They sort of fixed the discrepancy between trained and untrained in Update 1.3, but in my opinion a much better solution is:
Untrained = 1/2 level rounded down.
Thoughts?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Too much math.
On a more serious note, it would result in the old problem of untrained characters being unable to succeed at higher levels. Doesn't seem too bad when you think of stuff like Thievery but when your character can't move around because he's completly inapt at basic Acrobatics or Athletics, things get annoying.
It keeps the target number from being 15 to succeed to it being 20 only. If it becomes 20 only might as well just give nothing then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm concerned this is the only thing they are going to do to address it and people will find that it's not really enough. This change has the largest impact at low levels where the training disparity is least prominent. You will still have the issue where an untrained character will always out perform someone who is an expert by virtue of simply being higher level.
In the extreme example (assuming the characters have the same stats) a 20th level character gets +16 to a check compared to the 15th level legendary who gets +18. This means that both characters will generally succeed or fail at the same tasks since a +2 is easily lost behind a d20 roll.
IMO +lvl needs to be gated behind proficiency, instead of increasing the penalty from a -2 to a -4. Something like
untrained +lvl-2 up to lvl 5
trained +lvl up to lvl 10
expert +lvl+1 up to lvl 15
master +lvl+2 up to lvl 20
legendary +lvl+3 no cap
Then in the same example the 20th level character gets +3 and the legendary gets +18. If the 20th level doesn't like being so terrible they can become trained and will suddenly jump to a +10. They still aren't as good as a master at the skill but they are unlikely to fail a fairly trivial tasks.
Blave: While I understand where you're coming from, there are no long signature skills. If you want to be able to move around the battlefield, investing in the ability to do so doesn't feel like too much to ask.
In my opinion, if you haven't trained yourself in getting out of a grapple, it makes sense that you shouldn't be able to easily.
LoreKailas: That's a bit too extreme I think, especially since DCs scale with level in PF2 (A stupid idea in my opinion, but that's the way it is now I guess.... -_-).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Too much math.
On a more serious note, it would result in the old problem of untrained characters being unable to succeed at higher levels. Doesn't seem too bad when you think of stuff like Thievery but when your character can't move around because he's completly inapt at basic Acrobatics or Athletics, things get annoying.
They are UNTRAINED. They SHOULD! fail tasks on a regular basis.
That is what untrained means.
And DCs should not scale with level for same things
That is just desperate absolution of +1/level treadmill.
A lock is a lock. if it is the same type is has the same DC for 1st level character and 17th level character.
It cannot get it's DC raised by 20 in any logical way.
A DC20 wall to climb is DC20 wall to climb for everyone.
The wall does not ooze out grease because it knows that a 15th level character is trying to climb it and not a 3rd level character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DCs already increase by more than 1 per level. If you want to keep up, you need to increase your proficiency, have a half decent matching ability score and some item bonus. Someone untrained is unlikely to have all (or any) of those things and will have a way harder time to succeed at a check than someone who has all this.
Level/2 would also mean you become even more untrained as levels progress. Why would you be almost as good as someone who'd trained at level 1 and suddenly be only half as competent at level 20? That's PF1's "be trained or don't even bother" all over again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a bit too extreme I think, especially since DCs scale with level in PF2 (A stupid idea in my opinion, but that's the way it is now I guess.... -_-).
That was the impression I also had when initially looking over the rules. But it's been pointed out to me multiple times that the table is a guideline for how the DM should set DC's not that the dc to open a simple lock is some how different for a level 1 character then it is a level 20.
Part of the problem is that we have been given very few fixed DCs which leaves the impression that even environmental challenges "level up" with the PCs. If there are no fixed DCs and they are supposed to increase as the PCs increase in level then you might as well remove +lvl from both sides of the equation. The result is the same and it removes the illusion that players are actually improving so much from level to level.
The current approach either trivializes training to the point where it contributes very little or tricks players into thinking they are improving in every skill at every level when that's actually not the case. Depending on how skill DCs are handled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...then you might as well remove +lvl from both sides of the equation."
That's exactly my opinion, too. Everything in the game scaling together is stupid. It just makes more math for absolutely no reason.
Biggest problem is that PF/D&D are pathologically locked in d20 system.
It's a good example of the Stockholm syndrome.
3d6 system with +1 bonus to attack/AC/saves/DC/skill/perception every couple of levels WITH A COST!(either in class features or general/ancestry feats or choice between multiple skills) would be far better.
problem of d20 is that you have the same chance to roll 1 or 20 or any number from 1 to 20.
