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
1,351 to 1,400 of 1,441 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm good with magic breaking what feels "realistic".

In the old days, when a fighter got his Strength up (from 18/32 to 18/90 to 18/00 to 19 to 20)... if the fighter rocking the strength of a frost giant could leap 30ft straight up, it felt fine to the right side of my brain. In this case he wasn't going beyond human capability until he was a human infused with beyond-human strength. If he was a Child of Kord, part-werewolf or was bit by a radioactive spider, it also feels plausible to break world records. There's clearly a grey area of how such feats become enabled to a character to my tastes.

I suppose what would feel odd to me is a fighter sporting a 13 Strength somehow making 100ft leaps into the air without labeling that as Supernatural or Spell-like.

There's no reason PF2e can't support this and have options for players who want their warriors to have divine blood (sort of like a bloodrager) and options for those who simply want them to be Batman-types where their beyond-mortal capability is provided by gear. A system that doesn't have options for both players' desires is a system that is weaker than PF1e we have today.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These discussions about human fighters suplexing dragons while totally not being superhuman has me thinking that these characters are secretly demigods. They are just trying to act like they are mortals but are failing spectacularly. "Look at me, I'm this normal human being that fell into a pit of lava and survived. That's a totally normal thing!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:

"swimming across the Pacific Ocean as a move action" or "does not need to breathe and can swim between planets unaided because he's such a good swordsman" then I'm going to want viable alternatives.

Giving fighters nice things doesn't mean giving them magic.

But they're not magic... Magic is spells.

(Incidentally the stuff I excluded from the quote is stuff I don't want either. High level martials are fundamentally invulnerable to our frame of reference as real world humans but that's a function of hit points not immunity


Matrix Dragon wrote:
These discussions about human fighters suplexing dragons while totally not being superhuman has me thinking that these characters are secretly demigods. They are just trying to act like they are mortals but are failing spectacularly. "Look at me, I'm this normal human being that fell into a pit of lava and survived. That's a totally normal thing!"

Yes, in my settings, 'level 13' is the formal threshold of transition to being a demigod.

Level 17 is the formal threshold of transition to full divinity.

As a note aside from a modest boost to evocation casters are basically unenhanced.


One of the things I can't understand is this line

John Lynch 106 wrote:
But if I can make someone who doesn't pick epic skills and instead chooses to increase other skills and they keep up with others I'll be happy and won't begrudge others for getting what they want. I won't be happy if I have to retire my character at level 10.

So let's look at an example someone gave that you turned down.

If in PF2 the fighter at lv15 gets the ability to "+1 to damage on your third iterative when you take three attacks in one turn" and no other options it sounds like you'll say "Oh look this is nice and mundane and I'm keeping up with these spellcasters! yay!"

But if they also added the options for "saving throw -100 vs death", "automatically be raised from the dead and get +1000 damage to your next successful hit" that somehow makes the option you'd like them to have as their only option not good enough.

I don't see why? Right now in a game of unbridled casters the martials don't keep up. A lv15 fighter has a REALLY hard time fighting a wizard that can dispel reliably his flight and is flying with a wind wall. He doesn't have the tools to really deal with that situation. That's what we have in PF1 is +1 to attack and damage, or the one ability to add +1 to our third attack in a round. The fighter already doesn't get enough to stay equal, BUT if you think they are equal than obviously they do stay equal getting nothing. Thus you should be happy to choose the +1 to attack option since that is enough to "keep up" with spellcasters. Having options that actually do keep up with spellcasters doesn't change that dynamic or make the one you'd like worse than it was.

Grand Lodge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
I confess as much as I like the idea of this, and a lot of things mentioned in the blog post, even I am struggling with the leaping a 100 feet into the air. Though I don't know why I find that more objectionable than 20 feet as they're both impossible. Maybe I've discovered my preferred level of superhuman abilities?
If it makes you feel any better, the roughly ~master level ability I discussed before is more like 20-30 feet than 100.

