Wulfhelm II.'s page

What about aglets?

Their true purpose... is SINISTER.

The hit point & stamina system is excellent; exactly how such a system should work (what Starfinder completely failed to understand.)

Your other suggestions are steps in the right direction, but I would prefer more radical solutions (esp. to the +1/level mess).

It's a bit moot because no matter how well thought out and presented your suggestions are, they don't have any chance of being implemented...

Most characters will develop ranks in perception regardless.

They most definitely will *not* do that in PF2e.

I don't see how making perception a skill that everyone is automatically trained in and therefore doesn't work like most skills,

You don't see how doing that instead of separating Perception out as its own thing and thus make it work different from "most skills" (which incidentally is something else that would be worth talking about but in this discussion environment clearly isn't) even more would be simpler?

Plus, the same benefit that alertness grants can be gained by increasing Wisdom one time with one of your stat boosts (which will also increase your will save, so it's a good idea.) So should we be concerned that Wisdom does too much?

Well, the consensus here appears to be that a one-time +1 bonus to Perception is an absolutely massive advantage that would invalidate all other choices for a skill increase. It is such a massive problem that it even has the magical power to burst into the real world and rewrite rulebooks that could contain trivially easy-to-apply solutions for it.

I think that there is also a psychological component to why perception is considered to be so vital. It's a fear of missing out. Ignoring traps for the moment, people usually hate feeling like they have missed out on something and perception disproportionately helps counter that feeling. I have had a group once tear a chair to pieces just because they thought it had some secret in it. So often if they are faced with a choice of either taking perception or feeling like they will be not experiencing the entire adventure, they will choose the former, so they made it compete with class features instead of skill choices.

I know what you are talking about, but I have just enough faith in players that I think that after playing a character through 15 levels, they are not going to think that forgoing +1 bonus when they already have +20 perception will lead to them missing out on much.

Alertness and Skill Focus are competing against feats that are vastly superior in boosting your PCs characteristics,

Bonus food for thought: Have you ever had any character take Skill Focus in any skill *other* than Perception?

If so, could you explain, rationally, how it is possible that Perception is the single most important skill for every character, but still players choose to spend a resource on boosting other skills when they could be boosting Perception with it?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Perception is now effectively your default initiative. So there's like absolutely 0 reason not to skill increase it if it was still a skill. Like imagine if in PF1 you could put skill ranks in Initiative. Yeah that'd totally not be the default choice that everyone skilled up.

Actually, there is a very good reason, namely that numerically, a skill increase is a piddly +1, which in itself is countered, even on the same level, by ability priorities, by items or by various other bonuses. It is of course completely dwarfed by the +1/level bonus.

Skill increases are pretty much only worth it for the access to gated activities they allow, and perception is the same. Except that there is, as it is now, no element of choice and building involved, since there are basically only two types of Perception requisites...

a.) "If you are a Master in Perception, which we happen to know you are since this is a class feat for a level in this class at which you automatically become a Master in Perception, but hey you know we have a book to fill..."

b.) "If you are a Master in Perception, which you can't be since this is a level 6 feat and you gain Master in Perception at level 7... whoopsie..."

Not maxing out Perception simply meant that the player did not understand how the game works. And of course all of that hurt 2+Int skill point classes all the more.

So in your games, *all* characters had Alertness and Skill Focus (Perception) as well?

So by linking perception to class rather than leaving it a skill this system is limiting choices rather than fostering them. Players cannot seek multiple creative ways around the problem, they must do the approved thing.

I had not even thought of that. That makes the current system even more problematic. If your party consists of a Barbarian, a Bard, a Cleric and an Alchemist: Tough luck if you want to spot that Poison Dart gallery.

With how universalized the PF2 proficiency system is, I understand the drive to unify the system of advancement for all things, but at that point you are pretty much done with classes. Especially with the end of signature skills, spell access and number of proficiencies would be the only things really separating classes, along with some vestigial class features that would hardly be enough to really separate classes, especially martial classes.

a.) Actually, the "end of signature skills" is one thing you could and in such a scenario should easily undo. This decision very much sounded to "oh, we noticed signature skills don't mean much at lower levels... so we'll just scrap the whole idea" (rather than trying to make it mean something at lower levels.)

b.) Classes would still be very much separated by class powers and class feats as well as the revived signature skills, if you opt for this route.

It's not nonsense.

It is absolute and complete nonsense and also makes plain obvious that both of you have read only the thread title.

If perception was a skill, everyone and his mom would only raise 2 skills to legendary since one would be mandatory Perception.

Let us leave aside, for the moment, the fact that with rolling more things into skills, one would *obviously* also provide more increases...

