| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I want a skill system that is simple (the rules are short and easy to remember), flexible (it can be applied to all sorts of game situations easily), and intuitive (its results seems reasonable and fair). The new system (from what little info we have) is a step in the right direction but seems to fall short on all three.
I’ll start with what I think system should be.
When your players encounter a skill challenge, you pick the skill and difficulty level. Picking a simple lock is Trained Thievery. A hard lock might be Expert or Master Thievery. Surviving in the void (to use Paizo’s example) would be Legendary Survival. That’s it! You’re done.
The rules would provide examples of skill challenges at each difficulty level, but those are just guidelines. You pick the difficulty that is appropriate for your game and group.
Now your players roll. If their proficiency level equals the challenge level, they just roll a d20. By default, a 10 or higher succeeds. For each proficiency level higher, they roll with some significant bonus (roll an additional d20 and take the highest or add +4 or +5). If they are one proficiency level lower, they roll with an equivalent disadvantage. Two or more levels lower and they cannot succeed.
The end.
My issues with the proposed PF2 system:
If there really is a list of new actions and abilities at each proficiency rank, we end up with 20 pages of skill tables that GMs have to memorize or constantly reference in order to know whether to allow a character to make a check or use an ability. Making them absolute rules instead of guidelines also encourages rules lawyering when a situation doesn’t exactly match up with the book.
The flat level bonus makes it hard to adapt content on the fly. What is a hard lock? Is it DC 12, 17, 27? Who knows, it depends on the party level. It also leads to very unintuitive situations like a high level untrained paladin being better at thievery than a low level rogue.
The proficiency level bonuses are too small (+1 per level). In a party of 5 players where one character is a master and everyone else is just trained, the master only has a 27% chance of being the highest roll. So his or her skill barely matters. If you used advantage and disadvantage (say for an Expert skill check), the master would have a 58% chance of being the highest.
That said, I am definitely in favor of using their system for things like saves and weapons. Those proficiency bonuses should be small since everyone needs to have a chance to make their saves or hit their attacks. Character level is obviously very important in combat, so adding in level here does make sense. And unlocking new abilities which used to be feats like evasion seems like a fun and intuitive method of character progression. Any thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need to see skill feats to get the full picture. I have some of the same reservations too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I want a skill system that is simple (the rules are short and easy to remember), flexible (it can be applied to all sorts of game situations easily), and intuitive (its results seems reasonable and fair). The new system (from what little info we have) is a step in the right direction but seems to fall short on all three.
I think those are fine goals. I also think the current system has the first two down cold and we lack the information necessary to say on the third (though I tend to think it'll work for that too).
If there really is a list of new actions and abilities at each proficiency rank, we end up with 20 pages of skill tables that GMs have to memorize or constantly reference in order to know whether to allow a character to make a check or use an ability. Making them absolute rules instead of guidelines also encourages rules lawyering when a situation doesn’t exactly match up with the book.
It's actually fairly unlikely there's a new list for every Rank. What seems clear is that there are trained uses and untrained uses and you need Trained or higher to use the Trained ones...but that's true already, not an added complication.
The flat level bonus makes it hard to adapt content on the fly. What is a hard lock? Is it DC 12, 17, 27? Who knows, it depends on the party level. It also leads to very unintuitive situations like a high level untrained paladin being better at thievery than a low level rogue.
Actually, given that we're gonna have listed DCs for things like that, this doesn't matter. A hard lock is a hard lock, regardless of your players level.
Also, if you do want to do math like this, its pretty easy to calculate once you have the variables, you just need to calibrate it based on level...which is as it should be, since Pathfinder characters can and should improve over the levels.
The proficiency level bonuses are too small (+1 per level). In a party of 5 players where one character is a master and everyone else is just trained, the master only has a 27% chance of being the highest roll. So his or her skill barely matters. If you used advantage and disadvantage (say for an Expert skill check), the master would have a 58% chance of being the highest.
This argument is deeply weird to me on several levels. How many times have you seen an entire party all trained in something in PF1, all with a maxed out stat, all with Masterwork Tools?
Because I've never seen this. And that's the situation you need to be in for this statement to be remotely true. In a real party, this just isn't usually gonna be an issue. I mean, how many parties have everyone trained in any specific skill, other than Perception (which is no longer a skill, remember)? And all having the same stat mod in that skill?
It especially won't be an issue due to the Skill Feat allowing auto-success at a number based on Proficiency Level rather than bonus (we don't know what each Proficiency Level gets, but we know Legendary can auto-succeed vs. DC 28), which allows people who focus to effortlessly skate on a lot of routine checks in a way that makes them be way more mechanically effective than people who just have the skill Trained.
That said, I am definitely in favor of using their system for things like saves and weapons. Those proficiency bonuses should be small since everyone needs to have a chance to make their saves or hit their attacks. Character level is obviously very important in combat, so adding in level here does make sense. And unlocking new abilities which used to be feats like evasion seems like a fun and intuitive method of character progression. Any thoughts?
