Are You Proficient?

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.

I'm pretty sure a +18 won't be enough to break world records. A +18 and expert level skill proficiency would be needed. It is likely that, for example, how far you can move in a round with successful swim checks is capped by your proficiency in the skill. Like an untrained person likely will not be able to swim faster more than half their land speed (or less?), but an expert will (this is how it worked with skill unlocks in Unchained, at least).

So a level 20 untrained wizard with a str of 20 will lose in a swimming race to a level 9 ranger with a 14 strength and expert athletics proficiency almost every time. It's just that the wizard is extremely unlikely to drown if they fall off a ship, whereas their younger self might have.

The nice thing about gating things behind your skill rank instead of just making skill ranks a bonus is that you can do more things with DCs than just making the number higher. Let's look at climbing. In PF1, if you want to make a surface harder to climb, you make the number bigger. In PF2, there's the possibility to make a surface more difficult to climb based on what the character knows about climbing instead of just how strong they are. Maybe this can be done through reducing penalties of harsh conditions at Expert rank. At Master, if may open up the possibility of climbing like you see in Assassin's Creed instead of needing a rope to climb slowly up a building. At Legendary, maybe you can climb up an icy wall by just your fingertips.

Another interesting idea is that instead of just making your character more personally awesome, maybe a Master also has the ability to have their party treated as Trained in a skill temporarily and a Legend allowing the party to attempt Expert tasks.

I'm pretty sure a +18 won't be enough to break world records. A +18 and expert level skill proficiency would be needed. It is likely that, for example, how far you can move in a round with successful swim checks is capped by your proficiency in the skill. Like an untrained person likely will not be able to swim faster more than half their land speed (or less?), but an expert will (this is how it worked with skill unlocks in Unchained, at least).

So a level 20 untrained wizard with a str of 20 will lose in a swimming race to a level 9 ranger with a 14 strength and expert athletics proficiency almost every time. It's just that the wizard is extremely unlikely to drown if they fall off a ship, whereas their younger self might have.

Which is an amazing system, both inclusive and elegant, solving many problems in one fell swoop. The main problem now is that most of the detractors you're trying to convince of this, as with your example being a perfect one, are deliberately either misconstruing or outright ignoring the facts. It seems futile, but for players like us, this is going to be amazing.

Thing is, if they do go with that, then there is no point having such high bonuses to begin with since the only reason to have high bonuses is to attempt difficult challenges.

Well, "high numbers don't matter as much" might be why the numbers don't go as high as they once did. After all, one of the goals is to create a system in which +1 to checks for a specific skill is of equal weight as +1 to hit with a specific weapon, as opposed to PF1 in which Weapon Focus is a good feat but Skill Focus is not.

Thing is, if they do go with that, then there is no point having such high bonuses to begin with since the only reason to have high bonuses is to attempt difficult challenges.

You see, this is where we are missing the connection. The numbers are no longer just about success anymore. They are about failure and extreme failure. The idea is that a stronger hero should overcome earlier challenges with more ease, even if they haven't specifically trained in them.

This is a key difference between 5e and PF2. At high levels, you really aren't that much better at your skill, even in simple tasks. PF2 advances you in two ways. Proficiency, which is what truly speaks to your skills, and bonus, which affects criticals and failures.

It's a system that is a bit more nuanced than 5e's and hopefully is able to pull it off for more interesting results. That said, 1/2 level is not a bad idea. We'll have to see how DCs shake out, but I am confident in Mark Seifter's math-fu

Thing is, if they do go with that, then there is no point having such high bonuses to begin with since the only reason to have high bonuses is to attempt difficult challenges.

Reducing the pressure to buff your bonus as high as possible? You're doing a poor job of explaining why this is a bad system, man.

Reducing the pressure to buff your bonus as high as possible? You're doing a poor job of explaining why this is a bad system, man.

That's not actually anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm friggin pro-auto scaling for godsake.

I'm talking about untrained skills, the skills which people specifically don't bother putting any effort into buffing.

Having a bigger number is nice, but I like the idea that it doesn't matter how big your bonus is if you don't know how to use it.

TOZ wrote:

Reducing the pressure to buff your bonus as high as possible? You're doing a poor job of explaining why this is a bad system, man.

That's not actually anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm friggin pro-auto scaling for godsake.

Oh, good. It's hard to keep up with the opinions flying around here.

TOZ wrote:

Reducing the pressure to buff your bonus as high as possible? You're doing a poor job of explaining why this is a bad system, man.

That's not actually anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm friggin pro-auto scaling for godsake.

I'm talking about untrained skills, the skills which people specifically don't bother putting any effort into buffing.

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

So you either don't understand this concept, and we need to find a better way to articulate this to you or you simply refuse to be pleased.

Which is it?

I could be pleased by an adjustment to the modifier so it is not so close between skilled and unskilled.

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

No one has this information but the devs.

Wait for that skills blog, it'll most likely have this information or at least something close.

I'll second that I want to know how armor works with respect to this system.

And are we sticking to 3 saves? Can one invest into saves?

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

So I guess just relax, and stop worrying about it until you get more information (either a skills blog, or the playtest rules in August).

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

This doesn't sound like a scenario that's likely to happen. I mean, why would the developers design the system that way? It seems more likely that number+dice isn't going to be the whole story.

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

This doesn't sound like a scenario that's likely to happen. I mean, why would the developers design the system that way? It seems more likely that number+dice isn't going to be the whole story.

It's exactily how its looking right now. And I believe I heard some coments on playtest that sounds like this,

Basicaly, it is the same as Ability Check in PF1.

How many times in your tables, an average joe, with STR 10 (+0) beat a challenge the barbarian with STR 18 (+4) failed. This happend because the modifier bonus is too low.

In Pathfinder 2.0 this problem will be present in skills, attacks, saves, and everything that uses auto-scaling proficience.

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

This still won't happen, because if it's something the Expert has to roll on at all odds are fairly good it's a task the untrained archer isn't even allowed to attempt.

Again, the fact that with a feat investment the expert will automatically be assumed to succeed on tasks below his point of competence means if there is something he has to roll on at all, it's not something you can do untrained in the first place.

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's set a theoretical DC of 15(10 + level), just to put a number to it.

Let's say the Archer has a 5 from level, -2 from proficiency, and +2 from DEX for a total of +5 and the rogue has a 5 + 1 + 2 for a total of +8.

Out of the 400 possible outcomes, in 66 of them, the Archer succeeds while the rogue fails. That's a 16.5% chance.

The reverse happens 144/400 times, or 36% of the time.

(In case you are wondering, there is about a 38.5% chance that they both succeed and a 13.5% chance they both fail.)

Yes, the archer can roll a 10 and succeed while the rogue can roll a 6 and fail, but it is more than twice as likely that the reverse happens.

This is all assuming that one of the Rogues Skill Feats doesn't let him approach the situation differently, give him a circumstance bonus, or just let him auto win via some special power. We don't have the details yet.

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's look at numbers. The guard has 16 Wis (pretty high) and is trained in perception. As a fighter he can't be an expert at perception at level 5. He has +5 level +3 Wis = +8. He has 18 perception. The rogue has 20 Dex, and is expert like you said. So +5 Dex, +5 level, +1 expert = +11. He has 50% pass chance, 20% critical chance, 30% fail chance. I'm going off stealth wins ties here. Archer has same but -2 instead if +1 Proficiency so he has +8. That is a 50% pass rate, 5% critical rate, and a 45% fail rate. The odds of the rogue failing and the Archer succeeding (including crits) is 16.5%. The other way is 31.5% roughly twice that. They will both succeed 38.5% of the time and will both fail 13.5% of the time. As you can see, the odds of the Archer succeeding when the rogue fails is barely even higher than them both failing. And if it does happen, its called luck. Both in game and out.

Plus, the rogue might lower DCs by 5 or have a skill feat that lets them reroll stealth 1/day or get +2 in forests or whatever.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

I feel like we should actually look at the full rules before we start picking at corner cases in the math. I don't think that these are unanticipated by the developers.

But I don't think it's a bad idea to be able to set DCs such that someone who is untrained is capable of passing it, but someone who is skilled at it *can* fail it. In order to do that the gap between "the best" and "the worst" can't be a huge number.

If it turns out, through hundreds and thousands of iterations that Untrained should be like Level -4, then that will show up in the playtest, and we can wait until then to find out.

All I want to refute is this notion that experienced heroes should remain hapless at those skills they have not specifically focused on. I think "all these people can climb a rope, are not in danger of drowning if the boat capsizes, know how to avoid making noise, etc" is in keeping with the kind of heroic fantasy that Pathfinder does well. I've played a lot of 13A, which does "skill checks" similarly (lvl + StatMod+ [0-5]) and I think that works fine, so the gulf between "untrained" and "legendary" being 6 doesn't bother me at all.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's set a theoretical DC of 15(10 + level), just to put a number to it.