... the only thing that would change is that all classes would have the opportunity to increase Perception, rather than a few select classes automatically doing so.

But even that would not *have* to change if you kept signature skills in any fashion.

Not that you strictly speaking need it. It is frustrating to see how people who argued that +1/level gives nonspecialized characters good basic competence in key areas now make a complete 180 and instead claim that +1/level is basically worthless and you *need* maximum proficiency for an increase in success rate which is less than the difference between class skill and non-class skill in PF1; or than the difference between a 3rd level and a 6th level character. I hate that I even feel compelled to answer to postings with so little rational thought put into them.

Skill increases being eaten by Perception, so that you're stuck with effectively only two skills to increase. Same reason it was a tax in 1E.

Nonsense. Skill increases work so differently in 2e that it literally can't be the same reason.

And for that matter, why are weapon proficiencies and saving throws not also rolled into skills? Or a general "proficiency" category, if that fits better?

At first glance, I thought "Hey, Perception has been separated out as its own thing. Good, so it will grow automatically like BAB and saves as it should, because it is so important to every character."
Except that goes for *everything* now. The +1/level system has obviated the reason for which Perception as a mere skill among others was problematic in the first place. Classic "two fixes applied to one problem" situation, there.

Generally, if you are determined to go with the +1/level mechanic, there are ways in which you could and should simplify things:

a.) The mechanics description should be changed to begin with the idea that a check is performed by 1d20 + character level, + modifiers for ability and proficiency (which are both fixed values independent of level.) That is clearer and for lack of a better term more honest than sneaking in the fact that your level is added to any check in the description of proficiency bonuses.

Alternatively, you could simply increase ability modifiers, which also figure into every check, by +1 every level. Whether you do this by increasing all ability *values* by 2 every level and keeping them meaningful or by ditching the 3-18 paradigm altogether and have ability bonuses be the only remaining stat is a matter of preference.
In this case, the description of a check would be: 1d20, +your ability modifier, +your proficiency modifier

b.) There is little need to distinguish between skills, weapon proficiencies, saving throws and perception if they all work according to the same "level check" paradigm. Even if you want to keep saving throws separate for nostalgia reasons, rolling weapons, armor, perception and skills back into the general category of "proficiency" would simplify and clarify things. I cannot see any rationale to keep them as separate things, but if there is one, I'd like to hear it.

Regards

Wulfhelm

like, Albert Einsteins little brother?

No, the fictional Einstein used by that "Alexandrian" blogger. You know, the one who was an old man for his entire life. ;-)

So what would be the Int for a moderately intelligent person? Remembering also that by 3.Xe standards, humans don't have an ability bonus. Int 15? That would still need three ranks in the appropriate Knowledge to even have a chance of answering a DC 25 question, and most people probably don't have.

I was going to say Int 14 and three or four ranks, yeah. Pretty much standard for any first-level character in an area they are moderately proficient in.

We assume we are dealing with Alexander's Einstein before he began working at the patent office. (Btw, this in regard to the blog's claim that Einstein may well only have 5 hit points because he is an old and frail man: Einstein accomplished almost all of his most important scientific breakthroughs in his 20s and 30s, and got the Nobel Prize at age 42.) He's got +14, and thus has a 50% chance of answering the DC 25 problem. Two first-level nerds (+6 each, so +8 if assistance is allowed) have a 20% chance of answering the same question, and each of them without assistance still has a 10% chance.

Conclusion 1: "Taking 10" may be a sensible idea for resolving RPG situations, but if taken as a means to simulate reality, it creates more problems than it solves.
Conclusion 2: The "range of human capabilities" from Level 1-5 as Alexander would have it, does not numerically allow for nearly enough differentiation to simulate the vast differences in skill levels that exist in real life humans.

This becomes even more obvious when skill rolls are directly pitted against each other. To use my standard example, I am quite intelligent if IQ tests can be believed, I used to a somewhat proficient amateur chess player, so I guess I at least have a rank. So, when I roll my +3 and Kasparov rolls his +15, there is at least a non-zero chance (7% by my calculations) that I beat him, when the reality is that I could spend the rest of my life playing chess against Kasparov and that I would never beat him a single damn time.

The skill system is designed to resolve situations in a heroic fantasy RPG. Not to simulate reality. That does most definitely not mean it should not be designed to "feel" real. But nitpicking it as any kind of reality simulator inevitably fails if you actually think things through.

Leveling up to 6 makes you superheroic, but not necessarily Superman. To me, level 10 characters are defined by what they can accomplish, not be what they have not trained in. A level 20 character can single-handedly kill adult dragons, he should have no trouble crossing a river.

