| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe, based on the information we've had thus far, that regardless of proficiency characters will get a straight +level to things (except possibly skills which will require at least 1 proficiency slot being spent to get a +level bonus).
Based on the podast/podcast notes we know that athletics and acrobatics can be used in combat to bull rush or trip opponents.
Based on a forum post we know that a "strength based wizard" could somewhat keep up with a fighter in fighting if they devote all of their resources to the cause, which means they're unlikely to be at half BAB.
Based on forum post we know that your spellcasting bonus is level + spellcasting ability modifier.
We know (I forget where from) that spell DCs are always the highest spell level you can cast.
I posit that proficiency is a straight + level (with room for more granularity with skills) + ability score modifier + level of expertise. Someone else mentioned that levels of expertise would be something like this (I'm tweaking the numbers further) and Mark Seifter mentioned they were on the right track:
* Untrained = -3
* Amateur = +0
* Novice = +1
* Professional = +2
* Veteran = +3
* Expert = +4
* Master = +5
* Legendary = +6
So the difference between a 1st level Wizard and a 1st level Fighter would be a Fighter starts out with Professional training in weapons (+2) whereas a Wizard would start out as an Amateur. At 15th level a Fighter would be a Master in fighting with weapons (+5) whereas a Wizard is still only an Amateur (meaning that he has to make up the difference in his to hit with spells like bull strength).
I would expect spells work much the same way. If we assume a specialist wizard gets to add their proficiency bonus to the spell DC of their specialised school then an INT 18 wizard has the following DCs/Specialised DCs:
* Level 1: DC 15/17 (+0/+2 prof bonus)
* Level 3: DC 16/18
* Level 5: DC 17 /20 (+0/+3 prof bonus)
* Level 7: DC 18/21
* Level 9: DC 20/23 (INT 20 at this point)
* Level 11: DC 21/25 (+0/+4 prof bonus)
* Level 13: DC 22/26
* Level 15: DC 23/28 (+0/+5 prof bonus)
* Level 17: DC 25/30 (INT 22 at this point)
* Level 19: DC 26/31
* Level 20: DC 26/32 (+0/+6 prof bonus)
Saves could be you start with Professional training in 2 saves and Amateur training in 1 save at level 1. You get the following progression assuming you always remain an Amateur in your third save:
* Level 1: +3 / +1 (+2/+0 prof bonus)
* Level 3: +5 / +3
* Level 5: +8 / +5 (+3/+0 prof bonus)
* Level 7: +10 / +7
* Level 9: +12 / +9
* Level 11: +15 / +11 (+4/+0 prof bonus)
* Level 13: +17 / +13
* Level 15: +20 / +15 (+5/+0 prof bonus)
* Level 17: +22 / +17
* Level 19: +24 / +19
* Level 20: +26 / +20 (+6/+0 prof bonus)
The above would be interesting. It means that at low levels spellcasters will have high DCs which means their effect is more likely to go off (which considering how limited spells are at low level means that they don't waste the spell by having it fizzle). At higher levels, however, we see DCs for good saves are extremely low (can succeed on a 5 or more) which means that it's unlikely to provide the full effect of the spell. But this means that you can have higher amounts of damage being thrown around because the recipient has an extremely good chance of passing (which means you only deal half damage). Furthermore if you correctly identify and target a foe's bad save (and as a high level full caster you've got plenty of spells with which to select from) with your specialised school, there's a 60% chance of the target failing. This encourages spellcasters to devote multiple resources into specialising in multiple schools of magic. This would give multiple spellcasters of the same class extremely different feels because they'd each be specialising in different schools of magic. Even a cleric would need to devote a significant number of their feats and other resources on spellcasting if they want to routinely throw spells around (as opposed to the current system where a cleric can devote minimal resources in spellcasting and still be a fairly effective spellcaster).
Overall I'm likely to have gotten a fair few things wrong. I'm doubtful that Paizo would be willing to nerf spellcasters to the degree that the above DCs would suggest. But I figured it'd be worthwhile doing the math and throwing it out there to see what people think. I'd definitely be willing to give it a try. It's a very AD&D feel to it where saves genuinely get better which enabled spells to have very over the top effects because they so rarely worked. It also helps deal with the problem of the caster getting to cherry pick which save they target by making it required for them to target a foe's bad save.
