Hot take of the day: Skills shouldn't scale with level. At all.


Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No automatically scaling proficiency bonus. No level-to-level increases by skill ranks. Nothing. If you don't touch a skill between level 1 and level 20 it should be the exact same. Now that I've got your attention, please put your pitchforks down and hear me out.

As it stands, the only differences between an untrained person and a specialist of the same level (which should be every party) are Proficiency, Ability Score, and Magic/Item bonuses. Level-to-skill, then, only applies when determining your likelihood of succeeding at a given check. A level 15 character is much more likely to succeed at scaling a wall than a level 5 character. My question is... why?

I've seen the reasoning behind proficiency scaling with level. I even agree with it. I like the power fantasy of a badass character wiping the floor with a swarm of lower level characters because they're so much more experienced. So having attacks, AC, spell DCs, and saving throws all just automatically scale with level makes sense to me. But having skill checks and skill DCs scaling with level doesn't, as much.

Taking out level based scaling altogether puts more emphasis on training and ability score. Right now, the highest innate difference in bonuses you can get from a skill is +17 (difference of 5 from training, 8 from ability scores (8 vs. 24), and 4 from an item). That difference of 17 is going to feel a lot more impactful when is a -3 vs. +14 bonus, rather than 17 vs. 34, especially when you're still running into the same DCs for comparable challenges that you were nineteen levels ago and they're still relevant to both of you. Furthermore, it makes all those little bonuses matter that much more. Every point you manage to acquire to improve your skill bonus isn't just another improvement against equal level things, where lower level things you now likely disregard anyway. It makes you better at everything related to the skill, from opening the tough little lockbox you found in that first level dungeon to cracking the king's secret vault open at level 15.

And honestly, I think the most prominent thing it will do is let Paizo keep their desire to keep bonus disparity tight, without forcing a sense of constant improvement on every single thing for every single character, whether they want to or not. It makes progression and specialization feel like progression and specialization, and not just like a checkbox. It makes improvement in skills a choice, rather than an assumption. And most importantly, most importantly of all, it puts an end to (or at least severely limits) the idea that beating up goblins in the wilderness for three weeks with no library access makes you better at anything unrelated to beating up goblins.


Well, first off DCs don't scale with level. It's just that "what will challenge a character of a given level" is a moving target and generally GMs and adventure writers want players to be appropriately challenged.But just like how a level 20 party can go and wipe the floor with some level 1 orcs if that's what they really want a level 20 rogue can go pick some easy locks if that's what they want. If the PCs have a hideout from which they run their secret organization, and there is a tree in the courtyard the DC to climb that tree will always be the same.

But I like the idea that in the course of adventuring my character will pick up basic things about tasks outside of their purview. Like no level 15 character stands the risk of drowning if they fall out of a boat on a still pond, and every level 12 character can climb a rope, and everybody past a certain level can tell the difference between a dragon, a vampire, and an ooze. Having these things not be true regardless of what a player chooses to invest in just makes our mighty heroes seem incompetent and ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
But I like the idea that in the course of adventuring my character will pick up basic things about tasks outside of their purview. Like no level 15 character stands the risk of drowning if they fall out of a boat on a still pond, and every level 12 character can climb a rope, and everybody past a certain level can tell the difference between a dragon, a vampire, and an ooze. Having these things not be true regardless of what a player chooses to invest in just makes our mighty heroes seem incompetent and ridiculous.

Honestly, those are things that I'm of the mind any adventurer regardless of level should be able to do. Basic swimming, easy climbing, being able to identify that that's a dragon, this is a skeleton, and that's a vampire, shouldn't be rolls to begin with.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole paradigm of higher DCs meaning more challenging challenges is just fundamentally broken as a concept. Take Catching the Edge when you might fall off of something. As you level, your Athletics gets better and consequently you are able to hit higher and higher DCs, so the DCs go up. Now according to the game's logic this is never supposed to be an arbitrary thing but reflect increasingly challenging circumstances that make the heroes' accomplishment that much more impressive. That just makes the GM of a game responsible for narrating the ridiculous consequences of bad mechanics. So, what? A first level edge around a pit is normal, but at 10th level every ledge is on fire and covered in spikes? You swim a river at first level--and end up in that same river at level 14, does it now have a firehose level current and 50' waves?

