My biggest problem with +1 / level

[Cyouni]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Fine, I'll specifically clarify that. That's not a good score...for a level 20 character, who could have up to +34.

(So, obviously only by one very specific reckoning...)

Yeah, but that is exactly the problem here, isn't it? The notion of "for a level XY character" is precisely what causes the problem I (and others I guess) have with this skill system. High-level characters can easily beat tasks even completely outside their own area of expertise, while low-level characters will routinely and comically fail simple tasks even in skills they are specialized in. And it really cannot work any other way.

Question: Is a manticore a "simple" enemy for a level 1 character? What about a level 20 character? Does it matter if they're specialized in combat in this case? Should a level 20 rogue facing a manticore head on win easily? (Bear in mind that this level 20 rogue in PF1 is supposed to be worth at least 192 manticores.)

Why should skills be different?

I will also point out - there comes a point of design that you have to consider: yes, this is technically achievable, but how complicated does it have to be? Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

[Arssanguinus]

Rameth wrote:

The thing is in Pathfinder/D&D there are levels of play. Most typical fantasy tropes, such as LOTR, Harry Potter or even Game of Thrones are in the 1 through 7 range. There are only a few things in those works of fiction that cannot be created by lvl 7 or so. So after that you have to start getting into beyond that fantasy. Like Eragon (toward the end anyway), Beowulf, or most superhero characters. After Lvl 13+ the characters are essentially demigods. The stories of Hercules, Achilles or Superman are those types of stories. One just simply can't expect someone who is level 15 to behave the same as someone who is lvl 4.

They wouldn’t behave or be the same even without plus level to a skill,

[Arssanguinus]

Lycar wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I’m hoping the designers can find a way to broaden the play styles PF2 supports. I like my PCs to retain weak points throughout their careers.

I appreciate that everyone doesn’t want to have that style, nonetheless it’s a major sticking point to me and maybe the boffins at Paizo will be able to solve the problems they’re trying to solve without making me lose interest in my PCs as they develop.

But that's the thing. You CAN retain weak points, even though you are basically faking it.

It is just a very different thing to not have enough skill points - (But my guy is 10th level! He should have learned SOME survival skills! - Did you put skill points into Survival? No? Tough!) - because assuming things you did not pay the price for makes others mad who did. It is just not fair.

But to have the skill, in theory, and then deciding not to use it for RP reasons? That's different. That is voluntary on your part and doesn't cost anybody else a thing. Unless we talk spending resources to save the PC in question from their self-imposed peril. Again, ask your fellow players if they applaud the dedication to RP or hate the drama queen.

That isn’t maintaining weak points. That’s faking it. It isn’t even remotely close to being the same.

[Gorbacz]

Cyouni wrote:

Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

That's somewhat true. Playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam where criminal law (combat rules) is about right kind of complicated except it doesn't really interact well with other branches of law (kind of like in real life, heh), civi...priva...Burgerliche... whatever law where contracts, wills and trusts are (skills) is unevenly codified, regulating what happens when you own a swarm of bees and they fly off and occupy your neighbour's beehive in one place and at the same time being silent on how do you actually identify whether these are normal bees or advanced dire celestial fiendish bees and trade law (downtime) is mostly customary tribal law made up on the spot.

It kind of feels like a legal system of one of those countries where you have statutory law, common law, religious law and customary law all banged up together. Think Somalia. Of course, it's small wonder given the fact that 3.0 was written by three different people with quite different approaches to design.

[Nightwhisper]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Nightwhisper wrote:

But it's not 10%, that 20th-level character

Yeah, okay, now we're talking about extremely high level characters, which is an entirely different thing and for which I already conceded that they veered outside of the realm of the heroic fantasy genre. Not really seeing the point in shifting goalposts here.

I was under the impression your problem was exactly with very high level characters, seeing as in the playtest as it currently stands untrained characters are worse off than untrained characters in PF1e until they're level 5.

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Quote:

I'm pretty sure it is by design. Can't be completely sure since I'm not friends with any of the 3rd edition designers, but this analysis is a pretty good indication that 5th level is supposed to be the peak human value.