This is perfectly reasonable if the fighter/martial is using his proficiencies to gain this ability. The 100-foot thing would be ridiculous without the aid of *magic.*

Grand Lodge

Lady Funnyhat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I think I might bow out of this particular conversation. It seems that addressing this particular segment of the customer base is not one of the goals. I’ll sit back, watch and hope what emerges feels enough like a game that can support playing my home brews in instead of one that would require me to chunk them in order to adopt it. Might comment on other portions, but it appears this ship at least has completely sailed.
There's nothing really stopping you from playing E10, or houserule banning legendary skills (and whatever other option that's too "epic" for you). The jumping 100 feet stuff is there for people who wants it.

The problem with this is adventures/scenarios may be designed with players needing those Legendary levels. Will Legendary be PFS legal?


nogoodscallywag wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I think I might bow out of this particular conversation. It seems that addressing this particular segment of the customer base is not one of the goals. I’ll sit back, watch and hope what emerges feels enough like a game that can support playing my home brews in instead of one that would require me to chunk them in order to adopt it. Might comment on other portions, but it appears this ship at least has completely sailed.
There's nothing really stopping you from playing E10, or houserule banning legendary skills (and whatever other option that's too "epic" for you). The jumping 100 feet stuff is there for people who wants it.
The problem with this is adventures/scenarios may be designed with players needing those Legendary levels. Will Legendary be PFS legal?

Not if PFS remains level 12 and below.


One way to make both sides of this 'realistic fighters' debate happy might be to make many 'superhuman' feats magic item dependent. For example: there could be a legendary feat that lets you cut down buildings with a single sword slash, but it requires that you use a +5 magical weapon. That way it is less about the fighters themselves being superhuman and more about them making the best use of their magical gear.

This way, low magic games won't have fighters chopping down buildings because the gear to support that playstyle won't exist, but fighters would be able to keep up with spellcasters in a high magic game.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That might make the "keep them mundane" side happy, but it wouldn't anyone else, since relying on magical items to be superhuman is the system we have already in First Edition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Lady Funnyhat wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
I think I might bow out of this particular conversation. It seems that addressing this particular segment of the customer base is not one of the goals. I’ll sit back, watch and hope what emerges feels enough like a game that can support playing my home brews in instead of one that would require me to chunk them in order to adopt it. Might comment on other portions, but it appears this ship at least has completely sailed.
There's nothing really stopping you from playing E10, or houserule banning legendary skills (and whatever other option that's too "epic" for you). The jumping 100 feet stuff is there for people who wants it.
The problem with this is adventures/scenarios may be designed with players needing those Legendary levels. Will Legendary be PFS legal?
Not if PFS remains level 12 and below.

Not that I play PFS, but i think it would be a real failure on Paizo's part if PFS didn't extend to 20th lvl.


necromental wrote:
Not that I play PFS, but i think it would be a real failure on Paizo's part if PFS didn't extend to 20th lvl.

Even if the system is fun and functional at high levels, PFS games at level 18+ are going to be a whole lot rarer, both due to the level of investment it takes to get there and because the doings of high level folks tend to be world-shaking, and those kinds of scenarios are harder to write so there probably won't be as many.


Rysky wrote:
That might make the "keep them mundane" side happy, but it wouldn't anyone else, since relying on magical items to be superhuman is the system we have already in First Edition.

It's not a bad concept (and might be an option to include for the GMs who refuse equally superhuman martials or players who demand to play 'an ordinary human' but it should NOT be the only or primary path.


Rysky wrote:
That might make the "keep them mundane" side happy, but it wouldn't anyone else, since relying on magical items to be superhuman is the system we have already in First Edition.

I think the issue with PF1E was more about the sheer number of magical items that were needed. If PF2E fighters needed a magic sword and magic armor to use some of their upper level abilities I don't think it would be a big deal if it was done correctly.

Personally, I think having the fighters be reliant on having some sort of 'legendary weapon' like King Arthur or Inuyasha I think it could be kind of flavorful. (Yes, I just used a real world legendary figure and an anime character in the same sentence.)

Edit: I agree that this shouldn't be the only path for characters to get those sorts of abilities though.


Yeah there's nothing wrong with the concept so long as it's one option on the table alongside far less gear dependent level appropriate martials.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

18 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks,

This is way off topic.

The trick for us it to find a way to balance the vast majority of desires when it comes to PC build and view of the world. Considering we have only been able to show you a thin slice of that as of yet, the amount of hyperbole being thrown around here is a bit much.

Every hero in the game is special. Whether or not they get that from their skill, training, and practice, or from magic is really up to you and the choices you make. The trick on "our side of the rulebook" it to make sure that the options we present give you the power to make that choice, while also ensuring that the choices you make allow you to contribute to the game in a meaningful and satisfying manner. That means different things for different characters. It also means different things based on the group composition and dynamic. We cannot regulate all these factors. How you build your group is up to you. The best we can do is try to give you the tools to make sure things flow smoothly within your group, your party, your game.

Hope that helps. Lets try to get back to the topic at hand...


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
This is way off topic.

And at this point I'll stop discussing the flavour I want fighters to have in the new edition. If anyone truly feels like they don't understand permission, I invite you to send me a private message.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Every hero in the game is special. Whether or not they get that from their skill, training, and practice, or from magic is really up to you and the choices you make.

I am hopeful that this means more people will be able to get the Fighter they want. We'll have to wait and see what we get in August.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay...so it sounds like you want the level of proficiency to be a big deal...but ultimately they are adding +1 to +3 bonus...while levels add 1-20. That seems odd from a design stand point of what you want the flavor to be. It would make WAY more sense if you changed it up so level add say only 1/2 level to the bonus and each level of proficiency adds say +1/3/7...which makes the legendary bonus +21...which is comparable to the numbers you have now. With this math, it means you get roughly half the bonus from levels and half from proficiency. The DC should probably stay at the +1-3 levels...but without more numbers...it's kinda hard to tell. It also gives freedom in NPC building if they don't have to follow those level restrictions. Having a level 1 legendary swordsmith now has a better bonus to make swords than your level 20 barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Somewhere way back in this thread, one of the developers mentioned that the preview of the Skills has yet to be released -- I wish they had done that right after Proficiencies, or maybe even right before.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Somewhere way back in this thread, one of the developers mentioned that the preview of the Skills has yet to be released -- I wish they had done that right after Proficiencies, or maybe even right before.

I'm expecting a post on it tomorrow for some reason. Don't know why.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Somewhere way back in this thread, one of the developers mentioned that the preview of the Skills has yet to be released -- I wish they had done that right after Proficiencies, or maybe even right before.

I'm expecting a post on it tomorrow for some reason. Don't know why.

I hope so. And I sure hope that it's a meaty preview, because this slow trip of posts that barely even scratch the surface of their ostensible topics has been really frustrating. I get that they can't show everything before the playtest doc is ready, but if they're going to talk about something at all, go into it.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post. It is never okay to tell another community member that they "don't actually ADD anything to this game". People in our community take the same rulebooks and play differently. Other gamers on our forums may not play in a similar manner as you do, or they may not approach the game with the same philosophy as you do, but Paizo still values those voices.


So I'm thinking about the math here. so target AC and "BAB" going up equally keeps a solid 50% chance of hitting (I don't know if it will work that way and I'm sure their will be a lot of variance) So As I level up I'll have a 50/50 shot of hitting something at my level and ofcourse higher level it drops by 5% per level and vice versa.

Then we have attribute which both me and my opponent have so I'll cancel them out atm even though some situations my str will be higher then their dex etc.

Next we have what I've been getting to and that is the proficiency things. so +1 or +5% so Up to +3 (maybe +4 for fighter?) +15% so now I hit 65% of the time. magic sword might give me another +15 so I'm at hitting on a 4 for something at my level that has the same dex as my str.

So fighter hits on a 4 an non-proficent wizard who gets -1 and assuming he didn't invest in a magic weapon needs a 11. Its interesting to think about. then ofcourse the crits really set them apart.

Just thinking about it and wondering what other factors we can expect. I'm kind of liking the math so far.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I feared: A fix that really was not necessary. Not to mention it appears to add complexity to a rather simple Skill system.
It wasn't broken. Didn't need to be fixed.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Fourshadow wrote:

As I feared: A fix that really was not necessary. Not to mention it appears to add complexity to a rather simple Skill system.

It wasn't broken. Didn't need to be fixed.

