Are You Proficient?

Friday, March 16, 2018

The term "proficiency" has been a part of the Pathfinder rules since the very beginning, but in the Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook, we've expanded the concept to cover more than just weapons and armor. In the new proficiency system, your proficiency matters for just about every check you attempt and DC you have. You don't just have proficiency in weapons, which helps when you swing a sword, or proficiency in armor, which protects you when you try to avoid a blow—instead, proficiency covers everything from axes to spells, from Acrobatics to Thievery, and from Perception to Will saves. Your proficiency in Fortitude saves can allow you to shake off virulent poisons in an instant, and your proficiency in Diplomacy might help you stop a fight before it begins. There are five different ranks of proficiency.

Untrained

An untrained character lacks even basic proficiency. He adjusts his checks and DCs by –2 and sometimes flat-out can't attempt certain things. For instance, someone who is untrained in Thievery might be able to try to steal from someone but isn't skilled enough to pick a lock, no matter how high level he is.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

Trained

A trained character has put in enough work that she's able to perform effectively. She can even start taking skill feats to achieve new and special effects with her skills. Many skill feats grow more and more powerful as your proficiency rank increases.

Expert

An expert is particularly accomplished in a particular field, adjusting her checks and DCs by +1, and gains access to more powerful features requiring expertise.

Master

A master is extremely skilled in an area, and she can achieve incredible results. In addition to adjusting her checks and DCs by +2, she may unlock powerful perks like master-level skill feats for skills, or the ability to dodge fireballs completely for Reflex saves. Other than a few classes like fighters, with their incredible command of weapons, characters can't become masters until level 7 at the earliest, and sometimes much later.

Legendary

A legendary character is world-class, and in addition to adjusting checks and DCs by +3, can routinely produce results that defy real-world explanation, even if they're not a spellcaster. For instance, a character who is legendary in Survival could learn to survive without food, water, or air in a featureless void, a character legendary in Thievery might be able to steal the armor off a guard, and a character with a legendary Will save might have a mind so strong that no mental intrusion can fully affect him. Most characters can't hope to become legendary until level 15 at the earliest, and even the mightiest fighters reach these heights with their weapons only at level 13. Most characters become legendary in only a few skills and one or two other statistics.

Proficiency Modifier

Your proficiency modifier is based partly on your rank and partly on your level—you add your level to the modifier from your rank to determine your proficiency modifier. For instance, a level 20 rogue who is legendary at Stealth might have a +23 proficiency modifier, while a level 1 paladin who is untrained at Stealth might have a –1 proficiency modifier. But does that mean that your level 20 untrained and magic-hating barbarian knows more about arcane magic than your friend's level 1 bibliophile wizard does? Not really. Your barbarian, with her extensive experience in battle, might be able to identify a dragon's weaknesses much better than the wizard with his ivory-tower book learning, but when it comes to magical theory, identifying the gestures that compose a spell, or other such topics, your barbarian simply doesn't know anything at all.

Gaining Proficiency

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 (or more often for the rogue!). Your other proficiencies increase based on your class and feat choices.

Making the Nonmagical Extraordinary

The best part about proficiencies is the way they push the boundaries for nonmagical characters, particularly those with a legendary rank. If you're legendary in something, you're like a character out of real-world myth and legend, swimming across an entire sea while beating up sea monsters like Beowulf, performing unbelievable tasks like Heracles, or hunting and racing at astounding speeds like Atalanta. While we did perform a bit of research on things like real world Olympic records and average expectations when it came to the lower ranks, masters and especially legends break all those rules. Want your fighter to leap 20 feet straight up and smash a chimera down to the ground? You can do that (eventually)!

And that's the basics of how proficiency works! Thanks for reading, and let us know what you think in the comments.

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
951 to 1,000 of 1,441 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

Arachnofiend wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
As for some of the near superhuman abilities a Legendary training non-magical character can do, I saw someone mention upstream stage magicians. After seeing the Illusionists show last night, that was top of mind for me as well. The guy who did the Houdini upside down straight jacket escape in 60 seconds clearly was legendary in escape artist, and the guy who seemed to create cards for about 5 minutes straight was legendary at slight of hand (or thievery now - I'd think he'd be pretty good with locks if he's that much a master of fine tuned manipulations.)
I think those guys are Masters at best. Someone who's Legendary at Escape Artist is escaping a Maze spell, or basically has always on, [Ex] freedom of movement.

They can appear to be Legendary on TV


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sense I get is that, broadly speaking, the higher ranks of skill proficiency exist to make skills clearly an active option for a player to use to accomplish something, whereas basic (and untrained) ranks exist for when you have to make reactive checks in response to circumstances you did not choose to create.

By telling people some of the incredible things they are able to do, the hope is that players will then seek to leverage their skills to move the story forward in a way they choose, rather than "walk into a room, look around, make appropriate checks in response to what's there" which was common in PF1.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
As for some of the near superhuman abilities a Legendary training non-magical character can do, I saw someone mention upstream stage magicians. After seeing the Illusionists show last night, that was top of mind for me as well. The guy who did the Houdini upside down straight jacket escape in 60 seconds clearly was legendary in escape artist, and the guy who seemed to create cards for about 5 minutes straight was legendary at slight of hand (or thievery now - I'd think he'd be pretty good with locks if he's that much a master of fine tuned manipulations.)
I think those guys are Masters at best. Someone who's Legendary at Escape Artist is escaping a Maze spell, or basically has always on, [Ex] freedom of movement.
They can appear to be Legendary on TV

For what it's worth, I saw the show live last night, so there wasn't any TV/video trickery.

As for if they're legendary or masters, the point is it's pretty illustrative of the system at work. Other than the few examples in the blog, it will be hard to pin what a particular skill can/can't do until we see their full descriptions, so no point in really arguing about what example would be master vs. legendary.