You want to know why people think high level play is cornier than a Marvel superheroes movie? It's this fake idea that challenges have to get artificially ratcheted up every level in order to chase some fake mechanical curve. I don't hate the idea that high level characters are maybe still challenged by climbing a cliff, the same as they were as 1st level characters and that maybe fighting a dragon is hard no matter what level you are, and fighting goblins is never THAT hard, but that it doesn't become so inconsequential that by third level the entire race disappears off the face of the planet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why every ledge needs to be on fire and covered in spikes, nor do I see anything that suggests that I would need or want to make every ledge behave this way.

Like if I want grabbing the ledge to be hard (possibly because someone in the diagesis wanted this), I can make it hard but I figure most DCs should be subject to "what kind of a thing it is" and have no bearing on player level, which is how I've been running it honestly.

Like I would expect a 10th level character to just auto-succeed on "grab a ledge" unless the circumstances are exceptional, because mighty heroes do not often fall in holes and die. How people are interpreting the DC chart is just baffling to me because I don't see it like that at all.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
How people are interpreting the DC chart is just baffling to me because I don't see it like that at all.

They're interpreting it like that because:

1) No flat DCs are listed for the various, common uses of nearly every skill. A handful of skills have some DCs listed here and there, but for the most part no DCs are listed
2) A good half of the skills that say anything about the DCs for tasks leave it "up to the GM" or "against the enemy/target's Xyz DC" (which is level based)
3) The rules for a GM are "see table 10-2"

page 142 wrote:

Sometimes the DC of the skill check is listed in the skill’s

use itself. Other times, the GM sets the DC of the skill
check, using the guidelines in Chapter 10: Game Mastering.

So skill tasks break down into the following categories:

No DCs given
Balance
Grab Edge
Maintain balance
Squeeze
Maneuver in Flight
Break Open

DCs based on level (one way or another; typically "the monster's X DC")
Escape (from a Grapple)
Tumble Through
Break Grapple
Grapple
Shove
Create a Diversion
Lie
Feint
Make an Impression
Coerce ("modified by the circumstances at the GM’s discretion")
Demoralize

Literally just says "determined by GM"
Recall Knowledge
Read Magic
Climb
Repair
Craft
Gather Information
Request (of a friendly creature)

Actually listed (whether fixed, specific table, or otherwise)
Borrow an Arcane Spell
Identify Magic
High Jump
Long Jump
Identify Alchemy

Other
Impersonate (the enemy rolls against your Deception DC; still level based)

(And that takes us up through the Intimidate skill)


Then we're back to the problem in 1e, where if a whole party has to do something and someone is terrible at it, the party fails. (Stealth at level 17 with my Cleric's comical -4 total modifier comes to mind.)

That leads to leaving people out, as only one person can even attempt to do things without being a hinderance. This new system mitigates that, as the gap between the top and bottom will be there, but it will never be a 40 point spread anymore. It also helps you when you do something that's easier for your level, as you'll now be competent at it.

From where I'm sitting, that aspect is working fairly well.


The simple way around this is that you should progress at 1:1 if you're Trained, and less than that (half?) if Untrained. Plus the numeric bonus. Then characters won't all feel the same, that training actually means something and the GM can put in some mundane challenges at higher levels that don't require flaming spikes.

Seriously, if a clumsy cleric in clanking metal is trying to Stealth past the elite drow sentries at 17th level and he's never been trained in it, he should be cheating by using magic. Or how else did he get to 17th level?

And if he does want to be stealthy, he can drop a feat on it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see anything wrong with the system at all. People get better at skills all the time. Every time you do something you get better at it. Every experience, every pit fall, everything. Heroes should work even beyond that. They learn quickly, adapt quickly, that's why they're heroes. Take your example of beating up goblins in the woods for 3 weeks. I'm pretty sure I can give a answer to almost every reason a characters skills could go up doing only that.

