| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
With this the difference between someone legendary and untrained is gonna be around 10 points.
If you keep the same DC table you shouldn't need soo many items to keep succeeding in your tasks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only unfortunate side effect is that, without items, you are still quite likely to gradually get worse at some scaling stuff like Treat Wounds unless you invest in it (investing just to keep up - bad). A lot of your skills will remain Trained for most of your career.
That is an issue intrinsic to the DC table, and can't be fixed with better scaling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making treat wounds so you always heal some amount but it gets higher based on your check would fix that.
A 2/4/6 progression would really feel more meaningful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.
If anything I would love to see more skill feat options so that higher proficiency can mean a lot more for lower proficiency tasks rather than an increase to the amount of skill bonus they provide. More skill feat options and well defined skill proficiency gates would make all the difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it because it makes it so if you don't hyper focus, you stay crappy (since the difference between trained and everything else grows). Thats already an issue with this edition, exacerbating that seems like a bad idea.
I would rather they deal with the DCs and leave proficiency modifiers alone.
I don't feel that this is a bad thing. After all, they're Legendary, right?I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.
That is a bad thing though. It would throw balance all out of whack. Just because you are legendary at a skill does not mean you should be succeeding 90-100% of the time on an even level challenge. I like the fact that your proficiency allows you to succeed at things that others cannot, but the DC is not the best way to represent that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a happy medium would be for UTEML to be -3/0/+1/+2/+4. By the time you get to Legendary, I think you really should get an extra bump WITHOUT the DCs going up (any more than they already have by that point)... just so you can feel awesome.
I'm also still in the camp that thinks the DCs need to generally drop. I'm fine with a truly maxed-out character (with it all: items, max ability, max proficiency, etc) just barely auto-succeeding, and everything else working itself out from there.
I would go with opposite.
The more you press into specific category, the harder it gets to be better in it.
And I would add more levels of proficiency
-4,+0,+3,+2,+2,+1,+1
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a bad thing though. It would throw balance all out of whack. Just because you are legendary at a skill does not mean you should be succeeding 90-100% of the time on an even level challenge. I like the fact that your proficiency allows you to succeed at things that others cannot, but the DC is not the best way to represent that.I don't feel that this is a bad thing. After all, they're Legendary, right?I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.
Then that category should not be called Legendary.
Have you heard tell the tales of the legendary rogue, Ravenarc the Average!?
A shadow among men who could stealth well about half the time!!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
With this the difference between someone legendary and untrained is gonna be around 10 points.
If you keep the same DC table you shouldn't need soo many items to keep succeeding in your tasks.
I don't like this proposal.
The cool thing about PF2 is a person who's trained in a skill, without items, and a small bonus in the ability score has a chance to succeed against a specialist (albeit a small one)
So let's look at a level 15 character with legendary, a 23 in the ability (21 with a +2 item) score and a +2 skill item.
Vs a character with trained, a 14 in the ability score and no skill item.
Under the current:
Character 1: +26 (15+3+6+2)
Character 2: +17 (15+0+2+0)Sure, character 2 isn't likely to beat character 1, but it can happen if character 1 rolls a 9 (35) and character 2 rolls a 19 (36)
Under your proposal:
Character 1: +29 (15+6+6+2)
Character 2: +17 (15+0+2+0)It is still possible, but it's even more unlikely, Character 1 has to roll a 6, while character 2 has to roll a 19 still.
It gets worse - Under the current system a person untrained still has a chance even with a +0 ability score bonus.
+11 (15-4+0+0) vs +26
Requiring the +26 to roll a 2 (28), and the +11 to roll an 18 (29)
Under your proposed system?
+11 vs +29?
If the +29 rolls a 2 (31) the only chance of success is if the +11 rolls a natural 20... To tie them.
Specifically Paizo wants to avoid the possibility for a player to have no chance aside from a freak crit.
I think that should be the main point.
A legendary sneaking rogue shouldn't be able to be seen by your average threat. He should be winning it par freak accident.
When you reach legendary in such things you should only be found with sucess by someone of equal legendary tracking status. With master having some chance at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it because it makes it so if you don't hyper focus, you stay crappy (since the difference between trained and everything else grows). Thats already an issue with this edition, exacerbating that seems like a bad idea.
I would rather they deal with the DCs and leave proficiency modifiers alone.
Generally speaking, people who never train in something are going to be crappy at it and stay crappy at it. The idea that some bumbling oaf who has taken a basic first aid course can do a better job at first aid than a "legendary" paramedic is nonsense. That can happen with freak nat 1/20 rolls, but the system shouldn't make it happen regularly.
People are still better off than they used to be, since the automatic +1 will let them beat challenges below them relatively easily even with minimal training (or no training if they're high enough above it). But right now the gap between trained and legendary is simply not enough.
