Learning Takes a Lifetime

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

Lol, that legendary stealth ability. You literally need to wear a bell on you at all times to keep from giving your party mates heart attacks.

Or you can double down and also take Scare to Death from legendary Intimidate, and literally give them heart attacks.

It's just funny because it harkens back to a question I asked back in PF1e "How stealthy do I need to be to just passively make folks jump out of their skins when I come up next to them?"

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

The majority of game play is not the normal roll. It's designed so that the skill feats you can take and the abilities you unlock with higher proficiency make more of a difference than your skill modifier.

The example is super niche. Do we have more examples I don't know about? Curing blindness is not the most common use of the Medicine skill. "Administer first aid" is definitely more common.

You unlock neat niche behaviors, but you do not get better at the core tasks by training, only by leveling.

Your bonus to a skill is 1/5 your training 4/5 your level.

So in this blog post we see Paizo have gone a particular route in divorcing skills from ability scores that make sense (Int for knowledge) and instead gone for whichever ability score best suits a particular class  (wis for knowledge religion). Can't say I'm a fan* and I know the reaction my table will have to this (based on how they reacted to other games that implemented this) and it won't be pretty.

Knowledge religion might still be an int skill. Like lore religion to recall information on religious subjects.

Always felt that wisdom is more spiritual/emphatic
wis nature is not your knowledge of nature but how well you attune to it, like connecting to a wild animal, or sensing the power of nature.

Wis religion would in this case be sensing the presence or power of deities. connecting to that power.

Just speculation but we have not yet had a list of all lore sub thingies

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

The cleric probably has somewhere between +7 and +9 (though to be fair, the barbarian likely has a little more than +13 as well due to Wis bumps). The barbarian can't even possibly Recall Knowledge about philosophical tenets or deep dogma discussions, no matter the roll, but she is more likely to recognize the weaknesses of skeletons vs zombies after her many battles than the cleric is from just reading the holy texts in seminary school.

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

That house rule would help with the extreme untrained vs legendary.. but the ranks between trained and legendary are still meaningless compared to level.

So you're a fighter who dabbled in religion, but is level 10? I am a level 5 Cleric who as devoted my life to it! Who is better?

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

Keep in mind, a lot of your skill stuff is gated behind how proficient your character is. One example I remember hearing is that your level 20 Barbarian might know more about Dragon Slaying when using Arcana due to his fighting experience than a level 1 Wizard, but the Barbarian won't know much about specific spellcasting stuff over the level 1 Wizard.

Said level 20 Barbarian might also be surprisingly good at pick-pocketing due to his experience with reading people's awareness of their surroundings and what have you over the level 1 Rogue, but he has no clue how to pick a lock, he has no training in it. The level 1 Rogue, however, has this.

Look at Crafting. If your level 20 Barbarian tries to craft something, it won't even be of standard quality. He'll probably peak at something junky, whereas the one who is trained in Crafting, even at level 1, will be able to make something more standard. You can only craft something as high quality as your Proficiency (Trained for Standard, Expert for Expert, Master for Master, Legendary for Legendary).

It's more than just a level difference that matters here. That's not even factoring in crazy skill feats.

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

We don't really know what the possible untrained uses of the Religion Skill are. It seems likely to me that the athiest barbarian untrained in Religion can tell that the incorporeal monster is some type of undead, while the 3rd level cleric trained in religion could probably know what that it's a ghost, while also theorizing what sort of rites might work in putting it to rest without having to fight it. Or something along those lines.

It's easy to get caught up in the numbers without considering that they're no longer the most important aspect of the skills anymore.

EDIT: an army of ninjas!

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

Well, from what we've seen, someone who has a 10 in the stat and never buys the skill up winds up with a +18.

Someone who starts with a 10 in the ability, but buys their stat up at every point possible (not a great hardship), gets to Legendary in the skill, and buys a skill item (for +5) winds up with a +32.

A real specialist (who does need to start with an 18 in the stat) gets to +35.

So, in practice it's well over a 5 point difference. What it isn't is a more than 20 point difference, which is good because that resulted in rolls that person A could not succeed at that Person B could not fail at, and that's not great from a 'lets make this work as a game' perspective.

We have a known discussion point where the fighter should very likely get Intimidate as a signature skill and also another starting trained skill, but alas, that omission was pointed out after the book hit the printer (after which we noticed it in several times from several places). I am guessing there won't really be two sides among you guys in the playtest as to whether we should carry through on that.

This is very good to hear. Unfortunate that it didn't get into the playtest, but s%~$ happens.

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

We know for a fact that most uses of such skills are 'Trained Only'. Pretty much the only one that isn't is monster knowledge and recognizing spells in use. And I'm fine with a 20th level Barbarian being better at spotting a dragon or recognizing a fireball when it's cast than a 1st level Wizard is.

So the atheist Barbarian is better at recognizing undead (and maybe outsiders) and at knowing what spells the enemy Cleric is casting. She is not better at knowing about actual religious practices (and indeed, can probably not even roll to know about those).

Legendary Medic also has another really powerful advantage that would likely require in-depth analysis of the playtest document to undercover but I can tell you right off: The chances for say, a 16th-level legendary Medicine user to remove a 17th+ level affliction with this feat are substantially better than any other 16th-level character's odds. This advantages dissipates a bit at level 17 for a caster willing to use a 9th-level spell slot on affliction-removal (though that's quite an expensive resource), and evaporates compared to a level 20 cleric who takes 10th-level spells and then prepares a remove curse or the like in that slot (which seems quite unlikely when you could prepare miracle or avatar, and even then, the Legendary Medic can keep going with it and the cleric has one of those a day).

Interesting, but not without flaws.

Let's say that yes, Legendary Medicine with the feat means you can remove any disease or poison or blindness/deafness condition, as well as the source of those conditions from the person. (The latter is speculation, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt to have it be more powerful.) Useful, yes.

But just one question though: At what point will the party stop to let Frank the Fighter (or whoever the dedicated healer is) recoup his afflictions for an hour (or more, per affliction) after getting a really bad case of rabies from the BBEG's guardian pet?

I can assure you it is not when the world is in need of saving and the big bad is closing in on executing his schemes. You might as well have the Cleric burn his 9th/10th level spell on it so the party can keep moving and not lose the Adventure Path, since the most likely case of using or applying such a feat would be directly after or even perhaps during the throes of combat. (This also assumes some effects aren't "This effect cannot be healed or restored short of XYZ spell," as I expect some of those high level effects to possess verbiage of.)

In short, even if everything you say is correct, the factor that it's a large time-consuming effort means any major points this might be useful in are very slim, and the spells (as more precious as they are now, will still) win out, again, because they are simple one-round spell casts that do the job without jeopardizing the AP.

Even the Stealth skill feat is better, since (by my assumed reading) it gives you a Stealth check even when you don't or can't make a Stealth check (which might also mean you can always use Stealth as your Initiative attribute as well, even if you're doing something else, technically speaking), and it will have almost constant uses that even spells can't match. (Even in PF1, Invisibility could be dispersed and seen through quite easily, whereas an amazing Stealth score with Hide in Plain Sight features were almost undetectable.)

Leedwashere wrote:

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

The majority of game play is not the normal roll. It's designed so that the skill feats you can take and the abilities you unlock with higher proficiency make more of a difference than your skill modifier.

The example is super niche. Do we have more examples I don't know about? Curing blindness is not the most common use of the Medicine skill. "Administer first aid" is definitely more common.

You unlock neat niche behaviors, but you do not get better at the core tasks by training, only by leveling.

Your bonus to a skill is 1/5 your training 4/5 your level.

If it appears the most common, it's only because it's the base thing that everybody and their mother can do. It's clearly not the most useful thing, or the most powerful thing. To do the more useful and powerful things you need to invest more into the skill. So while your roll might not be significantly better than a schlub at stopping bleeding, the schlub can't even dream of removing blindness.

And removing those conditions may be niche, but since it is an option it therefore follows that it's not the only option. And if none of those options interest you, then you can safely be the person who's had enough practice at slapping bandages on bleeding wounds to not get tripped up by doing it anymore. But you aren't going to be healing HP damage or any of the other things that the skill allows for beyond that. That's why the roll is not the most important part of any given skill. It's what you can do with those rolls that other people can't.

Sounds cool, anybody have insight on why Nature and Survival are distinct skills?
AFAIK "Lore" will also tend to cover area related to either of those.

Quote:

and we wrapped up a bunch of Strength-based skills into a general Athletics skill.

So the only 2 strength-based skills in the game?

I too found this statement hillarious.

Strength always gets left out in the cold.

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Leedwashere wrote:

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

The majority of game play is not the normal roll. It's designed so that the skill feats you can take and the abilities you unlock with higher proficiency make more of a difference than your skill modifier.

The example is super niche. Do we have more examples I don't know about? Curing blindness is not the most common use of the Medicine skill. "Administer first aid" is definitely more common.

You unlock neat niche behaviors, but you do not get better at the core tasks by training, only by leveling.

Your bonus to a skill is 1/5 your training 4/5 your level.

If it appears the most common, it's only because it's the base thing that everybody and their mother can do. It's clearly not the most useful thing, or the most powerful thing. To do the more useful and powerful things you need to invest more into the skill. So while your roll might not be significantly better at a schlub at stopping bleeding, the schlub can't even dream of removing blindness.

And removing those conditions may be niche, but since it is an option it therefore follows that it's not the only option. And if none of those options interest you, then you can safely be the person who's had enough practice at slapping bandages on bleeding wounds to not get tripped up by doing it anymore. But...

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Details aside, I think what I'm confused about is I feel like I'm getting mixed-messages about the ultimate design goal/aesthetic of PF2. Sometimes it seems like they're going for a "fantasy epic super heroes" vibe (clerics become avatars! rogues become ultra-invisible!) and other times it seems like the power level of the game must be scaled back a *lot* from PF1 if announced abilities are really worthwhile instead of underwhelming (a level 13 fighter can ready a shield for a +2 to Reflex saves! a level 15 "legendary healer" can remove blindness!). I'm not saying either approach is wrong, but the combination . . . I just don't quite get what sort of game play is being envisioned here.

Is Occultism and Arcana and Nature going to cover monster knowledges?
Relatedly, will Bestiary include Occult spellcaster monsters?
Alchemy is entirely under Craft:Alchemy? (if true, would that also be skill to ID alchemist class abilities?)

I don't think I like the idea that a 10th level fighter who has never touched a piano before is going to be a better pianist than a low level bard with training.

It also seems like the difference between untrained and legendary (5 points) is low enough that it'll be stuck in the shadow of the large die roll variation at lower levels or of the large level bonus at higher level.

I’m a bit confused about when we can increase our Skill Proficiencies.

We normally gain skill ranks at each odd-numbered level (and also even-numbered levels for Rogues) and we can use ranks to improve our skill proficiencies. Is that correct?

So a Rogue, who I’m assuming begins the game with Trained Stealth at least, can span Skill Ranks to increase their Stealth proficiency to Expert at 3rd Level, Master at 4th Level, and Legendary at 5th Level???

So, a guess: The reason why Medicine doesn't get Raise Dead-type skill feat is likely due to it being a ritual, likely as a use from the Religion skill. This helps differentiate the two skills.

Can also note that the four speculated spell lists — Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult — each have as associated skill: Arcana, Religion, Nature, and Occultism respectively. I feel the ability score associated with each of these skills may mean something.

So what is the point of the skill increases every odd level if all the skills level with the character?

Edit: ElSilverWind beat me to the punch, we're on the same wave length here...

Is Occultism and Arcana and Nature going to cover monster knowledges?

I'm obviously not an official source but I'd bet it goes like this:

Arcana: Most things that was covered by Knowledge (Arcana) in PF1.
Nature: Everything covered by Knowledge (Nature) in PF1.
Occultism: Abberations. Maybe some stuff from PF1 Knowledge (Arcana).
Religion: Undead and Outsiders (the latter pretty much confirmed by Mark above)

All of those also govern one specific sort of magic.

Society: Given it's the replacement for Knowledge (Local) I'd expect this to cover the abilities of non-spellcasting Classes (probably including Alchemists) and quite probably Humanoids in general.

That gives 5 'Knowledge Skills' which seems a reasonable number all things considered.

I don't think I like the idea that a 10th level fighter who has never touched a piano before is going to be a better pianist than a low level bard with training.

It also seems like the difference between untrained and legendary (5 points) is low enough that it'll be stuck in the shadow of the large die roll variation at lower levels or of the large level bonus at higher level.

The 10th level untrained fighter would potentially be able to do something impressive involving that piano for a quick little trick (I can imagine maybe playing Mary Had a Little Lamb with one hand while bench pressing the piano with the other hand), but is completely incapable of Staging a Performance of Sonnorae's Sonata #53 (the Betrayal Sonata).

