Slit518's page

I'm one of the authors of this project.
Excited about its release.

Anymore input from other folks who have not seen this thread as of yet?

I have classes start with either Untrained; Trained; Expert in whatever it is they start in.

Your next level up whether it be from Trained to Expert or Expert to Trained would be obtainable at level 10.

Your third level up whether it be from Expert to Master or Master to Legendary could either be level 18, or perhaps only purchasable as a feat option, I haven't decided yet.

So for example, the Fighter could be an Expert in weapons right off the bat, yet a Barbarian could be Trained, but deal more damage when raging and what not. And the disparity to hit wouldn't be that large.

So when the Fighter would become a Master, the Barbarian would become an Expert.

I edited my above post, but that didn't work, so -

This saves you from having to look up a table or sum up a dozen numbers just to work out your proficiency bonus. The only numerical difference is that under mine an Expert gets their increments at 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, while yours gives it at 2,6,10,14, 18. Your total bonus at expert increments rapidly from 1-2, 5-6 etc and then leaves a gap from 3-4, 7-8 etc while mine increments every 2 levels, which is a much smoother progression and therefore probably better.

This was my first pass at the idea.

But as of now, I wouldn't see it breaking the game as is.

I agree this sounds interesting, but you probably already know the math given won't work, especially at higher levels with a 15 point difference between trained and legendary. But the increase rate could be reduced to allow the math to work out. Using Snowblind's modified method:

Not everything requires a roll.

I feel for this to work perhaps DCs should cap.

Reasonable character DC would probably be 10 + skill level + average modifier bonus.

Since stats have no cap it seems, a high DC shouldn't matter, you can expend spells and consumables to buff yourself up if you really want to match or beat that DC.

I like this formula, I think as a community we can expand upon it, and make it work. And maybe Paizo will take it into consideration.

Try it out in your games, lower default DCs (their's is used to mimic their current system). And if it works out well, let me know.

You asked for an example on 8th level characters having to face a hazard.

You want me to demonstrate one that an Expert character can do, but also a Trained character can do sometime.

By 8th level a -
Trained character will only have a +2 to what they are "Trained" in.
Expert character will only have a +4 to what they are an "Expert" in.

A character's stat bonus can range from -1 to +4 at 1st level, and with an ability boost at 5th level the +4 modifier wont change, as scores above 18 can only be raised by 1 point anyway.

So, let me take the average of all the potential ability array,
-1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 9
9 / 7 = 1.29 (rounded)

So we'll say the average bonus a character at level 8 may have on a stat is between +1 & +2, we'll take that into consideration.

The average roll of a d20 is 10.5

The DC we'll look at is 16, which you'll need a +6 to pass that check 50% of the time on average.

Level 8 Expert
-1 modifier = +3 to d20 roll = 35% chance to pass
0 modifier = +4 to d20 roll = 40% chance to pass
+1 modifier = +5 to d20 roll = 45% chance to pass
+2 modifier = +6 to d20 roll = 50% chance to pass
+3 modifier = +7 to d20 roll = 55% chance to pass
+4 modifier = +8 to d20 roll = 60% chance to pass

Level 8 Trained
-1 modifier = +1 to d20 roll = 25% chance to pass
0 modifier = +2 to d20 roll = 30% chance to pass
+1 modifier = +3 to d20 roll = 35% chance to pass
+2 modifier = +4 to d20 roll = 40% chance to pass
+3 modifier = +5 to d20 roll = 45% chance to pass
+4 modifier = +6 to d20 roll = 50% chance to pass

You see? The Expert has a decent percentage of passing over the Trained, but not overwhelmingly so, but not underwhelmingly so either.

People seemed concerned about the the bonuses given by an individual whom is Trained, an Expert, a Master, or Legendary at a particular set of things.

Some of the bonuses come down to only being 5% better than the previous version, and in the case of a higher level, a higher level "trained" person could be better at a skill than a lower level "expert; master; legendary."

I found one way to kind of help curb this "problem," and would love some feedback on this idea.

Now my history with tabletop goes back to 2nd edition in 1999, I've played D&D 3/3.5, Pathfinder, and now 5e.

I am used to large arbitrary numbers, and I am used to easy to use low numbers. I can count backwards, I can count forward.

I prefer smaller numbers (just because I can do the math, doesn't mean I want to). I also prefer to count forward (that is right, Thac0, take that!).

So what if we did this, to smooth out the training and what bonuses it provides?

You do NOT gain proficiency points (or whatever you want to call it) toward your rolls, you ONLY gain points through what level you're trained.
Untrained: -1, and you can not add your ability score modifier to the roll.
Trained: +1 to your skill; tool; weapon; saves; spell casting proficiency at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17.
Expert: +1 to your skill; tool; weapon; saves; spell casting proficiency at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18.
Master: +1 to your skill; tool; weapon; saves; spell casting proficiency at levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19.
Legendary: +1 to your skill; tool; weapon; saves; spell casting proficiency at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20.
When you're trained in higher level training you also benefit from the lower level training. The amount of training isn't about having the higher level bonus right away, it is about gaining bonuses and learning faster.

Try it, I guarantee it will work, be satisfying, and easy. And it isn't like the character will stop progressing at higher levels with low-level training, they will just progress slower than someone who is more trained.