Are You Proficient?

Skill in the real world consists of 3 things: Natural talent(ability mod), Experience(level), and Training(proficiency).

Depending on what your doing, these have different weights for how important they are IRL.

Gating certain skill uses behind higher proficiencies is how PF2 simulates training being important.

DC is how PF2 simulates experience being important.(proficiency and ability mod both help a bit here too.)

As far as how PF2 simulates raw talent being important, we don't know, but my guess is that some Skill Feats may have stat requirements.

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?

Everyone always adds their level to skill checks and attack rolls, apparently.

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.

Not in regards to the basics of every single skill. IIRC we've been told professions can't be attempted untrained. Mark was just expanding on previous debate, I think. You will not be a better lawyer than someone who has passed Golarion's bar, you will not be a better accountant than a trained accountant, you will not be able to outperform a blacksmith. You may know some facts about those things, maybe lend a hand...

If your worry is that by the new system once trained the level 20 guy will outshine the level 5 guy who worked at excelling... Consider this. I have done my own taxes my entire life (I am almost 50) and if I decide to go to H&R Block this year and my tax advisor is 25 and has been doing this a year... well you know what we could both probably fill out the form in a way that won't result in fraud and tax evasion charges... but I'm gonna bet he finds more deductions and gets a better return.
That is what this system simulates, as I understand it.

As far as jumping I bet they already have it down... we just need a chance to playtest it. We already know falling damage has seen a change... not hard to imagine the two happening at the same time. August 2nd will give us more info... I can barely wait.

THis is in response to Lady Firebird's post.

Problem with Autoscaling skills to use them in combat as substitutions: I saw that in 4th ed (dunno if they ever followed through. But a core tenet of the universal math was to allow this very situation to be possible). Didn't like it there. Don't see a compelling reason I'll like it here. Ridiculous initiative bonuses and auto-scaling defenses and attacks just made everything feel like I was on a treadmill.

RE Skill Tricks: Yup. Saw those in 4th ed. They took the place of utility powers (introduced in PHB3 from memory). So long as they are very careful in how they describe their skill tricks so as to not lock what would otherwise be an accepted use of a skill behind a feat, they're okay. That's tough to do when you're not talking legendary though. So we'll have to wait and see.

Re the example demonstrating where numerical differences don't mattering for determining what can and can't be done: I get it. Thank you for explaining it again. But the problem isn't I don't understand how it will work. The problem is I hope I don't understand how it will work. Because in your example we have a lot of fiddliness that could have otherwise been achieved by simply removing the autoscaling level bonus.

Finally regarding the experience of your wizard: The system certainly does allow you to build heroes that fit this paradigm. No, it doesn't allow, it FORCES you to do so. If this is a paradigm that Paizo are desperate to go after, so be it. But I'd prefer it to be an option rather than a requirement.

Thanks again for the explanation. I guess I do understand how (you at least) think it will work. I'm really hopeful you're wrong and that Paizo instead have something substantially different in mind.

But the thing is, if they do go with how it's presented, it'd take about 5 minutes and be pretty easy to balance to create a system of Flaws that provide some benefit, to do what you want. "Ineptitude: Choose two skills in which you do not have training. Your modifier for those skills is Level -5, instead (or Level/2, or whatever fits the bill). Gain two additional skill proficiencies."

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.

It does make you hyper competent of the Basics. However, as many have tried to explain it will not make you faster than the world's fastest runner who has trained all his/her life, it will not let you jump farther than a gold medalist long jumper, or at the very least, since I'm going by what I have read and discussed, it will make it highly unlikely.

Yes, if you put me up against Usain Bolt even though I am a 20th level person who never trained running, I likely won't win in a race... but you know what, I bet he's tripped more than once while running, maybe I get one in a million lucky and he twists his ankle. This system simulates this, a DM just needs to be able to explain how my 20th level fat ass got to the finish line before him, and any competent DM should be able to do that.

Hmm what do you think the capstone power for a 20th level human person would be... retirement?

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.

The point to the high bonuses is that even with them you might fail or succeed, or even better for story purposes get a crit success or crit fumble.

The master lower level guy will likely out perform you in amazing team jaw-dropping ways, but you the sorcerer might actually be able to swim out to the boat. While in PF1 unless you let a skill you are expected to have slip, you probably can't manage that.

That there sounds fun to me. I want to see the rogue porpoise-dance across the water as I struggle to haul my ass to the boat, maybe I make it maybe I don't... but I get to try, and I like that. So far, to me, it sounds like good game design.

