"Expert" / "Master" should make more of a difference


Playing the Game

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.

So, looking over the classes and their proficiences, I see that a few of them get very cool abilities with their saving throws. For instance, the rogue's evasion and barbarian's juggernaut let them treat crit-fail as regular failure, and eventually failure as success.

This is great. But for the classes that don't have them, there is just not enough difference here. Most of them are "trained" in one saving throw and "expert" in two others, and this doesn't change. This means that by the end of the game, one class will have +20 to a save and the other will have... +21. And that's it. I wouldn't even notice this difference in gameplay.

The same applies to perception and weapons. Most classes are either fixed at +0 or fixed at +1 at level one, and this doesn't change and is barely discernible as different. The scale from +0 to +3 is small enough already, and now most classes are locked in a scale from +0 to +1.

So do more with this. I'd say that more classes should gain expert/mastery in various things, just not all at the same level - and then expert/mastery should just DO more, which either means doubling the bonus (come on, a +6 over 20 levels is not going to break the game) or having more feats that scale with it (like Assurance and Slow Fall do).


Agree completely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the numbers should change, but instead that you gain bonus and additional powers in associated feats.

for example of you are a master of weapons.

then feats that require you to use a weapon should give you multiple benefits. I think its' better that mastery gives you more ways to differentiate a master vs a non master, then just raw absolute power, because I agree with the overall goal of making high level play viable and workable.


Kurald Galain wrote:

This is great. But for the classes that don't have them, there is just not enough difference here. Most of them are "trained" in one saving throw and "expert" in two others, and this doesn't change. This means that by the end of the game, one class will have +20 to a save and the other will have... +21. And that's it. I wouldn't even notice this difference in gameplay.

The same applies to perception and weapons. Most classes are either fixed at +0 or fixed at +1 at level one, and this doesn't change and is barely discernible as different. The scale from +0 to +3 is small enough already, and now most classes are locked in a scale from +0 to +1.

In my groups experience, a +1 to a save, attack roll, or anything else could easily make the difference between success and failure. And that was in standard PF, where gaining a +3 bonus was an easy achievement.

It may be anecdotal, but I personally think that it's a matter of perception as well. The bonuses don't look big, but they do a lot more because of the tighter tiers of success and failure (Crit Success, Success, Failure, Crit Fail).


Mnemaxa wrote:


In my groups experience, a +1 to a save, attack roll, or anything else could easily make the difference between success and failure. And that was in standard PF, where gaining a +3 bonus was an easy achievement.

It may be anecdotal, but I personally think that it's a matter of perception as well. The bonuses don't look big, but they do a lot more because of the tighter tiers of success and failure (Crit Success, Success, Failure, Crit Fail).

A +1 can make a difference in many cases, but the point is that two character line, a savage warrion untrained in arcana and a wizard with a legendary skill have just 25% of difference in chance of success. For beyng a LEGENDARY proficient in something I think is not enought compared to some that is not even trained.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't take issue with a +1 bonus. What irks me to no end is that the World's Best Thief(tm), and Joe who reads dictionaries for a living, are separated by around +2 to +3 when it comes to Thievery.


Different ability score priorities and investments in item boosters are where the differences will show.


Luca Bancone wrote:
Mnemaxa wrote:


In my groups experience, a +1 to a save, attack roll, or anything else could easily make the difference between success and failure. And that was in standard PF, where gaining a +3 bonus was an easy achievement.

It may be anecdotal, but I personally think that it's a matter of perception as well. The bonuses don't look big, but they do a lot more because of the tighter tiers of success and failure (Crit Success, Success, Failure, Crit Fail).

A +1 can make a difference in many cases, but the point is that two character line, a savage warrion untrained in arcana and a wizard with a legendary skill have just 25% of difference in chance of success. For beyng a LEGENDARY proficient in something I think is not enought compared to some that is not even trained.

Well, the book does mention (p336) proficiency gated tasks, where the warrior simply doesn't have the opportunity to succeed (which is effectively what PF1e did, but now it's far more flexible on what is neither an auto succeed or an auto failure for half the party). Also that 25% is the difference in the chance of success, but it matters on 50% of the die rolls, because it turns a failure into a success 25% of the time and a success into a critical success (or a critical failure into a failure) 25% of the time. I'm fine with that being the power of proficiency difference, in this odd world where the fighter has the same INT as the Wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe what is supposed to happen is that high level skill feats are supposed to be gated by proficiency level. The problem with the playtest is that there are simply not enough high level skill feats. Most skill only have 1 master level and 1 legendary level skill feat. Some don't have any.

Even then, many of these feats aren't very good. Kip Up, for example, is the only master level acrobatics feat, which allows you to stand up without triggering a reaction. I see this at best as an expert level skill feat. The only legendary skill feat for acrobatics is legendary contortionist which allows you to move at full speed while squeezing. When I think of a legendary acrobat, I don't think of someone squirming through tunnels.

Now this will change once we get some more and better skill feats. What I hope is that we will get supplemental material to support high level playtesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right there with you. I think it's a system with a lot of potential. I honestly think the best way to implement it is to remove the level based bonuses altogether and increase the effect of Proficiency tiers.

Perhaps an additional +2 or even +3 for each level. Reduce the numbers overall for saves, attack bonus, AC, skills and so on, thus making the small bonuses (and penalties) gained from other places like magic items, conditional modifiers and so on, a lot more impactful.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Playing the Game / "Expert" / "Master" should make more of a difference All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Playing the Game