Paizo Employee Designer

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Voss wrote:

OK? But, picture aside (fill in whatever level appropriate thing you like), if the math is such that the the encounter is solved by auto-pass or a pile of numbers that essentially equates to an auto-pass, I'm not clear what the point is.

Either the point of the auto-passing, since 'pile up bonuses together until they're off the random number generator' is still an option, and the second case indicates it is.

Or the point of having that sort of encounter at all, if it's just stamped 'solved' by one method or the other.

In either case, it seems like the 'challenge' of an encounter is entirely absent. If the player had the system mastery way before level 15 to make the right proficiency choices as they leveled, they get to just handwave challenges at higher levels. That... doesn't really sound fun or engaging.

I'm still wondering about level-appropriate opposition being an always-baked-in assumption, too.

Level-appropriate DCs are not a built-in assumption. An oak tree is an oak tree; it doesn't change its DC just because you're higher level.

As to the question "So what's the difference here?" Well it's certainly true that a Stealth-focused character at level 15 in PF1 (probably has in the +40s without even relying on huge bonuses from spell) is going to crush the Stealth check against a basic max ranked level 15 guard (who might have +20 or so if Perception is a class skill and maybe 14 Wisdom at best with the way elite array and stat raises make secondary stats tricky in PF1), so that hasn't changed much. But the difference is that in PF2, the untrained 14 Dex 15th level fighter is at +15 (or worse from armor, perhaps +14) instead of +2 (or worse from armor, perhaps +1), so while he is still more likely to fail than succeed against DC 28, he at least has a reasonable shot at trying, rather than no chance at all (opposed roll +1 Stealth vs +20 Perception).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What a meant to say that was not to clear was I am not sure what role class will have on the proficiencies and the different levels of proficiencies. If I am not mistaken the class has feats that I would guess would be at each level of proficiency. This is where I think the separation will occur.

The example I gave was a white room example. The 20th level wizard would not go adventuring with a Great Sword. However, based numbers the 20th level wizards has a better BAB with Great Sword 6/1 vs 5 for Fifth level fighter. As said above what separates them is feats and class features.

I am not too sure this will not be the same case with PF2.

I do think that the Proficiency system is an ingrained part of PF2 like bounded accuracy with 5e. I do not think it will change. Some feats based on proficiency may be tweaked, new things added, and some removed.

I know many of you on the boards love PF1. I think it does a good job at what it is meant to. I do think PF2 will be different. We have those in our group that liked 4e and some of us liked 5e. The games are different. I do hope you find some stuff you like in PF2. I do think there is enough material to play PF1 for quite some time. I also know it is not quite the same thing as playing the current addition.

Dave2


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I'm really curious to see how exactly proficiency works with armor/AC. I think it would be pretty cool if the bulk of your AC was based around your proficiency and the category of armor, rather than the statistics of the armors themselves. That way your choice between two armors of the same category (like padded vs studded leather vs chain shirt) can be based more on the specific properties that these armors can provide instead of which one has the biggest number. One thing about current Pathfinder that has always mildly disappointed me is the tendency for characters to approach the same armor sets as time goes on and cot becomes less of a factor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess this means that I'm simply not meant to have players ever being challenged by low-level NPCs, and that city guards are meant to automatically scale with the PCs?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
I guess this means that I'm simply not meant to have players ever being challenged by low-level NPCs, and that city guards are meant to automatically scale with the PCs?

Not sure where but James or Jason pointed out that you're not meant to have players ever be challenged by ow-level NPCs, and that city guards are not meant to automatically scale.

Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's worth noting that a lot of what we've seen so far allows GMs a lot of "dials" to assist their games.

Want a faster XP advancement? Make it 750 XP instead of 1,000 XP per level.

Want a grittier game? Replace any +level stuff with +1/2 level. That scales everything, from attacks to saves to skills, in one swoop.

With more unified mechanics, it seems like the game will be very easy to adjust without accidentally trashing another subsystem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Level-appropriate DCs are not a built-in assumption. An oak tree is an oak tree; it doesn't change its DC just because you're higher level.

As to the question "So what's the difference here?" Well it's certainly true that a Stealth-focused character at level 15 in PF1 (probably has in the +40s without even relying on huge bonuses from spell) is going to crush the Stealth check against a basic max ranked level 15 guard (who might have +20 or so if Perception is a class skill and maybe 14 Wisdom at best with the way elite array and stat raises make secondary stats tricky in PF1), so that hasn't changed much. But the difference is that in PF2, the untrained 14 Dex 15th level fighter is at +15 (or worse from armor, perhaps +14) instead of +2 (or worse from armor, perhaps +1), so while he is still more likely to fail than succeed against DC 28, he at least has a reasonable shot at trying, rather than no chance at all (opposed roll +1 Stealth vs +20 Perception).

Except in the case where you need to challenge a group. There come levels where even untrained it becomes trivial to pass a DC 15 skill check, so even those who have never even seen a tree in their life could climb an oak tree without even so much as a dice roll. Why? Why should they have a chance? You don't let the fighter just errantly cast spells, the wizard doesn't just get rage like a barbarian, and the ranger doesn't get to smite evil. These things are often available to classes via multiclassing or archtypes, but that requires a base level of investment from the character, why should skills be any different? What you are saying and what the system says are diametrically opposed to one another, automatic progression in untrained skills DOES undermine investment in any particular skill set. The fact that there are extras added or that untrained folk have a reduced opportunity to use their untrained value doesn't fix this, because it either has to be so restrictive that you might as well not have the skill to begin with or its so loose that we're back at the first problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Not sure where but James or Jason pointed out that you're not meant to have players ever be challenged by ow-level NPCs, and that city guards are not meant to automatically scale.

Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

I'm just going to have to stop running urban campaigns then if characters are forced to automatically beat the perception of the people who have "Perception" as their profession.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

I mean, this has always been true anyway since in PF1 eventually the party was turning invisible and teleporting all over the place and in a pinch just mind-controlling the constabulary, all things which humble city guards have no way to countermand.

If a group of level 15 characters wanted to run roughshod over garden-variety NPCs, they have always been able to do so. I don't think it's very common because, again, this isn't particularly fun or heroic. It's just now they can do it without spells.


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:

Not sure where but James or Jason pointed out that you're not meant to have players ever be challenged by ow-level NPCs, and that city guards are not meant to automatically scale.

Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

I'm just going to have to stop running urban campaigns then if characters are forced to automatically beat the perception of the people who have "Perception" as their profession.

Sure but those are low level people working that profession.

A sufficient level gap makes everything else irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This goes back to a lot riding on how task difficulty is assigned on both the DC and minimum proficiency axes, but plausibly there are plenty of situations where the city watch could still make trouble for you because the relevant problems are proficiency-gated.

So the +level bonus might make trivial sneaking past the city guards in a dark alley, or outrunning them, or bribing them away from a minor crime when the chance of discovery is low, or pick soneone's pocket without their noticing, and so on. But simply confidently walking past them into an area you're not supposed to be in broad daylight, or knowing how to clean up evidence after a crime scene, or convincing them to follow your orders because of a preposterous lie like "actually, I'm the captain of the city watch, just undercover and polymorphed" might require various levels of proficiency, even if your opponents in these matters are ordinary guards.


Incidentally... just what level are you talking about running urban campaigns? Those never last beyond level 12 at the absolute most before they no longer seem relevant to my campaigns.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
As to the question "So what's the difference here?" Well it's certainly true that a Stealth-focused character at level 15 in PF1 (probably has in the +40s without even relying on huge bonuses from spell) is going to crush the Stealth check against a basic max ranked level 15 guard (who might have +20 or so if Perception is a class skill and maybe 14 Wisdom at best with the way elite array and stat raises make secondary stats tricky in PF1), so that hasn't changed much. But the difference is that in PF2, the untrained 14 Dex 15th level fighter is at +15 (or worse from armor, perhaps +14) instead of +2 (or worse from armor, perhaps +1), so while he is still more likely to fail than succeed against DC 28, he at least has a reasonable shot at trying, rather than no chance at all (opposed roll +1 Stealth vs +20 Perception).

Is it a conscious design goal to have untrained characters be, individually, so universally competent that they can succeed semi-reliably at equal level challenges involving their weak spots, and pretty much auto-succeed at everything a bit below?

If not, I raise again the suggestion that instead of upscaling the abilities of untrained characters per se (at least to this degree), we could leverage the 'four degrees of success' paradigm for a system of aiding each other in group checks such that high skilled characters will be trying to go for critical successes to "bail out" the low skilled ones, who will be trying to avoid critical failure. This way everybody's rolls matter, which seems like an improvement over the above boring situation where there is no point for the rogue to roll at all. And the fighter will also no longer necessarily screw up the group task, but not because he is for some reason able to avoid detection by a trained high level guard purely by virtue of his own explicitly untrained skill at sneaking (which incidentally also makes him impossible to spot for all sufficiently lower level creatures in the same situation), but because he's not so bad that the amazing rogue cannot help him over the hurdle.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Level-appropriate DCs are not a built-in assumption. An oak tree is an oak tree; it doesn't change its DC just because you're higher level.

As to the question "So what's the difference here?" Well it's certainly true that a Stealth-focused character at level 15 in PF1 (probably has in the +40s without even relying on huge bonuses from spell) is going to crush the Stealth check against a basic max ranked level 15 guard (who might have +20 or so if Perception is a class skill and maybe 14 Wisdom at best with the way elite array and stat raises make secondary stats tricky in PF1), so that hasn't changed much. But the difference is that in PF2, the untrained 14 Dex 15th level fighter is at +15 (or worse from armor, perhaps +14) instead of +2 (or worse from armor, perhaps +1), so while he is still more likely to fail than succeed against DC 28, he at least has a reasonable shot at trying, rather than no chance at all (opposed roll +1 Stealth vs +20 Perception).

Except in the case where you need to challenge a group. There come levels where even untrained it becomes trivial to pass a DC 15 skill check, so even those who have never even seen a tree in their life could climb an oak tree without even so much as a dice roll. Why? Why should they have a chance? You don't let the fighter just errantly cast spells, the wizard doesn't just get rage like a barbarian, and the ranger doesn't get to smite evil. These things are often available to classes via multiclassing or archtypes, but that requires a base level of investment from the character, why should skills be any different? What you are saying and what the system says are diametrically opposed to one another, automatic progression in untrained skills DOES undermine investment in any particular skill set. The fact that there are extras added or that untrained folk have a reduced opportunity to use their untrained value doesn't fix this, because it either has to be so restrictive that you might as well not have the skill to begin...

For challenges that challenge the whole group the specialist will probably auto-pass, while the person with no investment has a chance of passing. As opposed to PF1E where the specialist will probably pass, but the person with no ranks will definitely fail and then the whole party has to fight the guards anyway because Clanky’s armour check penalty removes any option for group stealth anyway.

If the DC to climb a tree is 15 and you’re level 15 why are you throwing a tree climbing challenge at your party anyway?

You should be throwing them against the DC 25 cliffs of insanity where your dedicated mountain climber has no trouble but your weak ass wizard still has a ~60% chance of failing (so maybe he’ll need some assistance from the mountain climbing ranger, or spends a spell to fly).