Let's say the Archer has a 5 from level, -2 from proficiency, and +2 from DEX for a total of +5 and the rogue has a 5 + 1 + 2 for a total of +8.

Out of the 400 possible outcomes, in 66 of them, the Archer succeeds while the rogue fails. That's a 16.5% chance.

The reverse happens 144/400 times, or 36% of the time.

(In case you are wondering, there is about a 38.5% chance that they both succeed and a 13.5% chance they both fail.)

Yes, the archer can roll a 10 and succeed while the rogue can roll a 6 and fail, but it is more than twice as likely...

And twitch the chances IS VERY few, and the rogue player will be a lot frustrated.

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

*Looks up height of the atmosphere*

"Here lies Ragnar. Died due to gaining legendary proficiency in Athletics before he gained Legendary Proficiency in Survival, and suffocated in space."

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's look at numbers. The guard has 16 Wis (pretty high) and is trained in perception. As a fighter he can't be an expert at perception at level 5. He has +5 level +3 Wis = +8. He has 18 perception. The rogue has 20 Dex, and is expert like you said. So +5 Dex, +5 level, +1 expert = +11. He has 50% pass chance, 20% critical chance, 30% fail chance. I'm going off stealth wins ties here. Archer has same but -2 instead if +1 Proficiency so he has +8. That is a 50% pass rate, 5% critical rate, and a 45% fail rate. The odds of the rogue failing and the Archer succeeding (including crits) is 16.5%. The other way is 31.5% roughly twice...

So there is a feat that lower the DC? This gonna be the feat everyone will take. Just like power attack. It's not just easy to make the bonus heigher?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

*Looks up height of the atmosphere*

"Here lies Ragnar. Died due to gaining legendary proficiency in Athletics before he gained Legendary Proficiency in Survival, and suffocated in space."

Reminds me of the first time making my super-jump spell in Morrowind....

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

I would. Partly because Pathfinder doesn't use metric and partially because that distance is just too absurd for my tastes. Falling damage after jumping that high will kill you. ;)

CactusUnicorn wrote:

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's look at numbers. The guard has 16 Wis (pretty high) and is trained in perception. As a fighter he can't be an expert at perception at level 5. He has +5 level +3 Wis = +8. He has 18 perception. The rogue has 20 Dex, and is expert like you said. So +5 Dex, +5 level, +1 expert = +11. He has 50% pass chance, 20% critical chance, 30% fail chance. I'm going off stealth wins ties here. Archer has same but -2 instead if +1 Proficiency so he has +8. That is a 50% pass rate, 5% critical rate, and a 45% fail rate. The odds of the rogue failing and the Archer succeeding (including crits) is 16.5%. The other

...

I would hazard to guess that such a feat would only be available to those trained in the skill, if not expert.

CactusUnicorn wrote:

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

Say two character with the same Dex (a rogue and a archer). They are both lvl 5, so let's say the rogue is Expert in Stealt and the Archer is untrained. The diferente for their bonus on that skill is only 3.

Now both have to pass a DC to pass by something (if the problem is it to be the guard without Wisdom, consider it to be a druid with high Wisdom). The DC is higher enough that the rogue cannot ignore. He must roll.

The rogue invested a lot of resources in that skill, he maybe able to do some cool stuff, such as hide in plain sight, move full speed when stealth, don't be detect by smells, etc.

Nothings this matter if in the end he rolls bad and the archer roll better and pass.

In the end of the day, is the number + dice who will say he can succed at something.

The passing or failing will influenced a lot by the dice, because the diference between a highigly treinaed character to a one without a single class or race feature focuses on it is TOO LOW.

Doesn't matter the cool stuff a highly-trained character can do, doesn't matter his chance of crit. It will be beaten by an untrained character with the correct ability score a lot of times.

And, if you consider magic itens. It's probably that someone untrained using a magic item will be away better than someone trained depending on the bonus provided by the magic item.

Let's look at numbers. The guard has 16 Wis (pretty high) and is trained in perception. As a fighter he can't be an expert at perception at level 5. He has +5 level +3 Wis = +8. He has 18 perception. The rogue has 20 Dex, and is expert like you said. So +5 Dex, +5 level, +1 expert = +11. He has 50% pass chance, 20% critical chance, 30% fail chance. I'm going off stealth wins ties here. Archer has same but -2 instead if +1 Proficiency so he has +8. That is a 50% pass rate, 5% critical rate, and a 45% fail rate. The odds of the rogue failing and the Archer succeeding (including crits) is 16.5%. The other

...

