Rumor - The Unified Mechanic - Skills, Weapon Skills / proficiencies and how they are working


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

I’d propose the following sensibility checks, assuming equal stats:
- A skill system with a spread of more than twenty 20 for a level needs to be reworked. That’s larger than the die, and all skill checks are guaranteed to be meaningless for at least one of the two parties. That should be the difference between low and high level characters, not between colleagues with the same stats.
- A skill system with a spread larger than 11 for a level is undesirable. A difference of 11 is the point where something impossible for one party can be an automatic success for the other party out of combat with take 10. I feel it’s reasonable to call “the impossible is easy if I’m not under pressure” a fair boundary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd say everything here is just reaffirming that the PF1 skill points are fine the way they are.


Even if this rumored system is true, doesn't mean all rogues will look just like all other rogues (insert whatever class in for rogue).

Maybe the proficiency system is just the base. There are skill feats we know nothing about, there are archetypes we know nothing about, and class feats, and general feats. And there might be who knows how many other options that will affect your whole build.

Too early to have any kind of judgement.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:

I’d propose the following sensibility checks, assuming equal stats:

- A skill system with a spread of more than twenty 20 for a level needs to be reworked. That’s larger than the die, and all skill checks are guaranteed to be meaningless for at least one of the two parties. That should be the difference between low and high level characters, not between colleagues with the same stats.
- A skill system with a spread larger than 11 for a level is undesirable. A difference of 11 is the point where something impossible for one party can be an automatic success for the other party out of combat with take 10. I feel it’s reasonable to call “the impossible is easy if I’m not under pressure” a fair boundary.

Also on the "not great" side for the ~10 spread, you will auto-succeed against the lower person's DC.

Given all that (accurate) analysis, it seems like people are thinking that the system is so tightly designed that you can never get into such a skill spread. In fact, by level 20, it's possible for two characters designed to diverge dramatically to have a difference of somewhere around 17, before accounting for buff effects or circumstantial benefits like "+2 circumstance bonus to Intimidate giants," so you definitely can get into that 20 spread situation and we're not limiting the math in a way that everyone has to be close. But in that case, not only is the character that's ahead a paragon of that skill, the character who's behind is being really inattentive to that skill. By comparison, in PF1, it was pretty easy to have a +20 advantage, or even more, against your fellow PC who was actively trying to be good at that skill, maxing their ranks, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
QuidEst wrote:

I’d propose the following sensibility checks, assuming equal stats:

- A skill system with a spread of more than twenty 20 for a level needs to be reworked. That’s larger than the die, and all skill checks are guaranteed to be meaningless for at least one of the two parties. That should be the difference between low and high level characters, not between colleagues with the same stats.
- A skill system with a spread larger than 11 for a level is undesirable. A difference of 11 is the point where something impossible for one party can be an automatic success for the other party out of combat with take 10. I feel it’s reasonable to call “the impossible is easy if I’m not under pressure” a fair boundary.

Also on the "not great" side for the ~10 spread, you will auto-succeed against the lower person's DC.

Given all that (accurate) analysis, it seems like people are thinking that the system is so tightly designed that you can never get into such a skill spread. In fact, by level 20, it's possible for two characters designed to diverge dramatically to have a difference of somewhere around 17, before accounting for buff effects or circumstantial benefits like "+2 circumstance bonus to Intimidate giants," so you definitely can get into that 20 spread situation and we're not limiting the math in a way that everyone has to be close. But in that case, not only is the character that's ahead a paragon of that skill, the character who's behind is being really inattentive to that skill. By comparison, in PF1, it was pretty easy to have a +20 advantage, or even more, against your fellow PC who was actively trying to be good at that skill, maxing their ranks, etc.

Once again: Mark Seifter, the only guy who wants to give important and relevant information!

It's good to know the skills won't be as horrifically same-y as 5E. I watch 2 D&D 5E series (unfortunately that's the only game anyone streams or records online; I watch them for the roleplay and I dread episodes where combat happens) and in both I find it maddening how it doesn't matter what skills each character is SUPPOSED to be good at or bad at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unified or not unified. Bounded or not bounded, I think what I want to see out of a skill system:

  • A meaningful gap in efficacy between specialists and non-specialists. If you're good at something it should feel like it compared to someone who doesn't. 5e has issues sometimes where tight bounding often means good rolls trump investment and that never feels good.

  • NO meaningful gap in efficacy between two specialists. Starfinder has this problem where scaling in-class skill bonuses mean that certain classes shouldn't even bother with certain skills because another class will literally always do it better

  • Meaningful choice in how you specialize. Sort of ties into the previous point but also a general issue I've seen in 4e and 5e with skill proficiency. Two rogues shouldn't have extremely similar skill sets simply by nature of being rogues and likewise a Fighter shouldn't be barred from optimizing a skill just because they're a Fighter.

    Moveover, you need to actually be able to invest in the first place.

  • Specialists should feel good at what they do, but not make content irrelevant either. This is hard to do, but you want a specialist to feel good at their job and be able to tackle challenges regularly, but you don't want hyperspecialists to necessarily be unable to fail either, especially when opposed by other specialists.


  • 2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Admittedly, this is better news then what we've been hearing so far. We need this clarification like this, but i still like playing with points better.


    QuidEst wrote:
    Athaleon wrote:
    +20% success chance isn't "hopelessly outclassed". A d20 can easily propel the Untrained character into showing up the Legend character. In spite of what I said earlier in this thread, this has me a little worried. Among characters of equal level this is about as flat as 5e's Proficiency Bonus.

    Two things.

    One, I’m looking at the result number rather than success chance. (So opposes rolls.) That +4 is a 66% chance to do better than an equally dexterous, equal leveled person, and a 70% chance of doing at least as well.
    Two, very few people the level 20 Rogue meets will be level 20. Most will be much lower level, and that’s who the Rogue hopelessly outclasses: most of the people in the world. I’m saying I’m fine with other level 20 extremely dexterous characters being okay at stealth in comparison to a full-rank Rogue with no stealth feats. I’m cool if, once in a blue moon, the Fighter has heard of something the Wizard hasn’t.

    I definitely agree with you on this. Also, since it's likely there will be many Rogue feats that deal with stealth and the like, chances are this isn't going to be a big problem, unless the Rogue has completely focused on other things besides Stealth, and is content with still being more of a master of it than 99% of entities in the world.

    They've said that feats will allow truly legendary, well, feats of ability, too. The Rogue who does focus on Stealth may well be able to do the old "Exalted ability description" stuff: hide in plain sight, disappear like Batman, pilfer the gem from a god-king's forehead without him noticing, etc. Or even more extreme stuff.

    This whole deal, like everything else I've read, looks absolutely perfect for what I want out of a fantasy game system.

    Paizo Employee Designer

    Lady Firebird wrote:

    pilfer the gem from a god-king's forehead without him noticing, etc. Or even more extreme stuff.

    This whole deal, like everything else I've read, looks absolutely perfect for what I want out of a fantasy game system.

    Oh man, a lot of good guesses, and this ability in particular had a side comment on an editing question mentioning that it was ridiculous! Legendary skill monkeys can do some pretty unbelievable things.

    101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Rumor - The Unified Mechanic - Skills, Weapon Skills / proficiencies and how they are working All Messageboards
    Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion