Saving Throw Proficiencies: Who Cares?

So, we've been sold hard on this proficiency system. While there's been push-back on its dynamic range (-2 to +3), we've been told repeatedly that those differences *really* matter! Okay, so yeah, maybe a dynamic range of 5 will matter, right....

And then during the character creation Twitch video, we find out that Barbarians (and probably every class) do not start untrained in any Saving Throw (Trained in Reflex, Expert in Will and Fortitude). So, dynamic range over 20 levels is at most 3... That doesn't matter. Even worse, at early levels that dynamic range is 1, meaning it really doesn't matter if you target that Mage with a Fortitude Save or Will Save, they're both, essentially, the same.

Why? What's the point of this? It just accents people's lucky/unlucky rolls on the d20 even more, de-emphasizes people choosing spells strategically. If you want to have a range of 5, then HAVE A RANGE OF 5 AND NOT 3!

EDIT: Excuse the ranty nature of this :). I just have all the feels!

Well, it doesn't have much impact on spell strategy. There are big disparities in monster saves, if the Ogre is anything to go by. (8/3/5)

Personally I build my D&D/PF characters to minimize problem saves as is, so not being incompetent in basic defenses as a professional adventurer is perfectly fine by me.

Well, attributes still factor in here (much more so than before), so a barbarian is probably going to have an extra 2 or 3 to their fortitude, and a rogue is still going to have a high ref save. And, unless dex, con, and wis are getting boosted with levels (certainly possible), that will stretch the numbers some too.

Well, attributes still factor in here (much more so than before), so a barbarian is probably going to have an extra 2 or 3 to their fortitude, and a rogue is still going to have a high ref save. And, unless dex, con, and wis are getting boosted with levels (certainly possible), that will stretch the numbers some too.

Not only possible, but certain. Bonus attribute levels bump 4 stats, so you'll have to be boosting at least one of dex/con/wis. (And generally speaking, it seems like an obviously good idea to boost all three, plus whatever your primary stat is).

Though with levels giving max hp every time (and the bump from race at first level) and the multi-stat boost, a high starting Con on a barbarian seems less important. The sample elf barbarian is a good example: at 2nd level that character will have 32 HP, 45 at 3rd, 58 at 4th, and either 61 or 66 at 5th (66 with a stat boost in Con). High con just doesn't feel as necessary (though will obviously be nice), which means more build diversity.

Conversely a wizard or sorcerer with a high starting con will see a much higher percentage increase over their base hp. 12-15 hp at level one (with a 6 hp race), and +6 hp per level with con 10, to +9 hp per level with con 16. So a Con 10 wizard starts at 1st with 12 hp and hits 4th with 30 hp, while the con 16 wizard goes from 15 hp at first to 42 hp at fourth level.

Firstly why are you assuming that the other classes will have no untrained saves at 1st level? I see people doing this kind of thing all the time. Now let me try to address your actual concern
Things like feats, class options, ability modifier, spells and magic items can help differentiate between a character's three saves. This can include both simple higher numbers and riders like evasion and rerolls. Those two could be just the tip the iceberg.
Of course it might end up still being an issue. Luckily we have the play test to track down such flaws.

I'll be very surprised if improved iron will doesn't require master in will saves, and if there's not a feat for immunity to non magical poison at legendary fortitude.

It's not about the flat bonus, it's about what you have access to based on your proficiency. Just wait a bit, we don't know everything yet so we shouldn't make snap judgements and be angry.

We know that improved evasion is only available with legendary reflexes, and there is a feat available to those with legendary will that makes the pc immune to mental intrusions. Presumably there is something similar for legendary fortitude, as well as feats for each of the other proficiency levels, so proficiency is less about the maths and more about the attendant feats. Two characters of the same level with same stats where one has master proficiency and one has legendary proficiency has more than just the +1 to differentiate them since one may be e.g. immune to mental intrusions while the other is not (but may have some other feat available to master proficiency).

Read the "are you proficient" blog for more details (Mar 16).