I will finish with a simple statement. I have run PF since it was in Beta. I have loved and spent a fortune on PF... I would likely be running PF1 this summer as I have done every year and we would be loving it. I want the chance to fall in love with these new rules. My players would be the first to tell you shiny new thing always get my attention 13th Age, 5E, Savage Worlds (I hadn't tried it before) but I always come back to PF. Now I'm hoping that I always come back to PF2.

Hmm what do you think the capstone power for a 20th level human person would be... retirement?

Retirement

Feat type: General

Prerequisites: Level 20

Benefit: You gain a +10 bonus on Diplomacy Checks to convince people that you are no longer an adventurer. If you have belonged to a guild or other organization for the requisite amount of time at the time that you take this feat you lose your membership and cannot gain membership in another guild or organization, but you acquire all Retirement Benefits listed under the guild/organizations description, if any.

You may, at any time, choose to replace the Retirement Feat with another feat, but doing so causes you to lose all Retirement Benefits you obtained with this feat.

Drakhan Valane wrote:

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.

Ahh, but that is dealt with through the flexibility of >10> Crits. The barbarian, as I understand it through my limited info, will likely avoid the problem you describe since he crits more reliably than the yokel.

If I missed the point of what you were saying I'm sorry reading through this whole thing has left me a bit frazzled, and I have yet to catch up on the 150+ new posts on resonance.

Sure. Or a skill feat that does what you want "Basic Training: Receive rank 1 in X number of untrained skills".

The question becomes: Will Paizo actually support both styles of play?

This is starting to sound way too 4&5E for me.

Re: why do numbers scale so much? Well, I'm thinking that it's intentionally to invalidate lower level NPCs/Monsters as reasonable challenges. Given how much certain PF1 fans hate Bounded Accuracy, I think making it kind of the opposite was intentional.

thflame wrote:

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....

Damn Scrolls of Icarian Flight...

If the thing let’s there be kilometer jumps I’ll have to either house rule or avoid high level play altogether if that’s baked into the rules. Because at that point they have declared a winner in play style and made it literally impossible to not play ‘superhero’s are us’ wuxia on steroids style play or even pretend to.

jumping kilometers is literally to much even for wuxia stuff as that much speed in 6 seconds is worth the fort save just not to ignite due sheer air friction even before needing another save for suffocating from lack of oxygen in peak of jump, then another for save for the falling ignition then one more for surviving the impact. thats four saves in what 6 seconds.

Sure. Or a skill feat that does what you want "Basic Training: Receive rank 1 in X number of untrained skills".

The question becomes: Will Paizo actually support both styles of play?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that feat supports high level characters having general competence. Or are you saing that untrained characters should not have their level added to their skills, but it is okay for trained people? Because in PF1's skill system, having 1 rank in a skill is not even close to general competence

I realize now why skills work as they do. So that all levels of play, untrained characters have roughly the same chance against level appropriate CR creatures, traps, and social encounters.

A level 1 PC against a CR 1/6 NPC would have around the same chance of winning a skill check (including combat maneuvers and stealth vs perception) as a level 20 PC against a CR 17 NPC when untrained, unlike in PF1 where at 1st level you could get away with having no ranks in a skill, but as you got higher level your chances of success quickly became 0.

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Sure. Or a skill feat that does what you want "Basic Training: Receive rank 1 in X number of untrained skills".

The question becomes: Will Paizo actually support both styles of play?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that feat supports high level characters having general competence. Or are you saing that untrained characters should not have their level added to their skills, but it is okay for trained people? Because in PF1's skill system, having 1 rank in a skill is not even close to general competence

I'm saying in a system that supported both playstyles you wouldn't get +level on untrained skills and would get +level on skills you have at least 1 rank in. Hence taking a feat that gives you rank 1 in a wide swathe of skills (that could then be improved or not improved at a later point as the player decides) would (with a modest investment with a couple of skill feats plus their starting ranks) allow someone to have basic training in every single skill.

Nightwhisper wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Sure. Or a skill feat that does what you want "Basic Training: Receive rank 1 in X number of untrained skills".

The question becomes: Will Paizo actually support both styles of play?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that feat supports high level characters having general competence. Or are you saing that untrained characters should not have their level added to their skills, but it is okay for trained people? Because in PF1's skill system, having 1 rank in a skill is not even close to general competence

I'm saying in a system that supported both playstyles you wouldn't get +level on untrained skills and would get +level on skills you have at least 1 rank in. Hence taking a feat that gives you rank 1 in a wide swathe of skills (that could then be improved or not improved at a later point as the player decides) would (with a modest investment with a couple of skill feats plus their starting ranks) allow someone to have basic training in every single skill.

