Alebasco's page

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

The problem here is the the upper end bonuses are no where near the content design of +23, which means no one, even your most skilled people will be able to do the challenges.

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

The problem here is the the upper end bonuses are no where near the content design of +20, which means no one, even your experts will be able to do the challenges.

I don't know if should be that extreme. But something should be done to make skill mastery feel more special.

Weren't there supposed to be skill "functions" that could only be done with "expert" or "master"? They seem to not be in the pt book.

Seems like currently only trained unlocks skill uses.

Higher profs just unlock more feat options.

Lastly the GM can choose to make something have a proficiency prereq to attempt a skill check - such as a difficult trap require expert to even attempt to disarm it.

None of that feels good to me.

Many people (myself included) have expressed concern in the new skill system for PF2. In particular there are two major complaints

1) Taking a level of proficiency only adds 1 more to your rolls. This makes taking a level of proficiency not feel all that great.
2) An untrained high level is abnormally good at tasks they have no training in, when compared to a low level expert.

I purpose the following house rule, and would like your thoughts on it!

House rule in visual form! https://postimg.cc/image/8zlch6fvb/

If enough people like it, perhaps they will consider a variant option.

Untrained = 0
Trained = 1/4 level + 2
Expert = 1/2 level + 3
Master = 3/4 level + 4
Legendary = level + 4

Instead of doing the math, you would simply consult the chart linked above!

The goal was to make the step between each level greater, while keeping the max modifiers near RAW. This will make each level of proficiency matter, while keeping the balance in check.. More or Less.

Let me know what you think! Especially if you do the math and have some better numbers!

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Thanks for the reply! I missed something. How they can auto succeed at DC 15 checks?

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

It is still 1/5 training and 4/5 character level to determine your bonus, unless you auto succeed which does fix the flaws with common checks, but not difficult checks (which are the more exciting checks!).

The untrained higher level character may just straight up not be able to make the more difficult/exciting check at all, since it's very probably a trained use of the skill. Your +12 in e.g. Thievery for being a 12th level character isn't going to help you e.g. disarm a trap if you weren't trained in how to disarm traps to begin with. Proficiency does far more than add a small bonus to the skill check, it actually gates what kinds of things you can do with the skill at all, which is then further modified by your skill feats potentially opening up entirely new things you can do with the...

Do certain skill checks only allow experts or above to attempt?

If not, then its just moving the line up 1 single peg.

Okay the level 17 dabbled a bit back in his youth. He has "Trained" in the skill. He gets +15, and the level 3 expert gets +5. Both can attempt the check now, right?

I would take a different skill whenever possible over ranking up a skill. Because then by "mid-game" you're awesome at everything in the world!

But its not a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" situation.. because against someone of a similar level, who is legendary, you are almost nearly as good still.

They are just master of one, while you are master of all!

Indeed. Suppose we had an 17th-level untrained character uses no/improvised tools vs a level 3 expert in Medicine with Assurance in Medicine (also with no.improvised tools if you like). We'll say they both have 10 Wisdom. The 17th-level character is at +13, and succeeds except on a 1. On a nat 1, it's a critical failure and increases the dying condition by 1, as shown above. The 3rd-level character (the worst-possible expert in the game without a stat flaw, since we still don't have tools for some reason and didn't raise Wisdom) is looking at +2, but also auto-succeeds at DC 15 checks without rolling and thus never critically fails (or even fails). So you're in all ways superior to the 17th-level character at that task.

Thanks for the reply! I missed something. How they can auto succeed at DC 15 checks?

If they are unlocking auto succeeds for each rank, that is very interesting. But the problem still rears its head with a particularly high DC challenge. Something only legends can succeed at!

The level 17 gets +13, and the level 3 expert gets +2, so with a DC 30, the untrained character can do it, but the expert can't possibly succeed?

It is still 1/5 training and 4/5 character level to determine your bonus, unless you auto succeed which does fix the flaws with common checks, but not difficult checks (which are the more exciting checks!).

Generally, I like the look of this. I don't really want, however, a system where untrained high-level characters outshine trained low-level characters at basic knowledge stuff like Religion or Occultism. The 3rd level cleric should probably know more religious stuff than the typical 15th level atheist barbarian--but the fact that the cleric gets +3 on her check, and the barbarian +13, doesn't bode well to me.

I wonder what the effect would be if I houseruled "untrained" to mean level divided by 2. . . .

That house rule would help with the extreme untrained vs legendary.. but the ranks between trained and legendary are still meaningless compared to level.

So you're a fighter who dabbled in religion, but is level 10? I am a level 5 Cleric who as devoted my life to it! Who is better?

Alexander Bascom wrote:

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..

The majority of game play is not the normal roll. It's designed so that the skill feats you can take and the abilities you unlock with higher proficiency make more of a difference than your skill modifier.

The example is super niche. Do we have more examples I don't know about? Curing blindness is not the most common use of the Medicine skill. "Administer first aid" is definitely more common.

You unlock neat niche behaviors, but you do not get better at the core tasks by training, only by leveling.

Your bonus to a skill is 1/5 your training 4/5 your level.

Please, please correct me if I am wrong, but a level 20 who is untrained in a skill gets a +18, where a level 20 who is legendary in the skill gets a +23?

A +5 difference? Previously, it would have been a +20 difference (0 ranks vs 20 ranks)

Sure, the legendary gets some cool, but niche feat options. But for the normal roll, which will be the majority of game-play, legendary amounts to a +5 compared to someone who is untrained? That is it?

That is way to similar to 5e where you scale with level as well, making all characters seem samey.

Dislike! Make each rank equal a +5 and it scales fine again..