Firstly why are you assuming that the other classes will have no untrained saves at 1st level? I see people doing this kind of thing all the time.

I think you make a great point here, we shouldn't assume things like this with the limited info. But this late in the game, I'm confident that there will be no class that is untrained at level 1. Alchemist, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, and Wizard all have been previewed at Delve tables and the Crypt of the Everflame Podcast. None of them have a -2 to any Save. We know that the Druid doesn't from the Paizocon Banquet, and now we know that the Barbarian doesn't either. That leaves the Monk, (which being good at Saves is his schtick so very doubtful there) the Bard, the Ranger, and the Sorceror. 8 (or 9) out of 12 ain't bad odds...

Also, being the ONE class that gets a -2 to a Save would be very, very bad...

Having a -2 at all would be very, very bad for you at level 1, as it's probably in a save that doesn't mesh much with your class and that you also don't start with much in the way of your ability score. Right now first level saves could vary from +0 to +6, which is pretty broad; whenever the +0 succeeds, on the same roll the +6 is more likely than not to have critically succeeded (and whenever the +6 fails, on the same roll, the +0 is more likely than not to have critically failed). Varying from -2 to +6 would be too extreme at 1st level, and would be likely to force you to spend a bunch of stat boosts shoring up that untrained save or keep critically failing it when the stakes were up.

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Also, being the ONE class that gets a -2 to a Save would be very, very bad...

Having a -2 at all would be very, very bad for you at level 1, as it's probably in a save that doesn't mesh much with your class and that you also don't start with much in the way of your ability score. Right now first level saves could vary from +0 to +6, which is pretty broad; whenever the +0 succeeds, on the same roll the +6 is more likely than not to have critically succeeded. Varying from -2 to +6 would be too extreme at 1st level, and would be likely to force you to spend a bunch of stat boosts shoring up that untrained save or keep critically failing it when the stakes were up.

Plus it generally makes sense for adventurers to have basic competence at the basic task of "staying alive." Weak-willed, frail, clumsy sops are NPCs, not heroes. :)

Plus it generally makes sense for adventurers to have basic competence at the basic task of "staying alive." Weak-willed, frail, clumsy sops are NPCs, not heroes. :)

You obviously haven't met my heroes,lol.

The difference, as Mark said here, is from 0 to 6 at first level and later probably just gets to around a 10~ max difference. THis might seem little to you, but it's actually a lot considering how big of a problem uneven saves were in First Edition. A +10 On will vs a +30 made some characters immune to mind-affecting spells while ally in same party, at same level, could only succeed on level-appropiate saves on a natural 20.

So this is a good place to put some Bounded accuracy stuff.

The actual possible range between Saves at 20th seems to be 11, though most of that is stats. Still, an 11 point range is pretty big.

Also, Master Saves almost always come with the equivalent of Evasion, while Legendary ones come with the equivalent of Improved Evasion. Those abilities certainly matter even if the numbers didn't (and the numbers do matter a fair bit...remember that numbers matter basically twice as much in PF2, so the difference between a +0 and a +3 is about as significant as the difference between a +6 and a +12 in PF1...which is the difference between best and worst Saves in that system ignoring stats).

The difference, as Mark said here, is from 0 to 6 at first level and later probably just gets to around a 10~ max difference. THis might seem little to you, but it's actually a lot considering how big of a problem uneven saves were in First Edition. A +10 On will vs a +30 made some characters immune to mind-affecting spells while ally in same party, at same level, could only succeed on level-appropiate saves on a natural 20.

So this is a good place to put some Bounded accuracy stuff.

I'd like to point out that such spreads usually only happen in cases where one party member dumps a particular save and the other hyper focuses on that save.

In other words, these situations are exceedingly rare and only come up in situations where people are attempting to roleplay a huge flaw while someone else is trying to milk the system just to see how far they can go. Nobody "accidentally" has a +10 or a +30 save. It's intentional.

Having the possibility of a huge gap does not mean the system needs to be changed.

The guy with a +30 probably has some other huge weaknesses, and the guy with the +10 is probably much stronger in other areas.