That is a blog post, and not one which supports your point particularly well. Its whole argument completely falls apart when you take into account that "taking 10" is an option, not an obligation. So when he makes the argument that Einstein* was only a 5th level physicist so he can answer DC25 physics questions by taking 10, one should recall that this amazing feat can also be performed by just about any moderately intelligent person with a few ranks in "physics" if they roll high enough. The randomness of the D20 simply precludes the kind of skill differences that, in the real world, would make a task easy for a physics genius and impossible for a physics amateur. All the other examples similarly fall apart when you take into account the randomness of the dice.

So what would be the Int for a moderately intelligent person? Remembering also that by 3.Xe standards, humans don't have an ability bonus. Int 15? That would still need three ranks in the appropriate Knowledge to even have a chance of answering a DC 25 question, and most people probably don't have a 15 in any ability score.

Einstein can answer each and every DC 25 question thanks to take 10. DC 25 is something that needs both natural talent and training to be able to succeed at all.

The short blurb in the rules on knowledge skills gives DC 30 for the most difficult questions, which Einstein knows 3 out of 4 times without having to consult any sort of reference.

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

That said, regarding physical capabilties: In some areas PF moderately overestimates actual human capabilities (regardless of level), such as jumping. In some areas it drastically overestimates them (such as carrying capacity).

In some areas (swim speed) it moderately underestimates human capabilities and in yet others, it drastically underestimates them (such as holding your breath, which actual real life record holders can do for ~200 combat rounds.)
That does not speak for the designers having a consistent 'superhuman' design philosophy. It does speak for them just...

I will agree with you on the numbers being rough, especially in the case of holding your breath. But I hold that peak human achievement is aimed at around level 5.

Leveling up to 6 makes you superheroic, but not necessarily Superman. To me, level 10 characters are defined by what they can accomplish, not be what they have not trained in. A level 20 character can single-handedly kill adult dragons, he should have no trouble crossing a river.

I guess my maint point is that if a system has levels, those levels should mean something, and the meaning should be uniform across the system.

In 3.X and PF1e, level is a measure of absolute power in some parts of the system (combat, gaining experience) but in others it is a cap on your power instead (skills).

The playtest system instead makes level the floor for your capabilities, with your class and skill choices telling how your character exceeds that floor.

[Wulfhelm II.]

Cyouni wrote:

Question: Is a manticore a "simple" enemy for a level 1 character? What about a level 20 character? Does it matter if they're specialized in combat in this case? Should a level 20 rogue facing a manticore head on win easily? (Bear in mind that this level 20 rogue in PF1 is supposed to be worth at least 192 manticores.)

Why should skills be different?

Because skills, for the most part - and I'd be happy to change the rules for the non-most part - are not the core competence for heroic sword & sorcery adventures.

Quote:

I will also point out - there comes a point of design that you have to consider: yes, this is technically achievable, but how complicated does it have to be? Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

That is a completely different area of discussion. FWIW: I do not think that with the massive number of skill feats, considerations of level-based challenges, actions gated behind proficiencies and the overall number bloat the system has become less complicated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Dire Ursus]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Question: Is a manticore a "simple" enemy for a level 1 character? What about a level 20 character? Does it matter if they're specialized in combat in this case? Should a level 20 rogue facing a manticore head on win easily? (Bear in mind that this level 20 rogue in PF1 is supposed to be worth at least 192 manticores.)

Why should skills be different?

Because skills, for the most part - and I'd be happy to change the rules for the non-most part - are not the core competence for heroic sword & sorcery adventures.

Quote:

I will also point out - there comes a point of design that you have to consider: yes, this is technically achievable, but how complicated does it have to be? Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

That is a completely different area of discussion. FWIW: I do not think that with the massive number of skill feats, considerations of level-based challenges, actions gated behind proficiencies and the overall number bloat the system has become less complicated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Nope it's way less complicated. I've been running noobs through the game. They are taking to it way easier than PF1.

[Wulfhelm II.]

Nightwhisper wrote:

So what would be the Int for a moderately intelligent person? Remembering also that by 3.Xe standards, humans don't have an ability bonus. Int 15? That would still need three ranks in the appropriate Knowledge to even have a chance of answering a DC 25 question, and most people probably don't have.

