Skills: Proficient vs. Expert / Master / Legend

[JRutterbush]

So in the playtest podcast, they pointed out how skills work, namely that you'll have Untrained (ability - 1), Trained (level + ability), and Expert (level + ability + 1). As a side-note, they also pointed out that Expert, Master, and Legend are used to replace masterwork on weapons, for +1, +2, and +3 to hit, respectively (I point this out because I'm using it for my predictions on how skills work).

I have one major concern with this: why is the difference between Trained and Expert only a +1 bonus? That does not, to me, evoke the idea of an expert at anything, being only 5% better at something than someone who's just had the basic level of training. Especially if, as I suspect, Master and Legend are just +2 and +3 in the same way that they are for weapons. +1 is not a large difference in skill, and having so little difference in skill between these designations just feels very... underwhelming.

Is this really how different levels of skill mastery are going to be done? Will Master and Legend skills be just +1 above the previous rank like with weapons? Will there be a large number of side-benefits available to make up for the fact that becoming a Legend in a skill looks like it will only make you 15% better than a basic trainee? I noted that if Legend being +3 is the case, it ends up just like a full investment in a class skill in PF1, so I'm really hoping that means true mastery of a skill will be demonstrated in special abilities rather than raw numbers, but other than a tidbit about Expert Craft allowing you to craft Expert level weapons, I haven't seen anything on this.

Could we get some developer input on this, or is it too early to reveal the plans for skills?

[Cellion]

I agree that the difference seems far too small. I like big disparities in effectiveness between things I've focused on and things I've had to ignore or leave behind, and this seems the opposite of that.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

Maybe the difference will be +1, maybe the difference will be +4 and a daily reroll? We can't say anything terribly sensible about the rules until we see them.

[RumpinRufus]

I had the same concern. I think it's vitally important to Pathfinder that if you want a specialist character, say one who is exceptional at Bluff, then you can build that. If the Expert bluffer is only 5% better at bluffing than the Trained bluffer, that's going to be a serious letdown. A +1 is practically negligible in terms of skill checks! The much-maligned Skill Focus, notorious for being underpowered, provides 3x the benefit that you get from becoming an expert?

Say it ain't so!

[Shisumo]

The skills are supposed to get previewed in a blog at the end of next week. We should have more solid information to work with then.

[Dragon78]

I thought is was supposed to be simpler/more streamlined then the old skill system?

[QuidEst]

Dragon78 wrote:

I thought is was supposed to be simpler/more streamlined then the old skill system?

It will be. Once you’re used to skill ranks, it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it’s a real hassle for new players every level up. I’ve had players mix up “trained” and “class skill” frequently, too.

[Elegos]

Plus the 800 odd sources of various skill bonuses from classes, races, feats, traits, etc that all go into misc and the the character tries to go back over theor sheet to check their maths and its a train wreck.

[Janet Kuhlmann]

JRutterbush wrote:

I have one major concern with this: why is the difference between Trained and Expert only a +1 bonus? That does not, to me, evoke the idea of an expert at anything, being only 5% better at something than someone who's just had the basic level of training. Especially if, as I suspect, Master and Legend are just +2 and +3 in the same way that they are for weapons. +1 is not a large difference in skill, and having so little difference in skill between these designations just feels very... underwhelming.

You need to consider that +1 for a weapon means it gets to roll an extra dice for damage. Maybe it works the same way with skills? Maybe you an extra 1dn with each level of proficiency to add to your check? This is just speculation on my part, but otherwise, you are right. Why go to any level other than Trained if a +1 is all you get at the next level. But that's speculation too, for what it's worth.

[Hurká]

As has been discussed elsewhere, but it's important because of the skill unlocks and because the +1 each level is *huge* due to the >10< system.

Example
A lvl5 Trained character gets a +5. But once you've gained 2 levels and proficiency and are a lvl7 Expert, you get a +8. That gives you three advantages:
A. You have a significantly higher % chance of succeeding or critically succeeding. [Someone else did the math, but it's quite large]
B. You have a significantly lower chance of failing and probably can't critically fail because of the additional +3 and because the Expert proficiency might prevent it (like they showed with Reflex saves)
C. Trained characters simply can't do certain things Experts can. e.g. a Trained climber probably can't climb and fight at the same time, but an expert or a Master probably can. The +1 is nice, but it's less about the bonus and more about the skill unlocks.

[Planpanther]

Yes there will be some type of gating and expansion via feats.

[JRutterbush]

Janet Kuhlmann wrote:

JRutterbush wrote:

I have one major concern with this: why is the difference between Trained and Expert only a +1 bonus? That does not, to me, evoke the idea of an expert at anything, being only 5% better at something than someone who's just had the basic level of training. Especially if, as I suspect, Master and Legend are just +2 and +3 in the same way that they are for weapons. +1 is not a large difference in skill, and having so little difference in skill between these designations just feels very... underwhelming.

You need to consider that +1 for a weapon means it gets to roll an extra dice for damage. Maybe it works the same way with skills? Maybe you an extra 1dn with each level of proficiency to add to your check? This is just speculation on my part, but otherwise, you are right. Why go to any level other than Trained if a +1 is all you get at the next level. But that's speculation too, for what it's worth.

Actually, I've reversed my position on this since making this post. After seeing what they're doing with Skill Feats, I now believe that even with only a +1 increase per level, proficiency levels will still be well worth it. The main thing you're getting isn't bigger numbers, it's access to a more powerful level of Skill Feats. I actually really like this idea.

[totoro]

The math is actually pretty simple if you just compare easy, 50/50, and hard rolls.

At the low extreme of easy (succeed on a '1', if not for the fact that is always a fumble), 5% fumble, 0% fail, 45% succeed, 50% crit. Each +1 decreases success by 5% and increases crit by 5%. I would argue the improved training is not that important for super-easy rolls, which is fine.

If you are trained and try to make a 50/50 roll (succeed on an '11') you have a 5% chance to fumble, 45% chance to fail, 45% chance to succeed, and 5% chance to crit. Each +1 decreases fail by 5% and increases crit by 5%. It's not just turning a failure into a success 5% of the time, but rather turning a failure into a crit, which is moderately impressive.

At the high extreme of hard (succeed on a '20', if not for the fact that is always a crit), 50% fumble, 45% fail, 0% succeed, 5% crit. Each +1 decreases fumble by 5% and increases succeed by 5%. For the hardest tasks, the bonus is biggest because converting fumble to success is the best.