For skills, an increase in proficiency being just a +1 difference, +5%, is far too small to represent the difference in capability that is supposed to be represented. In 1e a character who focused on a skill could take the skill focus feat which was a +3 bonus, a +15% difference. That seems to better represent the difference between untrained and trained, or expert and master. A +4 or +5 bonus would be great too, but +1 is far too small.
Take a character trying to sneak past a guard of the same level, the character isn't focused on dex so it has dex about equal to the guards wis. If they are both of equivalent proficiency sneaking by should be about a 50% chance depending on the situation. With a +1 bonus for each proficiency level a master sneaking by an untrained guard is still has a 25% chance of failure, way higher than makes sense. With a +3 bonus, a master sneak has an 80% chance of sneaking by a trained guard, and untrained sneak still has a 35% chance of sneaking by a trained guard. With a +4 bonus a legendary sneak can only be caught be at least an expert guard (or a higher level guard). Those chances make a lot more sense than the +1 differences between proficiencies, concern about the effects of magic on chances shouldn't effect this system being usable and making sense.
I think the bonus is so limited because they are using the same proficiency bonus for everything, the devs don't want a +12 from legendary bluff because they don't want a +12 from a legendary sword. But they could just have 2 proficiency scales instead. One for things like skills with +3 and one for things like swords with their current -1/0/+1/+2/+3. That would keep the systems a lot more elegant than forcing quite different systems into using the same scale, and having other ways to get bonuses with things like skill focus feats. If they don't have other ways to get bonuses to skills than the system has no accurate representation of skill/training.
There shouldn't be feats that give bonuses to anything, keep all the math represent skill as part of proficiencies.
Feats should give new actions. If they want a skill feat to improve a skill it should increase the characters proficiency in that skill, that keeps the system bounded.
If the devs want the scale of skills to be in line with other things so they can be used for combat maneuvers just have the skill be a check verses the targets athletics dc instead of a reflex/fortitude save.
why is a 25% chance to fail bad? Also with varied degrees of failing, I see this issue solving itself.
Also a specialized character isn’t only going to have this bonus. They will have a few more bonuses from gear, feats, class, or whatever. If they have another +3 this way they take the fail rate down to 10%.
why is a 25% chance to fail bad? Also with varied degrees of failing, I see this issue solving itself.
Also a specialized character isn’t only going to have this bonus. They will have a few more bonuses from gear, feats, class, or whatever. If they have another +3 this way they take the fail rate down to 10%.
Sorry I meant legendary not master. It's bad to fail because it's someone who is legendary at sneaking trying to sneak past a guard that's not even trained in perception, they shouldn't even have to roll it should be such an obvious success, let alone have such a high chance to fail. (I know that there is a skill feat for this, but I think it should be the default option. If it's a skill feat than a master/legendary skill user who doesn't take it will have chances that don't seem reasonable for their skill level.)
They should remove those bonuses from class/feats from the game. If a character is better at a skill it should be reflected in their proficiency which determines what they can do with the skill. If all those bonuses are combined in proficiency than there will be a more controlled expectation of character capabilities. I believe they are making this change with removing skill ranks and adding a level bonus to everything to get rid of the first addition problem of huge gaps of capability between characters.
In first edition you could have someone with investment taking all ranks in a class skill, skill focus, the +2 to two skills feat, and a half level bonus or something like that from their class to get a bonus of 28 + items + attribute at level 10. Compared to a moderately invested character with just skill ranks bonus of 13 + items + attribute, or an uninvested characters bonus of 0 + items + attribute. that gap is huge and they are trying to remove it.
With the new system with +1 or +3/5 for each proficiency rank that would be:
Very invested character: level + Master(+2 or +6/10) + items + attribute
Moderately invested character: level + expert(+1 or +3/5) + items + attribute
Uninvested character: level + untrained(-1 or -3/5) + items + attribute
See how removing bonuses from classes and feats that are distinct from proficiency allows more expectation of what are character can do at a given level, while preserving a difference in success rates between characters with different levels of investment.
I think they were talking about some rolls being automatic sucesses if you are far above the difficulty. I thought I saw someone talking about that anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not this thread again!
|
Firstly, the existence of Skill Focus and Deception style Feats is hardly a positive of PF1, as they were a waste of a feat at best and a terrible requirement at worst.
Secondly, we don't actually know what other benefits Proficiency will provide (such as access to specific abilities or feats). And we don't know how all the math will stack up. Basically, it's way too early to declare anything about what numbers are or aren't required or balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think they were talking about some rolls being automatic sucesses if you are far above the difficulty. I thought I saw someone talking about that anyways.
Judging from this thread it seems that they're balancing skills this way because of their use in combat.
