Skill proficiency and level scaling

[Alebasco]

Many people (myself included) have expressed concern in the new skill system for PF2. In particular there are two major complaints

1) Taking a level of proficiency only adds 1 more to your rolls. This makes taking a level of proficiency not feel all that great.
2) An untrained high level is abnormally good at tasks they have no training in, when compared to a low level expert.

I purpose the following house rule, and would like your thoughts on it!

House rule in visual form! https://postimg.cc/image/8zlch6fvb/

If enough people like it, perhaps they will consider a variant option.

Untrained = 0
Trained = 1/4 level + 2
Expert = 1/2 level + 3
Master = 3/4 level + 4
Legendary = level + 4

Instead of doing the math, you would simply consult the chart linked above!

The goal was to make the step between each level greater, while keeping the max modifiers near RAW. This will make each level of proficiency matter, while keeping the balance in check.. More or Less.

Let me know what you think! Especially if you do the math and have some better numbers!

[Joe Mucchiello]

I don't know if should be that extreme. But something should be done to make skill mastery feel more special.

Weren't there supposed to be skill "functions" that could only be done with "expert" or "master"? They seem to not be in the pt book.

[Joe Mucchiello]

Oh, and look at athletics and acrobatics. Somehow the Grab maneuver is found there and nerfing the lower level parts of that would make Grab kind of wonky, probably.

[Alebasco]

Joe Mucchiello wrote:

I don't know if should be that extreme. But something should be done to make skill mastery feel more special.

Weren't there supposed to be skill "functions" that could only be done with "expert" or "master"? They seem to not be in the pt book.

Seems like currently only trained unlocks skill uses.

Higher profs just unlock more feat options.

Lastly the GM can choose to make something have a proficiency prereq to attempt a skill check - such as a difficult trap require expert to even attempt to disarm it.

None of that feels good to me.

[Igor Horvat]

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

[Alebasco]

Igor Horvat wrote:

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

The problem here is the the upper end bonuses are no where near the content design of +20, which means no one, even your experts will be able to do the challenges.

[Alebasco]

Igor Horvat wrote:

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

The problem here is the the upper end bonuses are no where near the content design of +23, which means no one, even your most skilled people will be able to do the challenges.

[Igor Horvat]

Alebasco wrote:

Igor Horvat wrote:

I would do away with +1 per level all together.

Untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +6
legendary +8

maybe,just maybe add +1 per 5 levels.

The problem here is the the upper end bonuses are no where near the content design of +23, which means no one, even your most skilled people will be able to do the challenges.

then reduce the highend chalenges DCs.

easy.

[Bardarok]

That changes the whole scaling of the game. It makes high level threats much less dangerous to low level PCs and NPCs and similarly low level threats are much more dangerous to high level PCs and NPCs. That puts them in direct competition with DnD 5e's scaling and if they don't offer something different they will loose out to the name brand completely. They need an individualized niche to distinguish Pathfinder as a separate game and higher scaling is part of that.

[Voss]

Pass. Not the place (or time) for house rules.