Side note: I like how Superman is mentioned so often in this context. Ah, yes, Superman, with his secret identity of Clark Kent - the world-famous, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning, famously suave and charming top journalist working only for the most prestigious news institutions...

... oh, wait.

Hm. It's almost as if even the most ridiculously powerful character in the DC pantheon of heroes (and that's saying something) has facets of his character where he isn't highly proficient as compared to average joes, but is in fact frequently described as clumsy or awkward. Isn't that boring? Shouldn't someone who can throw around buildings be able to write world-class articles that would awe his editor-chief? Or sweep a mere mortal woman like Lois Lane of her feet with his charms? ;-)

Question: Is a manticore a "simple" enemy for a level 1 character? What about a level 20 character? Does it matter if they're specialized in combat in this case? Should a level 20 rogue facing a manticore head on win easily? (Bear in mind that this level 20 rogue in PF1 is supposed to be worth at least 192 manticores.)

Why should skills be different?

Because skills, for the most part - and I'd be happy to change the rules for the non-most part - are not the core competence for heroic sword & sorcery adventures.

I will also point out - there comes a point of design that you have to consider: yes, this is technically achievable, but how complicated does it have to be? Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

That is a completely different area of discussion. FWIW: I do not think that with the massive number of skill feats, considerations of level-based challenges, actions gated behind proficiencies and the overall number bloat the system has become less complicated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Fine, I'll specifically clarify that. That's not a good score...for a level 20 character, who could have up to +34.

(So, obviously only by one very specific reckoning...)

This was always a problem in 3.x games (although PF2e cannot really be called a 3.x game any longer), but this new system has massively increased it. All to solve an apparent other problem that could have been solved much more easily and more elegantly by other means (e.g. a skill system that is completely divorced from the core adventuring competencies, and/or one that encourages growing your skill base rather than/in addition to specialization, and/or one that treats all characters equally and does not arbitrarily deny skills to the "dumb fighter"...)

P.S.: One of the problems, I should clarify. There are others, such as the ever-more ridiculous number bloat.

However, what it also means is that you won't be completely and utterly incompetent at something. A level 20, 14 Str dwarf in legendary full plate will have +16 proficiency, +2 Str, -3 ACP for a total of +15 in Athletics. This is obviously not a good score, by any reckoning.

Actually, that is an impossibly good score - by the reckoning of any low level character.

If you're saying that this is just a moderate competency allowing you to accomplish basic tasks, then you are also saying that all low level characters are comically incompetent at even their most specialized skills.

(Also, where do you get these DCs from? Playtest rulebook simply says that anyone can swim in calm waters, but you might have to roll under less than ideal conditions.)

But it's not 10%, that 20th-level character

Yeah, okay, now we're talking about extremely high level characters, which is an entirely different thing and for which I already conceded that they veered outside of the realm of the heroic fantasy genre. Not really seeing the point in shifting goalposts here.

I'm pretty sure it is by design. Can't be completely sure since I'm not friends with any of the 3rd edition designers, but this analysis is a pretty good indication that 5th level is supposed to be the peak human value.

That is a blog post, and not one which supports your point particularly well. Its whole argument completely falls apart when you take into account that "taking 10" is an option, not an obligation. So when he makes the argument that Einstein* was only a 5th level physicist so he can answer DC25 physics questions by taking 10, one should recall that this amazing feat can also be performed by just about any moderately intelligent person with a few ranks in "physics" if they roll high enough. The randomness of the D20 simply precludes the kind of skill differences that, in the real world, would make a task easy for a physics genius and impossible for a physics amateur. All the other examples similarly fall apart when you take into account the randomness of the dice.

That said, regarding physical capabilties: In some areas PF moderately overestimates actual human capabilities (regardless of level), such as jumping. In some areas it drastically overestimates them (such as carrying capacity).
In some areas (swim speed) it moderately underestimates human capabilities and in yet others, it drastically underestimates them (such as holding your breath, which actual real life record holders can do for ~200 combat rounds.)
That does not speak for the designers having a consistent 'superhuman' design philosophy. It does speak for them just eyeballing things. (And considering how ridiculously off-target designers can be with questions of scale and measurements... cough, cough, Starfinder starships... that seems like the much more likely scenario.)

The only thing this blog post "proved": 3.x D&D is obviously not really designed to be a precise simulation of reality. But then again, no one's demanding that.

To put it succinctly: By saying that 6th-level+ characters are superhuman, you are saying that a the difference between a talented beginner (level 1) and a superhuman is about ~15% in performance. Yeah... no.

