| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people have expressed... *ahem* strong opinions on the new proficiency system, and in particular, the fact that a character's level contributes so much automatically. They find it strange, for example, that a high level Fighter who has no training or inclination to the arcane should have an automatically much higher skill with it than a low level Wizard who has put all their effort into that area. Of course, a Fighter might show an interest in the arcane as they battle magical and mythical creatures, but if so they'd be expected to put at least one or two points into it to represent that.
I'm prepared to wait and see the real thing before deciding for certain, but I'd say I'm not entirely convinced. I worry that players will see little benefit from advancing proficiency when the +1 bonus from it is so much smaller than the automatic bonus from level. The difference of +1 to +20 is just so much bigger than the difference from -2 to +3. "Yeah, I could upgrade Acrobatics, but it'll go up anyway next level so what difference does it make?"
Proficiency levels are about more than just numbers, of course. They're also a gate for certain uses of a skill or ability, and for things like skill feats. You need reach a certain point in your training before you can pick up the cool stuff. But that just means you have a two-step gate in the way of the cool stuff, where the first step feels wasted. It's reminiscent of deep feat chains, something I think we all want rid of.
Some have suggested big changes to the numbers, such as multiplying the level by a different figure, or applying half level but +2 for each proficiency level. And regardless of the merits of those suggestions, we can be certain that Paizo isn't going to listen to them because it would mean throwing away all the work they've done and rethinking the maths for basically everything in the whole game.
So here's my proposal: exactly the same as the system Paizo have outlined, but put a cap on the level bonus based on proficiency level.
For example, it might read:
UNTRAINED: Add your level up to 4, but subtract 2.
TRAINED: Add your level up to 8.
EXPERT: Add your level up to 12, and add +1.
MASTER: Add your level up to 16, and add +2.
LEGENDARY: Add your level up to 20, and add +3.
For a character's core proficiencies - swinging a sword for a Fighter, casting spells for a Wizard, finding traps for a Rogue, etc - this change would make no difference at all. They would take the proficiency soon enough that the level bonus would be uninterrupted.
But for off skills - Knowledge (history), Profession (chef), etc - it stops the automatic progression from reaching too high. And when a high level character does up their proficiency in an off skill, they get a nice boost to it.
This way higher level characters are inherently better at things, which is what the system is aiming for, but they still see a real advantage for each step of proficiency.
Thoughts?
|
One explicit design goal of this system is that there will be no more than a total +19 difference between the best and worst 20th level characters, so that there are no checks that are automatic for one PC and an auto-failure for another. There's already a 17 or 18 point difference at that level (per Mark Seifter).
This suggestion would go completely counter to that, and thus will not, and should not, be adopted.
No, I'm pretty convinced that the solution to the 'Wizard with +18 Athletics and Fighter with +18 Occultism' problem (and it is a problem), is strict Trained Only uses on most skills, with things like actual magical knowledge or climbing sheer cliffs without gear only available to Trained users. This is already explicit with Occultism, I believe, with them saying that all you get untrained is Monster Knowledge and recognizing spells (ie: the stuff a 20th level character can easily have picked up with no formal training).
Well, your suggestion is not bad, but it completely counters their goal of "even an untrained character can try to do stuff and has at least a realistic (even if not high) chance of success".
I personally don't mind a level 20 fighter having more experience with magic than a level 1 wizard. After all, he reached level 20 by encountering all kinds of spells, magical effects, dragons and so on. A wizard trained in spellcraft will still have some abilities an untrained fighter lacks. Maybe you have to be at least trained to identify a spell as it's being cast or stuff like that. I hope those unlocks will make a much bigger difference than the 5 point difference between untrained and legendary.
I dont mind the high level fighter knowing more about magic than the level 1 wizard either, as long as she invested in it. The automatically gets better part sticks in the craw a bit. So now the system requires proficiency gating too, which just feels like extra work for the GM. IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm pretty convinced that the solution to the 'Wizard with +18 Athletics and Fighter with +18 Occultism' problem (and it is a problem), is strict Trained Only uses on most skills, with things like actual magical knowledge or climbing sheer cliffs without gear only available to Trained users. This is already explicit with Occultism, I believe, with them saying that all you get untrained is Monster Knowledge and recognizing spells (ie: the stuff a 20th level character can easily have picked up with no formal training).