I can kind of see that working. It would mean that a character can't have any saves untrained. And you had better hope that grapple isn't opposed with Athletics if you are untrained in it.

I think the simplest solution would just be to introduce a rank below untrained, "Incompetent," which could be something like 1/2 level-4, and you could lower two skills to incompetent in exchange for an extra skill rank at character creation. You could still raise it to Untrained, Trained, Expert, or higher later if you wanted, but then people could be useless at as many skills as they want, but without too much benefit in return (as you essentially lose one skill rank each time). Then everyone is happy (if you're upset that you have a +6 to a skill you started off with a -4 in by the time you're level 20, I really don't know what to say).

I think the simplest solution would just be to introduce a rank below untrained, "Incompetent," which could be something like 1/2 level-4, and you could lower two skills to incompetent in exchange for an extra skill rank at character creation. You could still raise it to Untrained, Trained, Expert, or higher later if you wanted, but then people could be useless at as many skills as they want, but without too much benefit in return (as you essentially lose one skill rank each time). Then everyone is happy (if you're upset that you have a +6 to a skill you started off with a -4 in by the time you're level 20, I really don't know what to say).

Sure, why not. No bad idea in my opinion.

I think extra ranks are unnecessary, and these should largely just scale off of level, and not be a flat modifier. For example:
Untrained: Level - 1/4 level
Trained: Level + 0
Expert: Level + 1/4 level
Master: Level + 1/3 level
Legendary: Level + 1/2 level

I'm not sure if this ranges *too* far, but it's easy to adjust the top end of this down. This would lead to the following bonuses pre-stat modifications:
Level 8: +6, +8, +10, +10, +12
Level 16: +12, +16, +20, +21, +24
Level 20: +15, +20, +25, +26, +30

This makes it so that legendary checks are the same as those by untrained people at twice the level. That *feels* right to me. Also, if the variance is too much here, it's easy to adjust this downward, or simplify by creating a flat multiple for the existing bonuses as you increase in level.

If the thing let’s there be kilometer jumps I’ll have to either house rule or avoid high level play altogether if that’s baked into the rules. Because at that point they have declared a winner in play style and made it literally impossible to not play ‘superhero’s are us’ wuxia on steroids style play or even pretend to.

No more Doctor Strange or Sailor Senshi? I think there are caster fans who'll be very disappointed at being held down so far.

One issue I think I'm seeing is that the way the numbers work is a major paradigm shift away from how numbers work in 3.0/3.5/PF1e. We're very used to "higher is better" when it comes to skills - a +7 is just better than a +3. That's not true in the new system. Now it's two-dimensional - you have your numerical bonus, and your proficiency level. The bonus isn't your end-all be-all of what your character can do; it might not even be the most important part. Until we see the rest of the skill system it's impossible to know. It may turn out that it's better to be an Expert with a +8 than Untrained with a +20.

I'll be the first to admit the "free" skill bonus just for leveling makes me nervous. Heck, see some of my previous posts in this thread. But we're drawing conclusions based on incomplete data right now.

Problem with Autoscaling skills to use them in combat as substitutions: I saw that in 4th ed (dunno if they ever followed through. But a core tenet of the universal math was to allow this very situation to be possible). Didn't like it there. Don't see a compelling reason I'll like it here. Ridiculous initiative bonuses and auto-scaling defenses and attacks just made everything feel like I was on a treadmill.

To be fair, autoscaling and skills as combat substitution do not need to happen together. What combat sustitution needs, is skills being in the same ballpark than saves and attacks, so they can be used against same DCs (like vs AC, or spell DCs). This is a sepparated issue than autoscaling, as you could use the same with, say, skill ranks that you spend points into, asuming other mods that add to skills are close in scope to other mods you add to saves and attacks.

So, if in the playtest Paizo finds that combat substitution (ie: roll acrobatics as a reaction to dodge an attack, for example, or use Athletics to grapple) works well, they can keep that without making Acrobatics autoscaling for everybody.

While I dislike the idea of adventurers getting better at stuff they did not invest in, I can live with it.