*Leaving aside the fact that the author is apparently thoroughly ignorant of Einstein's life and career.

In the absence of any proof I kind of like the last option (which is what my history teacher taught us).

Which source did he refer to? I don't know any that claimed Barbarossa voluntarily jumped into the river without knowing how to swim.

That sounds pretty superheroic to me.

Not to me. Exceeding current records in the field of physical activity by 10-20% is not really what I'd call a superheroic feat.

All the more because it is quite obvious to me that this was not, in fact, by design, but simply because many of the rules were simply eyeballed and don't serve all that well as a simulation of reality. I mean, even a starting character can beat the world record if he tries a few times because of how swingy d20 rolls are.

"Roughly in the ballpark of realistic human achievement" is good enough for my sense of genre not to explode. An exact, by-foot, replication of real-world human capabilities is not necessary.

Barbarossa was a renowned king & warrior from history who showed that with great power comes the responsibility to learn how to swim when you jump in a river just as it comes to people who have little or no power.

Bit unfair there, old chap. He was thrown off his horse, it's not like he voluntarily jumped into the water. ;-)

In any event, I agree with what you are saying. I think the problem is that skills are completely integrated into the matrix of what I'd like to call "core adventuring competencies". If there is a whole character class (or several, even) casually referred to as the "skill monkey", then obviously being good with skills is one possible area of specialization among adventurers.

My suggestion would be to get away from this paradigm and instead separate out all core competencies into their own things. Early versions of D&D did this, partially because they had no skills. 3.x did this for magic, combat and saving throws, but worked former thief abilities, as well as some other things, into the skill system.

Look, I'm tired of having level 15 characters that can only spot an avalanche when it's on top of them. (This is literally something that happened in a game I was in.)

Perception is being separated into its own thing, similar to how BAB and saving throws already were. So that problem should solve itself.

I'm tired of level 15 characters that drown in a calm pond because they're wearing armour and haven't put ranks into Swim.

I'm tired of level 15 characters that are stymied by a small cliff because they didn't explicitly plan around climbing.

The obvious solution would be to put ranks into those skills.

The average level 15 fighter will know absolutely nothing about the world, have no idea what he's been fighting for 15 levels (even level 3 things can't be identified), can only do one of climb/swim/jump, and shouldn't ever waste their time with anything social.

That is a different problem, caused by the way skill ranks and skill advancement worked in PF1. An additional problem was the scarcity of skill ranks for certain classes, which resulted in the fighter - for example - usually only having enough ranks to raise his or her 'crucial' skills by 1 rank every level.

In short words, the old system did not (except for some classes which had skill points in absolute abundance) reward growth in width; you were encouraged to raise the skills you already had rather than expanding your skill base.

I agree that this was unsatisfactory, but I will add:
The new system does not change that. All characters start off with the same basic skill base, and growth will occur vertically, by increasing specialization.
Yes, you might, in theory, opt to use your skill increases to become trained in new skills rather than improve skills you already have. But with skill increases being a comparatively scarce resource, and with them also working in the same linear fashion as skill ranks did, the incentive to specialize is clearly there.

So, in short words: Yes, in the new system your level 15 fighter will be much more competent at perception and stealth than your level 1 fighter was. (Knowledge, the example you mention, is actually gated behind the Additional Lore skill feat, so unless you invest in that, you will still be completely clueless about everything you did not have a Lore skill for at level 1.)

However, your level 15 fighter will actually be less competent at these things than your level 15 rogue companion compared to their respective situations at level 1. Much less, in fact. So when the dreaded level appropriate challenges pop up, the situation will be very much the same as it was in PF1: The expert's skill is what counts, whether you dabbled in it does not really matter.

Its like TTRPGs are destined to have crappy skill systems.

No, many of them have great skill systems. Or at least serviceable ones. The BRP, Traveller and GURPS families of games spring to mind.

However, if we are talking about the D&D family of games, you have a good point. Some of that is, without a doubt, due to the inherent difficulty of intermeshing a skill-based system with a level-based system. This is quite obvious from this very discussion - the problem is less the skill system as such, but the question of how to implement level-based improvements to skills.

I don't think there is a clear answer to that. Some games of the D&D family (early versions, 5e, various OSR games) avoid it by having no or at best a rudimentary skill system in the first place.

Other older games (for example, Bushido, which is not exactly a D&D derivate, but close enough in concept) tried separating their elaborate system for skills and their improvement (by devoting time to training) from their leveling up system.

The 3.x family always used the rather awkward approach of integrating the skills into the system of level benefits. The flat +1/level to everything drives this to an unnecessary extreme, but it has always been a problem that no one could be an expert in any skill without also being a high-level character.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they don't remember that by the time your level actually makes you good enough to do anything you aren't a normal person anymore.