If they can succeed all the time against easy stuff, so what? That's the whole point of investing a lot of effort to get skilled at something.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a bad thing though. It would throw balance all out of whack. Just because you are legendary at a skill does not mean you should be succeeding 90-100% of the time on an even level challenge. I like the fact that your proficiency allows you to succeed at things that others cannot, but the DC is not the best way to represent that.I don't feel that this is a bad thing. After all, they're Legendary, right?I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.
Man, if I didn't succeed 90-100% of the time at tasks suitable for my tenure at work I'd get the boot. You should absolutely be succeeding that much in your main areas of specialization.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the 2/4/6, and it can be done without making generalists incompetent. Basically, if they want generalists to still participate in checks, they should target it so it is the generalist who has a 40-60% chance of success against most things, while the specialist legend can mostly always succeed.
Either:
* Set default DC to Medium instead of Hard, or
* Get rid of the two dimensional DC table for a one dimensional table, and have easier or harder checks subtract or add effective level.
Either way, scale the numbers for the desired chance of generalist success. If crits are too good for a given thing and that's what they're worried about, just scale back the effect of a crit. Or allow scaling crits on multiple tiers of success like a lot of things in PF1, so a specialist still has to roll high to get the very best effects.
It's okay and desirable for a specialist to outshine someone who hasn't pumped in a bunch of feats and resources. That's the point of specializing in something, you want to feel good about being good at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a bad thing though. It would throw balance all out of whack. Just because you are legendary at a skill does not mean you should be succeeding 90-100% of the time on an even level challenge. I like the fact that your proficiency allows you to succeed at things that others cannot, but the DC is not the best way to represent that.I don't feel that this is a bad thing. After all, they're Legendary, right?I think this would play havoc with the difficulties as presented since it will push players who are Legendary at their skill that much closer to hitting 90-100% success chance on even level checks.
Then that category should not be called Legendary.
Have you heard tell the tales of the legendary rogue, Ravenarc the Average!?
A shadow among men who could stealth well about half the time!!
That man can stealth perfectly fine.
It's when he tries to sneak out of Hell going around Cerberus itself, with its three pairs of vigil eyes and its incredible scent that could pinpoint living flesh from miles away (high level opponent), that Ravenarc has a fair chance of failing.
The idea that some bumbling oaf who has taken a basic first aid course can do a better job at first aid than a "legendary" paramedic is nonsense. That can happen with freak nat 1/20 rolls, but the system shouldn't make it happen regularly.
People are still better off than they used to be, since the automatic +1 will let them beat challenges below them relatively easily even with minimal training (or no training if they're high enough above it). But right now the gap between trained and legendary is simply not enough.
If they can succeed all the time against easy stuff, so what? That's the whole point of investing a lot of effort to get skilled at something.
The point is that Paizo does not want people to succeed 90%+ of the time on level appropriate encounters. They want things to be a challenge regardless of how much you specialize in something.
When it comes to most standard skill challenges they want people who are only trained in the skill to have a chance to succeed as well, with the people who are untrained only able to attempt the very basic checks.
Based on this the numbers seem pretty spot on.
I back Paizo up on this, Specialists should never have the ability to get to a 90%+ success rate on even level challenges.
Where a Legendary Proficiency can really set you apart from people who are only Trained in a skill is not the total skill roll, it's the breadth of what your skills are capable of.
You'll be able to attempt things that they will have no chance at because of your Legendary skills.
On top of all that you'll have the option of picking up the Master and Legendary skill feats for a skill that can be pretty awesome, and lower level scaling skill feats will be that much more impressive.
Like Acrobatics Cat Fall? Suddenly you're falling from any height and not taking damage because you're just that good.
IMO the way to separate the proficiency to give them more things on the side that they do. I've said it before but Catfall is the perfect skill feat to represent this. It improves to what actually feels like legendary levels. If all skill feats and some combat feats worked this way I think that would be enough of a difference between Prof. That and all the little extra things you should be able to do by being highly Prof.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can agree here. More scaling skill feats that allow for some crazy stuff at higher proficiency is always good in my book. I'm also a huge fan of shortcuts through encounters for being maxed out on your proficiency with something.
Like the trap that takes 2 successful disable checks in order to disarm.. or only 1 successful disable check to disarm it if you're higher on the proficiency and manage to spot the control panel.
Things like that are bread and butter for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I support increasing both the numbers and the actually good skill feat options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It alone still doesn't do anything to make the measly-looking +1/+2/+3 on my character sheet not FEEL crappy.
And that is just as important as the actual mechanical benefits.
I support increasing both the numbers and the actually good skill feat options.
I agree 100%!
In my days sonny we took our +2 and we were happy about it.
The idea that some bumbling oaf who has taken a basic first aid course can do a better job at first aid than a "legendary" paramedic is nonsense. That can happen with freak nat 1/20 rolls, but the system shouldn't make it happen regularly.