And if you do not make millions of rolls every session math will not add up.
with 3d6 roll almost 50% if the rolls are 9 to 12, and 67% are 8-13.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are UNTRAINED. They SHOULD! fail tasks on a regular basis.
That is what untrained means.
I agree 100% and personally like a "Lvl-4" proficiency penalty for Untrained, Trained at "Lvl", Expert at "Lvl+1" and so forth. Each add in skill training represents roughly a 5% bump in success, but untrained should be substantially less capable; -20% sounds about right.
That said, some would argue that there is a perception bias against setting a negative. Agreed, but isn't that the point of Untrained after all? And the DM is always free to assign other conditional penalties; we do it all the time - why should Untrained be handled any differently than other negative traits such as Concealed or Flat-footed?And DCs should not scale with level for same things
That is just desperate absolution of +1/level treadmill.
A lock is a lock. if it is the same type is has the same DC for 1st level character and 17th level character.
It cannot get it's DC raised by 20 in any logical way.
A DC20 wall to climb is DC20 wall to climb for everyone.
The wall does not ooze out grease because it knows that a 15th level character is trying to climb it and not a 3rd level character.
Absolutely true; if the math doesn't work out, then the proficiency advancement should be something like [Lvl/2] or whatever divisor is required to make 20th Lvl characters still have a chance to fail at some Skill Checks that a 1st, 5th or 10th level character would see challenging or near impossible. However, it should be much more trivial for the higher level character than the lower level characters.
3d6 system with +1 bonus to attack/AC/saves/DC/skill/perception every couple of levels WITH A COST!(either in class features or general/ancestry feats or choice between multiple skills) would be far better.
with 3d6 roll almost 50% if the rolls are 9 to 12, and 67% are 8-13.
3d6 with the current DCs would make things work so well.
For those that want to say, hey... they are untrained but high level... they shouldn't be able to beat or succeed vs. the trained person... just because they are higher level... has a very simple solution. The roll is consider a trained-only roll... any untrained will automatically fail barring some feat changing rules.
So them failing constantly, because they are untrained is quite simulate-able with the current and even updated rules.
What it doesn't do a great job at is making a circumstance where it is highly unlikely an untrained person will succeed, but they have a small chance.
It in my opinion is perfectly reasonable for the likelihood of someone failing at a level appropriate task in something they are untrained at should steadily decrease. Even picking up on things about a topic, which will make them better off than a less experienced person won't pick up at the same pace that the complexity grows.
The issue I do see, is that if someone high level attempts something with a high level difficulty, just making the target higher and making their bonus suffer, such as half the level bonus, it no only makes it more likely they fail, but it also makes it more and more likely that they will naturally critically fail, perhaps even making it the more likely result of trying. I'm more than willing to say that with experience, one of the biggest things that an untrained person would learn is what NOT to do, which amounts to learning how to avoid a critical failure.
So my suggestion is that if you do anything to reduce the bonus of untrained, to something like 1/2 the current pace, that you only apply the reduced bonus for determine if you succeed/fail and if a failure is determined, that you use the full bonus to check to see if it would be a critical failure.
This makes failure at higher levels, on untrained tasks more common, but would not actually increase the number of critical failures as much at that level. (the -2 or -4 from untrained would certainly contribute to it, but the level numbers being cut wouldn't increase the chance of critical failures, only the base untrained modifier)
BTW: I agree about utilizing multiple dice somehow to make something closer to a bell curve would seem to make the edge cases less often, making the dice less swingy, while still keeping random chance a reasonably important factor.
I think that Untrained being Level -4 is a really solid spot. Keep in mind that being untrained does not mean that you're worthless at it, it just limits the checks that you can attempt and it makes it 20% harder than it would be if you were trained in the skill. With the DCs at the values they are now this can already make simple checks much harder to accomplish and feels 'right'.
Trying to do any sort of Level 1/2 scaling on it would break the whole DC system and throw even level challenges out of whack leaving a lot more math for the DM and a lot more suck for the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've misunderstood how DCs are supposed to work. The level of a challenge is not the character taking it on, rather it is the level of the obstacle/challenge as assigned by your GM. You can have a level 3 trivial tree to climb >> dc 12 for all characters, or a lvl 17 severe smooth glassy wall >> dc 40 for all characters.
You're right - I did misread the challenge DC table. But that seemed like an easy mistake given current wording. With the use of keywords and traits throughout, maybe Paizo needs to explicitly clarify Threat Level vs PC Level.
-John