I was going to say Int 14 and three or four ranks, yeah. Pretty much standard for any first-level character in an area they are moderately proficient in.

We assume we are dealing with Alexander's Einstein before he began working at the patent office. (Btw, this in regard to the blog's claim that Einstein may well only have 5 hit points because he is an old and frail man: Einstein accomplished almost all of his most important scientific breakthroughs in his 20s and 30s, and got the Nobel Prize at age 42.) He's got +14, and thus has a 50% chance of answering the DC 25 problem. Two first-level nerds (+6 each, so +8 if assistance is allowed) have a 20% chance of answering the same question, and each of them without assistance still has a 10% chance.

Conclusion 1: "Taking 10" may be a sensible idea for resolving RPG situations, but if taken as a means to simulate reality, it creates more problems than it solves.
Conclusion 2: The "range of human capabilities" from Level 1-5 as Alexander would have it, does not numerically allow for nearly enough differentiation to simulate the vast differences in skill levels that exist in real life humans.

This becomes even more obvious when skill rolls are directly pitted against each other. To use my standard example, I am quite intelligent if IQ tests can be believed, I used to a somewhat proficient amateur chess player, so I guess I at least have a rank. So, when I roll my +3 and Kasparov rolls his +15, there is at least a non-zero chance (7% by my calculations) that I beat him, when the reality is that I could spend the rest of my life playing chess against Kasparov and that I would never beat him a single damn time.

The skill system is designed to resolve situations in a heroic fantasy RPG. Not to simulate reality. That does most definitely not mean it should not be designed to "feel" real. But nitpicking it as any kind of reality simulator inevitably fails if you actually think things through.

Quote:

Leveling up to 6 makes you superheroic, but not necessarily Superman. To me, level 10 characters are defined by what they can accomplish, not be what they have not trained in. A level 20 character can single-handedly kill adult dragons, he should have no trouble crossing a river.

Side note: I like how Superman is mentioned so often in this context. Ah, yes, Superman, with his secret identity of Clark Kent - the world-famous, multiple Pulitzer Prize winning, famously suave and charming top journalist working only for the most prestigious news institutions...

... oh, wait.

Hm. It's almost as if even the most ridiculously powerful character in the DC pantheon of heroes (and that's saying something) has facets of his character where he isn't highly proficient as compared to average joes, but is in fact frequently described as clumsy or awkward. Isn't that boring? Shouldn't someone who can throw around buildings be able to write world-class articles that would awe his editor-chief? Or sweep a mere mortal woman like Lois Lane of her feet with his charms? ;-)

[John Lynch 106]

CorvusMask wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Which is to say that there was no mechanic for "you have seen this before and know how it goes" in PF1 which does not rely on a player making mechanical choices to represent "what has happened" rather than their own view of their character.

Are you actually saying that your PC's cannot know anything they have been told or experienced without a successful knowledge check? What a strange way to play. No wonder people are excited by the playtest rules if this is actually how they play. I can't say it's ever been my experience in either home games or PFS.

That is in fact the case in PFS by raw because GM isn't allowed to assume that player is speaking truth when they say PC has encountered creature in previous scenario <_<

Yet another reason out of many as to why I dislike PFS and think it's detrimental to the hobby.

[Nightwhisper]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

This becomes even more obvious when skill rolls are directly pitted against each other. To use my standard example, I am quite intelligent if IQ tests can be believed, I used to a somewhat proficient amateur chess player, so I guess I at least have a rank. So, when I roll my +3 and Kasparov rolls his +15, there is at least a non-zero chance (7% by my calculations) that I beat him, when the reality is that I could spend the rest of my life playing chess against Kasparov and that I would never beat him a single damn time.

What level would you then say is correct for Kasparov? What is the peak human level? Or is your point more that the skill system just does not work at all?

As a side note, I highly recommend anydice.com for figuring out probabilities. For example, here is the chance of 1d20+3 rolling higher than 1d20+15 (7%, as you had calculated).

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

[...]is in fact frequently described as clumsy or awkward. Isn't that boring? Shouldn't someone who can throw around buildings be able to write world-class articles that would awe his editor-chief?

