| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now the proficiency modifiers are too low to make it feel like an investment into them really matters.
The ability score gives a higher modifier to the roll than proficiency, so characters with a high score and a low proficiency will have a higher bonus than someone with a low score and high proficiency.
This is not really surprising based on the math.
At level 1 your proficiency modifier can go from -2 (untrained) to +1 (expert) for a total spread of 3.
Your ability modifier can go from -1 (8) up to +4 (18) for a total spread of 5.
And even at 20 the spread for proficiency is only 5 points while ability gives an 8.
Right now investing in skills to get a higher proficiency (master/legendary) feels like a waste because you only get marginally better.
I am thinking that doubling the bonuses you get from proficiency might make this better.
So it would look something like this:
Untrained -2 (right now i am not sure if is better to keep this at -2 or make it even more like -4)
Trained +0
Expert +2
Master +4
Legendary +6
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that this seems to be a problem and I even agree that your solution seems reasonable, but I have very little experience with the system (only a single session where we compleated the first part of DD that I DMed).
I think we need more hands on experience to make this call.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I might rather see a system where untrained means that you don't add your level to your proficiency modifier but don't have a penalty.
After that, I would rather see increasing levels of proficiency unlock special options rather than just having number inflation.
I agree that currently increasing levels of proficiency don't feel impressive. The jump between master and legendary doesn't feel legendary on its own. You can get some feats that do some cool stuff which upgrade as you upgrade proficiency, but I feel like you should get some of that for free just by moving up from trained to expert, more from expert to master, and even more from master to legend.
That said, I think doubling the bonuses doesn't make it feel more legendary, and with the way PF2 math has been re-balanced, I don't think it's a good idea.
I think expanded options and abilities at levels of proficiency is the best way to go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the low bonus is to keep the math for characters of the same level at a smaller variation then a d20. If you don't do that you get back to the high level issues that we have now where spells with Will saves wipe out the fighters, and Fort save take out the Wizards.
I am interested in looking at the gates. I want more of those. I want those gates to unlock at every proficiency level and then have feats that expand what is unlocked.
The entire point of skill feats being an exclusive progression is to give you the opportunity to pick the things that will make your skill feel "legendary". Those feats can't be swapped out.
Yes, theoretically you could invest in a bunch of random skill feats instead of ones you have as signature skills, but that is clearly not the intention. And I'd much rather have options than not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire point of skill feats being an exclusive progression is to give you the opportunity to pick the things that will make your skill feel "legendary". Those feats can't be swapped out.
Yes, theoretically you could invest in a bunch of random skill feats instead of ones you have as signature skills, but that is clearly not the intention. And I'd much rather have options than not.
I'd be okay with that concept, if the skill proficiency increases also granted a free skill feat at that same level, that was required to be be spent on the skill you upgraded.
I would go with
untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +5
legendary +6
And give skill training every level, rogues get 2 trainings on every even level.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I half feel that expert/master/legendary should not give any bonus to the skill.
It appears the meaning of these is supposed to be new ways to use the skill, and the (pathetic) bonus is mostly a distraction that makes people feel bad about these ranks.
That said, the 'new ways to use the skill' also seems lacking and unfinished.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not quite sure how I would fix it, but there is something deeply wrong to me about the skill system. Adding level is ok I guess, but the difference in number between the "ranks" is really not significant at higher levels at all. I understand that locking out the ability to even attempt behind those ranks may be a way to balance it out, but so far this skill system just doesn't seem "right"
one solution I have is to remove Assurance feat and tie it directly to proficiency level, but little bit different.
Tied to d20 roll only.
If trained then minimum roll on d20 is 5. Anything rolled below is treated as 5.
expert minimum is 8
Master minimum is 10
Legendary minimum is 12
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The entire point of skill feats being an exclusive progression is to give you the opportunity to pick the things that will make your skill feel "legendary". Those feats can't be swapped out.
Yes, theoretically you could invest in a bunch of random skill feats instead of ones you have as signature skills, but that is clearly not the intention. And I'd much rather have options than not.
But you might make a less than optimal choice, which obviously makes your whole character terribad and useless, and will cause you to quit and play something else once you figure it out, if they allow these options in the game.
They're just trying to protect you from yourself, Lady!!!
/sarcasm
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve not crunched the numbers to see how drastically it would affect the game, but one option would be to reduce the number required for a critical success by the bonus of the skill rank, so that a Legendary swordsman not only gets +3 to attack, but crits at AC+7. This would mean that the odds of getting a success remain the same as the rules currently allow, but there’s a shift in getting the awesome result of a critical success.