Acrobatics
Having to trudge through the wilderness and over many physical obstacles have made you naturally more sure footed. No more tripping over roots for you.

Arcana
The Goblins fire throwers would constantly attack you with their magics, observing them before and during battle gave you more insight into their Arcane ways.

Athletics
The constant wear and tear of the road and made you grittier and more used to the rough ways the wilderness.

Crafting
The long trek did a number on your boots and mundane gear. You eventually figured out how to repair these inconveniences lest they drive you mad in your journey.

Deception
A group of weary travelers stayed with your party for the night. They taught you a game called who's the liar. It taught you a thing or two about mistruths... And how to spread some of your own.

I mean honestly I could go on but it just makes sense. Your characters are living people in a world. Their experiences change them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with the system at all. People get better at skills all the time. Every time you do something you get better at it.

See also: the desert hedgewitch who's never seen more than a gallon of water at one time getting on a boat. She's now a wizzened old woman and level 15.

How well can she swim?

If your answer is "Like a rock" then you'd be wrong (according to the rules as written: She has a +15 to her Athletics skill because reasons).


I figure the desert hedgewitch can swim because she's too ornery to die like this. Swimming acumen borne out of pure spite "I spent my entire life worrying about 'not enough water' and this is how I go out? Not going to happen."

But, if you really want your character to have be utterly clueless/incompetent about something, you can always elect to not roll. Choosing to roll represents "I will put everything I have learned into accomplishing this task."


FedoraFerret wrote:
No automatically scaling proficiency bonus. No level-to-level increases by skill ranks. Nothing. If you don't touch a skill between level 1 and level 20 it should be the exact same. Now that I've got your attention, please put your pitchforks down and hear me out.

This is a tempting idea, and I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo considered it.

However, it prevents skill bonuses and skill checks from interacting directly with other modifiers, as in the case of abilities that might allow you to substitute an Acrobatics check for your AC against an attack, or force an opponent to make a Will save whose DC is set by your Intimidate or Perform skill.

Of course, bounded numbers have become increasingly popular in RPG design (as in 5e and Shadow of the Demon Lord) for reasons much like the ones you give. I really like this trend, but it's one that Paizo intentionally decided to opt out of, evidently largely in order to keep Pathfinder thematically distinct from these other games.


FedoraFerret wrote:
No automatically scaling proficiency bonus. No level-to-level increases by skill ranks. Nothing. If you don't touch a skill between level 1 and level 20 it should be the exact same. Now that I've got your attention, please put your pitchforks down and hear me out.

I'm not really a fan of it either.

Having said that, it's one of the premises of the new game to "make it better", so whatever argument you have, I don't think you're going to win it.

The way PF2 does skills has me going back to 3E, where so every skill point you spent you got 1/2 in any skills that were not class skills, and +1 in your class skills. Although PF1 made it simpler, 3E had it right.

Anyway, automatic progression of skills is livable, there are more important problems, but I'd like more static DCs.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure the desert hedgewitch can swim because she's too ornery to die like this. Swimming acumen borne out of pure spite "I spent my entire life worrying about 'not enough water' and this is how I go out? Not going to happen."

But, if you really want your character to have be utterly clueless/incompetent about something, you can always elect to not roll. Choosing to roll represents "I will put everything I have learned into accomplishing this task."

If I ignore the rules to do what I want, why have the rules?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UncleG wrote:
If I ignore the rules to do what I want, why have the rules?

The rules in a roleplaying game are like the special effects in a movie. Bad mechanics give cheesy, distracting results which are the wobbly cardboard sets and 90s CGI of gaming. Good rules make you feel like you're immersed in a consistent world that no matter what you want to try and do, there's a solid mechanic to let you know how to try and do it--and how it works out.