-2 is still a pretty harsh penalty. The goal here is to make the math tighter so that you don't have one character in the party rolling at +50 more than the other one.

There are other ways to achieve this that don't involve making all high level characters masters of everything.

If your level 20 Barbarian wants to try to Sneak, he can definitely try it, even untrained. This creates a "dramatic scenario" where he is just as likely to critically fail as to succeed, but he isn't so far behind as to never even try it.

Imagine if you added half level to skill checks, and proficiency meant a LOT more. The Barbarian could still try to sneak, but he isn't going to step on the Rogue's toes by happening to roll 5 better on his d20.

Given that buffs are a thing, this could conceivably result in the scenario where the entire party decides to buff the Paladin's untrained Deceive in order to get her disguised into the BBEG's dinner party with all his henchmen. This results in everyone in the party on the edge of their seats rather than no one caring because the Disguise-master 1000 rogue is obviously going to get in without a problem.

No, they won't be on the edge of their seats, because the Paladin is, at most, going to be only 5 behind the best character in the party. (Likely better since Deception runs off of CHA and paladins like having high CHA). The only thing buffs are going to do is prevent a REALLY bad roll from costing the party, unless everyone needs to roll high.

The primary goal is to keep the game fun. It doesn't matter how 'realistic' the game is if it isn't fun. Telling players that they can't even try to do anything at all related to Sneaking or Deceiving or Surviving just because they chose the wrong skills isn't fun. Instead, the specialist gets some neat rules exceptions but everyone can try their luck at the skill - which I think is a good design goal.

"Fun" is subjective. TTRPGs are about immersing yourself into a character in a world, at least IMO. If that world's rules seem to contradict common sense (and I'm not talking about magic), then it's really hard to be immersed.

It's funny in 3.P when the uber sneak fumbles his stealth and get's caught while the noisy fighter manage to succeed by rolling REALLY well, but these things don't happen all the time.

What's not fun AT ALL is when you have invested a bunch of resources into a skill and all it nets you is a mediocre +6 bonus over your peers who don't even care to invest in it at all (5e).

There is a happy medium in there that I think most people want.

If we have a high-level bard and paladin, both managing equal Charisma, with the bard legendary in Deception with a top-tier item and the paladin untrained with no item, the difference is 10. That means if they both roll the same number on the die and the bard succeeds, the paladin fails. If the paladin manages to succeed, the bard critically succeeds, etc (and it would be even worse for the paladin if the Deception task requires a basic item she didn't have, like a Disguise).

I don't think I like the idea that a 10th level fighter who has never touched a piano before is going to be a better pianist than a low level bard with training.

We don't know what the untrained uses of Performance are, so it's a bit early to say how this works.

It also seems like the difference between untrained and legendary (5 points) is low enough that it'll be stuck in the shadow of the large die roll variation at lower levels or of the large level bonus at higher level.

Well, it's usually gonna be combined with other bonuses. Total bonus will vary quite a bit (you can have an 8 point swing between lowest possible and highest possible bonus at 1st, I believe).

I’m a bit confused about when we can increase our Skill Proficiencies.

We normally gain skill ranks at each odd-numbered level (and also even-numbered levels for Rogues) and we can use ranks to improve our skill proficiencies. Is that correct?

So a Rogue, who I’m assuming begins the game with Trained Stealth at least, can span Skill Ranks to increase their Stealth proficiency to Expert at 3rd Level, Master at 4th Level, and Legendary at 5th Level???

Based on what we've seen you aren't allowed to take Master level skills until 7th, and not allowed Legendary level ones until 15th.

So what is the point of the skill increases every odd level if all the skills level with the character?

You can buy new skills at Trained or increase the existing Proficiency bonus of skills you already have. So, at 7th if you raise your Diplomacy from Expert to Master, you actually go up by +2 Diplomacy (+1 for level, +1 for the Skill Rank).

With the Lv 15 Legendary stealth feat, you no longer have to tell your DM "Just assume I'm stealthing unless I say otherwise."

Oh wow, so legendary...

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Thanks for the reply! I missed something. How they can auto succeed at DC 15 checks?

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

It is still 1/5 training and 4/5 character level to determine your bonus, unless you auto succeed which does fix the flaws with common checks, but not difficult checks (which are the more exciting checks!).

By and large, I like this. 3.X's skill list was painfully large, and Pathfinder's was only slightly better off. I must say, though, I have some hesitation about making Arcana and Occultism separate from Lore. Namely, if Use Magic Device has been lumped under Lore, in what meaningful way does Arcana–which would arguably be an equally suitable skill to put UMD under–differ from Lore? Arcane can be translated as "close to one's chest" as in, secret knowledge "holding cards close to your chest," so to speak. If it is, by default, knowledge, how is that different from Lore? I would make the same argument for Occultism.

kwiqsilver wrote:

I don't think I like the idea that a 10th level fighter who has never touched a piano before is going to be a better pianist than a low level bard with training.

It also seems like the difference between untrained and legendary (5 points) is low enough that it'll be stuck in the shadow of the large die roll variation at lower levels or of the large level bonus at higher level.

The 10th level untrained fighter would potentially be able to do something impressive involving that piano for a quick little trick (I can imagine maybe playing Mary Had a Little Lamb with one hand while bench pressing the piano with the other hand), but is completely incapable of Staging a Performance of Sonnorae's Sonata #53 (the Betrayal Sonata).

I thought of it as the fighter being asked to be on Celebrity Piano Duels, while the bard has a job in a local bar. The bard might be flat better at the technical aspects, but the fighter has name recognition and is a lot more likely to draw a crowd.

With minimum level requirements for proficiency tiers being the norm, I might guess that a Fighter with 3 skill ranks will have maxed out their proficiency in 3 skills and will move on to upgrading other skills before they qualify for the next proficiency rank of "primary focus" 3 skills. So seeing it simply as "3 maxed skills only" isn't necessarily true.

Are the odd-level skill increases the same for everybody? I.e. is difference in low/high skill (from class/INT) just a matter of starting stats? Or do class/INT factor into how many skill proficiencies are boosted per level?

Mark Seifter wrote:

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Thanks for the reply! I missed something. How they can auto succeed at DC 15 checks?

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

It is still 1/5 training and 4/5 character level to determine your bonus, unless you auto succeed which does fix the flaws with common checks, but not difficult checks (which are the more exciting checks!).

The untrained higher level character may just straight up not be able to make the more difficult/exciting check at all, since it's very probably a trained use of the skill. Your +12 in e.g. Thievery for being a 12th level character isn't going to help you e.g. disarm a trap if you weren't trained in how to disarm traps to begin with. Proficiency does far more than add a small bonus to the skill check, it actually gates what kinds of things you can do with the skill at all, which is then further modified by your skill feats potentially opening up entirely new things you can do with the skill.

Corrik wrote:

With the Lv 15 Legendary stealth feat, you no longer have to tell your DM "Just assume I'm stealthing unless I say otherwise."

Oh wow, so legendary...

Given you can use your Stealth roll for Initiative when stealthing...that can actually have a major impact. Plus, being able to go into almost any battle hidden? That has advantages.

If we have a high-level bard and paladin, both managing equal Charisma, with the bard legendary in Deception with a top-tier item and the paladin untrained with no item, the difference is 10. That means if they both roll the same number on the die and the bard succeeds, the paladin fails. If the paladin manages to succeed, the bard critically succeeds, etc (and it would be even worse for the paladin if the Deception task requires a basic item she didn't have, like a Disguise).

Just 10?

The bard that has poured a huge amount of his time into mastering the craft of weaving believable lies and hiding his true self, down to managing his involuntary tells, practicing his body language, and even clearing his thoughts so that he almost believes himself when he lies, still needs to have a magic item to have 50% higher chance to succeed than a paladin that never studied anything at all about deception and, in fact, may have avoided it because of the nature of their paladinhood and a lack of forethought into what situations she might find herself in.

I suppose that the bard could probably hand the item to the paladin to morning of the deception and negate the difference between their skills?

That's too close for my taste.

When I think "Legendary" for deception, I think of being able to trick a god. That isn't something that should be remedied with a magic item. (Unless it's an artifact.)

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

If there is a DC 30 task that only legends can succeed at, then neither of these two characters can succeed, as neither is legendary. Though incidentally, if there's a DC 30 task that anybody can succeed at (suppose it's a Stealth check to sneak past someone with +20 Perception), a legendary level 15 character with Assurance (Stealth), no items, and 10 Dex (much worse than a legendary Stealth character is realistically going to have at this level) can auto-succeed despite the +18 bonus, while a level 20 untrained character with even 18 Dex (+22 total bonus) has a 35% chance to fail (a level 15 untrained, same level as the legendary character, actually has a 60% chance to fail despite the 18 Dex).