Basically, I think you're theorizing in advance of the data. Everyone gets 10 Skill Feats (and some people get more). Any theorizing about how Legendary Skills are only a +3 over Trained ignoring such a major facet of how skills work is gonna be deeply flawed. We need to know to what degree Skill Feats enhance the capabilities of people at high skill tiers before we can even hypothesize on this stuff in an informed manner.
The Big issue, everything scale with level, even skills(maybe even AC).
I don't like the difference in power between a character of level 1 and one of level 20 that always seems too big. Something that in others games(like d&d 5e) is less pronounced.
It's ridiculous that a lv 20 fighter has more occult knowledge then a lv 1 arcane caster. Even if he is not an expert he will be able to perform certain tasks more easily than a magician.
For me the solution is do something like that:
unatrained character get 0 x level, proficiency bonus
trained character get 1 x level
expert character get 1 x level
master character get 1,5 x level
legendary character get 2 x level.
And just remove the ridiculous flat bonus +1 for each step proficiency.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's ridiculous that a lv 20 fighter has more occult knowledge then a lv 1 arcane caster. Even if he is not an expert he will be able to perform certain tasks more easily than a magician.
Is it? Normally for a fighter to reach level 20, he's probably seen more spells cast than the level 1 mage, met/killed more types of monsters, and used more magic items. Sure the level 1 has book knowledge, but the level 20 has way more personal experience with the arcane than the level 1 does. I can understand why you would feel it's unrealistic, but it's a level based game. Everything about the concept of character level is unrealistic. I don't see people complaining that it's unrealistic that a level 20 Wizard can take more mace blows to the head than a level 1 Fighter, but that is the current reality of PF1, and almost certainly will continue to be the case in PF2, despite the fact it is quite honestly far less realistic than your example level 20 Fighter being able to know some stuff about magic.
The proficiency level bonuses are too small (+1 per level). In a party of 5 players where one character is a master and everyone else is just trained, the master only has a 27% chance of being the highest roll. So his or her skill barely matters. If you used advantage and disadvantage (say for an Expert skill check), the master would have a 58% chance of being the highest.
Why does it matter that the master always get the highest roll? That would matter if the system still worked the way it does in PF1, but in PF2 a Master of say, Jumping, can leap 20' in the air, while the merely Trained scrubs in his party can manage 5 or 6 feet, even if their roll is higher than the Master's.
I see so many people complaining that the number is too small, but only basing that on PF1 math, or gut feeling. I've seen nothing so far that indicates to me that the numerical scaling of the skill ranks is going to be a legitimate problem. And even if it does turn out to be an issue, we can't possibly know that until we have a better idea of what the skill ranks actually unlock.
Also I strongly doubt that you will need to be a Master to open high level locks. From the sounds of it, they're gating most of what skills allow in PF1 at the Trained level, maybe Expert at most. Any unlocks beyond that are going to be more into the realm of unrealistic/epic/mythic abilities. Opening a slightly better class of lock does not sound like the sort of thing you would need Master/Legendary for. The Legendary locksmith can probably open locks just by whistling at them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The number is too small based on math, not feeling. +1 per skill level is just a rather small amount of differentiation. However you slice it. It might be mitigated somewhat by gating things and the like ... but the fact still remains that it is a rather SMALL difference.
I still think a difference of 2 per tier would both feel and math better. +2 if you're Expert, +4 if you're Master, +6 if you're Master. I still think this knowing that this would also apply to attacks and saves because of the shared system, so going from Trained to Expert in swords would give you +2 to hit, 10% more crits and 10% less critical failures. 3.0 Spell Focus really wasn't broken.
But, we'll see how it works out in practice in the playtest. I expect +2 per step to feel better than +1, and I expect to get exactly that same sort of feedback from the players I will run the playtest for because they also despise fiddly little +/- 1 modifiers... even when it goes against them, they prefer -2 to -1 because it feels more meaningful and is easier to keep track of. But who knows, maybe Paizo really did find some secret sauce to make a mere 5% change on a D20 feel significant, separate from the access / gating which is something I do support. *shrugs*
I still think a difference of 2 per tier would both feel and math better. +2 if you're Expert, +4 if you're Master, +6 if you're Master. I still think this knowing that this would also apply to attacks and saves because of the shared system, so going from Trained to Expert in swords would give you +2 to hit, 10% more crits and 10% less critical failures. 3.0 Spell Focus really wasn't broken.
But, we'll see how it works out in practice in the playtest. I expect +2 per step to feel better than +1, and I expect to get exactly that same sort of feedback from the players I will run the playtest for because they also despise fiddly little +/- 1 modifiers... even when it goes against them, they prefer -2 to -1 because it feels more meaningful and is easier to keep track of. But who knows, maybe Paizo really did find some secret sauce to make a mere 5% change on a D20 feel significant, separate from the access / gating which is something I do support. *shrugs*
I still feel like the proficiency bonuses were kept low in order to allow for items. Based on weapon qualities, I also still think it would be easy to house rule to a +2/4/6 scale with almost no effort on the part of the GM. Or maybe we just cap Abilities at a lower number? They only have so much space to work with and still keep a range where everyone is at least relevant, so I feel like Abilities are a big part of that range. With the quoted 17-18 spread that's 5 points for untrained to legend, 3 for item qualities, leaving 10 for abilities +/- a bit if feats play into that # range at all...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would higher proficiency bonuses not allow items?
I dont agree with the OP. It's not like PF1's skill system is complicated. Some have charts, but they aren't really extensive. It also makes sure that you can play with new people and know what to expect so it makes the game more portable.
When you have a 2 inch greased ledge and one GM says its's only a + modifier to the DC, and another says it's a +14 it creates way too much variance.
As far as a level 20 fighter knowing more about magic than a level 1 wizard I see no problem with that. There is no reason why a fighter can't learn about magic, even if he can't cast spells.
It also makes it so that classes aren't cookie cutter. The idea of a fighter whose knowledgeable about magic or good at diplomacy if he invest in it should be an option.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of a fighter whose knowledgeable about magic or good at diplomacy if he invest in it should be an option.
I think the issue people have is even if you don't invest in it, you are still good at it. A 6th-level barbarian who has literally never picked a lock in his life is better at picking locks than a 1st-level rogue who spent her entire childhood learning the tricks of the trade from her scoundrel father.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would most of the complaining party be satisfied if the not-proficient creatures had something like level/2 to all checks instead of level-2?
Tilting that little "-" into a "/" is all the mechanical effort you need then, and then you don't get to see an amateur Lv.20 wizard out-climbing a Lv.11 athlete on a rock climbing contest.
|
|
Would most of the complaining party be satisfied if the not-proficient creatures had something like level/2 to all checks instead of level-2?
This goes directly against the design goals behind the system and is thus not gonna happen.
Tilting that little "-" into a "/" is all the mechanical effort you need then, and then you don't get to see an amateur Lv.20 wizard out-climbing a Lv.11 athlete on a rock climbing contest.
That already doesn't happen. A good rock climber at 11th can pretty clearly have a +20 or better ignoring gear and Skill Feats (neither of which should be ignored).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of a fighter whose knowledgeable about magic or good at diplomacy if he invest in it should be an option.I think the issue people have is even if you don't invest in it, you are still good at it. A 6th-level barbarian who has literally never picked a lock in his life is better at picking locks than a 1st-level rogue who spent her entire childhood learning the tricks of the trade from her scoundrel father.
That’s not true, though. The level 1 Rogue with training is better at picking locks than the level 6 Barbarian who’s never done it. Picking locks is trained-only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ridiculous that a lv 20 fighter has more occult knowledge then a lv 1 arcane caster. Even if he is not an expert he will be able to perform certain tasks more easily than a magician.
Is it? Normally for a fighter to reach level 20, he's probably seen more spells cast than the level 1 mage, met/killed more types of monsters, and used more magic items. Sure the level 1 has book knowledge, but the level 20 has way more personal experience with the arcane than the level 1 does.
Experience is different from knowledge. You can see magic items or spell in action but this not mean you can understand. Indeed fighter can't cast spells.
I don't see people complaining that it's unrealistic that a level 20 Wizard can take more mace blows to the head than a level 1 Fighter, but that is the current reality of PF1
Actually people complain of that... but seems there is not a way to fix that. On the other hand, the hit points determine the strength of a character in combat and not his skill or proficiency.
In PF1 you can make a pc with 0 rank in spellcraft, why with this system you can't do that?? In PF2 level 20 pc have all +20 in all skill, making it impossible to create ignorant characters. This is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
That’s not true, though. The level 1 Rogue with training is better at picking locks than the level 6 Barbarian who’s never done it. Picking locks is trained-only.
I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
Experience is different from knowledge. You can see magic items or spell in action but this not mean you can understand. Indeed fighter can't cast spells.
Right...and they've said the only things the Fighter can do untrained are monster knowledge checks and maybe identify spells on sight. For anything more in depth they'd need the actual skill.
And being able to recognize Dragons and Fireballs is totally the kind of thing you can get from experience.
Actually people complain of that... but seems there is not a way to fix that. On the other hand, the hit points determine the strength of a character in combat and not his skill or proficiency.
In PF1 you can make a pc with 0 rank in spellcraft, why with this system you can't do that?? In PF2 level 20 pc have all +20 in all skill, making it impossible to create ignorant characters. This is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
This isn't true. For one thing it's +18, but much more importantly, a lot of skill uses (including 'book learning' type stuff) are Trained Only. Which means the only way you get them is by investing a limited resource (Skill Ranks). Same as always.