One of the most important things about table-top RPGs, as opposed to computer games, board games or any other such game, is the wide open possibilities. Players can and will come up with ideas that nobody has ever thought of before, and should be free to pursue them - even if they're stupidly unlikely to succeed. The most important thing a GM can do to encourage creativity is to get into the habit of letting players try things.
Player: "I'm going to tell the dragon that we're official gold inspectors, so it should show us straight to its hoard. Can I do that?"
GM: "Well, you can try. It's going to be a pretty tough sell, though. Roll it."
Gated abilities run counter to that, because they mean players can't even try a thing. This makes sense for the cool abilities that are above the norm, but shouldn't be used to hinder perfectly ordinary but difficult tasks.
So yes, gated abilities have their place in the system, but I don't think they're a complete solution to the problem of implausible automatic awesomeness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, your suggestion is not bad, but it completely counters their goal of "even an untrained character can try to do stuff and has at least a realistic (even if not high) chance of success".
I personally don't mind a level 20 fighter having more experience with magic than a level 1 wizard. After all, he reached level 20 by encountering all kinds of spells, magical effects, dragons and so on. A wizard trained in spellcraft will still have some abilities an untrained fighter lacks. Maybe you have to be at least trained to identify a spell as it's being cast or stuff like that. I hope those unlocks will make a much bigger difference than the 5 point difference between untrained and legendary.
A high level Fighter who's been paying attention to what they've been fighting, memorising common traits and understanding their enemies, should represent that by investing at least one point in it.
A high level Wizard who can also use a sword to defend themselves and has been doing a bit of sword practice once a week, should represent that by investing at least one point in it.
A high level Wizard who thinks physical weapons are stupid, or a Fighter who only cares about drinking and whoring and killing things, didn't invest those points.
|
|
One of the most important things about table-top RPGs, as opposed to computer games, board games or any other such game, is the wide open possibilities. Players can and will come up with ideas that nobody has ever thought of before, and should be free to pursue them - even if they're stupidly unlikely to succeed. The most important thing a GM can do to encourage creativity is to get into the habit of letting players try things.
Sure, but if it's something never tried before, that's unlikely to be locked behind trained only, y'know? It's a weird unique thing, not a standard usage. And, by your system, if you're untrained these aren't a real option since you have, like, a +4 in them at 20th...while in the official version you have a +18, and thus can actually succeed with such plans in theory.
The automatic bonus thing enables this style of play rather strongly, really.
Player: "I'm going to tell the dragon that we're official gold inspectors, so it should show us straight to its hoard. Can I do that?"
GM: "Well, you can try. It's going to be a pretty tough sell, though. Roll it."
That's, like, the most basic possible use of Deception. Something anyone can do. And would thus not be locked at all in any game. And definitely something that a 20th level character should've improved at drastically over a 1st level one.
Gated abilities run counter to that, because they mean players can't even try a thing. This makes sense for the cool abilities that are above the norm, but shouldn't be used to hinder perfectly ordinary but difficult tasks.
I'm having a hard time thinking of anything that high level people should be able to attempt, but only have a +4 bonus to trying. Can you give me an example or three?
So yes, gated abilities have their place in the system, but I don't think they're a complete solution to the problem of implausible automatic awesomeness.
I honestly think they are as long as things where it's actually implausible are gated.
They find it strange, for example, that a high level Fighter who has no training or inclination to the arcane should have an automatically much higher skill with it than a low level Wizard who has put all their effort into that area. Of course, a Fighter might show an interest in the arcane as they battle magical and mythical creatures, but if so they'd be expected to put at least one or two points into it to represent that.
A level 20 Fighter won’t be able to cast spells, unless they invest feats or other available class resources into being able to cast spells, so that’s not really an issue. They may know enough about the occult or magic from their experience living and fighting alongside such things for so long and thus will have a higher roll on basic stuff, but unless they increase their proficiency they won’t have a lot of the same uses out of their skills that a Wizard does in those areas. Someone untrained in Arcane Lore would probably be able to tell that something is magic to a very sure degree with a +20 bonus, but what Spell was used and how to undo it would be beyond their scope. Proficiency is more than a bonus or penalty, it is the level of ability as well.