It really really was broken. The disparity in numbers were so insane that it is impossible to create a proper DC scale.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A sense in which skills were broken in PF1 is that at the higher levels, it becomes impossible to set a DC for a skill check that is not an auto-pass for a character who has specialized in a skill while still giving a character who has dabbled in the skill a reasonable chance to pass it.

Sure people dealt with this with "one person makes the check" but that's not as fun as "everyone gets to participate".


5 people marked this as a favorite.

But that's the whole point. If you're a high level specialist there basically shouldn't be anything that you don't autopass on. You're amazing at that thing. You set the DCs for what they should be and the specialist gets to breeze through since the point of his character is to breeze through those problems. Most skills SHOULDN'T be scaling with levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
But that's the whole point. If you're a high level specialist there basically shouldn't be anything that you don't autopass on. You're amazing at that thing. You set the DCs for what they should be and the specialist gets to breeze through since the point of his character is to breeze through those problems. Most skills SHOULDN'T be scaling with levels.

And that specialist will probably get a skill feat that let him auto-win, without stopping another player to at least have a chance to succeed if the specialist is absent or knocked-out/dead/kidnapped/etc.

If the picklocker is chained in a prison, how can the other players try to save him?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
But that's the whole point. If you're a high level specialist there basically shouldn't be anything that you don't autopass on. You're amazing at that thing. You set the DCs for what they should be and the specialist gets to breeze through since the point of his character is to breeze through those problems. Most skills SHOULDN'T be scaling with levels.

And that specialist will probably get a skill feat that let him auto-win, without stopping another player to at least have a chance to succeed if the specialist is absent or knocked-out/dead/kidnapped/etc.

If the picklocker is chained in a prison, how can the other players try to save him?

If they are going against the best lock it's what DC 25 or 30 right? A lock doesn't get better than that. Traps don't go much higher that I'm aware of. And if there is DC 40 or higher then they are things that parties should be expected to be failing against without a specialist. If the other player(s) have also been investing some then there should be some reasonable things that they can attempt to succeed. People that are untrained shouldn't have a shot at a DC40 thing since it's "basically impossible" to crack.

If the picklocker is chained in prison you have the face talk to someone to get him out or muscle in and break him free are two options that are likely possible for a party, similar to what the party would be doing if there just wasn't a lockpicker in the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
But that's the whole point. If you're a high level specialist there basically shouldn't be anything that you don't autopass on. You're amazing at that thing. You set the DCs for what they should be and the specialist gets to breeze through since the point of his character is to breeze through those problems. Most skills SHOULDN'T be scaling with levels.

But now you can have level appropriate skill checks that the expert can auto-pass, and ones that the expert cannot auto-pass. Also, you can have level appropriate skill checks that dabblers cannot even attempt, and level appropriate skill checks that dabblers stand a fair chance of succeeding at.

Being able to tune things this way without simply using numbers is handy.

Sovereign Court

1 person 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

We also have critical successes and failures. Even a small advantage for the specialist can drastically alter the chances of very good or very bad results.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:

As I feared: A fix that really was not necessary. Not to mention it appears to add complexity to a rather simple Skill system.

It wasn't broken. Didn't need to be fixed.
It really really was broken. The disparity in numbers were so insane that it is impossible to create a proper DC scale.

Never had an issue with it. So, IMO, not broken. Now, again IMO, it is more complex. Trying to give it a chance, but it doesn't look like 2.0 is for me.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fourshadow wrote:


Never had an issue with it.

Ah, the good old "all my personal experiences are universal" chestnut.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:


Never had an issue with it.
Ah, the good old "all my personal experiences are universal" chestnut.

I notice you omitted the "IMO". I was very clear that it was my opinion and that I was not speaking for everyone. Read the entire message before reacting.


Fourshadow wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Fourshadow wrote:


Never had an issue with it.
Ah, the good old "all my personal experiences are universal" chestnut.
I notice you omitted the "IMO". I was very clear that it was my opinion and that I was not speaking for everyone. Read the entire message before reacting.

You are still stating that given your experiences and opinion that the system was fine and doesn't need to be fixed. Thus, your personal experiences are universal.

