Proficiency - Why start at -4

[Greg.Everham]

Ssalarn wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Greg.Everham wrote:

The notion that players wanted "untrained" to be lower and worse was a misunderstanding

No, plenty of people were indeed asking for that. I'm disagreeing with it more and more as the days go by but there are people who wanted it like this and are happy it happened that way. Hopefully it get's changed for the final product.

Yep, as Rysky said, lots of people requested that they be worse at things. There's literally a thread on the subject called "Let Me Be Bad". And it's far from the only place that's come up, the sentiment is even repeated right in this thread. It definitely doesn't seem like a misunderstanding, there were a meaningful number of people who requested many times across multiple forums and threads that being untrained be made a more significant penalty.

I find myself in the same camp as Rysky, however, in that I find myself hoping this is one change that doesn't persist into the final version.

The point I was trying to raise there was that it was a smaller subset of a larger demand for widening the range and allowing for characters to be good and bad at stuff equally.

[Rysky]

Was it though? Neither you nor I have access to concrete data on which was which.

[LordVanya]

I doubt that the spread for the upper ranks will get a significant overhaul.

I really wish they would, though.

[LordKailas]

LordVanya wrote:

I doubt that the spread for the upper ranks will get a significant overhaul.

I really wish they would, though.

yeah, it's a shame they can't do a major overhaul now. I mean you can only do that sort of thing during playtesting.... oh wait.

Though IMO it wouldn't require a major overhaul in order to accomplish what's being asked for. Just gate the amount of +lvl you get behind proficiency, something like.

untrained +lvl-2 up to 5th
trained +lvl up to 10th
expert +lvl+1 up to 15th
master +lvl+2 up to 20th
legendary +lvl+3 no cap

This would allow for meaningful gaps to occur without having to drastically change the way everything works. You would probably have to adjust the upper end DCs down, but that's not such a bad thing. Especially if you establish a bunch of static DCs for "normal" challenges that shouldn't change with level, like swimming across a river or climbing a cliff.

[RyanH]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There is a psychological component here, to be sure, but there is also a simple game "signaling" reason.

Characters, generally are only untrained in the things they should avoid doing, to give space for others to excel in those areas. Negatives help to reinforce that notion. We could shift all the math up, but we would lose that learning edge.

It's not huge, but it is worth it for now.

Thanks... that answers the original question as to what the design reason is.

[David knott 242]

One obvious consequence of Jason's post is that there should be some things that everybody is at least trained in, as the game system is not set up for somebody to be actively bad at them. For example, nobody is untrained in any saving throws.

[RyanH]

David knott 242 wrote:

One obvious consequence of Jason's post is that there should be some things that everybody is at least trained in, as the game system is not set up for somebody to be actively bad at them. For example, nobody is untrained in any saving throws.

Interesting... the character sheet does have a spot for untrainted in saving throws, but that would never be checked. I guess the position is only necessary for common peasants? Or is EVERYTHING at least trained in each saving throw?