People are still better off than they used to be, since the automatic +1 will let them beat challenges below them relatively easily even with minimal training (or no training if they're high enough above it). But right now the gap between trained and legendary is simply not enough.
If they can succeed all the time against easy stuff, so what? That's the whole point of investing a lot of effort to get skilled at something.
The point is that Paizo does not want people to succeed 90%+ of the time on level appropriate encounters. They want things to be a challenge regardless of how much you specialize in something.
When it comes to most standard skill challenges they want people who are only trained in the skill to have a chance to succeed as well, with the people who are untrained only able to attempt the very basic checks.
Based on this the numbers seem pretty spot on.
I back Paizo up on this, Specialists should never have the ability to get to a 90%+ success rate on even level challenges.
Relying on the d20 for success is unsafe and unsatisfying. I prefer to let the modifiers so the work for me. Failing checks more than 5-15% of the time feels crappy.
Maybe for you games you should just remove the dice entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+Level drowns it out, a bit. I am not so sure about the UTEML system, as implemented (and more revolutionary, out of the blue, than I would prefer). I was hoping for Legendary to open up for some amazing feats for non-casters.It alone still doesn't do anything to make the measly-looking +1/+2/+3 on my character sheet not FEEL crappy.
And that is just as important as the actual mechanical benefits.
+level is important not for 'power creep' or for 'progression' but to let level difference feel important. When you fight a swarm of lv6 creatures as a lv9 character, you can dispatch them easily and your spells are powerful against them, but numbers might overwhelm you. When fighting a lv11 mighty demon, you will feel the struggle of fighting something much more powerful than you are.
The +1/2/3 enhance/offset this, but if you remove +lv, you'll have bland and very even-feeling combats. Spellcasters especially are going to feel the hit.
That... pretty much proves my point. I don't understand why you would bring it up.
O.o
The second part of your post reduces the presence of critical successes / critical fails to a smidge of what it regularly is. Have a look at how many spells rely on the possibility of critically failed saves... Now tell me it would feel the same.
Just comparing successes and failures isn't enough in this edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It also pretty much removes the impact of the 4-levels of success, giving a massive nerf to whoever relies on critical failures being a thing (area spells being the most affected).
If we are both the same level, there's no problem in moving things to lv0 - but if there is a 5-level difference, bringing both to lv0 does not simply "expand the threat range". It effectively chops off the whole idea of "you crit on DC+10" and instead says "you crit on a 20 only".
Using your own examples,
20th-level Fighter, AC 45, +34 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 44. hit on a 10, crit on a 20. (50/5%)
Fire Giant, AC 28. hit on a 2, crit on a 4. (10/85%)
Ghoul, AC 15. crit on a 2. (0/95%)
Without +Level:
20th-level Fighter, AC 25, +14 to hit
Pit Fiend, AC 24. hit on a 10, crit on a 20. (50/5%)
Fire Giant, AC 18. hit on a 4, crit on a 14. (50/35%)
Ghoul, AC 14. hit on a 2, crit on a 10. (40/55%)
...You might hit relatively the same, but you just massively nerfed damage output and save DCs.
In my days sonny we took our +2 and we were happy about it.
I played AD&D2e back in my teen years...
Let the past die. Kill it if you must.
...Thac0... O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+Level drowns it out, a bit. I am not so sure about the UTEML system, as implemented (and more revolutionary, out of the blue, than I would prefer). I was hoping for Legendary to open up for some amazing feats for non-casters.It alone still doesn't do anything to make the measly-looking +1/+2/+3 on my character sheet not FEEL crappy.
And that is just as important as the actual mechanical benefits.
Improve the value of the ranks yes, but also improve what they can do.
Why can't legandary athletics allow you to do thing that are legendary
Powerful Leap is not Legendary enough - a 5 foot jump is very underwhelming.
Cat Fall is much better it actually allows for awesome things to happen at higher ranks.
This is a game with heroes, magic and deities. At higher levels it should be Legendary or even Mythic.
I tell ya Gortle That is exactly what I keep saying Cat fall is the perfect skill feat. They all should work like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For skills, I'd be perfectly happy doubling the bonus, but I think attacks and saves should stay as they are, both because those are hard to have much input in how you raise them (which is another thread entirely), and that they occur far more frequently. With the law of large numbers, the variance of a d20 will go mostly away on common checks, leaving each +1 feeling generally impactful, but on rarer checks, the variance of the d20 is a higher proportion of the overall success variance (or to put it another way, proportion of success is a good predictor of attack chance, but a poor predictor of skill chance). Once again, I think this is something where one system is trying to do too much, resulting in the choice between either overly wide bonus range on attacks and saves, or overly narrow bonus range on skills, or just admitting that elegant math that makes the system slightly easier to learn won't necessarily make the game as compelling to stick with. I know what I think of which of those three is the best.