There is a recording of the Pathfinder 2e panel from GaryCon where they go into more detail about the reasons they're changing it. Primarily that tracking it over the course of a campaign was prone to errors in bookkeeping, DC scaling was really wonky, and differences between low-skill and high skill were also a bit nuts.


Might have overreacted a bit in the other direction in removing any significant differentiation between low and high skill. Perhaps some middle ground?


Ok, so spells can be cast from untrained to legendary levels?

Sovereign Court

1 person 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
Arssanguinus wrote:
Might have overreacted a bit in the other direction in removing any significant differentiation between low and high skill. Perhaps some middle ground?

A difference in bonus of 17-18 at level 20 seems alright. Specialist succeeds on a 2, where untrained character needs 19 or 20.


You are using items and abilities in there. Stop.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
You are using items and abilities in there. Stop.

We actually don't know that it includes items (though it's quite possible).

And why should we stop including Abilities?

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
Arssanguinus wrote:
You are using items and abilities in there. Stop.

Do your specialists not invest in their success? You can hardly call those specialists...


So without a special saw there is only marginal difference between a skilled and a legendary carpenter?


KingOfAnything wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
You are using items and abilities in there. Stop.
Do your specialists not invest in their success? You can hardly call those specialists...

Because a non-specialist that decides he wants to dabble in it can have the same things. A bard that hasn't cared for X but has bought items that help in recently vs a bard that has cared for X and has those same items cause he wants to be the best. The "best" is only a few points higher over a similar guy that just decided to give it a try.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So without a special saw there is only marginal difference between a skilled and a legendary carpenter?

I'll repeat this for like the 5th time:

We have no idea what bonuses items grant. There are some theories, but we have no proof of any sort.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Because a non-specialist that decides he wants to dabble in it can have the same things. A bard that hasn't cared for X but has bought items that help in recently vs a bard that has cared for X and has those same items cause he wants to be the best. The "best" is only a few points higher over a similar guy that just decided to give it a try.

Two points:

1. In order to be 'only a few points behind' they'd need to have the same Ability score. So we're talking a Bard 'dabbling' in something like Deception or Diplomacy if they're within a few points of the specialist. So...we're talking some pretty specific 'non-specialists' to be only a few points different.

2. This ignores Skill Feats. If the Legendary Deception guy is, say, able to ignore the -20 penalty for saying unbelievable things and evade magical lie detection (both very real possibilities for Legendary Skill Feats), then he's gonna come off as a lot better liar than the Bard with Deception only Trained, even if their actual bonuses are within a few points.


But why should the bonuses be THAT close? I agree, they were extreme before but they seem to have gone extreme the other way now.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
But why should the bonuses be THAT close? I agree, they were extreme before but they seem to have gone extreme the other way now.

Because they need to be within a 19 point spread, total, if they're gonna keep things the way they want.

Assuming a max of +9 from stat, that's probably a 10 point swing or so between best and worst. That still leaves a max of a 9 point swing for Items + Skill, and Skill is at a 5 point swing right now. You can up it to an 8 point swing instead pretty readily, but that makes items (including magic ones) no longer a factor, which is thematically uncool IMO (a Cloak of Elvenkind is a classic of the genre, for example).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
So without a special saw there is only marginal difference between a skilled and a legendary carpenter?

I am reading that a legendary carpenter might be able to make a wooden leg as good as a real one or maybe a hidden door so cunning it takes magic to detect, where a merely trained carpenter could make ordinary furniture and affect basic repairs.

The proficiency bonus will show competence and reliability, but it will be the proficiency ranks that show depth of skill.

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
So without a special saw there is only marginal difference between a skilled and a legendary carpenter?

I am reading that a legendary carpenter might be able to make a wooden leg as good as a real one or maybe a hidden door so cunning it takes magic to detect, where a merely trained carpenter could make ordinary furniture and affect basic repairs.

The proficiency bonus will show competence and reliability, but it will be the proficiency ranks that show depth of skill.

Well we wouldn't want magic to be the only solution, but how would it sound to make a door that only someone with a really good proficiency rank in Perception can possibly detect?


A legendary perception for a legendary secret? Sounds good to me!

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,441 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Are You Proficient? All Messageboards