The untrained uses of some skills may be being expanded, but the core dynamic has not actually changed in that regard.
I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.
No, you can theoretically pick pockets without the skill being Trained, but traps and locks are Trained Only.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.No, you can theoretically pick pockets without the skill being Trained, but traps and locks are Trained Only.
So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.No, you can theoretically pick pockets without the skill being Trained, but traps and locks are Trained Only.
Well, assuming Dex 14 on the Barbarian and Dex 18 on the Rogue (a reasonable supposition), the Barbarian has a +6...while the Rogue probably also has a +6.
So, no, he does it about equally well. And no, that doesn't especially bother me because a 6th level Barbarian is a seasoned adventurer, while a 1st level Rogue...isn't. Experience matters, and the Barbarian may not have had to pick pockets a lot, but she's sure had some experience being sneaky by that point...quite possibly more of it than the neophyte Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Experience is different from knowledge. You can see magic items or spell in action but this not mean you can understand. Indeed fighter can't cast spells.
Experience is different than knowledge. It is applied knowledge which means that while it may not be as thorough, it's also more likely to be correct, and more likely to be useful. Also Knowledge (Arcana), Spellcraft, and probably Occultism or whatever PF2 is replacing them with don't give you the ability to cast spells, nor are they required in order to cast spells.
I would also like to point out that you can absolutely have a PF1 wizard who didn't bother putting ranks in either Knowledge(Arcana) or Spellcraft, and a Fighter who did, and is thus legitimately more knowledgeable than the Wizard.In addition, the way PF1 multiclassing works basically indicates that the Fighter, by watching over the Wizard's shoulder as he does his magic stuff, can absolutely use his experience to learn to cast spells. That is the justification given for allowing a character to multiclass to a Wizard without having to go through formal Wizard schooling.
I don't see people complaining that it's unrealistic that a level 20 Wizard can take more mace blows to the head than a level 1 Fighter, but that is the current reality of PF1
Actually people complain of that... but seems there is not a way to fix that. On the other hand, the hit points determine the strength of a character in combat and not his skill or proficiency.
In PF1 you can make a pc with 0 rank in spellcraft, why with this system you can't do that?? In PF2 level 20 pc have all +20 in all skill, making it impossible to create ignorant characters. This is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
Well I've never heard anyone make that complaint. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it doesn't seem to be a sticking point for very many people.
Untrained in a knowledge skill means (and this is in PF1 as well) that you can only make checks for low DC general knowledge information. So your high level Untrained Fighter might be able to recognize a fireball, he might even be able to realize when someone is casting a fireball, but he doesn't know anything about the magical principles of what makes a fireball work, which the level 1 Trained Wizard might have a chance of knowing, even though he hasn't learned the actual spell yet.
That’s not true, though. The level 1 Rogue with training is better at picking locks than the level 6 Barbarian who’s never done it. Picking locks is trained-only.I seem to have read somewhere that you can steal and picklock without being trained but maybe I'm wrong.
In PF1 both Disable Device and Sleight of Hand are Trained Only skills. I don't see it being likely that that will change much in PF2.
Why would higher proficiency bonuses not allow items?
I literally just explained that in my previous post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?Well, assuming Dex 14 on the Barbarian and Dex 18 on the Rogue (a reasonable supposition), the Barbarian has a +6...while the Rogue probably also has a +6.
So, no, he does it about equally well. And no, that doesn't especially bother me because a 6th level Barbarian is a seasoned adventurer, while a 1st level Rogue...isn't. Experience matters, and the Barbarian may not have had to pick pockets a lot, but she's sure had some experience being sneaky by that point...quite possibly more of it than the neophyte Rogue.
I simply do not agree, the excuse of experience holds up to a certain point. So are you telling me that a fighter lv 20 has the same experience in all the skills (+20 to everything) of a wizard or rogue or druid?
Is it no longer credible that a rogue obtains from its experience a greater bonus in picklocks than a barbarian?
A druid does not get much more experience in "nature" than a fighter? Is not he in touch with nature more than a fighter in all of his 20 levels?
Do not you think that a seasoned wizard lv 20 has done much more "occult" experience than a seasoned fighter lv 20?
Of course then on the basis of the proficiency you unlock various uses for each skill but should also take advantage of the basic untrained tasks?
So a barbarian level 6 can pick pockets better of a rogue level 1. Am I the only one who finds it wrong?Well, assuming Dex 14 on the Barbarian and Dex 18 on the Rogue (a reasonable supposition), the Barbarian has a +6...while the Rogue probably also has a +6.
So, no, he does it about equally well. And no, that doesn't especially bother me because a 6th level Barbarian is a seasoned adventurer, while a 1st level Rogue...isn't. Experience matters, and the Barbarian may not have had to pick pockets a lot, but she's sure had some experience being sneaky by that point...quite possibly more of it than the neophyte Rogue.