Pure speculation. I meant experts may lower just untrained check DCs. It makes sense. They wouldn't lower the DC to stop scent from working, just basic hiding

And twitch the chances IS VERY few, and the rogue player will be a lot frustrated.

Just because you have more training at something, doesn't mean you are immune to bad luck.

What do YOU think the probability of failure should be? How often is it okay for the Untrained Ranger to beat the Expert Rogue, assuming that they have equal levels of real world experience?

So it enhances the feeling of participation to have a roll which you are good at merely because you are breathing and a certain level rather than any choices at all you made? I don’t see it.

It isn't merely because you are breathing, but rather because you managed to keep breathing while spending years fighting a Necromacer and his army of skeletons, survived 100 traps... 30 of which got set off, because you've watched Rodgar climb that rope 10 times, and even though you've never seen a pool of water larger than a bucket you managed to reason out, through the wits you've used for 18 levels that kicking your feet helps keep your head above water. You may not figure out the breaststroke but you can tread water.

Not "merely" anything.

BtB: I learned to swim when I was 5 I saw no one else do it... the pool was empty... I was tossed in by family and told stay above water. Cruel, perhaps, but it served until I learned the breaststroke at the Y 7 years later. So, to whomever keeps mentioning the guy from the desert figuring out swimming though he's never seen a large body of water I did it and I must have been at best a fifth level kid. My cousin who was 17 and visiting and had never learned to swim figured it out way faster than I did in part because she was older and not as panicked as a 5 year old.

I also figured out how to use a computer the first time I saw one and was given 30 minutes of free time with it by my teacher. I was in 4th grade at the time. Yes I am that old.

I figured out my first cell phone last week in a quick bit because I am a man in my late 40s who had enough experience to reason it out after having avoided cell phones like the plague.

Experience matters. I will probably never type on my cell phone like the teenage son of my friend (how do they do that so quickly... itty bitty buttons big fat thumbs) but I managed to send a text in my first few minutes of getting the phone.

Experience matters, wits matter, age matters, intelligence matters, luck matters, Gods given talent matters.

If you were 15th level (known otherwise as 15 years old (and had never really lied to, or deceived your parents) do you think you could reason out how to sneak out of the house past your parents, do you think you'd have a chance of convincingly lying about it the next day? Shouldn't my 15th level fighter have a reasonable ability to sneak past a guard? Shouldn't I be able to realize the chain mail makes a noise when I move and take it off. Even though I never put points in the skill.

At almost 50 I don't pretend to know half the the Things in this world but give me a bit and I'll be able to reason some nugget out. I may not know how to Jack up the car but I can give you the number to Triple A (I memorized it though I've never had to use them or been a member) and since I have seen others Jack up the car twice (IIRC)... I'm willing to bet in a tough situation I could even change my tire in one go. I after all managed to change the battery after watching it be jumped once.

I've never bought pot in my whole life nor do I consort with people who use it, but give me 30 minutes and I bet I could figure out how to get some. In large part because I haven't lived in a bubble. My 20th level fighter should be able to reason out with a fair degree of accuracy how to get the people in a bar talking about the latest rumours even though he has never gossiped in his life.

I have Chosen to remain willfully ignorant about many things in my life. Country music, old cinema, anime... to name a few. However, I can rattle off a bit on the topics because I don't live in a void. Though I detest anime I can rattle off a bit about Full Metal Alchemist, and the one where the guy screams Akira and the crap hits the fan... even though I've never seen either because I lived in a dorm once and I on a few occasions nteracted with people who do like it.

You want to talk about Casa Blanca, I've never seen it and have no desire to but I can quote some of the more famous lines and sum up the story because I have levels in human person... 47 or so of them.

So yes, for me it does enhance my feeling of participation. It may help me remember or imagine the Things that came before, the challenges my character overcame and the fights he lost and won. All of which to me is part of the essence of good storytelling.

TL;DR Experience matters. It all matters. This adds verisimilitude IMO. Your experience may vary. There is no "merely" to life.

The main problem now is that most of the detractors you're trying to convince of this, as with your example being a perfect one, are deliberately either misconstruing or outright ignoring the facts. It seems futile, but for players like us, this is going to be amazing.