Rules don't exist for rules sake. There are times when they get in the way. There's times when after running a game for a while with a like minded group you all discover a better, more satisfying, way to handle a rule: armor as damage reduction instead of making you harder to hit, basing hit points on ancestry instead of class, what have you. If the rules you use get you closer to your objective of creating a believable world that behaves according to your expectations with a minimum of fuss, the rules are doing what they're supposed to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I figure the desert hedgewitch can swim because she's too ornery to die like this. Swimming acumen borne out of pure spite "I spent my entire life worrying about 'not enough water' and this is how I go out? Not going to happen."

But, if you really want your character to have be utterly clueless/incompetent about something, you can always elect to not roll. Choosing to roll represents "I will put everything I have learned into accomplishing this task."

Not rolling is the same as pretending to not be good at something. Regardless if you roll or not it doesn't change the fact that if you did roll you would easily succeed at something that your character has no reason to be good at.

When you are fully in control of your character that's one thing, but what about when you're not?

What if that same hedgewitch gets hit with a charm spell and is compelled to swim across a raging rapid in order to attack a fellow party member?

The player could protest that their character doesn't know how to swim, but unless swimming has occurred many times before now, this will come across as meta gaming more than anything else. The roll gets made and the hedgewitch crosses the rapid effortlessly.

Some people like to play characters who are good at everything. Other people like to play characters who are good at only a few things. This system caters to the 1st kind of player with no regard for the second kind, since the illusion is broken once a player is "forced" to stop pretending that they are bad at something.


LordKailas wrote:


When you are fully in control of your character that's one thing, but what about when you're not?

What if that same hedgewitch gets hit with a charm spell and is compelled to swim across a raging rapid in order to attack a fellow party member?

The player could protest that their character doesn't know how to swim, but unless swimming has occurred many times before now, this will come across as meta gaming more than anything else. The roll gets made and the hedgewitch crosses the rapid effortlessly.

Charm doesn't work that way and Dominate has a built in counter against self destructive orders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ultimatecalibur wrote:
Charm doesn't work that way and Dominate has a built in counter against self destructive orders.

You're missing the point.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That level bonus is a general experience factor that applies to nearly every d20 roll. Its purpose is to keep everything on the same scale so that things that could not be directly compared in PF1 can be directly compared in PF2.

So, if you want to eliminate the level bonus for skills, you should also eliminate it from everything else and have all relevant rolls scale only from resources deliberately chosen to boost them.


David knott 242 wrote:

That level bonus is a general experience factor that applies to nearly every d20 roll. Its purpose is to keep everything on the same scale so that things that could not be directly compared in PF1 can be directly compared in PF2.

So, if you want to eliminate the level bonus for skills, you should also eliminate it from everything else and have all relevant rolls scale only from resources deliberately chosen to boost them.

I've seen arguments along these lines before and it doesn't make sense. As you point out it applies to "nearly" every d20 roll. Why can't skills be one of the exceptions?

Having skills work differently isn't going to break the system. It's easy enough to just have a statement like "when casting a spell that uses a skill check, add your proficiency bonus to the check". Let the things that make sense to scale with level scale and have the things that don't make sense don't.

The clumsy fighter can't stealth, so the wizard throws a spell on the fighter that allows them to stealth competently with the rest of the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


So, if you want to eliminate the level bonus for skills, you should also eliminate it from everything else and have all relevant rolls scale only from resources deliberately chosen to boost them.

I'd prefer that to having to live with the current skill system as is.

But as LordKailas pointed out, It's not an either or. Skills could ( and in my opinion should ) be an exception.


David knott 242 wrote:
So, if you want to eliminate the level bonus for skills, you should also eliminate it from everything else and have all relevant rolls scale only from resources deliberately chosen to boost them.

Or you could just eliminate it everywhere and you'd end up with 5E.

Liberty's Edge

Hot take? More like a Cold Give.

So you're saying that the most INSANELY difficult task that a Legendary PC can accomplish (Ex. Jumping 25+ Feet vertically, grabbing a slick Iron Wall, and avoiding Falling Rocks all at the same time) will at MOST have a DC of 30-32? That's just out of this world bonkers and LITERALLY makes all difficult Skill challenges rely on high level PCs rolling a 19-20 to accomplish a task. At this point Paizo would have to start pumping out tons of Wondrous Items that bring back the +2-+5 Bonus to Skill Checks to make this feasible at the table, which simply takes us back to the X-Mas Tree problem.