Like in Pathfinder 2E what lvl are "normal" people? I would think they would be lvl 3 or 4 tops.

Well, I was under the apparently mistaken impression that PF was supposed to be a heroic fantasy RPG and not a superhero RPG. And I have a hunch that many people feel the same way.

Levelling was ridiculous enough as it was and did indeed veer outside of the heroic fantasy genre at higher levels in earlier editions. But to say that basically every level 5+ character is a superhuman is such a more drastic blow to any pretense of simulating a high fantasy world that I do not see how the game's stated goal of being able to tell the same stories as before can be achieved.

The thing is: Stat values are largely meaningless anyway, because of the level bonus to everything. An experienced character with Str 10 is by almost all measurable means stronger than a novice character with Str 18.

Carrying capacity is one exception. As you've noticed, it's massively unrealistic. However, it's also unrealistic that it is so heavily based on Strength in the first place. One's ability to carry equipment (and soldiers from antiquity to the current day often carry ~100 pounds on their person) is not based on arm muscle strength. Mostly, in my experience, it's a matter of specific training as well as your own body size.

There are also massive differences between things you can carry for a minute or several hours. To use the example of the wounded comrade being carried to safety, this is again something that every soldier is trained to do - but not many of them would be able to carry one of their comrades on the back during an entire day's march.

In my experience, this is one feature of RPG rules which is better handled with ad-hoc rulings based on common sense and/or some general guidelines. Any attempt to contain all the intricacies of this aspect of reality in an unambiguous set of rules will likely result in internal inconsistencies and wildly unrealistic results; an attempt to do so with a simplified, one-size-fits-all approach as seen in the current PF2 playtest definitely will.

Yes, our goals are similar to the goals of other games. We share a heritage and that is not too surprising. I am not sure why you seem to think that is a bad thing.

Broad and unspecific goals which could equally apply to basically every other RPG are not a *bad* thing as such. But neither are they a useful yardstick for evaluating design decisions.

What I would like to see: Specific goals which apply to specific rule complexes. Ideally, a designer's commentary: "We wanted to achieve this, so we did this."

This would actually help people make useful comments or suggestions. Without knowing the rationale for the new skill system, for example, I can only tell you why *I* don't like it, but I cannot make suggestions on how to better achieve the same goals with different mechanics.

Regards

Wulfhelm

Charitably put, these are generalized mission statements. Less charitably, they are meaningless platitudes.

What I would (yes, still!) like to read is a design goal with regard to a specific system. Ideally, with an explanation of how, in the designer's mind, the new system achieves this goal.

I understand that the perform rules currently would allow an untrained performance on a musical instrument, I think that should change, and even if they don't it is very easy to house rule, so that doesn't bother me.

It is really not very productive when for every single example, you say "oh, you could change that". Because there are such examples for nearly all skills.

They might be able to hum it or sing it pretty well, well enough for it to be recognizable to a listener, but they can't compose a full composition from it or play some instrument they don't know how to play.

What exactly would be the difference between someone who performs this activity with a -1 bonus and someone with a +14 bonus (due to level) and why is it necessary to make this distinction?

Without a +level bonus to proficiency, the level 20 Bard is not going to be able to hit numbers that awe level 1 commoners in a performance very well either, at least not reliably without the assurance feat,

That is an entirely different problem of the rules, amplified by the lack of a proper "take 10" rule or a similar rule which sensibly(!) improves upon the "take 10" concept.

For perform, an untrained character shouldn't be allowed to play any musical instrument, especially not a complex one that requires years of training to make music and not noise (like the bagpipes/ as opposed to drumming a very simple beat because you understand the concept of rhythm from years of forced marches). The PF2 system attempts to teach the GM that to tell her player that tries that they might have heard some melody once on one of their adventures and have it stuck in their head. They might be able to hum it or sing it pretty well, well enough for it to be recognizable to a listener, but they can't compose a full composition from it or play some instrument they don't know how to play.

The problem is that you are describing a fictional version of the playtest rules, and not the version we actually have.

And to dig a bit deeper, taking up a your solution, namely to gate most skilled activities behind proficiencies, would mean that the numerical skill value would be meaningless except in select cases where the comical consequences already outlined apply again.

In a world where 99% of healing is magic, non-magical surgery is definitely a new or very ancient niche procedure used to cure long term conditions.

To me, you're not making a particularly compelling argument by clinging to increasingly outlandish interpretations of one specific analogy...

Your Athletics example is another example of how games are never going to succeed at modeling reality.