At this point we'll have to wait and see. I no longer understand what the point of the automatic scaling bonus is if we assume lower level characters are meant to be equally skilled or better than untrained higher level characters. It sounds like a lot of gating behind proficiencies is occurring which raises the question "what's the point".

It does sound extremely 4th ed-ish with a universal automatic scaling bonus to AC, Attack, Skills and Saves. If the second biggest fantasy RPG really does embrace that particular 4th ed-ism, I expect we'll eventually see people calling for removing the automatic bonus within a couple of years as people realise just how little it actually means which gets us steadfastly at the point where 5th edition is. I hope the community as a whole speaks up on what they think about this issue.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

*Looks up height of the atmosphere*

"Here lies Ragnar. Died due to gaining legendary proficiency in Athletics before he gained Legendary Proficiency in Survival, and suffocated in space."

Pretty sure we were discussing longjumps at that point?

Drakhan Valane wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

HULK SMASH!!!

We totally need superhero landing in the game. :)

Fallyrion Dunegrién wrote:

And twitch the chances IS VERY few, and the rogue player will be a lot frustrated.

Just because you have more training at something, doesn't mean you are immune to bad luck.

What do YOU think the probability of failure should be? How often is it okay for the Untrained Ranger to beat the Expert Rogue, assuming that they have equal levels of real world experience?

Let's take Pathfinder 1.0 as an example.

Both lvl 5. Both Dex 18. Rogue has 5 skill ranks. Ranger has none.

Rogue has +12. Ranger has +4. The diference is 8, not 3. I guess it's ok, the chance from the rogue fail and the ranger pass it way lesser than the PF2 example.

I guess half-level on proficience on untrained skills and +2 bonus for step maybe good enough (thou, didn't make the math).

Using this rules, on PF2.

Both lvl 5 and Dex 18. Rogue Expert, Ranger Untrained.

Rogue has +2 v(from expert) + 5 level +4 Dex = +11
Range has +2 (from lvl/2 rounded down) + 4 Dex = +6.

The diference is 5. Much better than just 3, and let the dice much less of a factor.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

I would. Partly because Pathfinder doesn't use metric and partially because that distance is just too absurd for my tastes. Falling damage after jumping that high will kill you. ;)

I was referring to longjumps, and at least in PF1 by level 15 that landing would not kill you.

Great anecdote. I 99% agree. One nitpickO, level does not equal age. 15 year old is level 1 or 2.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

HULK SMASH!!!

We totally need superhero landing in the game. :)

Yesssss

Drakhan Valane wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

I would. Partly because Pathfinder doesn't use metric and partially because that distance is just too absurd for my tastes. Falling damage after jumping that high will kill you. ;)

I was referring to longjumps, and at least in PF1 by level 15 that landing would not kill you.

High jumps are only 1/4 the distance of a long jump in PF1. Unless you're arguing someone isn't going to gain any height at all on the 35km jump you're planning. I'm under the impression falling damage is going to be more like 1/ft instead of d6/10 feet

Is height built into the longjump or is that just the limit of one's potential vertical leap?

Edit: I am under the impression that jumpers won't be excessively punished for amazing leaps allowed by their proficiency.

I'm under the impression the system would not have jumps so great that atmospheric reentry would start to be a legitimate concern. ;)

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Drakhan Valane wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Okay, but what's the actual problem?

Most of what you've complained about has been explained to be gated by proficiency investment, not modifier.

Except it hasn't outside of theorizing. There is no sign that "Long Jumping" is going to be gated behind proficiency. There is no sign that "Sneaking in concealment" is going to be gated behind proficiency.

The things i've been talking about have been the "Basics" of the skills, not things like "Balancing on a twig" or "Climbing up a slippery wall".

Possibility for how they handle jumping: Skill ranks multiply distances. What if Untrained, a total of 20 gets you a 10 foot long jump, Trained x2, Expert x3, Master x5, Legend x10?

I don't see Master being less than double Expert at a minimum. Maybe something like this...

Untrained 1/2, Trained = Check Result, Expert Check x2, Master Check x4, Legendary Check x10

Note that I already halved the distance with untrained. The DC in PF1 is 1 per foot, making a 20 result already get you 20 feet. :) But maybe they do want a Master jumper to be able to clear the Grand Canyon with ease. (It's something like 230 feet that was jumped on motorcycle.)

Wynaut? I believe Mark is on record saying Legendary comes available at level 15.