I would guess that's a function of his high-level disguise skill, not his lack of body control or charm. There is something superhuman about having his face on the cover of magazines yet being able to disguise it by just a pair of glasses.

[Bartram]

HWalsh wrote:

Now the goal posts are shifting.

Incorrect. That was my first post on the topic. My goalposts haven't shifted one bit. This has been my concern the entire time.

The issue with +1/level is that it minimizes the value of all other bonuses. T/E/M/L increases are lost in the massive wave of level increases. Their impact is minimal.

In PF1 the vast majority (baring broken buffs like acute senses that absolutely should be removed) of your final bonus comes from skill ranks (the equivalent of T/E/M/L). This lets you feel like your character is improving as they level. With the combination of +1/level to your skill, and DCs scaling based on level, you get no sense of improvement in the Playtest. The small improvements you do make relative to everyone else are just drowned out by your (and everyone else's) level bonus.

[Bartram]

CorvusMask wrote:

That is in fact the case in PFS

Having both GMed and played in PFS for over half a decade, in both local games and con games I can safely say I have never seen a single GM run it that way.

[WatersLethe]

Bartram wrote:

With the combination of +1/level to your skill, and DCs scaling based on level, you get no sense of improvement in the Playtest. The small improvements you do make relative to everyone else are just drowned out by your (and everyone else's) level bonus.

This is part of why I think letting untrained skills languish will help provide that feeling of progression. If Skills You Care About increase at a rate of 1/lvl and Skills You Don't Care About stay at rock bottom, it will pretty closely mimic the +1 rank per level in your important skills paradigm from 1e.

It also makes sure that the DCs the party encounters are grounded in reality. The GM is forced to consider what was a challenge at DC 5 and what an appropriate DC 30 challenge looks like in comparison to that, specifically because someone might not be guaranteed to make a DC 5 check.

The steps of Expert, Master and Legendary and their bonuses translate to skill focus feats, traits or other miscellaneous boosts from PF1e, while also serving the new purpose of gating really extraordinary feats of skill.

Adding a mechanic so that the really cool skill person can "train" their team mates would also serves to make them feel more important, because the completely untrained noobs rely on them to have a hope in hell of making their checks. So when the expert fails and the untrained guy gets a lucky high roll, it's still thanks to the expert.

Combine this with making sure everyone has a sufficient amount of trained skills so they don't feel wildly incompetent all the time, then it's really going to start feeling pretty good.

[Unicore]

The problem I see with retaining weak points for characters in a RPG is that some weak points are breaking points for the game, and others can be colorful character development. Often times having a skill that you are not good at felt like colorful character development in PF1 because there was such a broad list of skills, and there were very few skills that felt vital to a character’s survival, especially when magic trumped skills so heavily that even a character that focused on a skill could be upstaged by a low level spell.

But if magic is reigned in from being the ultimate utilitarian problem solver, which seems like a design goal of PF2, having characters with radically varying abilities is not a personal character choice, but a decision that affects the entire group and requires a GM to make sure that the adventure can accommodate the “weaknesses” that you want for your character. That can be fine, especially if adventures are designed to accommodate the possibility that some mundane tasks might be completely beyond some characters abilities, but it is a big shift in adventure design from how Piazo has traditionally designed their adventures.

Rather than see skills forced into filling this slack, I think it would be better for things like character flaws to fill into the background character space. They will have to be careful that flaws don’t give characters insurmountable challenges related to mechanics that often arise in game, but perhaps those flaws can be more nuanced than something general, like skills, and give you more of the character flavor you are looking for.

The key is that flaws do not become a new meta-currency for character optimization, because that largely bypasses the idea that they should be voluntary. Having characters gain power, but at a cost, should be an active in-game decision related to making deals with devils or Djinn or becoming an oracle or something like that.

[RazarTuk]

Unicore wrote:

Rather than see skills forced into filling this slack, I think it would be better for things like character flaws to fill into the background character space. They will have to be careful that flaws don’t give characters insurmountable challenges related to mechanics that often arise in game, but perhaps those flaws can be more nuanced than something general, like skills, and give you more of the character flavor you are looking for.

The key is that flaws do not become a new meta-currency for character optimization, because that largely bypasses the idea that they should be voluntary. Having characters gain power, but at a cost, should be an active in-game decision related to making deals with devils or Djinn or becoming an oracle or something like that.