Keep in mind that the CR20 recommended primary ability save DC is 27, meaning all you need is a +16 to make that save half the time.

The character with +30 is wasting about +5 worth of saves on level appropriate challenges. (A 1 fails anyway, and a 2+25 makes the save.)

Likewise, a character with the worst save possible, (assuming they have a +5 cloak of Resistance like the game assumes they do) makes secondary ability save DCs (20) half the time.

The only thing this new system is doing is preventing players from having characters with really good or really bad saves. If this happened accidentally all the time, I could understand the problem, but 90% of the time, players end up in the desired range of save bonuses and the other 10% of the time, they are intentionally playing characters that are either exceptional or weak.

We "know" that druids, rogues, and barbarians do not have any untrained saves. I don't think it's a ridiculous projection to assume none of the others do either...

In fairness, I'm used to a system where your class has a larger role in your saves than do your stats. That's pretty much *definitely* not the case in PF2E, where at most, your class will provide a difference of 3 at 20th level, with stats providing up to 8 (ignoring stat-boosting items). In PF1E, this was 6 vs 9 (also ignoring multiclassing, and note this requires *big* stat specialization).

It actually seems like this is true across the board, stats are playing a *much* larger role in a character's effectiveness (in basically everything that uses proficiency) at tasks than they did in PF1 (as does level). Out of curiosity, was this a conscious decision.

So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

Wizards are untrained in broadswords, fighters are untrained in knowledge arcana. There's lots of places untrained is used, but that doesn't confirm that saves are one of those places. I could see NPC classes being untrained in saves, because they're not supposed to be good at things, but I'd be perfectly okay with untrained never being something that applies to PC saving throws because it's not that important to have them that way. If they want to give most classes an untrained save, that's a different story. I just don't see any particular reason that so many classes are at least trained in all 3 saves and then suddenly the remaining classes need an untrained save for some reason.

I assume Commoners, monsters, and other "NPC classes" would occasionally have Untrained saving throws, or carry weapons and armor they are Untrained with (because they aren't Trained in anything) to give them obvious weaknesses to exploit and boost the PCs comparative power level. Conversely, I don't think PCs really need to have that wide of a gulf between their best and worst saves to have an obvious focus. Allowing overspecialization can lead to lots of encounter design issues that punish the entire party, not just the offending player.

So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

I suspect that we will see the untrained catagory, just not for PCs. I don't see any evidence that PCs will have untrained saves, given that we've seen evidence of most of the classes not having them, and I would highly doubt that any of the unrevealed classes would break that trend. But Could I see Monsters having untrained saves? Yeah, especially low level ones. I think it's an unfun mechanic to say "oh, well, your saves (which you don't choose, apart from your class) start at a penalty" as opposed to "some of your saves start at a bonus" or "Some of the enemies you face will have weak points in their saves that you can exploit."

I agree that the range of bonus from proficiencies is too low. That said, as long as the non-numerical benefits of proficiency are borne out, I am fine with it. This is one of those cases where incomplete information really hurts us, so I am looking forward to the full playtest being released.

Just from a general numeric scaling standpoint I would personally rather see the different proficiency levels give at least a +2-3 bonus over the previous level, as a +1 generally just isn't impactful enough to be noticed in most situations. That being said, the general argument is the critical success/failure system makes a +1 in 2e as +2 is in 1e, so is worthwhile. I am willing to give it a shot to see how it works in practice.

So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

It's used literally everywhere but Saves on PCs. It may well be used on Saves for NPCs.

It not being used in one specific area is not the same as 'never used'.

in PF2E, where at most, your class will provide a difference of 3 at 20th level, with stats providing up to 8 (ignoring stat-boosting items). In PF1E, this was 6 vs 9 (also ignoring multiclassing, and note this requires *big* stat specialization).

I have a fair handful of datapoints for 20th level or near 20th level, and 9 is a significant underestimate for how different someone's max and minimum ability score modifier would usually be. I don't think a single character had such a small difference. While PF1 makes it pretty easy to dump an unfavored stat to 7 and relatively expensive to raise it after that (beyond perhaps a slotless ioun stone for +2), a top stat is going to generally be 16-20 at start (usually 18) + 5 from stat raises, +6 from enhancement, +5 from inherent by 20, and that's assuming just bog standard stuff with no further hijinks like rage or the like, mutagen or the like, size bonuses from polymorph effects, etc. Just from that baseline, you get to 32-36 (usually 34) in top stat for a +12, versus a low stat that's probably still a penalty or +0. The character might even be adding a second ability score bonus to the save in PF1 for even more variance.

tivadar27 wrote:

in PF2E, where at most, your class will provide a difference of 3 at 20th level, with stats providing up to 8 (ignoring stat-boosting items). In PF1E, this was 6 vs 9 (also ignoring multiclassing, and note this requires *big* stat specialization).

I have a fair handful of datapoints for 20th level or near 20th level, and 9 is a significant underestimate for how different someone's max and minimum ability score modifier would usually be. I don't think a single character had such a small difference. While PF1 makes it pretty easy to dump an unfavored stat to 7 and relatively expensive to raise it after that (beyond perhaps a slotless ioun stone for +2), a top stat is going to generally be 16-20 at start (usually 18) + 5 from stat raises, +6 from enhancement, +5 from inherent by 20, and that's assuming just bog standard stuff with no further hijinks like rage or the like, mutagen or the like, size bonuses from polymorph effects, etc. Just from that baseline, you get to 32-36 (usually 34) in top stat for a +12, versus a low stat that's probably still a penalty or +0. The character might even be adding a second ability score bonus to the save in PF1 for even more variance.

You seem to be jumping bonuses vs stat amount here a bit. First, I specifically said I was ignorning stat enhancments, as I'm assuming the cap on those will be similar in both systems. Second, you state +5 from stat raises, but that's really +2.5 (so only +2), as each stat boost is only a point.

Still, my main point here was regarding how big a role stats played in your final saving throw modifiers (and other modifiers, in general) relative to class in PF2 vs. PF1. It's significantly larger in PF2. Not to mention, you quote stat bonuses *from* class features, which is really a bonus coming *from* your class... I didn't actually factor that in either (hello Paladin!). I also didn't factor in multiclassing, which had a huge effect (due to class) on saving throws in PF1 which I also assume won't be present (to that extent) in PF2.

You're arguing the exact number ranges, here, perhaps correctly, but I think the resulting conclusion is the same. Stats have an amplified effect on things in PF2 relative to PF1, because the dynamic range relative to level of proficiency bonuses is so low.

So what you're choosing to assume is "They invented Untrained category, but it's never actually used". Have fun.

No, what I'm choosing to assume is that they never actually use Untrained for PC saving throws, which greatly reduces differences in saves between characters due to class. I don't think I ever stated anything more/different.

You seem to be jumping bonuses vs stat amount here a bit. First, I specifically said I was ignorning stat enhancments, as I'm assuming the cap on those will be similar in both systems.

This is an incorrect assumption, and throws off the rest of your logic quite a bit. Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.

Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.

Right on, I thought the cap was 22, can you break it down for me?

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.

Right on, I thought the cap was 22, can you break it down for me?

The 'natural' cap is 22 (start with an 18, put Ability Ups into it ever 5 levels), but stat-boosting items exist and can give another +2 on top of that for a 24.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.

Right on, I thought the cap was 22, can you break it down for me?

The 'natural' cap is 22 (start with an 18, put Ability Ups into it ever 5 levels), but stat-boosting items exist and can give another +2 on top of that for a 24.

Bingo, thanks.

Chest Rockwell wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Stats cap at 24 in PF2 all bonuses included and Classes seem to never add to them directly.

Right on, I thought the cap was 22, can you break it down for me?

The 'natural' cap is 22 (start with an 18, put Ability Ups into it ever 5 levels), but stat-boosting items exist and can give another +2 on top of that for a 24.

Do you mind if I ask where this was stated/confirmed? Namely that the maximum bonus from an item to a stat is +2.