I’ve not crunched the numbers to see how drastically it would affect the game, but one option would be to reduce the number required for a critical success by the bonus of the skill rank, so that a Legendary swordsman not only gets +3 to attack, but crits at AC+7. This would mean that the odds of getting a success remain the same as the rules currently allow, but there’s a shift in getting the awesome result of a critical success.
Please no.
It's really nice that, if a DC is 16, I know the 'crit DC' is 26, and if someone gets a total 25 I can move on and not check their 'crit range'. It might not be so bad for attacks, but if I have to remember (or failing that, check) the players 'crit range' every time they almost-crit one of the many skill options, or a save, etc - that would be a right pain and slow play.
I would go with
untrained +0
trained +2
expert +4
master +5
legendary +6And give skill training every level, rogues get 2 trainings on every even level.
With the new math these bonuses are probably getting too big. In the current rules a DC 35 check looks similar to this. so this is trained 20 level+3 prof+5 item+7 ability untrained 20 level+4 ability (so this is the top end comparison)
DC 35 trained untrained
Crit fail 1 (skill feat prevents) 1-2
fail 1 3-12
success 2-11 13-19
crit success 12-20 20
So this is no challenge for the trained character and small chance of success for the untrained.
If you go up to DC 40
DC 40 trained untrained
Crit fail 1 (skill feat prevents) 1-7
fail 1-4 8-17
success 5-14 18-19
crit success 15-20 20
If you increase the legendary bonus to +6 and raise the DC to keep the trained character range the same
DC 43 trained untrained
Crit fail 1 (skill feat prevents) 1-9
fail 1-4 10-19
success 5-14 20
crit success 15-20 N/A
The issue with increasing the Proficiency bonus is that it affects other things besides skills - Attack rolls, saves, and spell DCs would also be affected. Most classes can't reach Expert or higher in armor, few classes reach Expert or higher in attacks, and while all casters reach Legendary in casting by Level 18 very few classes can reach the same level of proficiency in their saves (and even then they can't reach higher than Expert in their bad saves).
The system right now has a very tight balance. Making Proficiency more valuable is a tricky adjustment that needs more than just increased numbers. For skills specifically I think improvements to skill feats could help, and maybe either improve Assurance or grant it for free once you hit a specific proficiency (Expert, for instance). For saves the current Evasion-style mechanics work for Master and Legendary proficiency.
With regards to Proficiency on attacks and AC, I think the math shows that they're already valuable (for attacks at least, I haven't run the numbers for A.C. vs Average Creature Damage yet). Compare a Fighter and a Wizard at the levels a Fighter's proficiency increases. Give them both the same items and stats so that the only difference is the Proficiency bonus.
Level 1 Fighter: STR 16, +1 Expert, +1 Level, 1d8+3 damage
DPR vs Average Level 0 AC 13 = (65% x 7.5) + (15% x 7.5) = 6 damage
Attack 2 = (40% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 3.375 damage
Total: 9.375
DPR vs Average Level 1 AC 15 = (55% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 4.5 damage
Attack 2 = (30% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 2.625 damage
Total: 7.125
Level 1 Wizard: STR 16, +0 Trained, +1 Level, 1d8+3 damage
DPR vs Average Level 0 AC 13 = (60% x 7.5) + (10% x 7.5) = 5.25 damage
Attack 2 = (35% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 3 damage
Total: 8.25
DPR vs Average Level 1 AC 15 = (50% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 4.125 damage
Attack 2 = (25% + 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 2.25
Total: 6.375
Level 3 Fighter: STR 16, +2 Master, +1 Expert Weapon, +3 Level, 1d8+3 damage
DPR vs Average Level 2 AC 16 = (70% x 7.5) + (20% x 7.5) = 6.75 damage
Attack 2 = (45% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 3.75 damage
Total: 10.5
DPR vs Average Level 3 AC 18 = (60% x 7.5) + (10% x 7.5) = 5.25 damage
Attack 2 = (35% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 3 damage
Total: 8.25
Level 3 Wizard: STR 16, +0 Trained, +1 Expert Weapon, +3 Level, 1d8+3 damage
DPR vs Average Level 2 AC 16 = (60% x 7.5) + (10% x 7.5) = 5.25 damage
Attack 2 = (35% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 3 damage
Total: 8.25
DPR vs Average Level 3 AC 18 = (50% x 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 4.125 damage
Attack 2 = (25% + 7.5) + (5% x 7.5) = 2.25
Total: 6.375
Level 13 Fighter: STR 19, +3 Legendary, +3 Weapon Potency, +13 Level, 4d8+4 damage
DPR vs Average Level 12 AC 31 = (65% x 22) + (15% x 22) = 17.6 damage
Attack 2 = (40% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 9.9 damage
Total: 24.5
DPR vs Average Level 13 AC 33 = (55% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 13.2 damage
Attack 2 = (30% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 7.7 damage