... nor by this textbook example of a perfect solution fallacy.

Realism, verisimilitude or whatever you care to call it, is not a dichotomy. There are degrees of it. As I asked before: What is the point of making things more unrealistic?

Making it so that STR 8 wizards gets critically hit by every tentacle monster that grabs for 20 levels of gaming (even ones vastly inferior in power) is boring.

Yeah? Why?

I mean, not that we ever had this problem with this one specific task, because this was already tackled - to a degree - by previous editions of the game family. However, almost all other uses of Athletics are available to untrained characters as well, and thus fall into the same category of level trumping ostensible proficiency.

But why is it 'boring' if a STR 10 character of 7th level is not, by all measurable means, objectively stronger than a STR 16 character of 1st level?

Fighter: 3 trained skills. Let's assume they take athletics, acrobatics and intimidate. The 15th level fighter will have +14 to deception while a rogue will +19 (the fighter has 75% the bonus that the rogue has). A wizard who has pumped dex for AC and reflex saves will have +17 acrobatics vs a rogue's +22 (the wizard has 77% the bonus the rogue has).

[...]

I'm playing in War of the Crown. The entire party has devoted resources into diplomacy. It's great. Because it means we can all meaningfully contribute in social situations (which are endless in this campaign) and we don't have to shoehorn the face (ostensibly me) into every social situation when it wouldn't make sense.

You do realize these two arguments flat-out contradict each other?

Among characters of the same level, the level bonus quite obviously has no effect. In fact, among characters of the same level, discrepancies in ability will increase with higher levels, since specialization in the form of proficiency ranks and stat bonuses will be more pronounced.

But at any level, it will always make more sense to let the specialized character perform a task than to just let any character try their luck. Indeed, a skill-based task that will be a challenge with a 50% success rate to a specialized character will be harder for an unspecialized character at level 15 as compared to level 1.

P.S.: I could basically copy-past all the points made when 4e came out. We've been here before, folks.

Let's imagine that we actually model this out with the system.

The fact that you can only make your example work by arbitrarily assigning the untrained, higher-level character (but by no means high-level) a low Wisdom score and still only end up with them being equal instead of the trained character clearly being better, speaks volumes.

If we take this back into fantasy-land, let's just spell out what this means: In PF2, at around level 5-7, a character will be as good or better at *any* skill than any level 1 character will be at their *best* skill.

Why do you think this is a good thing?

I mean, if you start comparing things to the real world, than a 20th level computer programmer can fall 200 feet and walk it off.

Look...

a.) I wasn't the one to start with the real world comparisons. I just took them to their logical conclusion.
In my own post on the subject, I used the more obvious example of Athletics, with the Level 8, Strength 10 untrained Wizard being better at grappling, breaking down doors, climbing etc. than the level 1, Strength 18, trained Barbarian.
Do you see a level 8 character as a "Superman"? Why do you think this makes sense and what do you think the effects on the perception of the game world will be?

b.) If your entire argument is "Well, PF is not realistic", then I do not see the point.
Why is being unrealistic, per se, a good thing?

c.) Yes, it was always unrealistic even by the standards of "movie reality" how HP progression and some other things were tied to overall experience.
Why is this an argument for applying the same unrealistic approach to *everything*?

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but we have zero non-combatant NPC stat blocks right now. I would suspect that when we get such rules, NPCs will be less stuck to PC balance progression and you can better emulate real world people with them.

Do you think that...

a.) NPCs will be designed using vastly different rules than PCs?

b.) NPCs will have access to advantages that will be denied to PCs?

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Page 168, where they talk about what the legendary medic skill feat does:

They also happen to talk about what the "Legendary Medic" skill feat means, namely:

Quote:

You’ve invented new medical procedures or

discovered ancient techniques that can achieve nearly miraculous
results.

So, no. That skill feat is most definitely not simply a descriptor for a skilled surgeon. It also would make very little sense to restrict the ability to perform surgery to 15th-level characters and above, which would practically guarantee that in most campaigns, there would be no such ability.

But let's just stick with the rules we are given, shall we: Someone claimed that First Aid was just basic things like CPR and stopping bleeding. They also claimed that they could do it (even though I am willing to bet that this is because they received a modicum of training.)

So, first aid. If a loved one was in mortal danger due to a stab wound, who would you rather have perform first aid on them:
a.) A relatively novice, but trained EMT.
b.) Some guy who saw a training video on first aid once, but happens to be a crack computer programmer or successful athlete.

I'll let you decide. But the answer is a.) You know that. I know that.

Except surgery is very clearly a feat gated activity that my buddy isn't going to have the first clue what to do.