I'm prepared to wait and see the real thing before deciding for certain, but I'd say I'm not entirely convinced. I worry that players will see little benefit from advancing proficiency when the +1 bonus from it is so much smaller than the automatic bonus from level. The difference of +1 to +20 is just so much bigger than the difference from -2 to +3. "Yeah, I could upgrade Acrobatics, but it'll go up anyway next level so what difference does it make?"
If they are getting proficiency ranks every other level, why would they even need to weight the pros and cons like that? There is no drawback to using their proficiency increases, so if they have a skill they are using they will increase that without needing to deliberate.
[Quotte]Proficiency levels are about more than just numbers, of course. They're also a gate for certain uses of a skill or ability, and for things like skill feats. You need reach a certain point in your training before you can pick up the cool stuff. But that just means you have a two-step gate in the way of the cool stuff, where the first step feels wasted. It's reminiscent of deep feat chains, something I think we all want rid of.
If the first step is automatic and doesn’t use any other resource than what you are automatically getting, it’s not really a waste.
On the numbers, I really can’t comment on what will be better or not until we get all of the math.
Well, your suggestion is not bad, but it completely counters their goal of "even an untrained character can try to do stuff and has at least a realistic (even if not high) chance of success".
I personally don't mind a level 20 fighter having more experience with magic than a level 1 wizard. After all, he reached level 20 by encountering all kinds of spells, magical effects, dragons and so on. A wizard trained in spellcraft will still have some abilities an untrained fighter lacks. Maybe you have to be at least trained to identify a spell as it's being cast or stuff like that. I hope those unlocks will make a much bigger difference than the 5 point difference between untrained and legendary.
A high level Fighter who's been paying attention to what they've been fighting, memorising common traits and understanding their enemies, should represent that by investing at least one point in it.
A high level Wizard who can also use a sword to defend themselves and has been doing a bit of sword practice once a week, should represent that by investing at least one point in it.
A high level Wizard who thinks physical weapons are stupid, or a Fighter who only cares about drinking and whoring and killing things, didn't invest those points.
I don't agree.
So, a Wizard who didn't care about dodging blows and surviving bad treatments of any kind shouldn't gain any HP past those she started with: she didn't invest into them, did she?A lvl 20 character is almost a demigod, there's no point in comparing her to any newbie adventurer in any possible way: she's got way too much experience on her side.
My thoughts are that this runs almost completely counter to the proficiency system. You'd be better off just scrapping it entirely and coming up with something else.
I vastly prefer what they are doing in 2e. You can already roleplay a barbarian with no interest in magic (most of the time). Somebody else in the party of 20th level adventurers is probably going to make the check every time. If the barbarian ever needs to make the check, be ready with a montage if the roll was successful. I think the proposed system *will* have a little more swinginess at 20th level than +5, though, when you throw in ability score (at least +5 between barbarian and wizard) and, maybe, skill feats.
One of the best ways of making higher levels of proficiency feel meaningfully different is already available in PF2... but it's currently locked behind a feat tax, and I think it should just be baked into the proficiency tiers. Namely, the feat the devs keep mentioning that lets you autosucceed on rolls up to DC X, where X increases with your level and proficiency rank.
Just make that a default part of going up to Expert / Master / Legend, and I think a lot of people would immediately be happier.
|
A high level Fighter who's been paying attention to what they've been fighting, memorising common traits and understanding their enemies, should represent that by investing at least one point in it.
I do that a lot with my martials.
It usually ends up being pretty pointless because one or two points in a Knowledge skill that might not be a class skill, on a character that probably doesn't have more than a +1 Int bonus... does not amount to much. I basically have a [I]chance[\i] to aid another for another party member who doesn't usually need the +2.
In order to get a bonus with any practical relevance, I need to invest a significant fraction of my limited points. That cannot happen with skills the character takes only a casual interest in.