I simply do not agree, the excuse of experience holds up to a certain point. So are you telling me that a fighter lv 20 has the same experience in all the skills (+20 to everything) of a wizard or rogue or druid?
Is it no longer credible that a rogue obtains from its experience a greater bonus in picklocks than a barbarian?
A druid does not get much more experience in "nature" than a fighter? Is not he in touch with nature more than a fighter in all of his 20 levels?
Do not you think that a seasoned wizard lv 20 has done much more "occult" experience than a seasoned fighter lv 20?Of course then on the basis of the proficiency you unlock various uses for each skill but should also take advantage of the basic untrained tasks?
The rogue who trains in picking locks, the druid who trains in natural lore, and the wizard who trains in occultism, WILL all be better than the comparable untrained character. They'll have higher bonuses from being trained, they'll have higher ability scores in the relevant stats, they'll be more likely to have equipment to raise the skills in question. In being trained, they're more likely to simply ignore the checks that untrained characters have to make, not having to even roll dice for them in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue who trains in picking locks, the druid who trains in natural lore, and the wizard who trains in occultism, WILL all be better than the comparable untrained character. They'll have higher bonuses from being trained
Here we are at the point of the topic "+1 for each step of competence is very little".
I repeat what I had written at the beginning..."For me the solution is do something like that:
unatrained character get 0 x level, proficiency bonus
trained character get 1 x level
expert character get 1 x level
master character get 1,5 x level
legendary character get 2 x level.
And just remove the ridiculous flat bonus +1 for each step proficiency."
they'll have higher ability scores in the relevant stats, they'll be more likely to have equipment to raise the skills in question.
So it is not really matter of experience of a pc but of ability scores and magic equipment.
Nothing to do with a pc's skills.
And ultimately, I am going to buy that a L20 anything is going to know some !@#$. They're essentially frickin demi-gods, living legends made flesh. They've been there, done that, and probably kicked down the door to several lower planes to body slam Balors and Pit Fiends for giggles. Saying that they didn't pick up anything about swimming/stealth/picking pockets/monster ID/whatever over their long, varied, and peril filled career is honestly more baffling to me than having a L20 fighter not able to tell what a Great Red Wyrm is because he didn't have know arcana ranks.
I'm saying that all classes should not have the same bonus. Not that they should not have any.
This means that a fighter will not have 0 in "occult", simply will not have +20 in the same way of a pc with a wizard class. If the fighter remains untrained in "occult" at level 20 he can always roll the die to identify the red dragon without a big bonus like the wizard.| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here we are at the point of the question +1 for each step of competence is very little.
I repeat what I had written at the beginning..."For me the solution is do something like that:
unatrained character get 0 x level, proficiency bonus
trained character get 1 x level
expert character get 1 x level
master character get 1,5 x level
legendary character get 2 x level.
And just remove the ridiculous flat bonus +1 for each step proficiency."
- The crit system means that a +1 in PF2 is about the same weight as a +2 in Pathfinder.
- Getting training gets you +2 instead of +1.- Your system is really broken. You're giving a fully trained character +40 vs. untrained at level 20. That's more than twice the difference in roll outcomes! It stopped meaning anything useful ten levels ago. Even the difference between trained and untrained at that level is so big that the two characters can never meaningfully roll on the same challenge. What do DCs even look like?
So it is not really matter of experience of a pc but of ability scores and magic equipment.
Nothing to do with a pc's skills.
Ability scores are part of a character's skill- essentially their raw talent. I'm fine ignoring the equipment. A Wizard will probably have something like a +5 in Int more than the painfully stereotypical Fighter that gets pulled out for these examples. Mastery is available at 7th, so we'll assume our Wizard has it. There's a +9 difference without any feats or equipment, so untrained Fighter 20 can ID magical monsters like Wizard 11, because he's been fighting them for twice as long. That seems pretty fair to me. The Fighter still can't tell what spell is being cast, though, because that requires some actual study.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- The crit system means that a +1 in PF2 is about the same weight as a +2 in Pathfinder.
- Getting training gets you +2 instead of +1.
- Your system is really broken. You're giving a fully trained character +40 vs. untrained at level 20. That's more than twice the difference in roll outcomes! It stopped meaning anything useful ten levels ago. Even the difference between trained and untrained at that level is so big that the two characters can never meaningfully roll on the same challenge. What do DCs even look like?
The ratio does not necessarily have to be the same as the one I suggested ... without considering that a legendary proficiency must be really difficult to achieve if it allows you to do things like survive in a vacuum.
Following your reasoning with the actual system you get a +20 with any class that is a +40 equivalent of the old system and without choosing which skill to assign the bonus(all skills get +40). It's not already broken for you?
Ability scores are part of a character's skill- essentially their raw talent. I'm fine ignoring the equipment. A Wizard will probably have something like a +5 in Int more than the painfully stereotypical Fighter that gets pulled out for these examples. Mastery is available at 7th, so we'll assume our Wizard has it. There's a +9 difference without any feats or equipment, so untrained Fighter 20 can ID magical monsters like Wizard 11, because he's been fighting them for twice as long. That seems pretty fair to me. The Fighter still can't tell what spell is being cast, though, because that requires some actual study.