NOTE: Classes adding to stats, as I mentioned, emphasizes the role of classes in determining saving throws... not base stats really. Still, item enhancement bonuses do factor in, and that could swing things at least a bit in PF2. Even so, are you arguing that classes play as big a role in determining saving throws in PF2 as they do in PF1. Do you have any numbers to back that up?

Do you mind if I ask where this was stated/confirmed? Namely that the maximum bonus from an item to a stat is +2.

It's the only way the math works out. Mark Seifter specifically mentioned that the maximum difference between two people in the same skill, with both at 20th level, was 17 or 18.

5 from Proficiency + 5 from Item (both of which have been confirmed) leaves 7 or 8 from Ability. Given that we know Abilities can get to 22 naturally, and can also be as low as 8, that leaves only a +1 bonus (ie: +2 to a stat) missing.

Additionally, The Gauntlet (from the Blog of the same name) is an Artifact and lets you cause an earthquake by hitting the ground, as well as giving the maximum +5 to Athletics. It still only gives +2 Str (well, or sets your Str to 18 if that'd be higher...but that's not relevant to maximal scores).

It's not officially stated unless I missed something, but it's supported by literally all the data.

NOTE: Classes adding to stats, as I mentioned, emphasizes the role of classes in determining saving throws... not base stats really. Still, item enhancement bonuses do factor in, and that could swing things at least a bit in PF2.

I was just saying that Class Features don't seem to add to Abilities any more (both Mutagen and Rage have been revealed as not doing so, for example).

Even so, are you arguing that classes play as big a role in determining saving throws in PF2 as they do in PF1. Do you have any numbers to back that up?

Depends on what you mean by 'as big a role'. As I noted before, due to critical failures and successes, plus tighter math, each +1 in PF2 is, in many ways, about as relevant as a +2 in PF1. By that standard, most Classes will effect things as much as they every did (the difference between a +6 and a +12 in PF1 being the equivalent of the difference between a +0 and a +3 in PF2).

But some Classes do clearly do more than that, as well. The standardization of an Evasion type mechanic for all Saves makes a much bigger impact than raw numbers, and far more Classes seem to get such things (Barbarians getting it for Fortitude Saves, for example). And then there's Paladin, which has a Reaction for boosting Saves. So yeah, there's some stuff other than the raw numbers from Proficiency as well.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Also, being the ONE class that gets a -2 to a Save would be very, very bad...

Having a -2 at all would be very, very bad for you at level 1, as it's probably in a save that doesn't mesh much with your class and that you also don't start with much in the way of your ability score. Right now first level saves could vary from +0 to +6, which is pretty broad; whenever the +0 succeeds, on the same roll the +6 is more likely than not to have critically succeeded. Varying from -2 to +6 would be too extreme at 1st level, and would be likely to force you to spend a bunch of stat boosts shoring up that untrained save or keep critically failing it when the stakes were up.

Plus it generally makes sense for adventurers to have basic competence at the basic task of "staying alive." Weak-willed, frail, clumsy sops are NPCs, not heroes. :)

Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Iron_Matt17 wrote:

Also, being the ONE class that gets a -2 to a Save would be very, very bad...

Having a -2 at all would be very, very bad for you at level 1, as it's probably in a save that doesn't mesh much with your class and that you also don't start with much in the way of your ability score. Right now first level saves could vary from +0 to +6, which is pretty broad; whenever the +0 succeeds, on the same roll the +6 is more likely than not to have critically succeeded. Varying from -2 to +6 would be too extreme at 1st level, and would be likely to force you to spend a bunch of stat boosts shoring up that untrained save or keep critically failing it when the stakes were up.

Plus it generally makes sense for adventurers to have basic competence at the basic task of "staying alive." Weak-willed, frail, clumsy sops are NPCs, not heroes. :)

Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

But was she as clumsy as an actual clumsy person? Or as weak willed etc. Untrained at level 1 is as bad as you can get at those things. Sailor Moon was definitely not the most weak willed you could be.