Frankly at level 15 (with legendary leaping proficiency) I wouldn't mind Check = kilometers

HULK SMASH!!!

We totally need superhero landing in the game. :)

I love superhero landing. There's nothing like using the fact that falling damage can't kill you to jump off of an airship and Rider Kick through the roof of a tower instead of climbing it like a peasant.

I'm under the impression the system would not have jumps so great that atmospheric reentry would start to be a legitimate concern. ;)

Probably not, but I enjoy it in my games.

Worth noting, Golarion isn't Earth. There may be a larger atmosphere.

At this point we'll have to wait and see. I no longer understand what the point of the automatic scaling bonus is if we assume lower level characters are meant to be equally skilled or better than untrained higher level characters. It sounds like a lot of gating behind proficiencies is occurring which raises the question "what's the point".

It does sound extremely 4th ed-ish with a universal automatic scaling bonus to AC, Attack, Skills and Saves. If the second biggest fantasy RPG really does embrace that particular 4th ed-ism, I expect we'll eventually see people calling for removing the automatic bonus within a couple of years as people realise just how little it actually means which gets us steadfastly at the point where 5th edition is. I hope the community as a whole speaks up on what they think about this issue.

It's an approach with several layers that all work really well for heroic fantasy. I will try to put it in a way that we'll be on the same page, but forgive me if I am not optimistic.

So, first: This system allows you to scale everything in the game far more closely. As Mark, I believe, said, for one thing, sometimes you can substitute another skill for attack rolls, or possibly AC or the like, because they all scale by the same system, instead of having 20 different exception-based subsystems that all work on different rules. So you don't have to try to balance many different subsystems that all run on different scales with one another; a standardized system of measurement doesn't mean it's all the same, it just means the pieces fit together more cleanly.

With skills in particular, this is easy to define in multiple ways. The Expert level 7 character may indeed have a lower level bonus than the far more worldly and experienced level 15 character, but also knows the skill far better. She knows tricks the other doesn't. So, let's take a given scene. Say it's raining and the party, trying to escape danger, elects to try scaling a rocky cliff face.

The level 7 character, a Fighter, has Strength 18 (+4) and is an Expert at what I hope will be Athletics (combining Climb, Swim, Jump, etc.). Whatever our relevant skill is. Level 7 + Strength 4 + Expert 1 = +12 bonus.

The level 15, a Wizard, has Strength 10 (+0) and is Untrained (though I personally would have picked up training a long time ago; I like to play athletic mages). Level 15 + Strength 0 - Untrained 2 = +13 bonus. This Wizard has seen armies fall, battled monsters that could shatter whole kingdoms, and faced off against divine avatars. His experience makes him one of the most legendary heroes the world has ever known. He can still only barely equal the raw bonus of a far less experienced hero.

But wait! There's more! The Fighter, because of her training, can do things the Wizard can't. Let's say there's a penalty because of rain-slicked cliffs. The Expert Athlete can ignore this penalty. She can also climb at higher speeds. Indeed, she may have a climb speed, which either obviates the need for a roll or makes her move much faster up the wall, and more surely, being at less risk of falling. She doesn't have to roll where the Wizard does. Or doesn't suffer, let's say a (generous) penalty of -2 to the roll, which puts the Wizard below her. If she falls, she can tuck and roll and take minimal damage, whereas the Wizard is gonna be hurting.

If you need more: The Wizard's bonus is a combination of skill, luck, and pure experience, since these things are what Level represents: an overview of the character's adventuring career and prowess. Maybe, as someone said, he has internalized enough magic that it imbues him with greater ability in those areas where he needs it, such as climbing a cliff to save his life. Maybe he can will into his fingertips a very subtle, low-level form of spider climb magic, or have each step ever so slightly buoyed by magic. Maybe he's simply had to climb and run and escape things before, and presumably hasn't spent his entire adult life completely avoiding any physical activity at all and floating everywhere or teleporting everywhere. Even powerful Wizards have to walk sometimes, after all. Or whack someone with a staff.

Pure modifier is only half the story. It can give you a measure of raw luck and ability, but it doesn't mean you can simply use all of that bonus without training. Or that someone with far greater understanding of the subject can't outdo you simply by knowing more about it.

Does any of that help?

is the Example in (Proficiency Modifier) kind of like "Barbarians of Lemuria" where, it's something we expect your class to do, so add your class level to the modifier? or did I read this wrong?