Total: 19.9
Level 13 Wizard: STR 19, +0 Trained, +3 Weapon Potency, +13 Level, 3
4d8+4 damage
DPR vs Average Level 12 AC 31 = (50% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 12.1 damage
Attack 2 = (25% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 6.6 damage
Total: 18.7
DPR vs Average Level 13 AC 33 = (40% x 22) + (5% x x 22) = 9.9 damage
Attack 2 = (15% x 22) + (5% x 22) = 4.4 damage
Total: 14.3
Level 1 vs Level 0: 9.375 vs 8.25, 13.6% increase
Level 1 vs Level 1: 7.125 vs 6.375, 11.7% increase
Level 3 vs Level 2: 10.5 vs 8.25, 27% increase
Level 3 vs Level 3: 8.25 vs 6.375, 29.4% increase
Level 13 vs Level 12: 24.5 vs 18.7, 31% increase
Level 13 vs Level 13: 19.9 vs 14.3, 39.1% increase
It appears that the Proficiency bonus the Fighter gets ends up being worth quite a lot of damage, but the difference isn't as pronounced at lower levels due to lower average damage. Compare the two at Level 20 with fully-leveled gear to compare (+5 Potency and a +2 STR item):
Level 20 Fighter: STR 22, +3 Legendary, +5 Weapon Potency, +20 Level, 6d8+6 damage
DPR vs Average Level 19 AC 43 = (60% x 33) + (10% x 33) = 23.1 damage
Attack 2: (35% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 13.2 damage
Total: 42.9
DPR vs Average Level 20 AC 44 = (55% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 19.8 damage
Attack 2: (30% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 11.55 damage
Total: 31.35
Level 20 Wizard: STR 22, +0 Trained, +5 Weapon Potency, +20 Level, 6d8+6 damage
DPR vs Average Level 19 AC 43 = (45% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 16.5 damage
Attack 2: (20% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 8.25 damage
Total: 24.75
DPR vs Average Level 20 AC 44 = (40% x 33) + (5% x 33) = 14.85 damage
Attack 2: (15% x 33) x (5% x 33) = 6.6 damage
Total: 21.45
Level 20 vs Level 19: 42.9 vs 24.75, 75.4% increase
Level 20 vs Level 20: 31.35 vs 21.45, 46.1% increase
Note that the Fighter doesn't have the higher STR score their class allows and similarly didn't take advantage of their Proficiencies to use a weapon with higher damage dice, while by comparison the Wizard has invested a fair bit into a role their class doesn't really support. These numbers could very easily swing further in the Fighter's favor, but I wanted to even the playing field to show the value of the seemingly-minor Proficiency bonuses. It's also important to note that, while the Wizard does have access to buffs that could even the two out, those same buffs could also apply to the Fighter who already has a +5% to +15% advantage on their hit and crit chance.
one solution I have is to remove Assurance feat and tie it directly to proficiency level, but little bit different.
Tied to d20 roll only.
If trained then minimum roll on d20 is 5. Anything rolled below is treated as 5.
expert minimum is 8
Master minimum is 10
Legendary minimum is 12
You're on to something with this, but the numbers need a little tweaking IMO. Being trained in something shouldn't really mitigate you from screwing it up pretty badly. You're just adequate. How about this instead?
Untrained: Maximum die roll is 15 (or lower -- 12?)
Trained: Minimum 1, Maximum 20
Expert: Minimum 5
Master: Minimum 8
Legendary: Minimum 11 (automatic Take 11 or better)
This way you're penalized mildly for having no training at all, you get a definite benefit from having some training (you can actually make a good roll in the skill), and then you start seeing improvements in your minimum performance beyond that point.
|
Maybe you want to cap the amount of level you can add to an item based on your proficiency.
Trained caps at 5. Expert 10. Master 15. Legendary 20.
This creates a wide spread and incentivizes players to up their proficiency in things that really matter. Of course, this doesn't work with everything, but a thought that occurred.
Have fun with that thought, or not. :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember most character get 3 skills that could possibly be raised to Legendary and that doing so to all three means the vast majority of your skills are going to be untrained. Anything that stretches the numbers too far means every character at high levels is going to be able to do a maximum of 3 things well, and everything else is going to be trash. We will be back to people in armor never being able to move stealthily with the rogue, or even within hearing range of the rogue because they will be so far behind.
Personally, I don't like the idea of my level 20 character being able to do 3 things well and be terrible at everything else.
Clearly what we are looking for in a game is just not compatible. I like that characters are different. The higher level you get, the more different they become. Yup. Good.You want your full plate paladin to be sneaking next to the rogue? What's the point being a rogue then? Or, for that matter, being a paladin?
Are you implying that there isn't a difference between the level 8 rogue's +15 (probably more, with item bonuses) and the full plate paladin's +3?
At least the paladin might have a chance in this (because the rogue can reduce their penalties with Quiet Allies for a +5) instead of literally everyone hearing them as soon as they go anywhere.
Stealth and scouting isn't fun for anyone but that person, because when only one person can do that thing, they then get to have a solo adventure mid-session. That, or they're not allowed to do that, and then all their proficiency in that is wasted.
We will be back to people in armor never being able to move stealthily with the rogue
For me that is absolutely a design goal!
The rogue should be significantly better at sneaking than a heavily armoured character.
That's kind of the entire point of being a sneaky scout type!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue (or invisible wizard) scouting far ahead is a wonderful solo story to explore on your own, but in live play where you have three other players sitting around on their hands while the rogue goes ahead is not as much fun. It also often leads to the rogue ending up too far ahead and getting themselves killed, probably outside of the range where the party will even know it happens.
At a live table, that doesn't work out very well and isn't good game design. A rogue is significantly better at stealth than an armored character, as demonstrated by
Cyouni. But the difference is not so high that the rogue is going to steam roll over 90 percent of the enemies and then get found out by a boss deep behind enemy lines.
Balancing a game around the shadowdancer playing 30% of the game and the Barbarian playing 30% of the game is setting the game up for failure.
The way that initiative and encounter mode work in PF2, Fluff, it very well be the case that the fundamental design is not set up to play the collaborative solo adventure game that you enjoy playing.
I am thinking that doubling the bonuses you get from proficiency might make this better.
So it would look something like this:
Untrained -2 (right now i am not sure if is better to keep this at -2 or make it even more like -4)
Trained +0
Expert +2
Master +4
Legendary +6
I just played a level 10 game and most of the checks were untrained, basically it was completely random on whether the fighter or Wizard was successful, even in their so-called "specialty". It's a game of flip a coin.
I don't mind that skills are more bounded. Having said that, a "MASTER" at a skill shouldn't just be marginally (10%) better than someone with basic training. Honestly I could go even higher than 20%.
But maybe the problem is that the skill feats are so underwhelming. If they were better, on average, maybe a rank of expert or master would mean more.
I think I might rather see a system where untrained means that you don't add your level to your proficiency modifier but don't have a penalty.
After that, I would rather see increasing levels of proficiency unlock special options rather than just having number inflation.
I agree that currently increasing levels of proficiency don't feel impressive. The jump between master and legendary doesn't feel legendary on its own. You can get some feats that do some cool stuff which upgrade as you upgrade proficiency, but I feel like you should get some of that for free just by moving up from trained to expert, more from expert to master, and even more from master to legend.
That said, I think doubling the bonuses doesn't make it feel more legendary, and with the way PF2 math has been re-balanced, I don't think it's a good idea.
I think expanded options and abilities at levels of proficiency is the best way to go.
So this is the answer. Agree 100%.
At expert and higher levels, maybe you should get things that are currently feats.
I'd like it if proficiency increased by 2 (or higher), but maybe that would break the math too much. Automatic benefits and good (gated) skill feats would also do the trick however.
I'm unsure about increasing the numerical bonus proficiencies give due to 2E's tighter math, but I agree that something needs to be done to make the higher proficiencies feel special.
Currently, proficiency gives small numerical bonus and allows skills access to some proficiency-gated skill feats. Other proficiencies (armor, spells, weapons) seem to give nothing but the small numerical bonus - often at a much later level than skills. I'd say that all proficiencies should automatically give something beyond just the +bonus.
For example, I'd love to see weapon crit specializations being gained with weapon proficiency rather than being tied to ancestry/class. Armor proficiency could let you lower some of the penalties/restrictions associated with armor as you got more used to wearing it. And spell proficiency feels like it needs to be completely redone, as every spellcaster gets it at the exact same progression (seemingly at the cost of class feats) with the only benefit being +1s. While I've heard this is necessary to balance with the progression of enemy saves - a new edition is the only time you have the ability to rebalance things like that, and saying "lose a class feature to keep up with numbers," is a slap in the face that no class should have to put up with.
Compared to the ability modifier, the level modifier, and the spread of numbers on a d20 roll, the proficiency modifier is minuscule. An extra +1 doesn't mathematically represent the logical differences between these levels of proficiency.
The whole point of classes is to make some characters good in some things, yet lacking in other areas. This makes the group have synergy, where other characters make up for others weaknesses.
With this system, the legendary skill is only +3 better than the trained skill, which is only marginally better. Depending on the d20 rolls, the trained person will often score better than the legendary person.
The math of the system should make the legendary skill nearly always better than the trained skill.
Untrained skills getting the whole character level bonus, is silly too. Untrained skills should maybe get half the level bonus, at best.
