| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not start untrained at +0 and scale everything else upwards accordingly? It seems to me untrained should be “default” which should equate to unmodified.
There must be a good reason, since it adds unnecessary complexity. I can’t understand it though. Any easy answers?
I think it makes more sense for not knowing something to give you a penalty. Also mentally if trained gives you +4 why is legendary only giving another +1 while even though its the same negating a -4 has a different feel then a straight +4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it makes more sense for not knowing something to give you a penalty.
But everyone is in that boat. What does the “default” +0 represent?
It makes more sense to me conceptually that you begin with “nothing” (other than innate talent represented by stats) then training adds a bonus.
Hmm I don't see the +0 representing nothing so much as representing a start that can be built up. 0 is only the bottom when we don't have a lower floor and in this case we do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm I don't see the +0 representing nothing so much as representing a start that can be built up. 0 is only the bottom when we don't have a lower floor and in this case we do.
Yeah, it’s clearly arbitrary. I just don’t get what’s gained by “starting” the scale at -2. It seems to me that if it’s “just luck” (ie no training, no abilities, no stat advantage...) one would just roll the d20.
It seems almost punitive to say “because you didn’t invest in this skill, you’re actually worse than just relying on luck”. I wonder if it ties in to the relevance of level?
I mean that seems weird calling you didn't invest into a skill as punitive to me. If you have never swam before then you are gonna drown. If you have swam before you may not win any races but you won't drown and if you swim all the time well you get the idea.
I do think your right that the level has quite a bit to do with it as well.
Well, it's a weird consequence of having weapons, armor, and skill proficiencies all work exactly the same way. Since it's always been the case that if a character tries to swing a weapon they have no training in, they're going to eat a -4 penalty.
It's just that in PF1 rolling a skill you are not trained in just results in a +0 (with some uses gated off) and "roll a skill you have no ranks in" was way more common in my experience than "attack with a weapon with which you are not proficient."
Like there's always an option of just picking up a different weapon, but there's not usually a way to change what skill is relevant in a situation.
Why the UTEML, at all, has no traction/legacy, just some out-of-the-blue shenanigans.
It’s one of the innovations I quite like (partly as an easy way to differentiate between power levels of a campaign).
It also seems to me to model how we learn skills in the real world better than PF1 does. It’s not a linear progression (at least not in the realms of things I’m exceptional at in real life. Maybe there are tasks like athletics for which PF1 is a superior model) As an expert at something you are just operating at a level a trained novice has no hope of understanding.
Well, it's a weird consequence of having weapons, armor, and skill proficiencies all work exactly the same way. Since it's always been the case that if a character tries to swing a weapon they have no training in, they're going to eat a -4 penalty.
It's just that in PF1 rolling a skill you are not trained in just results in a +0 (with some uses gated off) and "roll a skill you have no ranks in" was way more common in my experience than "attack with a weapon with which you are not proficient."
Like there's always an option of just picking up a different weapon, but there's not usually a way to change what skill is relevant in a situation.
^^ Thats a good point to. It really isn't that much different from previous editions if you think about it that way.
Well, it's a weird consequence of having weapons, armor, and skill proficiencies all work exactly the same way. Since it's always been the case that if a character tries to swing a weapon they have no training in, they're going to eat a -4 penalty.
I feel the same about weapons.
Given it’s just an arbitrary scale why not make “untrained” the default at no modifier?
It seems to me a simpler model, which is one of the design goals.
Why not start untrained at +0 and scale everything else upwards accordingly? It seems to me untrained should be “default” which should equate to unmodified.
There must be a good reason, since it adds unnecessary complexity. I can’t understand it though. Any easy answers?
Scaling everything upwards doesn't reduce complexity though, it just inflates the numbers even further, which is a common complaint about P(M)athfinder, especially during higher levels. Also, I think it fits narratively rather nicely that untrained means feels negative, just as name suggests.
I mean that seems weird calling you didn't invest into a skill as punitive to me.
What I mean is that the “normal” situation in other areas is set at +0 (normal lighting, normal conditions, etcetera.) A penalty is imposed when the seas are choppy, the light is poor, you’re distracted....etcetera.
As such, being untrained seems to be lumped in with “worse than normal” and trained is “better than normal”. It seems odd to me, thinking about it that way, that one can’t have a “normal” level of trained-ness. You’re either worse or better than nothing.
Scaling everything upwards doesn't reduce complexity though, it just inflates the numbers even further, which is a common complaint about P(M)athfinder, especially during higher levels.Why not start untrained at +0 and scale everything else upwards accordingly? It seems to me untrained should be “default” which should equate to unmodified.
There must be a good reason, since it adds unnecessary complexity. I can’t understand it though. Any easy answers?
It reduces complexity since sometimes you won’t add anything - sometimes skipping a step is inherently simpler (provides its easy to remember when). I think it’s conceptually neater - you start at nought and add an amount based on the training you’ve received.
It obviously doesn’t matter what the scale is, although if trained was -10, expert -8 all the way up to legendary at -4. It would be weird for the same reason, I think.
Also, I think it fits narratively rather nicely that untrained means feels negative, just as name suggests.
This is obviously just opinion, but perhaps it’s as simple as this. To me being untrained is default, not a negative state.
Perhaps the designers share your aesthetic view on this rather than mine.
It reduces complexity since sometimes you won’t add anything - sometimes skipping a step is inherently simpler (provides its easy to remember when). I think it’s conceptually neater - you start at nought and add an amount based on the training you’ve received.
You skip a step during character creation in exchange for higher numbers, which can create unease for some people and potentially slow down pace. I don't see many benefits in that and the little "reduction of complexity" you might achieve doesn't overturn the potential downsides in my opinion. Keep in mind, I don't mind having bigger numbers in the game, but I do know people who do, so I would appreciate if the game doesn't inflate them even further (Challenges would range into the 50s around level , if I'm not mistaken).
|
Also, I think it fits narratively rather nicely that untrained means feels negative, just as name suggests.This is obviously just opinion, but perhaps it’s as simple as this. To me being untrained is default, not a negative state.
Perhaps the designers share your aesthetic view on this rather than mine.
I'm pretty sure this was it, a problem of perception, people didn't like the tier of "Untrained" not being a negative/too close in + to "Trained".
I'm curious if the name was Beginner/Novice instead would the same perceived issue exist?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean that seems weird calling you didn't invest into a skill as punitive to me. If you have never swam before then you are gonna drown. If you have swam before you may not win any races but you won't drown and if you swim all the time well you get the idea.
I do think your right that the level has quite a bit to do with it as well.
Good news. You don't need to know how to swim to swim. Just learn climbing and you automatically become a good swimmer. Or better yet just fight goblins and you become a good swimmer.
Keeping it at a negative helps disguise the 4e influence (trained is +0 vs +5 instead of +4 vs +5)
I'm pretty sure this was it, a problem of perception, people didn't like the tier of "Untrained" not being a negative/too close in + to "Trained".
I'm curious if the name was Beginner/Novice instead would the same perceived issue exist?
Yeah, I don't think there is a right or wrong here, but rather preferences.
For what it's worth, the newcomer to Pathfinder in my Playtest didn't bat an eye to untrained being represented as a malus, so I guess we might be overthinking this one.
The trick is, trained is the "normal" assumption. Think of it this way, if you don't know how to drive a car, are actually going to try to drive one? So the game assumes that you roll unmodified level cause you are typically doing things you are trained at, and on those ocations where you are, it penalized you for moving outside of your area of basic expertise.
Also, due to the always add level, a +0 modifier has a similar feel to dropping skill points at every rank in a non class skill. Mind you, the math assumption isn't the same, but the feel is similar from the player side.
I mean that seems weird calling you didn't invest into a skill as punitive to me. If you have never swam before then you are gonna drown. If you have swam before you may not win any races but you won't drown and if you swim all the time well you get the idea.
I do think your right that the level has quite a bit to do with it as well.
Good news. You don't need to know how to swim to swim. Just learn climbing and you automatically become a good swimmer. Or better yet just fight goblins and you become a good swimmer.
Keeping it at a negative helps disguise the 4e influence (trained is +0 vs +5 instead of +4 vs +5)
Your talking about a different issue all together one I have already read and argued with ad nauseum so lets not get off topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said it makes sense that someone who has never swum before would drain. I just pointed out that the narrative PF2e requires makes this statement untrue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. I should of just went with my first instinct and ignored. Next time Vidmaster7 Next time.
Yeah, I don't think there is a right or wrong here, but rather preferences.I'm pretty sure this was it, a problem of perception, people didn't like the tier of "Untrained" not being a negative/too close in + to "Trained".
I'm curious if the name was Beginner/Novice instead would the same perceived issue exist?
Me neither, to be clear. I did wonder if there was some mathsy reason tied in to the +1/level factor. Ultimately though, it just seems my intuitions are unusual and there isn’t a puzzle to explain.
Thanks very much for that. Pretty much answered my question. :)