My main issue here is that, with the number differential being so low between all the "Proficient" people (IE: Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary), the way to actually differentiate them will have to come from stuff they can do, which in my mind can lead to two problems:

- You disallow even trying stuff according to proficiency ("This Lock Requires Expert Lockpicking") which will almost assuredly result in some very random cutoff points.
- As your profiency goes up, you get to do more and more "stunts" lets call it. This, I fear, can lead to three problems:
1) Not all "stunts" will be equal, either within the skill or amongst skills ("Hey, why does he get to jump 30 feet in the air but my Legendary Level Lockpicking Feat just means I succeed at Expert Locks and below automatically?")
2) The "stunts" may not actually confer an appropiate bonus to the actual test, resulting in an Expert beating a Legend due to the low spread at a rate most people don't like. (For example, the Legendary man took a Skill Feat that lets him hide in plain sight, but the Expert didn't. However, they are attempting to sneak through the woods at night, so the Legendary man's stunt doesn't really do anything.)
3) The "stunts" just get so ridiculous at higher Proficiency levels that some people don't like it because they break verisimilitude ("What do you mean you can run at four hundred miles an hour in full plate? What is this, Looney Tunes?")

Those could be problems, though 3) obviously depends a lot on your group (the rest are system mechanics in play regardless of flavor). And I don't know how they can avoide them.

I also dislike the even bigger reduction of skills that's apparently at play, but that's on me. I like having loads of skills, even if it has it's own problems.

If taken purely in terms of modifier to the roll different levels of proficiency provides (especially between Unskilled and Trained), it doesn't look sufficient but without knowing what uses of the skills are gated behind different proficiency levels, the specialised feats etc. It is really difficult to gauge how the new proficiency system will effect play.

What if the different ranks in proficiency capped your straight level bonus? That way it becomes important to become proficient in skills in order to unlock further bonuses as you level. You don't automatically get unceasingly better at everything only what you gain proficiency in.

What if the different ranks in proficiency capped your straight level bonus? That way it becomes important to become proficient in skills in order to unlock further bonuses as you level. You don't automatically get unceasingly better at everything only what you gain proficiency in.

It already does this.

People are obsessing over the numbers, and seemingly only over skills.

Why?

Wait until the skill blog.

RocksAhead wrote:

What if the different ranks in proficiency capped your straight level bonus? That way it becomes important to become proficient in skills in order to unlock further bonuses as you level. You don't automatically get unceasingly better at everything only what you gain proficiency in.

It already does this.

People are obsessing over the numbers, and seemingly only over skills.

Why?

Wait until the skill blog.

No it doesn't... unless you're referring to some sight-yet-unseen information. If that's the case, then that's an issue with Paizo releasing partial information on a topic.

What if the different ranks in proficiency capped your straight level bonus? That way it becomes important to become proficient in skills in order to unlock further bonuses as you level. You don't automatically get unceasingly better at everything only what you gain proficiency in.

Because that would remove the entire point of the tight numbers between untrained and legendary. The design goal is to allow characters a chance at doing things whilst still being able to provide DCs reasonable to someone who specialized. You can't do this if the spread is too massive.

The thing I hate the most from 5E is how important is the dice in everything you try. The game is basically about "if you roll 10+, you passed".

Pathfinder 2.0 is for sure carrying on this "feature" to anything, not just skills, but from attacks to saves, etc.

Don't fool yourselves, proficience will just add new "stunts" and unlock uses, but the success will still be determinated by the roll. And given that bonuses difference is so tight, the dice will be the major factor.

Forget skills for a moment and think about saves. Be trained in some save will give abilities like evasion. But is the number that really matters.

All this "crit/fumble" thing will, again, make the dice even more important.

Other thing I hate from 5E (specially in lower levels) is how importante the attributes are.

If I have a cleric treined in diplomacy but with Char 10, I'll be REALLY bad in comparison with a Char 18 without training.

Basically people will just get skills that match their higher attributes, otherwise (even in higher levels), you chances to succed in an apropriate level DC is about 50%.

In Pathfinder 1.0 this is also true, but not as problematic as it will be in PF2. I can for sure spent skill ranks in skill not related to my main abilities and still be pretty decent.

jumping kilometers is literally to much even for wuxia stuff

of course it is. PF1 characters (at least the ones that actually play the game, the martials not so much because PF1 is handicapped by d&d philosophy) level beyond Wuxia into low-mid tier Xianxia/supers/gods by the time they start approaching endgame.

Besides it's not like Paizo hasn't published similar material they just gated it in a strange subsystem.

Not saying Mythic is even close to perfect, and some elements [such as the immortality] do not belong at all, but it is a starting point worth refining and incorporating into High Level Martial characters.