We also know there are skill feats to allow automatic success on skills attempted below your proficiency tier. I think if they're going that way they should just make that a default part of proficiency instead of requiring a skill feat. Or +5 for one tier below, automatic success for 2+ tiers below. That keeps the balance to allow interactions with saving throws while keeping some feel for difference in skill.
Firstly, the existence of Skill Focus and Deception style Feats is hardly a positive of PF1, as they were a waste of a feat at best and a terrible requirement at worst.
That's why it's a good thing they seem like removing them. I'm supportive of the new system as long a proficiency tiers are more than just a +1 difference.
We don't really know enough about how skills work to come to any sort of pronouncement on how they should work instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For skills, an increase in proficiency being just a +1 difference, +5%, is far too small to represent the difference in capability that is supposed to be represented. In 1e a character who focused on a skill could take the skill focus feat which was a +3 bonus, a +15% difference. That seems to better represent the difference between untrained and trained, or expert and master. A +4 or +5 bonus would be great too, but +1 is far too small.
Comparisons with things from the previous edition, that probably won't even be in the new edition, and work off a completely different scale, really aren't useful. Basically +1 sounds too small to you, and you're basing your response completely off of gut reaction. You're also leaving out that a +1 also increases your chance of crit success by 5%, and reduces your chance of crit fail by 5%. Which could wind up being a pretty big difference.
I think the bonus is so limited because they are using the same proficiency bonus for everything, the devs don't want a +12 from legendary bluff because they don't want a +12 from a legendary sword. But they could just have 2 proficiency scales instead. One for things like skills with +3 and one for things like swords with their current -1/0/+1/+2/+3.
They could have 2 separate scales, sure, but then they would lose any streamlining and simplification benefit that having only one scale grants. Besides, I think part of the purpose here is to make it so auto-fail and auto-success aren't the default results of skill checks. Because really, what's the point of having a skill check when you know the character who focuses on it will always make it, and the ones that didn't invest heavily will always fail? Is that really a fun way of doing things?
That would keep the systems a lot more elegant than forcing quite different systems into using the same scale, and having other ways to get bonuses with things like skill focus feats. If they don't have other ways to get bonuses to skills than the system has no accurate representation of skill/training.
There's no particular reason combat ability and skills should have to be treated as very different systems. There's other game systems that treat all combat abilities as skill checks, and it works out just fine for them. Just because having them separated is what you're used to doesn't mean they have to be.
I don't see where you get that about no accurate representation of skill/training, isn't that what the proficiency ranks represent? Isn't that what skill feats that unlock new abilities represent?There shouldn't be feats that give bonuses to anything, keep all the math represent skill as part of proficiencies.
Feats should give new actions. If they want a skill feat to improve a skill it should increase the characters proficiency in that skill, that keeps the system bounded.
I think they've already indicated, or at least hinted that to be the case. You can either increase your proficiency rank, or you can get cool new abilities based off of your proficiency rank. It wouldn't really make sense to include other ways of increasing the bonus to skills as feats, it would defeat the purpose of having the narrower spread.
I think a +1, for proficiency progress, is a irrelevant bonus e create only confusion.
The major problem in the modifier are the "levels". They replace the ranks but at this point it's better just start at base 0.
There is a risk that a level 20 warrior knows best the "occult" of a level 1 wizard or "nature" of a level 1 druid. I don't like that approach.
We are talking about a system that is already devaluing class features for Feats. I wonder if the classes have lost their meaning and will only serve as a requirement to have access to a list of "Feats".
Well, it's likely that we will have both a DC and a proficiency gate associates with a lot of things. For example, identifying a creature you could represent both "how hard it is to spot identifying features" and "how obscure is this thing" on the two different axes.
So you could have two CR 7 undead with the same DC to identify, but one being able to be identified untrained (e.g. a ghost) and one that would require expert proficiency (e.g. a manananggal). A level 12 character untrained in law could find a lawyer fairly easily but could not practice law untrained.
For skills, an increase in proficiency being just a +1 difference, +5%, is far too small to represent the difference in capability that is supposed to be represented. In 1e a character who focused on a skill could take the skill focus feat which was a +3 bonus, a +15% difference. That seems to better represent the difference between untrained and trained, or expert and master. A +4 or +5 bonus would be great too, but +1 is far too small.Comparisons with things from the previous edition, that probably won't even be in the new edition, and work off a completely different scale, really aren't useful. Basically +1 sounds too small to you, and you're basing your response completely off of gut reaction. You're also leaving out that a +1 also increases your chance of crit success by 5%, and reduces your chance of crit fail by 5%. Which could wind up being a pretty big difference.