Depends on what you mean by 'as big a role'. As I noted before, due to critical failures and successes, plus tighter math, each +1 in PF2 is, in many ways, about as relevant as a +2 in PF1. By that standard, most Classes will effect things as much as they every did (the difference between a +6 and a +12 in PF1 being the equivalent of the difference between a +0 and a +3 in PF2).

You've made this claim that modifiers magically double in relevance due to "critical failures and successes, plus tighter math".

I don't see it.

If the DC is 20, and I'm rolling 1d20+6 in Pathfinder, I succeed 7/20 times. In PF2, if I'm rolling 1d20+0, I succeed 1/20 times.

If I roll 1d20+12 in Pathfinder, I succeed 13/20 times. In PF2, and I'm rolling 1d20+3, I succeed 4/20 times.

I'm not seeing some kind of doubling in relevance. If anything, all that's become more relevant is the number I roll on the d20.

And you critically fail 1/2 the first and 7/20 on the second so your chances to both succeed AND critically fail have changed by the modifier, thus doubling in efficacy and relevance.

Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

Sailor Moon is a bad example. She would get shanked by a goblin and die in the first encounter. Nobody is just going to wait around while she spends the first three to five rounds transforming into her super-powered identity. The combat will already be half-over (with her the first casualty).

Elric (of Stormbringer, I forget his nation of origin) would be a good example of a Heroic Fantasy Adventurer with a famously low degree of Constitution, and given his reliance on a life-drinking Artifact for basic survival, he might even be considered Untrained in Fortitude (and given that he's also a wizard) and have a low HP total as well.

I'm not seeing some kind of doubling in relevance. If anything, all that's become more relevant is the number I roll on the d20.

This is true, but only half the story. In pf1, you only had 2 outcomes: success or failure. It made sense to have big numbers so as to maximise the chance of success.

In pf2, you have 4 outcomes and apparently only a critical success means you are completely unaffected; proficiency means that you can turn successes into critical successes, and/or failures into successes, so the most important criteria to the outcome is proficiency, not maths. It makes sense to maximise proficiency rather than maths.

And you critically fail 1/2 the first and 7/20 on the second so your chances to both succeed AND critically fail have changed by the modifier, thus doubling in efficacy and relevance.

That change in value is fairly relative, and drops off quickly. Due to the nature of rolling a d20 as the resolution system, eventually additional bonuses won't be affecting your chance to Critically anything, and eventually they have no effect on success or failure at all. So although a single +1 is worth somewhat more in PF2E... I doubt it is actually doubled in value. Even so, it is a potentially illusory value, as we do not know which DCs (if any) will remain the same. They could have already adjusted for this relative value change.

Let me offer a somewhat extreme example in pf2:

Fred the wizard has no common sense (wisdom 8) and learns nothing during his career, but invests heavily in proficiency and attains legendary, picking up the appropriate feats along the way. Bob the fighter starts with wisdom of 18 and puts level how into wisdom for a final total of 22, but remains at trained proficiency.

All else being equal, Fred gets +3 from proficiency, -1 from wisdom for a total of x+2, while Bob gets +6 (wisdom) +0 (proficiency) for x+6 total, yet fred is better off as he can turn failures (which are 20% more likely) into successes and successes into crits.

Mekkis wrote:

I'm not seeing some kind of doubling in relevance. If anything, all that's become more relevant is the number I roll on the d20.

This is true, but only half the story. In pf1, you only had 2 outcomes: success or failure. It made sense to have big numbers so as to maximise the chance of success.

In pf2, you have 4 outcomes and apparently only a critical success means you are completely unaffected; proficiency means that you can turn successes into critical successes, and/or failures into successes, so the most important criteria to the outcome is proficiency, not maths. It makes sense to maximise proficiency rather than maths.

Eh? No, it means maximizing both. If you can't pass at all, success->critical success doesn't help.

Paul Watson wrote:

And you critically fail 1/2 the first and 7/20 on the second so your chances to both succeed AND critically fail have changed by the modifier, thus doubling in efficacy and relevance.

That change in value is fairly relative, and drops off quickly. Due to the nature of rolling a d20 as the resolution system, eventually additional bonuses won't be affecting your chance to Critically anything, and eventually they have no effect on success or failure at all. So although a single +1 is worth somewhat more in PF2E... I doubt it is actually doubled in value. Even so, it is a potentially illusory value, as we do not know which DCs (if any) will remain the same. They could have already adjusted for this relative value change.

If you have a chance to succeed or fail, you will always have a chance to either critically succeed or critically fail.

I did say it was an extreme example, no-one would seriously make characters like Fred or Bob, but it illustrates the point that proficiency trumps maths; being able to convert a failure to a success and a success to a critical success means that it is like having +10 in most circumstances. Only if you critically fail does it matter, which can only be avoided through maths, but even Fred has a good chance of avoiding that (I would guess that most times he would critically fail only on a 1.)
Bob on the other hand doesn't get the +10, ever. This means that even when he crit fails only on a 1, he is still more likely to fail.

Let's assume x=25, and both face a dc 40 test. If Fred rolls 13+, he crit successes. If he rolls 3-12, he succeeds. If he rolls 1 or 2 he crit fails. 10% crit failure, 50% success, 40% crit success. Total chance of success 90%.

Bob crit fails only on a 1. He fails on a 2-8, succeeds on a 9-18 and crit succeeds on a 19 or 20. 5% crit failure, 35% failure, 50% success, 10%,crit success. Total 60% chance of success.

It doesn't take a genius to see that Fred is better off. Only if you look at the chances of crit failure is he worse off and a small investment in wisdom during level ups would change that.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Hey, Sailor Moon was clumsy, frail, and even weak willed at times, but she still righted wrongs and triumphed over evil, and that means you: In the name of the moon, she punishes you.

Sailor Moon is a bad example. She would get shanked by a goblin and die in the first encounter. Nobody is just going to wait around while she spends the first three to five rounds transforming into her super-powered identity. The combat will already be half-over (with her the first casualty).

She is an example much better suited to a system that can actually handle genre-emulation, or is built for her genre (comedy urban high-fantasy).

Elric (of Stormbringer, I forget his nation of origin) would be a good example of a Heroic Fantasy Adventurer with a famously low degree of Constitution, and given his reliance on a life-drinking Artifact for basic survival, he might even be considered Untrained in Fortitude (and given that he's also a wizard) and have a low HP total as well.

Elric of Melnibone.

Elric (of Stormbringer, I forget his nation of origin) would be a good example of a Heroic Fantasy Adventurer with a famously low degree of Constitution, and given his reliance on a life-drinking Artifact for basic survival, he might even be considered Untrained in Fortitude (and given that he's also a wizard) and have a low HP total as well.

Yeah, AD&D Elric has a 5 Str, 3 Con, and 45 hit points; his home-brewed potions/elixirs and Stormbringer raise those scores and hit points.

Perhaps it would be clearer if Bob has 14 wisdom, and doesn't increase it during level ups, so that they both have the same overall bonus. Fred is clearly better off then because he has proficiency.

If you have a chance to succeed or fail, you will always have a chance to either critically succeed or critically fail.

True... but my point was just that if you continue accumulating bonuses (or if the DC rises high enough); further modifiers to those values cease to actually affect the outcome. For example, at a certain point, you can become so skilled at a given task that an extra +1 doesn't make you any less likely fail, or more likely to succeed.

Elric of Melnibone.

Yes, him. Thank you!

If two days ago if I was forced to guess if any class would start with a untrained save I would have said, Yes. I would have been wrong. Mark's post shows why this for the best. Thanks Mark.
I do stand by other two points. Non numerical bonus are going to more important in this game. Things could be broken in the playtest

Also I don't see people who are untrain in a save as clumsy or weak willed just not train. For example early Spider Man could be untrain in Will Saves but early Cyclops would be trained.

While I certainly agree that the proficiencies will be annoying to try and keep track of during play, I don't really see any problem with the mathematical ramification per se.