Quite to the contrary I see a situation where the dice are unimportant is undesirable. A lot of times at higher levels in PF1 DCs for checks would end up such that a specialist can auto-pass it, while someone who has not invested extensively has no chance to pass. I feel this is undesirable, one's ability to participate should not be limited by choices you made weeks or months ago.

Like one of the basic aesthetic appeals of the game is "rolling dice and caring what numbers come up is fun". A person who is "good at stealth" is no worse at it because they occasionally are spotted than a "good archer" would be if they miss occasionally.

Quite to the contrary I see a situation where the dice are unimportant is undesirable.

As a GM and as a player I prefer a situation where the dice are less important.

Something on the order of 5-15% chance of failing a given check. For someone good at it.

I think this system sounds good. Looking forward to trying it out in action.

I like the flatter spread in numbers, and the tier/deed aspect seems like a good way of ensuring the trained characters have an advantage over those who don't, without just giving them enormous numerical bonuses.

This system seems like it will scale to high level much better than the old one.

khadgar567 wrote:

jumping kilometers is literally to much even for wuxia stuff

of course it is. PF1 characters (at least the ones that actually play the game, the martials not so much because PF1 is handicapped by d&d philosophy) level beyond Wuxia into low-mid tier Xianxia/supers/gods by the time they start approaching endgame.

Besides it's not like Paizo hasn't published similar material they just gated it in a strange subsystem.

Not saying Mythic is even close to perfect, and some elements [such as the immortality] do not belong at all, but it is a starting point worth refining and incorporating into High Level Martial characters.

Optionally sure. Mandatory no.

If it's always automatic addition of Level rather than freely chosen ranks I'll be rather against such system.

I'd gladly see Proficency as more like - class skill bonus - rather than just +3 on the beginning - additional bonuses every few levels to class skills, separated from freely chosen ranks.
This way we will both have natural advancement of skills connected with class - and large system of customization.

Those bonuses + ranks could unlock together various fun perks for those.

But as automatic for everybody... eh nah.

Copying from another thread some coment I wish could have came true.

Bloodrealm wrote:

Lady Firebird wrote:

As for the skill gap, keep in mind that the Rogue is also going to have access to feats and abilities that enhance their use of Stealth in ways the Cleric will not. So that will help make up the difference that pure numbers can't completely cover.

Sure, but when you want to use Stealth in order to stealth (you know, the entire point of Stealth), and the Untrained Cleric is only 6 points or so behind the Legendary Rogue...

The only confirmation we have about Skills is that, AT LEVEL 1, the difference between each skill rank is 1.

For all we know, Untrained is just -1, Trained is 1/4 level, Expert is 1/2 level + 1, Master is 3/4 level +2 and Legendary is Level + 3.

I HIGHLY doubt that Paizo is going to pull a 5e and make your skills THAT close.

Not to mention that every level of proficiency allows you to do stuff that you can't normally do.

This Friday's Blog Post is about Skills, so we will have a better idea then.

But it seems that we are going the boring "add you level" everytime.

Give it some credit, it's super simple math. Even a 5 year old (not every 5 year old) can keep these numbers straight.

Well in PF1 if half the party had a stealth modifier in the 20s, and half the party had a stealth modifier less than 5, it's reasonable to conclude that "well, you will give us away". When you have to bluff the Captain that the forged papers are legitimate, you would imaging the captain would not just interact with whoever appoints themself as the spokesperson, so you don't want the person standing at the back to give you away.

Now the stealthy person can scout ahead to figure out a good path for their less stealthy friends, with the help of the disguise artist everyone can pass off a plausible disguise as genuine if they don't have to say a lot, and everybody can grunt affirmatively in a plausible manner if the Captain asks them a question. No one is a liability anymore.

In Hell's Rebels, there were several situations where this applied to me. I played an Oracle - my specialties were Healing and Support, and Diplomacy. I could bluff my way through almost anything, could turn nobility and scoundrels alike to our cause, could make difficult Heal checks -- but the minute a stealth operation was on the table, then it was understood that I would not be accompanying, and sitting out the next 30 minutes or so of gameplay while the stealth operations commenced with the two or three stealthy characters.

I'm all for diversity and letting other specialists shine, but Pathfinder and 3E has for a while been missing a means for group checks to carry a group - many DMs I've played under have house-ruled a group stealth into the game for this reason. I for one will be glad to see it in play officially. Specialty and moments to shine are still there -- indeed, without the stealthy characters leading the way, the option for stealth would not exist!

This debate has gone so many rounds in circle that I cannot wait for Paizo to publish the blog about next thing people will hate.

