magic is a Skill Feat at this point (it's in the Spell Blog, I believe), and that making magic items is one for Crafting so there's definitely some magical Skill Feats available. Indications are also that an Animal Companion is a Nature Skill Feat, that at least one Acrobatics Skill Feat lets you do things like balance in midair, and similar stuff.

We don't have a lot of details yet, but those we do argue for many Skill Feats being quite powerful.

We don't have a lot of details yet, but those we do argue for many Skill Feats being quite powerful.

Yeah, it looks like they will unlock some cool combat manoeuvres, like tumbling, overrunning, maybe climbing onto a bigger creature and such.

Thanks for all the lively discussion so far in this thread. At this time we've decided to close up the blog discussion thread. If you have comments, questions or other things you want to post that do not fit into any currently open threads, you are welcome to start a new thread. Thanks!