When it comes to some skills, I can accept adding your level to your proficiency without straining my suspension of disbelief too much. When it comes to other skills, it isn't. I suspect lots of people feel similarly.
Here's a simple solution, analogous to the 1e rule that you can't make Knowledge checks untrained: for certain skills (and certain applications of others), you can't add your level to your proficiency modifier unless you're at least trained in that skill.
For example, you might not be able to add your level to your proficiency modifier for Craft or Perform unless you're trained in those skills, since otherwise you have no way of bringing your general experience to bear. Or, if you're untrained in Athletics, you might still be able to add your level to checks to break a grapple, but not to swim (since you simply don't know how).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't we already effectively have this? Like you need to be trained in thievery to pick locks, you need to be trained in Arcana to identify a spell, you need to be trained in athletics to disarm, etc. It's not a matter of "you get a penalty" it's a "you can't attempt this without training."
So your level 20 character with high Str, Dex, and Int can't do any of these things no matter how high their modifiers are. Plenty of actions are gated by skill proficiency to the level where you cannot attempt them untrained.
I imagine in the final game there may be skill uses which cannot be attempted with proficiency short of expert, master, or perhaps even legendary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They already have things you cannot do untrained I think rather than messing with proficiency being more restrictive might be a simpler solution.
Recall knowledge is the largest offender here since it can always be used untrained. A recall knowledge sidebar that gives guidlines for what level of knowledge you can recall based on your proficiency rank would help a lot.
Something like when making an untrained recall knowledge check on a success you only get a basic outline or the information whereas if you make the same check with trained or better proficiency you get detailed information.
I'm wondering if we couldn't fix the "recall knowledge" thing by specifying certain types of knowledge. Like you can untrained roll to know what a vampire is and "the best" way to kill it; trained roll to remember all the ways to kill it; expert to know the difference between a Jiang-Shi, Moroi, Vetala, and Nosferatu, etc.
"How obscure this fact is" seems like a reasonable thing to systematize separate from difficulty class. One of the reasons I like proficiency gating separate from DC in theory is that there are many things which are fairly simple if you have ever had it explained to you before, but are devilish to work out from first principles.
Don't we already effectively have this? Like you need to be trained in thievery to pick locks, you need to be trained in Arcana to identify a spell, you need to be trained in athletics to disarm, etc. It's not a matter of "you get a penalty" it's a "you can't attempt this without training."
So your level 20 character with high Str, Dex, and Int can't do any of these things no matter how high their modifiers are. Plenty of actions are gated by skill proficiency to the level where you cannot attempt them untrained.
I imagine in the final game there may be skill uses which cannot be attempted with proficiency short of expert, master, or perhaps even legendary.
Well, there's a difference between not being able to attempt a task and not being able to add your level.
A high-level character who doesn't know how to swim should still be able to make a Strength check to stay above water, or thrash their way back to the boat. However, they shouldn't be able to swim against a rushing current or dive to the bottom of a flooded cave more reliably than a trained swimmer.
Isn't that what people are objecting to?
I'm not sure. I assumed Ostarg the untenured example was specifically about recall knowledge based on word choice. I don't think there is consensus on what the problem is or if it even is a problem.