You've made this claim that modifiers magically double in relevance due to "critical failures and successes, plus tighter math".

I don't see it.

If the DC is 20, and I'm rolling 1d20+6 in Pathfinder, I succeed 7/20 times. In PF2, if I'm rolling 1d20+0, I succeed 1/20 times.

If I roll 1d20+12 in Pathfinder, I succeed 13/20 times. In PF2, and I'm rolling 1d20+3, I succeed 4/20 times.

I'm not seeing some kind of doubling in relevance. If anything, all that's become more relevant is the number I roll on the d20.

As others note, you're ignoring critical failures and successes.

Your math is also weird and skews your results. The highest Save DC you're probably ever gonna run into at 1st level is 18 or so, and you'll have at least a +1 bonus from Level. Assuming you keep up with your Armor, highest difference you'll ever see at 20th level is a +25 vs. DC 40 or so. A difference of 20 between bonus and DC almost never happens and skews results.

So I'm gonna do a little math and demonstrate how this actually works in practice. We'll look at, say, level 20 for both.

In PF1, assuming a +5 Cloak, a level 20 character with, say, a 20 in the stat due to an item has a +16 if it's a low Save, +22 if it's high. The default Save DC at that level is 27. So it's the difference between a 50% success rate and a 80% success rate. It matters 30% of the time.

Meanwhile, in PF2, a 20th level character with +5 armor and a score of 20 due to leveling has a +30 Save if Trained, and a +33 if Legendary. The Legendary also comes with Evasion style bonuses, but we'll ignore those for this math example. The default Save DC at 20th level is around 40.

The person with Trained will critically fail 5% of the time, fail 40% of the time, succeed 50% of the time, and critically succeed 5% of the time.

A person with Legendary, meanwhile, will critically fail 5% of the time, fail 25% of the time, succeed 50% of the time, and critically succeed 20% of the time.

So, that turns 15% of failures into successes, and 15% of successes into critical successes. It also matters 30% of the time.

Technically if you succeed on exactly an 11 it only matters 25% of the time (since it increases critical success range by only 10%, while still increasing success by 15%), but that's very specific, and ignores that Master and Legendary also come with Evasion type effects.

That change in value is fairly relative, and drops off quickly. Due to the nature of rolling a d20 as the resolution system, eventually additional bonuses won't be affecting your chance to Critically anything, and eventually they have no effect on success or failure at all. So although a single +1 is worth somewhat more in PF2E... I doubt it is actually doubled in value. Even so, it is a potentially illusory value, as we do not know which DCs (if any) will remain the same. They could have already adjusted for this relative value change.

No, due to tighter math it remains a very important difference for your character's entire career. Indeed, you'll pretty much universally be either reducing your chance of critically failing or increasing your chance of critically succeeding unless the DC is so low you always critically succeed, or so high you always critically fail, and those are such niche cases they're barely worth talking about.

And we know about what Save DCs are (since we know what the PC ones are and they've said NPC ones are about the same at the same level). The Save DC of a 1st level Wizard is around 15. The Save DC for a 20th level one with max Int is 40. So they go up 25 points over the course of leveling. Saves go up 24 points (19 leveling, 5 Magic Armor) assuming you never raise a single Save stat (except of course, that's impossible). More realistically, Saves go up slightly more than that 25 points on average.

As a bit of an outlier, grim reapers have save DC 44-45.

As a bit of an outlier, grim reapers have save DC 44-45.

They're also level 21. So...you'd expect at least a 41 or 42. Them having slightly higher DCs than that just means there's a bit of variation.

KingOfAnything wrote:

If you have a chance to succeed or fail, you will always have a chance to either critically succeed or critically fail.

True... but my point was just that if you continue accumulating bonuses (or if the DC rises high enough); further modifiers to those values cease to actually affect the outcome. For example, at a certain point, you can become so skilled at a given task that an extra +1 doesn't make you any less likely fail, or more likely to succeed.

That is a situation they are explicitly trying to avoid... it may come up, but it is not common or expected.