If however a group of high level orcs on Worgs come chasing the party the wizard hasn’t the option to climb a tree, which is no more a challenge than mobile fighting. Even Gandalf can climb a tree.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

For challenges that challenge the whole group the specialist will probably auto-pass, while the person with no investment has a chance of passing. As opposed to PF1E where the specialist will probably pass, but the person with no ranks will definitely fail and then the whole party has to fight the guards anyway because Clanky’s armour check penalty removes any option for group stealth anyway.

If the DC to climb a tree is 15 and you’re level 15 why are you throwing a tree climbing challenge at your party anyway?

You should be throwing them against the DC 25 cliffs of insanity where your dedicated mountain climber has no trouble but your weak ass wizard still has a ~60% chance of failing (so maybe he’ll need some assistance from the mountain climbing ranger, or spends a spell to fly).

If however a group of high level orcs on Worgs come chasing the party the wizard hasn’t the option to climb a tree, which is no more a challenge than mobile fighting. Even Gandalf can climb a tree.

So that necessitates level dependent DC's then. Otherwise you run into situations where either everyone is ok or everyone is going to fail, which trivializes the investment of the character. Why is this ok in the case of skills but not class features?

If I need to put a tree somewhere why shouldn't I be able to? This is an argument for level based DC's, and further why should we forgive the wizard for not putting any ranks into climb? Why should Gandalf be able to climb a tree without expending his magic?

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:

So that necessitates level dependent DC's then. Otherwise you run into situations where either everyone is ok or everyone is going to fail, which trivializes the investment of the character. Why is this ok in the case of skills but not class features?

No, it means you should put your players against level-appropriate encounters.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
There come levels where even untrained it becomes trivial to pass a DC 15 skill check, so even those who have never even seen a tree in their life could climb an oak tree without even so much as a dice roll. Why? Why should they have a chance? You don't let the fighter just errantly cast spells, the wizard doesn't just get rage like a barbarian, and the ranger doesn't get to smite evil.

I'm not sure if you're using the climbing a tree example as a deliberate simplification to prove a point, so forgive me if I'm missing your point here...

In 1st edition, a paladin in full plate mail with 0 ranks of Climb will almost never successfully climb a tree. At 15th level, she can leap onto the back of a dragon and battle it in the sky, but that tree remains insurmountable to her without some sort of help. From an adventure design standpoint, this also means that any encounter which requires climbing a tree turns into a roadblock for the paladin. If nobody in the group invested in Climb, the adventure could potentially grind to a halt because of a tree that the designer/GM never considered a major obstacle.

In 2nd edition, the paladin in full plate mail is considered to have picked up some of the basic skills needed to climb a tree (identifying handholds, estimating weak spots, etc) through sheer experience - sort of like how a wizard gets better at swinging a weapon even with little actual weapons practice. She probably still doesn't go around climbing trees all the time because why would she? However, if an encounter requires some tree-climbing, it's no longer something that turns into a major stumbling block.

From a player's perspective, it means they won't necessarily hinder a group's chance at success because they never invested in Climb. From an adventure design perspective, it means that it's easier to set an obstacle that can challenge some parts of the group while being easy to surpass for others. You know that climbing a DC 15 tree could reasonably challenge 5th-level characters - those skilled at climbing will probably pass the check (and will very likely not be at risk of critically failing the check), while the untrained armor-wearing paladin will have a harder but not impossible time (and may be at risk of a fall thanks to a critical failure).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:

Not sure where but James or Jason pointed out that you're not meant to have players ever be challenged by ow-level NPCs, and that city guards are not meant to automatically scale.

Given enough levels, the PCs reach a realm beyond the threat of city guards.

I'm just going to have to stop running urban campaigns then if characters are forced to automatically beat the perception of the people who have "Perception" as their profession.

This literally already happens in PF1. If a high level rogue is trying to sneak past city guards they're gonna succeed.

And if we're talking about guards who are equally high level for some reason, then we've already been told that you can build NPCs like PCs. So you could design them to be as good at perception as the rogue is stealth.

But a guards's "profession" isn't perception. It's a combination of combat capability, perception, knowledge of the laws, ability to follow orders, etc. So it makes decent sense that a guard isn't gonna have a perception matching or necessarily even close to matching a PC of equal level whose primary focus is stealth.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

For challenges that challenge the whole group the specialist will probably auto-pass, while the person with no investment has a chance of passing. As opposed to PF1E where the specialist will probably pass, but the person with no ranks will definitely fail and then the whole party has to fight the guards anyway because Clanky’s armour check penalty removes any option for group stealth anyway.

If the DC to climb a tree is 15 and you’re level 15 why are you throwing a tree climbing challenge at your party anyway?

You should be throwing them against the DC 25 cliffs of insanity where your dedicated mountain climber has no trouble but your weak ass wizard still has a ~60% chance of failing (so maybe he’ll need some assistance from the mountain climbing ranger, or spends a spell to fly).

If however a group of high level orcs on Worgs come chasing the party the wizard hasn’t the option to climb a tree, which is no more a challenge than mobile fighting. Even Gandalf can climb a tree.

So that necessitates level dependent DC's then. Otherwise you run into situations where either everyone is ok or everyone is going to fail, which trivializes the investment of the character. Why is this ok in the case of skills but not class features?

If I need to put a tree somewhere why shouldn't I be able to? This is an argument for level based DC's, and further why should we forgive the wizard for not putting any ranks into climb? Why should Gandalf be able to climb a tree without expending his magic?

Because he wants to spend his spells on acorn grenades obviously?

You can put a tree wherever you like, just don’t assume tree climbing is a challenge for 15th level characters unless it is Yggdrasil the world tree.

I’ve run quite a few high level adventures in PF1E, and let me tell you, there is not a lot of encounters that really need to challenge a wizard’s tree climbing abilities at those levels. But if you want to put a tree in a castle courtyard, and your wizard wants to climb it he can. Your wizard who has spent 15 levels traversing dangerous dungeons, negotiating treacherous terrain and can fall like 70 feet without breaking his legs (hit points!).


Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

For challenges that challenge the whole group the specialist will probably auto-pass, while the person with no investment has a chance of passing. As opposed to PF1E where the specialist will probably pass, but the person with no ranks will definitely fail and then the whole party has to fight the guards anyway because Clanky’s armour check penalty removes any option for group stealth anyway.

If the DC to climb a tree is 15 and you’re level 15 why are you throwing a tree climbing challenge at your party anyway?

You should be throwing them against the DC 25 cliffs of insanity where your dedicated mountain climber has no trouble but your weak ass wizard still has a ~60% chance of failing (so maybe he’ll need some assistance from the mountain climbing ranger, or spends a spell to fly).

If however a group of high level orcs on Worgs come chasing the party the wizard hasn’t the option to climb a tree, which is no more a challenge than mobile fighting. Even Gandalf can climb a tree.

So that necessitates level dependent DC's then. Otherwise you run into situations where either everyone is ok or everyone is going to fail, which trivializes the investment of the character. Why is this ok in the case of skills but not class features?

If I need to put a tree somewhere why shouldn't I be able to?

Then put the tree there. Why the &#$% does it need to be a challenge???

Quote:
This is an argument for level based DC's, and further why should we forgive the wizard for not putting any ranks into climb? Why should Gandalf be able to climb a tree without expending his magic?

We don't forgive the wizard for not training climb. If he doesn't train it then he's a burden anytime the party needs to climb that tree... at low levels.

When that tree is no longer an issue, he can manage because he's managed to Rise in Level multiple times. He has ascended beyond being unable to climb trees.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have found that the most effective, and realistic, way for local law enforcement to handle high level PCs is to identify them, ask them what they want, then ensure that they get it so they do not need to break any laws in the course of getting it, then politely remind them that they have bigger fish to fry and should probably be on their way.

A level 15 PC in a city should have roughly equivalent pull as a "head of state" does. It's likely they are higher level than the mayor!

Unless of course these are PCs in their hometown, in which case one of them would be the mayor if they had time away from adventuring to devote themselves to it.


Charlie Brooks wrote:

I'm not sure if you're using the climbing a tree example as a deliberate simplification to prove a point, so forgive me if I'm missing your point here...

In 1st edition, a paladin in full plate mail with 0 ranks of Climb will almost never successfully climb a tree. At 15th level, she can leap onto the back of a dragon and battle it in the sky, but that tree remains insurmountable to her without some sort of help. From an adventure design standpoint, this also means that any encounter which requires climbing a tree turns into a roadblock for the paladin. If nobody in the group invested in Climb, the adventure could potentially grind to a halt because of a tree that the designer/GM never considered a major obstacle.

In 2nd edition, the paladin in full plate mail is considered to have picked up some of the basic skills needed to climb a tree (identifying handholds, estimating weak spots, etc) through sheer experience - sort of like how a wizard gets better at swinging a weapon even with little actual weapons practice. She probably still doesn't go around climbing trees all the time because why would she? However, if an encounter requires some tree-climbing, it's no longer something that turns into a major stumbling block.

From a player's perspective, it means they won't necessarily hinder a group's chance at success because they never invested in Climb. From an adventure design perspective, it means that it's easier to set an obstacle that can challenge some parts of the group while being easy to surpass for others. You know that climbing a DC 15 tree could reasonably challenge...

Yes, I was using it to prove a point.

My question then is why is this tolerated in other contexts, like a party fighting a ghost? If you don't have any access to magic it becomes a wide awake nightmare when dealing with it. You can flatten this easily by giving all characters access to magic, but then that trivializes what a caster can uniquely bring to the party, its the same way that a summoner can trivialize any of the martial characters by bringing a big beefy frontline eidolon. So why don't we do that as well?

If you're not putting obstacles in front of your players as obstacles why are you putting them in front of the players at all?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Incidentally... just what level are you talking about running urban campaigns? Those never last beyond level 12 at the absolute most before they no longer seem relevant to my campaigns.

I've run urban campaigns up to level 15 previously. Not sure how much further it would go because schedule conflicts ended that campaign.

Admittedly, I was fine with maybe a 20% of the groups challenges being low-level NPCs through political maneuvering or me just knowing that "Just because 1 PC can do x really well doesn't mean the whole group can".

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
This literally already happens in PF1. If a high level rogue is trying to sneak past city guards they're gonna succeed.

Except I'm not talking about a high level rogue? I'm fine with a person who regularly uses stealth to be amazing at stealth.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.

Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.


Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
My question then is why is this tolerated in other contexts, like a party fighting a ghost? If you don't have any access to magic it becomes a wide awake nightmare when dealing with it. You can flatten this easily by giving all characters access to magic, but then that trivializes what a caster can uniquely bring to the party, its the same way that a summoner can trivialize any of the martial characters by bringing a big beefy frontline eidolon. So why don't we do that as well?

It absolutely should NOT be tolerated in other contexts. Like in the Ghost example a naked fighter should be able to punch it to death by legendary Fighting at the very latest, possibly master.

Quote:
If you're not putting obstacles in front of your players as obstacles why are you putting them in front of the players at all?

Because they're not obstacles, they're scenery and a display of how far they have come since those were obstacles.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay I think there is a lot of things being misconstrued. I'm going to try and touch on many things here.

First the numerical bonus vs gated abilities, granularity etc etc. I'm not going to say much here beyond I'm concerned about some of the math which may or may not be an issue once we have the full picture. Regardless, I think this aspect of the whole thing is the most easily tweaked.

The narrative argument for or against everyone getting better at everything. Well I've seen examples on both sides that are perfectly logical. I'm saying both options are possible. I don't see the point of this part of the argument. Again I'm saying I want you to be able to play your polymath, dance instructor, interior decorating, ninja, podiatrist. I just want to also be able to play my legendary I can swim up a waterfall, diplomacy the king, follower of Kurgress who can't do their taxes and doesn't know the difference between Taldane fine art and Chelaxian fine art.

People seem to like the narrative examples so I'll humor you all. Yes the barbarian that has been fighting wizards and dragons their whole life is great at: jumping, climbing, swimming, sword swinging and even knows a thing or two about arcane magic. Makes sense. Now why are they pretty good at painting ceramic tea cups? I mean if they were a potter I'd get that they might be good at finger painting but they don't even pick locks they punch down doors and never sign a contract. So why are they so good at delicate painting? :)

In Skulls and Shackles all of our pc's had ranks in Professional Sailor and Swim. I mean I don't think anyone is arguing to purposely make their character a liability. If you're always swimming around I think anyone would eventually put a rank it. I don't think anyone had ranks in ride as we never went on horses etc. My little under 3 foot tall 30 lbs. witch had no ranks in ride or climb if I remember correctly. Why? She could piggy back on the big strong front liners for a climb if needed. Not that that ever came up to my memory. She eventually had a nice per minute use of fly as well so she didn't need to ever use climb. She was by far the best in stealth and very good at acrobatics as well.

Anyways, I just want more customization. That's it. You can still make your characters. Let us make ours.

I think I finally figured out why people are arguing against customization even if it gives them the ability to make the characters they want while giving others the ability to make theirs.

They don't want people to play the game in a certain way. I don't think any of them are consciously saying that or being malicious but I think that is sub-consciously what they are getting at.

Now the question is why? I think I know that too. (I think but I could be wrong.)

They've played in such games with disparity between them and another player. Either the one player "held" the group back and caused problems or they were out shined by another player.

Regarding the above two issues I have a ton of examples here where this can be solved in PF1 and in PF2 for that matter, and how if you don't use any of these strategies that this can still be an issue in PF2.

So what's a party to do when sneaking past the guard challenge? First I don't know of any DM's that say "well there is a guard you have to stealth past it. If you can't stealth well the whole thing is screwed."

What about elixirs of hiding? I think there are elixirs of swimming, perception etc. Rings of jumping, swimming, head bands of intellect with whatever knowledge skill check you need. Ring of invisibility anyone? So there are ways around these common problems item wise.

What else can the party do? Remember the guards are not just a stealth only challenge. If three out of six people can't stealth well then maybe one can climb out the window and crawl across the ledge and come back in farther down the hall out of the guard's sight. Another can bluff their way past. Another could use disguise etc. There everyone is getting to participate.

Or maybe someone could ask the wizard who last week teleported everyone into another universe if they could mind control the guards or charm them or put them to sleep or make us invisible or dimensional door us past them. Could the bard use fascinate or charm or whatever.

Not that you have to use any of these solutions but they are there. Again if your character sucks in something and that bother's you or another party member then have a plan to solve that a head of time. Or have fun solving it in game.

What about PF2 getting left behind or out shined? Well it's going to happen here too without something like the above remedies.

DM: After watching the cycling of the guards you determine that you have two rounds to swim across the moat, river, lake etc. before the guards are back into position.

Player 1: I have a swim speed and can be across in 1 round.

Players 2,3: It's going to take us 3 rounds.

Player 4: It's going to take me 5 rounds. :(

Player 1: Ahahahah you're screwed.

Except they're not. There are other options instead of just one skill check. Stealth along the bottom in the silty lower regions of the moat, invisibility, maybe under the new system player 2 has a master leap ability and they leap across the moat in one round.

DM: In the tunnel beyond you see that is has partially collapsed. The ceiling dips down and the floor beneath for 20 feet has fallen away. So you can't make a jump check as there isn't a straight path to the other side.

Player 1: Hahaha, I can run along walls. I easily get past.

Players 2,3 & 4: None of use can run along walls! :(

Oh no they are left behind. Nope.

The wizard elects to dim door everyone. Or to cast fly and bull's strength so they can carry people over one by one. Until the rogue elects to climb across and the barbarian tells the wizard not to bother with magic and to get on their back as they are strong enough to climb across with the wizard on their back.

What about the climbing example used in the preview with the Yeti? One pc has no chance of falling to their deaths and they know it. The rest do. Is that really the best plan? Exciting for sure. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, but I might be like hey wizard time for some of that magic now please. :)

So in PF1 people couldn't even attempt some things well in PF2 that is still going to happen. People claim that this leaves people out and creates tension etc in PF1. Well then it will in PF2 too.

So in above three examples there are the same issues in PF1 & PF2 in an albeit slightly different form. With the same solutions regardless of edition.

Again I have no problem with the new super abilities nor with people being polymaths. If those people want to be polymaths. I just want the customization to be lesser in a few areas and possibly better in a few other or something. Then we can all play what we want.

No I don't want to fake my character's stats/skills and say they suck at whatever and/or won't attempt said check.

Jason and Mark will any of the above be a design consideration? Thanks. :)


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.
Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.

Um ... rincewind is also a pretty bad example here.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.

Except Rincewind, who panics regardless (but will still climb the tree in world record time if it's the most expeditious path away from perceived danger.) Rincewind is probably a legendary athlete, to be honest.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Arssanguinus wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.
Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.
Um ... rincewind is also a pretty bad example here.

I listed like 5 other characters. At a certain stage you’re deliberately missing the point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If at any point I've come across as opposing customization of characters I would like to take this opportunity to apologize. I am a firm believer in level as a form of personal evolution and becoming greater, but I am also very much interested in players being able to play the character they want. [Case in point, I approve of flaws, just cautious about how they are handled.]


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.
Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.
Um ... rincewind is also a pretty bad example here.
I listed like 5 other characters. At a certain stage you’re deliberately missing the point.

I don't recall reading anything that would imply Dresden would have great difficulty climbing a tree. A bit of difficulty sure, but he seems totally capable of pulling it off.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Gandalf is a very bad example to use here. He’s basically an angel he is not a physically frail person he is an ancient being that has lived a very long time so he’s not really a good parallel.
Feel free to replace Gandalf with Harry Potter, Harry Dresden, Merlin, Belgarath, Polgara, Rincewind or whatever Wizard from popular fiction you like. Whoever it is shouldn’t be panicking about climbing trees at level 15.

Rincewind would absolutely panic

edit: oops, ninja'd twice, sorry


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a side note. I'm always amused that Rincewind in GURPS has the Combat Reflexes advantage. It is always used to avoid combat, but he has gotten very good at it.


Lemartes wrote:
I just want to also be able to play my legendary I can swim up a waterfall, diplomacy the king, follower of Kurgress who can't do their taxes and doesn't know the difference between Taldane fine art and Chelaxian fine art.

If we equate Knowledge Art to Knowledge Religion, the GCP game had an instance where a player asked if and untrained person would theoretically be able to identify a lich with knowledge religion. The answer was "no, but he could tell it was undead." This would imply that knowing the origin of a particular piece of artwork is out of the realm of "untrained".

As for taxes, untrained would probably get him, "I have to pay taxes", but he would most definitely need help from someone with training to do his taxes, unless the local tax code is really simple.

Quote:
Now why are they pretty good at painting ceramic tea cups? I mean if they were a potter I'd get that they might be good at finger painting but they don't even pick locks they punch down doors and never sign a contract. So why are they so good at delicate painting? :)

Is a finely painted ceramic tea cup a "poor" quality item? If not, he can't do it, assuming what we know about crafting weapons applies to other items. An untrained person can make a "poor" quality weapon.

Quote:
My little under 3 foot tall 30 lbs. witch had no ranks in ride or climb if I remember correctly.

And she could probably realistically sit on a pony's back in a saddle an not fall out as she traveled, but she probably couldn't control the pony in a battle.

Quote:


They don't want people to play the game in a certain way.

Depends on what your talking about.

Your character concept might be utterly terrible at climbing.

99% of sane characters(not players), aren't going to adventure with someone like that if they can help it, because it's a HUGE liability.

Now, since crazy characters are a bit more common than that, you will ultimately find groups of PLAYERS that are okay with RPing with your downsides, in which case...
HOUSE. RULE. IT.

If your group is NOT okay with you playing an inept adventurer, and you still insist on playing that character, then you are committing the RP sin of "it's what my character would do." Your characters HAVE to be able to get along and work together, or you are going to ruin the game.

The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.

Just to touch on the rest of your post, yes, there are often times where each party member can contribute in different ways, but there are sometimes situations where this isn't an option.

Also, if you are expecting you inept character to find a way around these situations anyway, then you ARE roleplaying it, and the numbers ARE NOT the issue. Who cares if you have a +18 at level 20, if you never intend to roll the skill?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.

This is the assumption that is the problem, there is no reason to expect this. If we find that most people are arguing against it (and I think we will), then Paizo needs to change the system and if you're unsatisfied with that YOU can house rule it.


Mark Seifter wrote:


Level-appropriate DCs are not a built-in assumption. An oak tree is an oak tree; it doesn't change its DC just because you're higher level.

As to the question "So what's the difference here?" Well it's certainly true that a Stealth-focused character at level 15 in PF1 (probably has in the +40s without even relying on huge bonuses from spell) is going to crush the Stealth check against a basic max ranked level 15 guard (who might have +20 or so if Perception is a class skill and maybe 14 Wisdom at best with the way elite array and stat raises make secondary stats tricky in PF1), so that hasn't changed much. But the difference is that in PF2, the untrained 14 Dex 15th level fighter is at +15 (or worse from armor, perhaps +14) instead of +2 (or worse from armor, perhaps +1), so while he is still more likely to fail than succeed against DC 28, he at least has a reasonable shot at trying, rather than no chance at all (opposed roll +1 Stealth vs +20 Perception).

Hmm. Well, thank you for the answers. I can accept that the general cases make for a system that produces better results, or at least more interesting challenges with a sense that success and failure are in the range of possibilities.

Not entirely sure that system mastery won't produce characters that are built to simply walk over the most common relevant challenges (stealth, perception, and diplomancing particularly, and of course fighting and etc), but that will have to wait until the playtest in August.


thflame wrote:

Please read what I wrote again. I'm not arguing for making characters that are a liability. I'm asking for customization. See how my character in Skulls and Shackles was not a liability. :)

How about you house rule that you can't be poor in any ability?

See my way we both get to do what we want to do by the rules. I'm looking for the win win situation. You're looking for the you win I lose situation.

I'm not looking to go back and forth with you as that is a waste of our time.

Finally, I wasn't arguing numbers in my post we don't know enough about that at this point.

I stand by everything in my post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.

Most of us would be fine if it did stop at competent rather than becoming "World-Record Breaking" levels of skill.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
thflame wrote:
The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.
Most of us would be fine if it did stop at competent rather than becoming "World-Record Breaking" levels of skill.

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
thflame wrote:
The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.
This is the assumption that is the problem, there is no reason to expect this. If we find that most people are arguing against it (and I think we will), then Paizo needs to change the system and if you're unsatisfied with that YOU can house rule it.