I skipped the thread, but from the blog post itself I'm fine with this idea. I just don't think it was the most important priority for them to post right now when there's still such a mess stirred up from magic items.

I think Proficiency is an area of the rules that would make more sense in context, where we can see how it interacts with the rest of the rule system. I think I am seeing its advantage in making different types of die rolls more or less interchangeable (as more things will now scale at the same rate), but the real test will be in details that we won't see before August.

This debate has gone so many rounds in circle that I cannot wait for Paizo to publish the blog about next thing people will hate.

From what I've heard today's blog is going to be about Fighters, and we all know how controversial of a topic that can be...

This debate has gone so many rounds in circle that I cannot wait for Paizo to publish the blog about next thing people will hate.

I liked the action economy one.

master_marshmallow wrote:

RocksAhead wrote:

What if the different ranks in proficiency capped your straight level bonus? That way it becomes important to become proficient in skills in order to unlock further bonuses as you level. You don't automatically get unceasingly better at everything only what you gain proficiency in.

It already does this.

People are obsessing over the numbers, and seemingly only over skills.

Why?

Wait until the skill blog.

No it doesn't... unless you're referring to some sight-yet-unseen information. If that's the case, then that's an issue with Paizo releasing partial information on a topic.

Acknowledged and agreed.

I think that the suggestion of making untrained = level/2 is quite terrible, is good and bad save progression all over again, the higher the level higher the gap. And what exactly would be the benefit other than to punish players for not be able to max all skills. Right now makes math simpler, easier to learn, and coherent for high levels

I'm a fan of 5e's Bounded Accuracy + Proficiency mechanic so to see PF2e coming around to adopting Level-Adjusted Bounded Accuracy + Proficiency is a good thing.

I think what some people are missing here is that gaming is all about relative level differences between your character and their opponents. So those 10th level Aspis thugs that used to have +2 Will save and +4 Perception now are having +8 to +11 Will saves and Perceptions (depending if they rock the -2 or +1 proficiency adjustment). If we're seeing PCs get their level as a bonus to skills, you can assume NPCs and monsters get a similar bonus to their hit dice.

One of the things 5e brought to the table was you could take a group of six orcs and use them as a 1st level or 10th level challenge. If you've played Warcraft anytime recently, you know you can enter a zone and the monsters "scale to your character". Which is to say that Westfall boar may be 10th level or 60th level - it becomes the level of your character.

With PF2e's Level-Adjusted Bounded Accuracy you end up being able to take an encounter with six 1st level orcs and make it a 11th level encounter as a GM by simply applying a +10 level adjustment to everything (the orc saves, the orc attacks, the orc skills, etc). The by-product of this is suddenly these orcs are better at Perform (Dance) than a 4th level bard. The trade-off was for the overworked GM who can now quickly adapt encounters. And if it came down to it, while playing Warcraft, those fel-touched orcs in Hellfire Plateau really had the same /dance competence as your PC orc does.

When adopting bounded accuracy, our designers were at a crossroads:

Turn Left (5e BA):
Don't add the hit dice to skills/saves/etc and allow the system to have characters/monsters operate in a narrow range (+1 to +6).

Upside: 6 HD trolls don't have +6 Perform (dance) and can out-dance a bard (who hasn't picked up a skill feat for dancing). Yay verisimilitude.

Downside: Players don't feel significant progression from their +1 at first level to where they end up at 10th level.

Turn Right (Level-Adjusted BA):
Everyone adds their hit dice or level to things, thus a 10th level fighter or a 10HD troll rock the +10 Climb and +10 Perform (dance) identically.

Upside: Players get the endorphin hit that they are getting more powerful as they level up, getting that precious +1 to update on their character sheet each level.

Downside: Verisimilitude takes a hit. Now every 10th level character can /dance like every other 10th level character. Gone is the chance to make a high-level Raistlin who would drown in a river.

I think that the suggestion of making untrained = level/2 is quite terrible, is good and bad save progression all over again, the higher the level higher the gap. And what exactly would be the benefit other than to punish players for not be able to max all skills. Right now makes math simpler, easier to learn, and coherent for high levels

If we needed to widen the gap between "untrained" and "someone who is good at a skill" doing something like Level -2 or level -4 would be much better than level/2 IMO.

I'm still not sure why we want our fantasy heroes to get less uniformly competent at basic tasks though.

We do probably want to keep the difference between "really good" and "really bad" at a roll less than 10 though, just so we don't have issues where the same roll is a critical success for one member of the party and a failure for one of their peers.