It could also be that at 5th level, 10th level, 15th level and 20th level a character gets 2 saving throw proficiencies that they can spend on any saving throw they want. Perhaps you'd be restricted to class saving throws. So a single classed Fighter can only select Fort and Will while a single classed Ranger can only select Reflex and Will. However a Fighter 1/Ranger 4 or a Ranger 1/Fighter 4 could choose to spend their two proficiencies on any saving throw they want. This means that multiclassing doesn't instantly boost your saves to ridiculous levels (In PF 1st ed a Fighter 1/Ranger 1/Paladin 1 would have a +6 Fort, +2 Reflex and +2 Will vs Ranger 3 which gets +3 Fort, +3 Reflex and +1 Will) while still giving players tactical choices on how they advance their saving throw bonuses (do they want to have an average boost to all saving throws or specialise in 2).
What do people think?
They've already revealed that Untrained is a -1.
They've already revealed that Untrained is a -1.
I thought untrained was StatMod -1, you don't add your level to it. So a Wizard trying to swing a greataxe he is untrained in is unlikely to go well.
They've already revealed that Untrained is a -1.I thought untrained was StatMod -1, you don't add your level to it. So a Wizard trying to swing a greataxe he is untrained in is unlikely to go well.
Why did you assume I meant you don't get your stat at all? That's like thinking "Legendary is +3" means you don't get your stat modifier, just a flat +3.
I brought this up, and a dev said that the final modifier for Untrained skills of the first level characters ended up at stat -1, but that that wasn't actually the formula. Which is what led me to the thought that everybody just gets level to stats, and Untrained is a flat -2 penalty: because at level 1, stat +level -2 ends up being stat -1.
I think the idea is (since this works the same way with weapons as it does skills) is that there's a huge drawback to trying to do something you have no idea how to do. If it was StatMod+Level-2 for untrained and StatMod + Level for trained, then everybody is going to be pretty good at every skill and weapon.
Another possibility they might go with is adding half your level to nonproficient things, but your full level to proficient things, with additional bonuses for expertise. That way someone not trained in a skill, say Stealth, isn't entirely /awful/ at it, but it still allows those with training to shine and be a lot better.
This would also allow a "jack of all trades" feat or bardic ability to do something like add some basic expertise to everything (and make "trained only" checks as if trained), without actually giving you proficiency in everything~
I brought this up, and a dev said that the final modifier for Untrained skills of the first level characters ended up at stat -1, but that that wasn't actually the formula. Which is what led me to the thought that everybody just gets level to stats, and Untrained is a flat -2 penalty: because at level 1, stat +level -2 ends up being stat -1.I think the idea is (since this works the same way with weapons as it does skills) is that there's a huge drawback to trying to do something you have no idea how to do. If it was StatMod+Level-2 for untrained and StatMod + Level for trained, then everybody is going to be pretty good at every skill and weapon.Well, they've already said that they want people to be able to try checks they might not be focused on. I think the 5 point difference (between Untrained's -2 and Legend's +3) is enough of a difference as long as they make sure that the Skill Feats (the things you'll only be able to get if you have higher levels of training) are nice and robust.
I don't mind if your untrained Stealth is almost as good as my Legend Stealth when I can do things like move between cover without breaking stealth, hide in barely any concealment, or snipe from hiding without a penalty, or whatever they decide on for the special abilities. Differences in skill level look like they're going to come in the form of Skill Feats, not so much in raw bonus.
Or, to put it a different way: you might not be that much more likely to fail a Stealth check than I am, but I can use Stealth in more circumstances and more ways than you can.
I think it's the former. We know that people who are really good at skills (lots of ranks or legendary proficiency) will gain extra non-magical abilities. Probably akin to gaining a swim speed for lots of ranks in swim like it was in Unchained, and even better.
So even though my "untrained" is only a -5 compared to your legendary (excluding stat difference), you can do things well beyond my ability just by the extra features you've gained.
That's pretty much exactly what I said.
Yes. It's called agreeing with you.
Not everyone on the internet who responds to you is attacking you or arguing against you. Some of us actually like what you have to say.
That's what had me confused, the way you started your comment sounded like you had maybe responded to the wrong person or something. Sorry.
Ah. Ok. That makes sense, and I too apologize for the confusion.
You're talking about the Skill Feats, right? Seems like every X levels you can pick a feat that powers up one of your favorite skills, like the skill unlock! So there's more to them than just the modifier.