Yes raw talent.
Moreover, in your example you exclude a priori that a fighter can have an intelligence as high as a wizard.However the point is that this is not about the experience so it is useless to talk about it.
The rogue who trains in picking locks, the druid who trains in natural lore, and the wizard who trains in occultism, WILL all be better than the comparable untrained character. They'll have higher bonuses from being trainedHere we are at the point of the topic "+1 for each step of competence is very little".
Which is still purely your feeling on it. Yeah, it's smaller than in PF1. But they've said they're tightening up the math in PF2, so there will be far less other random floating bonuses, and a +1 should actually mean something. At level 20 in PF1, a character is likely to have a +40-50 in a focused skill. No bonus is relevant at that point, since there really aren't any DCs that a +50 is going to be failing against. Likewise the untrained character is probably looking at a +5, if we're being generous. The +1 is once again irrelevant to him, because any "level-appropriate DC" that can challenge the master, he can't even get in the ballpark of. What good is a +1 when you need a 40 on 1d20+5? What they're trying to do is narrow the playing field so that everybody has a chance of contributing/not being totally useless in every situation they haven't specifically trained for. Is it 100% realistic? Not even close. Is it probably going to be more fun and open to doing cool and thematic things? Seems that way to me. Is it going to be immersion breaking? Probably not after you've tried it once. It certainly isn't going to bother me a bit.
they'll have higher ability scores in the relevant stats, they'll be more likely to have equipment to raise the skills in question.So it is not really matter of experience of a pc but of ability scores and magic equipment.
Nothing to do with a pc's skills.
Talent (aka attribute scores) is a huge part of skill. And using level as a direct skill modifier is the most direct way you could have experience effect things. At 20th level a PC will have +20 from experience, -2 to +3 from training, and -2 to +10(guessing here) from talent(stats). There may also be some equipment/magic bonuses in there, but they're likely to be small and/or situational.
So...experience is the biggest factor, which to me is pretty much how it should be.In PF1 just being a high level adventurer requires you to be decked out in a christmas tree of magic items. That's actually always bothered me, I prefer for my characters to be innately bad-ass, rather than drawing all their ability from magic items. From what I'm hearing so far, a lot of that will be fixed in PF2.
And ultimately, I am going to buy that a L20 anything is going to know some !@#$. They're essentially frickin demi-gods, living legends made flesh. They've been there, done that, and probably kicked down the door to several lower planes to body slam Balors and Pit Fiends for giggles. Saying that they didn't pick up anything about swimming/stealth/picking pockets/monster ID/whatever over their long, varied, and peril filled career is honestly more baffling to me than having a L20 fighter not able to tell what a Great Red Wyrm is because he didn't have know arcana ranks.I'm saying that all classes should not have the same bonus. Not that they should not have any.
This means that a fighter will not have 0 in "occult", simply will not have +20 in the same way of a pc with a wizard class. If the fighter remains untrained in "occult" at level 20 he can always roll the die to identify the red dragon without a big bonus like the wizard.
Ah, classism is it? You should bear this in mind: skills are not directly related to class. A fighter can put all his ranks in Occult if he wants, a Wizard can completely ignore it. No skill is required or barred for any class. Sure, most choose skills from a shorter list that's more thematically appropriate to their class, but nothing requires them to do so, not even in PF1. And the knowledge DC for knowing about a monster is typically based on that monster's CR. So if a Fighter level 20 is untrained in Know Arcana in PF1, he can't identify a red dragon at all. Which is much more ridiculous than letting him have a shot at identifying it that's in the same game as the trained Wizard.
Following your reasoning with the actual system you get a +20 with any class that is a +40 equivalent of the old system and without choosing which skill to assign the bonus(all skills get +40). It's not already broken for you?
Nope. Not any more broken than basing any other thing off of character level. Honestly, I would prefer all around smaller bonuses, but since it applies equally it's not broken, and making the bonuses smaller would make using it as a universal mechanic wonky. It accomplishes the design goals of
A: Allowing high level characters to do things better than low level characters, andB: Allowing all characters at an equal experience level to have a chance of contributing/not being useless in most situations, while
C: Still allowing focused characters to be special, because they have a better chance of success, and even some neat special stuff the untrained guys can't do at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, classism is it? You should bear this in mind: skills are not directly related to class.
Please do not quibble, proficiency derives from the class. Of course there is also to consider the background and the feats, nobody questions this.
A fighter can put all his ranks in Occult if he wants, a Wizard can completely ignore it. No skill is required or barred for any class.
You're wrong with this system the wizards can not ignore it. A fighter can not put all his ranks in "occult". He must do it. There is no choice.