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Thanks for the reply! I missed something. How they can auto succeed at DC 15 checks?

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

It is still 1/5 training and 4/5 character level to determine your bonus, unless you auto succeed which does fix the flaws with common checks, but not difficult checks (which are the more exciting checks!).

The untrained higher level character may just straight up not be able to make the more difficult/exciting check at all, since it's very probably a trained use of the skill. Your +12 in e.g. Thievery for being a 12th level character isn't going to help you e.g. disarm a trap if you weren't trained in how to disarm traps to begin with. Proficiency does far more than add a small bonus to the skill check, it actually gates what kinds of things you can do with the skill at all, which is then further modified by your skill feats potentially opening up entirely new things you can do with the...

Do certain skill checks only allow experts or above to attempt?

If not, then its just moving the line up 1 single peg.

Okay the level 17 dabbled a bit back in his youth. He has "Trained" in the skill. He gets +15, and the level 3 expert gets +5. Both can attempt the check now, right?

I would take a different skill whenever possible over ranking up a skill. Because then by "mid-game" you're awesome at everything in the world!

But its not a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" situation.. because against someone of a similar level, who is legendary, you are almost nearly as good still.

They are just master of one, while you are master of all!

When I think "Legendary" for deception, I think of being able to trick a god. That isn't something that should be remedied with a magic item. (Unless it's an artifact.)

I'd probably call that "Mythic" rather than just "Legendary".

Seems like the "unlocking" of specific usages with Skill Feats also is counter to tendency of skill consolidation, i.e. even though they use same skill bonus, there is opportunity cost in what Skill Feats to unlock. (and Rogue's advantage will exactly shine here, even vs high INT Wizards which might normally have identical/superior skill ranks in 3.x/P1E)

Seems like there is room even to allow some skill overlap, i.e. Nature/Survival Skill Feat for Herbalism to counter Poison. Not really sure on basis of why Nature/Survival are still distinct, really, especially as they use same stat, although how Lores are also distinct from both is relevant. Honestly, I don't see why Nature or Relgion should use WIS, if it is knowledge based it should use INT, IMHO. I'd rather see something like 'use WIS for checks re: own deity' for Clerics.

^DeadManWalking

Thank you for pointing that out. That relieves most of my concerns. : )

So . . . assuming 17 different Skills in the game (only taking 1 Performance and 1 Lore) with 5 Proficiency ranks each, we would need 85 skill ranks at least to max out every Skill in the game (more needed to grab extra Performances and Lores).

So a Rogue that could somehow manage to learn 4.25+ skill ranks per level, they could be the ultimate Legendary Skill Master by Level 20?

*Begins planning this Pinnacle of Skilldom*
I really hope there are Rogue Feats for extra Skill Ranks~. >:3

The 10th level untrained fighter would potentially be able to do something impressive involving that piano for a quick little trick (I can imagine maybe playing Mary Had a Little Lamb with one hand while bench pressing the piano with the other hand), but is completely incapable of Staging a Performance of Sonnorae's Sonata #53 (the Betrayal Sonata).

Is there some rule based reason for this? Does playing a complex piece of music require more than just succeeding at a DC 20 perform check (e.g. a skill feat or master proficiency)?

And do other skills have similar requirements such that being a master of X is more important than having a +20 bonus in X?

Do certain skill checks only allow experts or above to attempt?

Yes actually. I think magic weapons require at least expert to craft, but I'd have to double check a couple blogs to be sure.

Edit:

Weapons, as well as other non-weapon items (but come on, those aren't as cool as weapons, right?), can be poor quality, standard quality, expert quality, master quality, or legendary quality.

Quality grants an item bonus or penalty of the same value as the matching proficiency (so an expert bow grants a +1 item bonus to hit and a legendary axe grants a +3 item bonus to hit). You have to have the matching proficiency to Craft a weapon of that quality though, so you can't make a master sword, for instance, unless you are a master at Crafting.

A lot of peoples' qualms about high level characters with enormous untrained skill bonuses are really trivially answered by "doesn't matter what your bonus is, most things can't be done untrained." And real world experience really does count more for a lot of the tasks that are available untrained. So high untrained bonuses don't bother me at all.

What does still bother me is the minimal +3 difference between someone Trained in a skill and someone theoretically Legendary in a skill. Both the Trained character and the Legendary character can do all the same trained tasks, the only difference besides the +3 is access to skill feats. There needs to be something "baked in" to higher ranks of proficiency to make them inherently more awesome besides just feat access, but if there was I would think they would have mentioned it by now - especially in today's skill focused blog!

What I am currently feeling is that Assurance should be removed from the game as a feat you can take. Instead, it should just be baked into proficiency levels of Expert and above. Are you an Expert in Medicine? Then you have Assurance (Medicine) and can take a 15 on that check, no feat tax required.

Do certain skill checks only allow experts or above to attempt?

Yes. As Mark notes above, some skill checks require a specific proficiency level such as Legendary, others can be auto-succeeded on by a lower level character with Assurance in the skill that makes them better than even the higher level character by virtue of negating the failure chance, and some uses of a skill are unlocked by Skill feats that require a minimum level of proficiency that could be Trained or higher, all the way up to Legendary. Each tier of proficiency unlocks new possibilities for the skill that simply aren't available otherwise.

Mark Seifter wrote:

If we have a high-level bard and paladin, both managing equal Charisma, with the bard legendary in Deception with a top-tier item and the paladin untrained with no item, the difference is 10. That means if they both roll the same number on the die and the bard succeeds, the paladin fails. If the paladin manages to succeed, the bard critically succeeds, etc (and it would be even worse for the paladin if the Deception task requires a basic item she didn't have, like a Disguise).

Just 10?

The bard that has poured a huge amount of his time into mastering the craft of weaving believable lies and hiding his true self, down to managing his involuntary tells, practicing his body language, and even clearing his thoughts so that he almost believes himself when he lies, still needs to have a magic item to have 50% higher chance to succeed than a paladin that never studied anything at all about deception and, in fact, may have avoided it because of the nature of their paladinhood and a lack of forethought into what situations she might find herself in.

I suppose that the bard could probably hand the item to the paladin to morning of the deception and negate the difference between their skills?

That's too close for my taste.

When I think "Legendary" for deception, I think of being able to trick a god. That isn't something that should be remedied with a magic item. (Unless it's an artifact.)

The thing is, a +10 is a lot more than a 50% higher chance to get the next best level of success (except for checks so easy that both of them nearly auto-critically-succeed). Suppose the bard succeeds on a 5; the paladin succeeds on a 15. That means the bard has nearly triple the chance of succeeding that the paladin does. And that's not counting any skill feats, which from your description of the bard's training it sounds like he has. For instance, supposing they are level 15 with 20 Charisma, the +18 paladin (+16 for disguising with no gear) needs a 12 (or 14) to succeed at a DC 30 check. The bard has clearly taken assurance based on the flavor description and auto-succeeds (and that's with or without the exceptional benefit from wearing a fragment of the first lie ever told in the multiverse, the actual top-tier Deception item), though with the whisper he would have had excellent odds of succeeding without assurance as well.

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

So in this blog post we see Paizo have gone a particular route in divorcing skills from ability scores that make sense (Int for knowledge) and instead gone for whichever ability score best suits a particular class (wis for knowledge religion). Can't say I'm a fan* and I know the reaction my table will have to this (based on how they reacted to other games that implemented this) and it won't be pretty.

Which is unfortunate because everything else was such good news. I am glad to see being untrained means you don't get +level to the skill. It was believed this wasn't the case and I am very glad to see it will be. The rest of the info is really positive.

*And I really hope we don't get something silly like clerics using wis to attack or bards using cha to attack.

This is so painfully wrong that it's insane. You are thinking of Pathfinder 1e again and you need to stop. In Pathfinder 2e if you fail by 10 it's a critical fail no matter what you are doing. If you succeed by 10 you critically succeed no matter what you are doing.

If there is a 25 point swing between the best and the untrained that means any check that actually challenges the best is an Automatic Crit Fail for the untrained. Likewise something that is pretty ok for everyone to try is an Automatic Crit Success for the best. They don't care what they roll. The 5 point swing means this doesn't happen. Skill checks have crit success and fail in this edition as well so anything you do is measured with that +/- 10 swing.

DC 30 at level 20 means the best guy (using no stat bonuses) needs a 7 to succeed and a 17 to crit succeed. While the untrained fails on an 11 and crit fails on a 1. Now we are probably going to see other modifiers in play besides just the stat bonuses but keep these things in mind. If you got no level to untrained skills at all you would just auto crit fail everything you weren't trained in which would make the game horrific.

^DeadManWalking

Thank you for pointing that out. That relieves most of my concerns. : )

So . . . assuming 17 different Skills in the game (only taking 1 Performance and 1 Lore) with 5 Proficiency ranks each, we would need 85 skill ranks at least to max out every Skill in the game (more needed to grab extra Performances and Lores).

So a Rogue that could somehow manage to learn 4.25+ skill ranks per level, they could be the ultimate Legendary Skill Master by Level 20?

*Begins planning this Pinnacle of Skilldom*
I really hope there are Rogue Feats for extra Skill Ranks~. >:3

Don't forget that Skill Feats count as General Feats too, so you can use General Feats for skill options.

Legendary Medic also has another really powerful advantage that would likely require in-depth analysis of the playtest document to undercover but I can tell you right off: The chances for say, a 16th-level legendary Medicine user to remove a 17th+ level affliction with this feat are substantially better than any other 16th-level character's odds. This advantages dissipates a bit at level 17 for a caster willing to use a 9th-level spell slot on affliction-removal (though that's quite an expensive resource), and evaporates compared to a level 20 cleric who takes 10th-level spells and then prepares a remove curse or the like in that slot (which seems quite unlikely when you could prepare miracle or avatar, and even then, the Legendary Medic can keep going with it and the cleric has one of those a day).

This info i find very interesting. Level based afflictions. This makes me think we will see poisons, diseases, and curses have a level assigned to them much like items. Sure, your 3rd level casting of Remove Disease will get rid of a disease that is lv 5 or lower, but if you want to get ride of a lv 7 disease you need to heighten it to a level 4 spell. At least that is the feeling i am getting. Which if true opens up many interesting scenarios for why kings may not just have a bottle of neutralize poison whenever they eat food and fear being poisoned, or how a town may be hit with a powerful disease that no one can find a cure for and lower level clerics can't seem to cure. The latter would allow for the pcs to need to find a plot mcguffin that can cure it and other interesting adventure ideas.

Under Administer First Aid, it says that it requires healing tools. Can they be poor quality healer's tools? Can someone untrained in crafting make poor quality healer's tools? Is there some sort of penalty for using poor quality healer's tools?

Details aside, I think what I'm confused about is I feel like I'm getting mixed-messages about the ultimate design goal/aesthetic of PF2. Sometimes it seems like they're going for a "fantasy epic super heroes" vibe (clerics become avatars! rogues become ultra-invisible!) and other times it seems like the power level of the game must be scaled back a *lot* from PF1 if announced abilities are really worthwhile instead of underwhelming (a level 13 fighter can ready a shield for a +2 to Reflex saves! a level 15 "legendary healer" can remove blindness!). I'm not saying either approach is wrong, but the combination . . . I just don't quite get what sort of game play is being envisioned here.

I have the exact same feeling too

Under Administer First Aid, it says that it requires healing tools. Can they be poor quality healer's tools? Can someone untrained in crafting make poor quality healer's tools? Is there some sort of penalty for using poor quality healer's tools?

All this is assuming that healing tools work like other skill tools. Probably you can use poor quality ones, yeah. Generally, yes, untrained craftsmen can make poor quality tools. Poor quality healer's tools impose a -2 penalty. You might be able to improvise poor quality healing tools, too, depending on the circumstance and GM.

^DeadManWalking

Thank you for pointing that out. That relieves most of my concerns. : )

So . . . assuming 17 different Skills in the game (only taking 1 Performance and 1 Lore) with 5 Proficiency ranks each, we would need 85 skill ranks at least to max out every Skill in the game (more needed to grab extra Performances and Lores).

So a Rogue that could somehow manage to learn 4.25+ skill ranks per level, they could be the ultimate Legendary Skill Master by Level 20?

*Begins planning this Pinnacle of Skilldom*
I really hope there are Rogue Feats for extra Skill Ranks~. >:3

As best I can tell, a single-classed rogue who desperately desired skill, spent every option and took every advantage, could manage to gain at least 54 skill rank increases, but 35 of those would all be only for untrained to trained, so...lots of Lores!