Could you point me to the page of the playtest rules where it says so?

I chose the example for a reason: Emergency medical treatment to save your life in case of a grievous injury. The rules are explicit: Any character can do that, even if untrained.

Two remarks in advance:

1.) I have only read the system, and not played it so far. My observations are thus based on a theoretical approach.
2.) I have no objections to the consolidation of the skill list, nor to the separation of Perception as its own thing. I applaud both of these decisions.

With that in mind: I cannot discern what the point of the new skill mechanics is or what advantage the new system offers over the old one.
To explain, here are the main points of the new underlying system as I see them:

a.) Level of complexity
In PF1e, your overall expertise in a skill (measured as a chance of success in most cases) was influenced by the following factors:
- Your corresponding stat.
- The number of ranks you put into the skill (limited by level.)
- A bonus for a class skill (and a further bonus for skill focus.)
- (depending on what you wanted to do: If you were trained in the skill at all.)

In PF2e, we have:
- Your corresponding stat.
- Your level.
- A bonus for your proficiency rank. (limited by level and by whether it is a signature skill.)
- (depending on what you want to do: If you are trained in the skill at all.)
- (also depending on what you want to do: Possession of relevant skill feats.)

So, right off the bat I do not see any simplification. You might say that no longer getting to distribute skill ranks streamlines choices, but this is in fact more than made up for by having to make new choices about levels of training and skill feats.

b.) Relative importance of factors
Since all skills improve by the character's level, it is by far the most important factor in your overall proficiency. The effects of this are:
- Flattening of proficiencies across skills as you progress in level.
- Higher level characters outperforming lower level characters even in the latters' given professions. For example, a level 1, Strength 18 Barbarian who is trained in Athletics is worse at any typical feat of strength (grapping, breaking down doors etc.) than a level 8, Strengh 10 untrained Wizard.
It should be readily apparent that this is a step backward as far as verisimilitude is concerned.
(On a personal level I should mention that this is the exact same way D&D 4e changed from 3.x and this was one major reason for me to leave 4e behind.)

c.) Relevance and descriptive accuracy
This is closely related to the preceding point. If a Strength 10 character demonstrably performs better at all feats of strength than a Strength 18 character, then the numerical value for "Strength" has little worth as a descriptor.
Consider this: If we took the proficiency rank as the actual level of training in a given area of expertise and wanted to replace the level bonus by attribute increases, it would mean that every attribute would increase by 2 points every level. A level 5 character who started out with Strength 12 would have Strength 20. At level 10, Strength 30. And at level 20, Strength 50.
For purposes of checks, this is the same as the flat level bonus.

A related problem is the negligible numerical impact of proficiency ranks both between the different ranks and compared to character level. Not only is the difference between a "trained" user and a "master" a mere 10 percentage points (and thus irrelevant in ~90% of all practical cases), it is also much less relevant, again, than the character's level.
The effect is that the mechanical description "She is a master diplomat" simply does not correspond to the connotations such a description would indicate to a layman. It merely means she has a small bonus which may be easily offset by her overall level of experience or her basic attributes.

To summarize: In my opinion, for reasons I have just explained, the new skill system does not improve a.) ease of use (beyond the consolidation of the skill list), b.) verisimilitude or c.) accuracy of description. If any of these were design goals, I would argue that the new system does not meet them. If they were not, or if there were other design goals, I would like to know what they are.

Regards,

Wulfhelm

I'm at my wit's end. I can't find any compelling or logical reason why I want a trained and experienced surgeon to operate on me when I need an operation. Wise patients please help me. Is there a way to get these types of medical operations without paying someone with years of education and training.

Actually, in PF2e someone who is completely untrained in Medicine, but is a seasoned member of any other profession, would likely be better at performing surgery (or at the very least, life-saving emergency surgery) on you than a solidly trained, but inexperienced doctor.

If real life worked liked PF2e, if you had the choice of being treated in the ER by...
a.) a doctor fresh out of med school or
b.) your buddy who never set foot in med school but is a highly experienced, skilled and respected excavator operator...

... you should definitely go with b.)

A hangar carries 8 fighters and takes 4 expansion bays.

Oh, right. For some reason I thought it only took one.

There is a significant design challenge here, though - Star Wars, etc., rather loves the idea of fighters being potentially capable of taking on capital ships in the right circumstances, and I don't know how well you could model that and capture the enormous differences that exist simply from scale. Perhaps that's just a lack of familiarity with other systems, though.

Well, you could reduce the scale (like BattleTech and Traveller originally did before introducing ginormous capital ships as well) so "PC ships" are competitive with large warships. A fighter in Aerotech was originally up to 100 tons (and packed full of weapons) while a combat dropship was at most a few thousand (and packed with lots of other stuff, too.)

Or you could go for the route that most attempts at Star Wars RPGs took (and some others too) and essentially introduce two different scales for ship combat: Capital scale and fighter scale, for instance.

If I run StarFinder, I'll probably go with the former and compress the scale. My only fear is that I might run into trouble when some adventure introduces a starship as a mega-mega-dungeon or something.

My level 20 Halfling Barbarian is a fraction of the size of an elephant, yet has far more HP. HP shouldn't be taken literally.

a.) Neither of them are starships constructed at the same level of technology, now are they?

Let me phrase it in a more system-immanent way. A gargantuan *creature* is 32 times as long as a tiny creature and masses (both by extrapolation and by the remarkably realistic actual values in the rulebook) about 32000 times as much.
A gargantuan *starship* is 250 times as long as a tiny starship and masses (by extrapolation) ~15 million times as much.

You see the disconnect?

If starships were scaled in the same way as creatures, the table would look like this:

Max Max
Code Length Mass
Tiny 60 20
Small 120 150
Medium 250 1200
Large 500 10000
Huge 1000 80000
Garg. 2000 600000
Coloss. >2000 >600000

Still not "realistic" but juuust enough for me at least to squint really hard and accept it for SoD purposes.

P.S.: Feet and tons, respectively, and for some reason this board doesn't allow full BBcode formatting.

@ Wulfhelm - Bees v. Dragons would be feasible if the bees were packing something equivalent to, say, blue ring octopus venom, instead of regular bee venom. (Actually getting through the scales would be tricky, of course.)

It wouldn't be tricky, it would be impossible.

(Or for the naval combat comparison, a small plane dropping a large enough bomb will handily cripple or destroy a much larger ship, as can be attested to by the multiple aircraft carriers destroyed at Midway).

As I already wrote, the size difference is a thousand times larger for Starfinder ships.

There is of course also the little fact that a carrier can bring about 80 fighters (similar to real world carriers), which mass a total of ~1600 tons and, which would realistically amount to 0.0008% of the carrier's mass.

To make it short: From any perspective even remotely approaching any kind of logic or common sense, the ship sizes and weights are completely and utterly bonkers.

Point defence needs to cover a volume around the ship, it's not just a surface skin it covers, hence cubed point defence. I assumed shields as more of a field, then a skin, if that makes sense, hence cubic for those two. That might be a difference in setting though.

Why would point defense need to cover volume? Missiles do not need to ber shot down more often just because your ship is bigger. Same for shields: If it is a "field" and proportional to the ship, then the "field" is a lot thicker for larger vessels, and I would assume more effective.

squared shielding and (at most) squared point defense, unless shield power is based on something other than surface area

Indeed, which actually means that, logically, size increases work very much *in favor* of the larger ship as far as defenses are concerned.

A WW2 carrier-based bomber (say, a D3A) had a loaded mass of about 3 tons. The carrier it was based on (say, Zuikaku) had a mass of about 30,000 tons. So 10000 times as much.
A large Starfinder fighter has a mass of about 20 tons. The carrier it is based on would have (halfway realistically) a mass of about 200 million tons. So 10 million times as much.

That's three orders of magnitude of difference, there. The size relation between Starfinder carrier and fighter is more like the relation between a real carrier and a small RC model airplane. Or as I said between a dragon and a bee.

It's a minor concern, it doesn't affect the rest of the rules, and you can add 2 zeros (or three, for the biggest ones) and be done with it.

Not even close. If a 15000 ft. ship had the same proportions as a 60 ft., 20 ton ship, it would have a mass of 312.5 million tons. Simply adding zeroes in order to make up for a failure to take into account that volume - given roughly the same propoertions - increases by the cube of the length increase does not work.

IMHO it would actually make a bit more sense to reign in the given values for length (as well as properly calculate or at least estimate mass). Even in a fantasy game, it strains suspension of disbelief a tiny bit that a battleship with ~15 million times as much mass and volume as a fighter only has 8 times as many HP.

I suspect this is a result of the fact that the designers a.) wanted to have the impressive, miles-long starships from Star Wars and other popular sources and b.) wanted to give small, fighter-type ships a chance against these giants, or in other words put all ships on a roughly equal footing. Kinda like who a fantasy games wants to put humans and dragons on a roughly equal footing. Except it's not like putting humans and dragons on an equal footing. Or halflings and dragons. Or even mice and dragons. It's more like putting bees and dragons on an equal footing. A flight of 10 fighters taking on a battleship is basically like 10 bees taking on a dragon.