I repeat this is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
A: Allowing high level characters to do things better than low level characters, and
B: Allowing all characters at an equal experience level to have a chance of contributing/not being useless in most situations, while
C: Still allowing focused characters to be special, because they have a better chance of success, and even some neat special stuff the untrained guys can't do at all.
A: I agree. But this can be seen as a defect. High-level characters who can do everything better than a low-level character is a bad policy.
B: I also agree on this. It is here can only be seen as a defect.
Why bother to create races or classes if all the PCs must contribute the same way in the same situations?
C: I do not agree here. A +1 it's a very little better chance of success. The only good thing is that untrained characters can not do certain things. But in my opinion this is not enough because in the execution of basic tasks there must be a difference in capacity.
Sure it's still all to be seen ... but it seems to me an unnecessarily complicated system you will need to have the tables in hand of what you can or can not do ... for now we can only hope.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, classism is it? You should bear this in mind: skills are not directly related to class.Please do not quibble, proficiency derives from the class. Of course there is also to consider the background and the feats, nobody questions this.
True, I believe I just refuted it entirely. So not really a question, no. In PF1 the only difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +3 bonus, and you can easily get around that with a trait. So it's barely related to class, and even that can be easily bypassed. I don't know if class skills will be a thing in PF2, but it doesn't sound like it. I'd be fine with that mechanic going away, it never really made any particular sense, just screwed Fighters more.
A fighter can put all his ranks in Occult if he wants, a Wizard can completely ignore it. No skill is required or barred for any class.You're wrong with this system the wizards can not ignore it. A fighter can not put all his ranks in "occult". He must do it. There is no choice.
I repeat this is a big issue in a role-playing perspective.
That would be a big issue if it was true. But it's not true, so it's not an issue. A character with no ranks in a skill is demonstrably less good at that skill than someone with ranks in it. You appear to just be upset because you think the difference should be bigger. Enforcing ignorance/incompetence on high level characters doesn't really seem to me like a good roleplaying goal. You can still make a character who is incompetent/ignorant at level 1, because the net Experience/Training bonus for an untrained level 1 character is -1. Why do you assume that that character would remain just as ignorant/incompetent after adventuring long enough to get to level 20?
A: I agree. But this can be seen as a defect. High-level characters who can do everything better than a low-level character is a bad policy.A: Allowing high level characters to do things better than low level characters, and
B: Allowing all characters at an equal experience level to have a chance of contributing/not being useless in most situations, while
C: Still allowing focused characters to be special, because they have a better chance of success, and even some neat special stuff the untrained guys can't do at all.
Not really bad. Different from what we're used to. This again falls into the "everything about a level based system is unrealistic" argument. If you don't want higher level characters to be better than low level characters, then what's the point of a level based system?
B: I also agree on this. It is here can only be seen as a defect.
Why bother to create races or classes if all the PCs must contribute the same way in the same situations?
I never said "in the same way" I said they have a chance of contributing. That's a huge difference. I would also hate a system where all characters were exactly the same. Luckily, that's not what we have here.
C: I do not agree here. A +1 it's a very little better chance of success. The only good thing is that untrained characters can not do certain things. But in my opinion this is not enough because in the execution of basic tasks there must be a difference in capacity.
Well for starters, Untrained to Trained is +2. A +1 in PF2 is (from what I hear) approximately a 10% improvement in results (based on increased critical successes and reduced fumbles). So a trained character will have a 20% better result on average than an untrained character. From the sounds of it there are also results that scale with rank(for example a Master at Jumping can jump further on the same check result than an untrained character can), and feats or abilities (they haven't been very specific about exactly how you get them) that allow high ranked skill users to ignore lower level tests entirely. That sounds like a fairly major difference in capacity to me.
Sure it's still all to be seen ... but it seems to me an unnecessarily complicated system you will need to have the tables in hand of what you can or can not do ... for now we can only hope.
It honestly doesn't sound significantly more complicated than PF1 skills to me. And I think any extra complication will be far outweighed by the more interesting options and play flexibility it will add to skill use. But there's not any way to know for sure until they release the playtest. I'm pretty hopeful about it though, most of what they've mentioned so far sounds fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, I believe I just refuted it entirely. So not really a question, no. In PF1 the only difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +3 bonus, and you can easily get around that with a trait. So it's barely related to class, and even that can be easily bypassed. I don't know if class skills will be a thing in PF2, but it doesn't sound like it. I'd be fine with that mechanic going away, it never really made any particular sense, just screwed Fighters more.
Again this is wrong.
In PF1 you not just get class skill, you get ranks points based on the class. For example, a rogue get 8 + int x level, precisely because the class is of primary importance in skills.Now with this system you get rank = level x each skill.
Now I'm wondering if you're happy that any level X character has a +X bonus for all craft skills, even alchemy, despite being untrained.
