a) yes, it is. Change it from
-1 (nonproficient), +0 (proficient), +1 (expert), +2 (master), +3 (legendary)
to
-2 (nonproficient), +1 (proficient), +4 (expert), +7 (master), +10 (legendary)
b) no it's not, I like that there is no numerical specialization
c) it could be either but I still don't know
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not this topic again, not after hundreds of posts...
While I personally feel the expert / master / legend bonuses should be 2/4/6 (the untrained is already -2 not -1), I do know why they chose the low range they did. Weapons, AC, saves, save DCs, and skills are all unified on the same system. Most or all of the skills are apparently usable in combat; some you can attack with directly, like Athletics. So ranking up a skill or armor is effectively giving it Weapon Focus or Dodge from PF1, so +1.
We're ultimately going to have to playtest to see if the +1 increments work in practice or if the feel that they should be bigger bears out. While I do feel +2 is a more meaningful increase and feels better from an advancement standpoint, I also recognize my feelings could be wrong and that it would get unbalanced at +2 increments instead of +1. We'll see, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not this topic again, not after hundreds of posts...
While I personally feel the expert / master / legend bonuses should be 2/4/6 (the untrained is already -2 not -1), I do know why they chose the low range they did. Weapons, AC, saves, save DCs, and skills are all unified on the same system. Most or all of the skills are apparently usable in combat; some you can attack with directly, like Athletics. So ranking up a skill or armor is effectively giving it Weapon Focus or Dodge from PF1, so +1.
We're ultimately going to have to playtest to see if the +1 increments work in practice or if the feel that they should be bigger bears out. While I do feel +2 is a more meaningful increase and feels better from an advancement standpoint, I also recognize my feelings could be wrong and that it would get unbalanced at +2 increments instead of +1. We'll see, I guess.
My theory is that the proficiency bonus is low in order to make room for skill items while keeping the overall bonus within a certain bounds. I'm guessing that skill items will mirror the weapon qualities, so +1 to +3.
I'm not really a big fan of skill items, so I may bake them right in and have skills be +2/4/6 like you mentioned. We'll have to wait and see.
a) yes, it is. Change it from
-1 (nonproficient), +0 (proficient), +1 (expert), +2 (master), +3 (legendary)
to
-2 (nonproficient), +1 (proficient), +4 (expert), +7 (master), +10 (legendary)b) no it's not, I like that there is no numerical specialization
c) it could be either but I still don't know
My general impression is that the bonus that the different proficiency tiers provides is not the main draw, but, rather, the bigger draw comes from the new uses of a skill that each skill tier unlocks. The proficiency bonus is the cherry on top of the main feature.
Having items actually outweigh or be equal to your skill bonuses rankles a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
B)
|
Having items actually outweigh or be equal to your skill bonuses rankles a bit.
Uh...your 'skill bonus' on things you focus one (ie: what you have while naked) is probably north of +30 by 20th level (+20 level + 3 Proficiency +7 or more from Ability). And even a skill you're merely proficient in is gonna be north of +20 (+20 level +0 Proficiency +0 or often much more Ability).
Heck, even at 1st it's likely to be +6 or so on skills you focus on (+1 level + 1 Proficiency +4 Ability).
A +3 from an item (and that'd only be at high levels) is a nice bonus on top of that, but doesn't outweigh anything.
Nobody knows. The overall numbers are generally being scaled back by reducing the types of bonuses available and changing how they stack.
Yup.
It seems to me the benefits will be lost due to autoscaling of the Skills, but we'll just have to wait and see...
Well, the goal seems to be to make it so that two characters who focus on a skill are within a few points of each other at the same level, rather than the 20 point difference you could get in PF1 even under those circumstances.
And to allow characters who haven't trained the skill to have some chance (albeit a small one) against equally leveled adversaries rather than auto-failing.
It should work fine for achieving those goals, IMO. I'm not entirely won over until I see the skill system and what you can do untrained (I'm hoping only very basic stuff, actually), but it'll accomplish those goals.
bigger numbers are more fun, just saying.
Having items actually outweigh or be equal to your skill bonuses rankles a bit.Uh...your 'skill bonus' on things you focus one (ie: what you have while naked) is probably north of +30 by 20th level (+20 level + 3 Proficiency +7 or more from Ability). And even a skill you're merely proficient in is gonna be north of +20 (+20 level +0 Proficiency +0 or often much more Ability).
Heck, even at 1st it's likely to be +6 or so on skills you focus on (+1 level + 1 Proficiency +4 Ability).
A +3 from an item (and that'd only be at high levels) is a nice bonus on top of that, but doesn't outweigh anything.
Nobody knows. The overall numbers are generally being scaled back by reducing the types of bonuses available and changing how they stack.Yup.
It seems to me the benefits will be lost due to autoscaling of the Skills, but we'll just have to wait and see...Well, the goal seems to be to make it so that two characters who focus on a skill are within a few points of each other at the same level, rather than the 20 point difference you could get in PF1 even under those circumstances.
And to allow characters who haven't trained the skill to have some chance (albeit a small one) against equally leveled adversaries rather than auto-failing.
It should work fine for achieving those goals, IMO. I'm not entirely won over until I see the skill system and what you can do untrained (I'm hoping only very basic stuff, actually), but it'll accomplish those goals.
Since everyone has that level bonus bit you can pretty safely ignore it as background noise. The amount you gain from actually trying to be good at a skill is lower or equal to what you get from owning a skill item.
So both the ability score and the item are just as or even more important than actually investing in the skill?
If the modifier is that low, won't the dice end up being the decision factor?
I dont like that, I mean, sorta happened in 5th where it was more luck based
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since everyone has that level bonus bit you can pretty safely ignore it as background noise.
Uh...no you can't. They've repeatedly specified that many DCs will be static and thus that bonus is super relevant in achieving almost anything that isn't actively opposed by a specific other person...which is most things, actually.
The amount you gain from actually trying to be good at a skill is lower or equal to what you get from owning a skill item.
We actually don't know that, it's pure theory. Even if true, I'm not at all convinced it's a huge issue.
So both the ability score and the item are just as or even more important than actually investing in the skill?
No. Both are certainly helpful, but actually investing in the skill opens up Skill Feats, which let you do the kind of things someone with a similar modifier can't even attempt, or auto succeed at large percentages of tasks, or things like that.
Yes you can. That auto scaling is just something you automatically get it’s zero baseline. It provides no differentiation from one character to the other.