My problem with flaws is that I don't even trust myself to not pick the least relevant drawbacks in 1e.

If you actually want a compromise, though, between not advancing weak points and +1/level to everything, what about +1/2 level to untrained?

[Unicore]

RazarTuk wrote:

My problem with flaws is that I don't even trust myself to not pick the least relevant drawbacks in 1e.

If you actually want a compromise, though, between not advancing weak points and +1/level to everything, what about +1/2 level to untrained?

My suggestion for flaws would be that they are completely voluntary. As in you would only pick one because you want to play a character with one. Characters would not be required to pick one.

I have said my piece about +1/2 level before, so I don't want to be one of those posters saying the same thing over and over again, but for the sake of the OP, I'd say that it wouldn't do anything to solve the originally stated issue, which is that they want to be able to be bad at something.

[Cyouni]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Question: Is a manticore a "simple" enemy for a level 1 character? What about a level 20 character? Does it matter if they're specialized in combat in this case? Should a level 20 rogue facing a manticore head on win easily? (Bear in mind that this level 20 rogue in PF1 is supposed to be worth at least 192 manticores.)

Why should skills be different?

Because skills, for the most part - and I'd be happy to change the rules for the non-most part - are not the core competence for heroic sword & sorcery adventures.

Okay, what things covered by skills covered by skills don't they need? Unless you're presuming all those encounters are murderous romps that never have any terrain variance, the only ones you can make that case for are Perform and Lore.

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Quote:

I will also point out - there comes a point of design that you have to consider: yes, this is technically achievable, but how complicated does it have to be? Someone mentioned to me a common comparison that "playing Pathfinder is like taking a law exam". Why are we trying to make it more complicated?

That is a completely different area of discussion. FWIW: I do not think that with the massive number of skill feats, considerations of level-based challenges, actions gated behind proficiencies and the overall number bloat the system has become less complicated. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I don't think I could ever explain 1E to someone. I have a chance in 2E. (The conditions are actually the most complicated thing by far, while we're on this subject. Considerations of level-based challenges are actually a lot less complicated than 1E, where your team that easily handles most encounters suddenly can fold to four clockwork golems despite them being way weaker. Similarly, number bloat is actually down, with not having to track 19 different bonus types and how they stack with one another - min-maxed highest PF1 stealth is +207, for example.)

[GRuzom]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

As I said earlier, I think there is a design space for being incompetent at something in the system. However, this shouldn't be default. Adventures are designed for a baseline, and the baseline being some more general competency opens up a lot of options and closes off none.

Even if it isn't in the core book, we could get drawbacks down the line and you can be truly bad at something. This shouldn't be the default assumption, though.

I’m not being prescriptive as to the solution - this kind of thing would suit me fine. I’m not arguing that everyone should have glaring weaknesses, merely stating my preference that I’d prefer the mechanics allow it.

As an aside - deliberately failing something (a commonly put forth solution) isnt the same feel as not being able to do it. It’s kind of like running slowly to let the kid win vs going full pelt and being beaten by a child - the suggested approach would be identical mechanics wise, even though it’s modelling two very different events. I would feel comfortable with that solution in a storytelling/narrative based game but in PF2 with its heavy numbers based simulationist approach, such a solution would always feel like a fudge, I suspect (as in, I’d always notice that “the game says I can do this, but I’m going to deliberately overrule the mechanics and fail, because I don’t want to be able to”).

Kudos for your patience and civility!

[Hythlodeus]

Wulfhelm II. wrote:

Alexander's Einstein

like, Albert Einsteins little brother?

[Lycar]

Steve Geddes wrote:

The post you quoted was in reply to Albatoonoe's comment that they'd be okay with a "flaws" system of some description provided it wasn't the baseline (ie you could take it if you want, but didn't need to). I replied...

YOU brought up 'the feel' of the whole matter and I merely voiced my own feeling about the choice between forced competence and forced incompetence.

I would prefer that you do not misrepresent my posts, thank you very much.

In the end, the devs have to aim for what makes most people happy. And a system is more likely to do that, if it also happens to be easily house-ruled. As far as that goes, it is always easier to take something away then to add something. Therefore forced competence, that you can simply rule away, beats forced incompetence, that is hard to overcome with house-rules.

And if you are indeed ok with that solution, where is the harm in implementing it for those who want it? It is not ideal, but it is still an improvement over the old situation after all.

[Lycar]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Lycar wrote:

...But to have the skill, in theory, and then deciding not to use it for RP reasons? That's different. That is voluntary on your part and doesn't cost anybody else a thing. Unless we talk spending resources to save the PC in question from their self-imposed peril. Again, ask your fellow players if they applaud the dedication to RP or hate the drama queen.

That isn’t maintaining weak points. That’s faking it. It isn’t even remotely close to being the same.

Well duh, of course it is not. But the point is, it is a lot easier to fake incompetence then competence. So it is much better, from a design standpoint, to have forced competence, that you can rule out, then forced incompetence, that is a lot harder to deal with.

So yeah, while it is hardly an ideal solution, but I will gladly take it over what we had before. It is still an improvement.

[Wulfhelm II.]

Hythlodeus wrote:

like, Albert Einsteins little brother?

No, the fictional Einstein used by that "Alexandrian" blogger. You know, the one who was an old man for his entire life. ;-)

[PossibleCabbage]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Are you actually saying that your PC's cannot know anything they have been told or experienced without a successful knowledge check? What a strange way to play. No wonder people are excited by the playtest rules if this is actually how they play. I can't say it's ever been my experience in either home games or PFS.

What I want is for the mechanics to not clash with the meaning, and in this case "characters knowing things that, while they have not studied, nonetheless have encountered (possibly "offscreen")" is not a thing supported by the mechanics in PF1, but "Level -4" for untrained does a reasonable job of representing.

Otherwise there's no recourse for:

GM- It's got rough greenish skin and a pronounced underbite
Player- So it's a troll
GM- What's your "Knowledge: Local Mod"?
Player- I have no ranks in that skill...
GM- Well a troll is a CR 3 creature and you can't make knowledge checks untrained if the DC is more than 10, so you have no idea what this is.
Player- But I was orphaned by trolls, and I killed 3 last week...

Just getting Level -4 + Int/WisMod for monster IDs is much preferable since one of the most irritating tensions in the game is the gulf between player and character knowledge, in cases where something one knows from reading the Bestiary would also be the sort of thing everyone should know (e.g. Use cold iron against fae, silver against werewolves, acid or fire against trolls, dragons are huge and hence not especially evasive, etc.)

[thflame]

Back to the "level 15 fighter drowning in a small pond" argument:

Treading water is a DC 5 in PF1.

Full Plate has an ACP of -6.

Armor Training has reduced your ACP to -2 at this point.

Assuming your level 15 fighter has BASIC Full Plate AND a 10 in STR AND no ranks in Swim, he needs to roll a 7 to tread water, and a 12 to swim.

However, this isn't remotely the case.

A fighter in Full Plate is most likely a STR based fighter and likely has AT LEAST a 20 in STR by level 15. His Full Plate is also at least masterwork, or else he has bigger problems than drowning in a pond.

Given +5 STR and -1 ACP, the fighter needs to not roll a 1 to tread water and he needs to roll a 6 to swim.

If he puts ONE rank into Swim, he needs not roll a 1 to swim.

I think issues with PF1's skill system mostly revolve around the pervasive idea that you have to max out a skill or it is worthless. Putting one rank into a skill can solve so many issues.

This is not to say that I think PF1's Skill System can't be improved.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there all,

Having skimmed through pages of this thread, I am starting to see the discussion loop back on itself... again.

Yes, there are some corners of the way that the system is built that allows high level characters to perform simple tasks for which they have no training.

Yes, this there have been ways that this was possible in 1st edition as well.

Yes, you could voluntarily fail, but that is an option that many will find unsatisfactory.

The game is a simulation of reality, but it has to work as a game, which means that all of these things are going to exist to some degree or another. The line might be in a slightly different spot that with 1st edition, but that is the nature of trying to find a better way to balance some aspects of the design.

At this point, I feel that this thread has run it course for us.

This thread is locked.