Should I believe that all the characters, even level 1 also had experience in all types of craft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, I believe I just refuted it entirely. So not really a question, no. In PF1 the only difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +3 bonus, and you can easily get around that with a trait. So it's barely related to class, and even that can be easily bypassed. I don't know if class skills will be a thing in PF2, but it doesn't sound like it. I'd be fine with that mechanic going away, it never really made any particular sense, just screwed Fighters more.Again this is wrong.
In PF1 you not just get class skill, you get ranks points based on the class. For example, a rogue get 8 + int x level, precisely because the class is of primary importance in skills.
Now with this system you get rank = level x each skill.Now I'm wondering if you're happy that any level X character has a +X bonus for all craft skills, even alchemy, despite being untrained.
Should I believe that all the characters, even level 1 also had experience in all types of craft?
Malk_Content answered the first part of this pretty well.
I'd like to add that you are positing that the level bonus is the same as getting free ranks every level, but that really isn't strictly true. An untrained character may have a large modifier from level, but he can only apply that to a very limited circumstance. I can understand where you're getting the idea, but skill ranks still matter, the free increase with level just represents the odd experiences with anything a high level character might have run across. Again, it's not particularly realistic, but neither was the PF1 skill system, and neither is the idea of character level at all. Personally, I like the idea of characters being broadly competent at basic tasks. It makes no sense to me that a level 20 character with no ranks in Know Arcana simply can't identify a Red Dragon.As for the second part, an Untrained level 1 character has a net -1 modifier. That doesn't cause any problems with suspension of disbelief to me. The level bonus only becomes a net positive on Untrained skills at level 3, when a character is starting to have gotten around a bit.
An Untrained level 20 character will have a +18 to Alchemy. Except I can't think of a single application of alchemy you can use Untrained, so that modifier will almost never matter. The same applies to most Craft skills. There might be one or two things you can do Untrained, but just having a modifier in Craft doesn't mean you're a Craftsman. The same is true in PF1. Every character defaults to using just their attribute modifier if they have to roll for a skill they don't have. So an Untrained PF1 character at level 1 actually has a higher modifier to Alchemy than a level 1 PF2 character. Of course there's no Alchemy tasks he can attempt Untrained, so it doesn't come up. I would assume that will likely be the case in PF2 as well.
I believe it was confirmed that there are "poor" quality items. I would assume that untrained craftsmen could make poor quality items.
That's a possibility. It may also be what results on a failed check by a Trained crafter.
|
Why would higher proficiency bonuses not allow items?Because they don't want situations in which one character will always auto succeed on a roll (note roll not task) and another will always fail on a roll (once again roll, not task) as both these outcomes make the process of rolling effectively meaningless. This is maybe okay as an edge case, but the very design of 3.5 actively promotes it. So the total amount of bonus must have an upper and lower limit, and the spread between those cannot be [much] more than 20. It seems they are already pretty much pushing that limit and thus to increase the available numbers in one area necessitates reducing them elsewhere (in order to fit in the design goal)
She may have indeed learned it from her father since childhood. Doesn’t mean he was any good at it. He could have been a lazy criminal who never got past 2nd level!
Well, there are some things I don't think are excessively clear yet.
Will we have ability modifiers added to all skills. I think that we will...so that your skill will be skill level+character level+Mod bonus.
How often will we have attribute bonuses...will it be like Pathfinder, or will we have the chance to increase on ability score every level?
If it is the ability to increase an ability score every level that means that you could have a Rogue who has a +15 greater score in Stealth than a fighter at 20th level (+4 for an 18, +2 for being an Elf ancestry, +10 for 20 increases to dexterity over 20 levels).
Add in the difference of trained and untrained..that could be close to a +18 to +20 overall difference.
I don't really care for what I've heard of the skill system thus far, but in truth, I don't know enough about all the inner details to make a judgement on how good, bad, or varied it is yet.
Add in the difference of trained and untrained..that could be close to a +18 to +20 overall difference.
I don't really care for what I've heard of the skill system thus far, but in truth, I don't know enough about all the inner details to make a judgement on how good, bad, or varied it is yet.
They haven't specified yet exactly how you'll get to these numbers, but one of the devs said, if I remember correctly, that the maximum difference between a totally unskilled and legendary at level 20 should be around 17-20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like being able to make characters who are only a little good in certain areas. For example, maybe they have one point in Profession (Baker) for roleplaying reasons, and a total bonus of +5. They're not really trying to be the world's best baker or anything - they just want to make some decent food when they put in a normal amount of effort.
Unfortunately it seems you can not do this, every skill is related to the level not to the choice of the player. We hope that after the play test, they fix it.
I'm a player but I must say I totally share the fears of the OP.
I tried skill unlocks from Pathfinder Unchained on my rogue characters and that really adds a burden on the use of skills in game, and I only had 1 or 2 skills with unlocks (so around 5 or 6 special cases on these skills).
I can't imagine what it will be in PF2 where everything (skills but also attacks and ST) will have special abilities depending on the level of proficiency you get in each).