It's not whose voice is louder. It's which way is easier to assume is default. It is wayyyy better to assume competent adventurers. It is easier for a GM to agree to introduce a flaws system if players want than it is for a GM to introduce a generous competence system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Fargoth's Hiding Place wrote:
thflame wrote:
The idea, which has been explained NUMEROUS times at this point, is that the average adventurer, at high level is going to be competent at standard adventuring stuff. To be incompetent is outside the norm.
This is the assumption that is the problem, there is no reason to expect this. If we find that most people are arguing against it (and I think we will), then Paizo needs to change the system and if you're unsatisfied with that YOU can house rule it.
It's not whose voice is louder. It's which way is easier to assume is default. It is wayyyy better to assume competent adventurers. It is easier for a GM to agree to introduce a flaws system if players want than it is for a GM to introduce a generous competence system.

And considering that the developers are the ones who identified the original skill system's weaknesses and came up with this awesome solution, I don't think we have to worry about them scrapping it in favor of more of the same. Which means I really look forward to getting to do cool things at all levels, through feats of skill and prowess, no magic required. It's gonna be great.


Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

I'm not comparing it to the other PCs in the party who have skill feats. I 100% understand that a PC who specialized in a skill will have much more ability to use it compared to the untrained people in their party because of ability scores, items, class features, and skill feats.

This doesn't change that the massive bonuses provided by proficiency specifically make you at-the-top of the world in regards to the basics of every single skill (see Mark's examples with the cookies, where the high level character will be much much better at making standard cookies than a low/mid level master of culinary arts, but the master cook will be able to make up non-basic dishes that the untrained character cannot attempt to replicate).

The rules for jumping for example will be one which needs to be severely changed in regards to DCs, considering jumping is a basic thing that anyone can do that you don't require training to accomplish.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
It's not whose voice is louder. It's which way is easier to assume is default. It is wayyyy better to assume competent adventurers. It is easier for a GM to agree to introduce a flaws system if players want than it is for a GM to introduce a generous competence system.

Overall player perception ABSOLUTELY matters, This was Paizo's first lesson with 4e.

Its not though, it is less work to write out a rule that encompasses all skills at once than it is to encompass weaknesses into all skills individually.

Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

No one is saying that only numbers are an indication of skill, its people who refuse to believe that numbers are a part of over all skill. Come on dude, listen to what you just wrote out.

Albatoonoe wrote:
It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail.

How likely you are to succeed in a given skill is by definition your margin of success, and that factors into skill.


Milo v3 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

I'm not comparing it to the other PCs in the party who have skill feats. I 100% understand that a PC who specialized in a skill will have much more ability to use it compared to the untrained people in their party because of ability scores, items, class features, and skill feats.

This doesn't change that the massive bonuses provided by proficiency specifically make you at-the-top of the world in regards to the basics of every single skill (see Mark's examples with the cookies, where the high level character will be much much better at making standard cookies than a low/mid level master of culinary arts, but the master cook will be able to make up non-basic dishes that the untrained character cannot attempt to replicate).

The rules for jumping for example will be one which needs to be severely changed in regards to DCs, considering jumping is a basic thing that anyone can do that you don't require training to accomplish.

And they probably did change rules to accommodate this new system. I wouldn't be surprised if you top out at what you are capable of without training. Hell, they've explicitly stated as much.

That means that your high skill roll doesn't make you the best. You just aren't gonna biff it as much as your younger self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:

Come on, man. It's been explained that the skill check is not the defining metric of how good you are. It is really just a determination of how seldomly you fail. Skills are gonna be a lot more than just that number. It's gonna be proficiency and skill feats and whatever.

This thread is starting to argue in circles because people are refusing to acknowledge anything EXCEPT the numbers being the indication of skill.

I'm not comparing it to the other PCs in the party who have skill feats. I 100% understand that a PC who specialized in a skill will have much more ability to use it compared to the untrained people in their party because of ability scores, items, class features, and skill feats.

This doesn't change that the massive bonuses provided by proficiency specifically make you at-the-top of the world in regards to the basics of every single skill (see Mark's examples with the cookies, where the high level character will be much much better at making standard cookies than a low/mid level master of culinary arts, but the master cook will be able to make up non-basic dishes that the untrained character cannot attempt to replicate).

The rules for jumping for example will be one which needs to be severely changed in regards to DCs, considering jumping is a basic thing that anyone can do that you don't require training to accomplish.

Nothing I say will change your mind, but I for one am looking forward to characters being good at a broader range of things, to parties being able to attempt scenarios in ways that don't involve combat because Job didn't put a rank in disguise (or whatever).

And I'm saying that as someone who, 'til now, has enjoyed hyper- specialising in a skill so that I can take 1 and succeed at a DC 40 skill checks at level 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:

And they probably did change rules to accommodate this new system. I wouldn't be surprised if you top out at what you are capable of without training. Hell, they've explicitly stated as much.

That means that your high skill roll doesn't make you the best. You just aren't gonna biff it as much as your younger self.

"Aren't gonna biff it as much as your younger self." would be more in the area of level/2, not level-2.

But yeah, I really really really hope they changed how jumping works since I dislike the idea of my current 8 str 15th level wizard PC being able to jump 30 ft. without magical assistance.

dragonhunterq wrote:


Nothing I say will change your mind, but I for one am looking forward to characters being good at a broader range of things, to parties being able to attempt scenarios in ways that don't involve combat because Job didn't put a rank in disguise (or whatever).

And I'm saying that as someone who, 'til now, has enjoyed hyper- specialising in a skill so that I can take 1 and succeed at a DC 40 skill checks at level 10.

That would be a fine argument against me if I was against the bonus scaling. But, I'm actually fine with it auto-scaling to competence. It's more prone to being illogical, but it's a fine idea that opens up adventure opportunities.

My only issue is how severe the scaling is, it should make you competent at all the basics of the skills, not better than real-world's top athlete's level.

951 to 1,000 of 1,441 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Are You Proficient? All Messageboards