Duncan Seibert's page

So there has been a common complaint on the forums that skill proficiency isn't as impactful as it should be. People complain that a Legendary PC at a particular skill is only 45% more successful at the same challenge (previously 35%) and is exactly as good at the task as any untrained mook 9 levels higher than them. The counterargument inevitably comes back that the benefit of higher proficiency isn't higher bonuses, really, it's more uses for the skill and access to skill feats. This fails to adequately refute the original complaint, because the complaint was specifically about the base uses of the skill, things that anyone, trained or not, can do. It makes no sense that a level 10 wizard, who has put only a modicum a Training into Diplomacy, can out-talk a level 7 Master Diplomat that has trained all their life to speak eloquently. And this is just using the basic "Make an impression" skill use. Sure, the diplomat can impress more people at once, or make a Shameless Request, but when negotiating with a foreign king to set up some trade routes, you're better off sending the wizard, over the person *explicitly trained for that job*.

So we need something to make skill proficiencies mean more, and it needs to work at any level of proficiency, and with any use of a skill, even the basic ones.

My solution is this: in order to succeed at any contested skill use (contested meaning the DC is set by the statistics of another creature) you need to be at least as trained in your skill as one step less than the creature you are affecting, or at least as trained if that creature is actively trying to disrupt your skill use, or two levels lower if the target is particularly distracted/ not able to disrupt you.

Example: You, a ranger who, while more focused on things like nature and your Animal Companion, has put one of their proficiencies in Stealth, becoming trained in it, are trying to sneak past a particularly perceptive guard, who is an Expert in Perception. Let's say this guard is just doing his normal routine, walking his rounds, but not paying too close attention to the shadows. Since you are just one proficiency down from the guard (trained vs expert), you're fine to attempt the check. On the other hand, lets say you flubbed a previous stealth check against another guard. That guard called out an alert to the other guards, but couldn't actually locate you and just went back on his rounds. Now the guard you're trying to sneak past is on high alert, closely scanning the shadows for intruders. Now, his Expert proficiency is on full display, meaning you, being only trained, aren't going to be able to sneak past him any more, but your party rogue, who has stayed true to form and is an Expert at Stealth, would be able to attempt that sneak. On the other hand, lets say the guard isn't being paid well, and instead of actually doing rounds is staying in the guard house with the other guards playing poker. Now, since the guard is distracted, even the Untrained in stealth Wizard could try to sneak past, since Untrained is only two levels lower than Expert. However, and Untrained character would never be able to sneak past a Perception Master unless they were truly incapacitated.

Now, this system has it's own problems, I'm sure, but I'd love to hear what you think in this thread!

Oh, and briefly going back to the negotiation example above: the king has an Master will save, because being a king is taxing on one's will and it takes something special to be able to withstand that. Now, the Master Diplomat is going to have no trouble trying to talk his way into some sweet trade routes, even if the king is on edge during the discusions, but the Wizard is going to make no headway. Unless, of course, he wants to risk an international incident by trying to Charm the king, bring the threshold down to two proficiency steps below, allowing the wizards Trained Diplomacy to attempt a check against the king's Master Will.

As written this would prevent you from playing say, a half-orc raised by goblins.

How is this the case?

It has always been possible for the GM to point out "hey that particular character is singularly inappropriate for this campaign" so anybody who wants to prohibit goblins (or elves, or clerics, or whatever) from their home games is free to do so.

And having rarity on classes/ancestries/backgrounds/etc would give them a mechanical way of representing this that blends seamlessly with the rules for everything else. It would just have to be clarified that an uncommon rarity on a character option means that option is uncommon [italics]as a character option[/italics] not necessarily just uncommon in the world. So the Goblin ancestry being uncommon would mean that Goblins aren't often adventurers, but the Goblin monster is still common telling you that there are lots of Goblins in the world.

I see the benefits of both options: flat checks use the same die as everything else in Pathfinder and cuts down on confusion (it always takes me a second to remember that with d%, you want to roll low), but percentile targets are easier to grok: It's way more clear to me if you tell me I have a 25% chance to succeed than to say I need to pass a DC 16 flat check. It's also way easier to remember percents. I just know that Heavy Fortification is 75% chance to ignore crits, and I had that memorized immediately upon learning that Fortification existed. I'm going to have to look up the flat checks for Fortification, attacking something Sensed, Concealment, etc. *every* time I use them for quite some time until I remember them.

One thing to consider is that while the Gnolls might roll higher initiative, they wouldn't necessarily know that combat is happening until the "prisoners" actually attack. This still screws over any rogue in the party, because they won't benefit from their surprise attack feature, and still screws you if only one person rolls high, but it helps.

I'm actually against this idea. There are lots of miscellaneous term scattered around the book already with no clear place to find them, the definition of "Basic Saving Throw" would be something easy to overlook. People are already upset about how much cross-checking and indexing they have to do to learn the system, I don't think we need to make that problem worse. Maybe if you release a Rules Compendium designed for people very experienced with the system, but for the beginner's rulebook you should focus on cutting down the multitude of game terms that need to be learned.