With the crit success and failure systems they'll eb using a 5% difference works out to a 10% chance of a difference. I'm not basing this off the old edition, I'm basing this off what differences in chance of success between characters I think would make a good game.
I feel that a 10% chance of a difference does not accurately capture what should be the difference between a trained or untrained character, or a legend and a master. Such a small difference is the same as being slightly more dexterous (same as +1 mod difference). Expertise in something verses just normal training feels like it should have a larger impact in determining chance of success of equivalent tasks between characters.
I think the bonus is so limited because they are using the same proficiency bonus for everything, the devs don't want a +12 from legendary bluff because they don't want a +12 from a legendary sword. But they could just have 2 proficiency scales instead. One for things like skills with +3 and one for things like swords with their current -1/0/+1/+2/+3.They could have 2 separate scales, sure, but then they would lose any streamlining and simplification benefit that having only one scale grants. Besides, I think part of the purpose here is to make it so auto-fail and auto-success aren't the default results of skill checks. Because really, what's the point of having a skill check when you know the character who focuses on it will always make it, and the ones that didn't invest heavily will always fail? Is that really a fun way of doing things?
You do lose out on the combat use of skills if you separate them, so I do see why they are doing this. I just feel verisimilitude is worth more, but I guess it isn't and they're going for a more gamey approach which is valid and understandable.
That would keep the systems a lot more elegant than forcing quite different systems into using the same scale, and having other ways to get bonuses with things like skill focus feats. If they don't have other ways to get bonuses to skills than the system has no accurate representation of skill/training.There's no particular reason combat ability and skills should have to be treated as very different systems. There's other game systems that treat all combat abilities as skill checks, and it works out just fine for them. Just because having them separated is what you're used to doesn't mean they have to be.
I don't see where you get that about no accurate representation of skill/training, isn't that what the proficiency ranks represent? Isn't that what skill feats that unlock new abilities represent?
They represent that in name and in qualification for skill feats, but not in chance of success. Just a different way to design the game, it's still not final so there's a chance they change the system.
There shouldn't be feats that give bonuses to anything, keep all the math represent skill as part of proficiencies.
Feats should give new actions. If they want a skill feat to improve a skill it should increase the characters proficiency in that skill, that keeps the system bounded.I think they've already indicated, or at least hinted that to be the case. You can either increase your proficiency rank, or you can get cool new abilities based off of your proficiency rank. It wouldn't really make sense to include other ways of increasing the bonus to skills as feats, it would defeat the purpose of having the narrower spread.
That's what I was saying. I know that's what they're doing, I agree with it.
With the addition of critical successes/failures, it's true that every bonus is kind of doubled. Still, a +1 may sound too little a difference; but we have to see the complete rules to judge.
Anyway, I would go even further on 'degrees of success' road.
Sneaking past a guard and failing by 1-4 or less may alert the guard but give you a chance to correct your mistake (with a penalty); failing by 5-9 means that the guards spots you clearly, while with 10 or more your bad performance may also wake up the guards in the other room.
The more degrees you have, the more even a small +1 matters.
EDIT: I add: succeed by 0-4 and you just sneak by; 5-9, you have the option to add something useful depending on what you are trying to do: distract the guard to give your companions trying to pass a +2 bonus, for example. With a +10 or more critical success you may have the chance to steal something from her, or tie her shoelaces together...
I can’t see how a plus one wouldn’t be too small. Really.
A +1 would be significant when the chances of serious failure are 5%. Let's say you're climbing a cliff. You have a 45% chance of making progress, a 50% chance of making no progress, and a 5% chance of critical failure (which could mean falling to your death).
With a +1 bonus, this could become a 50% chance of making progress, a 45% chance of no progress, a 5% chance of critical success (climbing at double the usual speed?) and 0% chance of dying.
Of course, that requires a very specific level of steepness...
I can’t see how a plus one wouldn’t be too small. Really.
When you have a single threshold (total success or total failure), a +1 will only matter in 1/20 cases. When it does it can be a life saver, but usually it will just not change anything.
If you have various levels of success/failure, with different thresshholds (like now with -10, 0 and +10) the same +1 will make a difference more often: 2 out of 20 times (because with a d20 you can't have both the critical failure and critical success thresholds in your range), and they still make a big difference.In my example, where your grade of success changes at -10, -5, 0, 5 and +10, a +1 bonus will change what you achieve one fifth of the times, though in a less dramatic way.
Yeah- basically, every +1 in PF2 carries as much weight as a +2 in PF1. Attacks would be an exception (crit failure doesn’t matter except against specific classes with specific options), but the difference in crit mechanics means the “double rule” still holds up pretty well.