If you'd like to lower the bar a bit more to make it more reasonable you end up with DCs in the Range of 25-27, which a 1st Level PC can make happen if they're lucky and have help, simply put, another unreasonable reading of how things should work.

If you'd like to take away the +Level to Skills that are Untrained however, that's something I can get behind, but suggesting it be removed entirely is willfully ignorant of how much it would destroy the entire game balance and dredge up old problems that PF1 suffered from.

Liberty's Edge

Perhaps the problem is that specific expertise is more gate than modifier. That requires a lot of rules bulk to make expertise worthwhile overall, and for a fresh start, simpler is better.

I'd prefer that expertise work better that a Guidance cantrip.

Skills don't have to work identically to weapon use and saves, but making it similar has merits. What if you just double the specific expertise modifier, for skills (-4 to +6)? Would Triple upset the game balance all that much?


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Combat maneuvers would be one of the things that would have to be redone if we dropped the +level bonus from skills but left it in for other things. In the playtest, combat maneuver checks are skill checks that scale like the attack bonus vs. the target's AC. If level isn't added to skill checks, then any combat maneuver that uses a non-maxed out skill eventually cannot be attempted with any hope of success.


David knott 242 wrote:
Combat maneuvers would be one of the things that would have to be redone if we dropped the +level bonus from skills but left it in for other things. In the playtest, combat maneuver checks are skill checks that scale like the attack bonus vs. the target's AC. If level isn't added to skill checks, then any combat maneuver that uses a non-maxed out skill eventually cannot be attempted with any hope of success.

"Make an attack roll using your skill modifier instead of your weapon proficiency."


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Draco18s wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Combat maneuvers would be one of the things that would have to be redone if we dropped the +level bonus from skills but left it in for other things. In the playtest, combat maneuver checks are skill checks that scale like the attack bonus vs. the target's AC. If level isn't added to skill checks, then any combat maneuver that uses a non-maxed out skill eventually cannot be attempted with any hope of success.
"Make an attack roll using your skill modifier instead of your weapon proficiency."

Exactly -- and if that skill modifier does not scale with level and your weapon proficiency does, that is a mismatch that would make the maneuver virtually unusable.


David knott 242 wrote:
Exactly -- and if that skill modifier does not scale with level and your weapon proficiency does, that is a mismatch that would make the maneuver virtually unusable.

For f~@*'s sake. The point of the text I was trying to write as "replace the TEML (and possibly attribute) part. The level part doesn't change." i.e. you keep your BAB. You keep your +level.


Draco18s wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Exactly -- and if that skill modifier does not scale with level and your weapon proficiency does, that is a mismatch that would make the maneuver virtually unusable.
For f!%*'s sake. The point of the text I was trying to write as "replace the TEML (and possibly attribute) part. The level part doesn't change." i.e. you keep your BAB. You keep your +level.

So it needs to say, "Skill uses with the Attack trait add your current level to the Skill Modifier."


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Draco18s wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Exactly -- and if that skill modifier does not scale with level and your weapon proficiency does, that is a mismatch that would make the maneuver virtually unusable.
For f@*%'s sake. The point of the text I was trying to write as "replace the TEML (and possibly attribute) part. The level part doesn't change." i.e. you keep your BAB. You keep your +level.

So now it is getting even more complicated, as you have to explain when to add level and when not to.


David knott 242 wrote:
So now it is getting even more complicated, as you have to explain when to add level and when not to.

If we remove the (entirely confusing and hard to track) "proficiency means level (but don't write it down anywhere)" stupidity, that goes away.

Rolls become "proficiency, plus stat, plus level (when appropriate)"

Call it an attack/defense bonus, or something. I don't care.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells / Hot take of the day: Skills shouldn't scale with level. At all. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells